The Spiritual Sword - October 2007 Issue

[OkiMar]

I accept the canon, therefore I believe Mark 16:9-20.  I was simply giving reasons why some people don't.  This doesn't change my opinion that 16:16 doesn't condemn those who are on their way to be baptized.

Brian,
I, of course disagree.  As I understand Mark 16:16, believeth (pisteuo) and baptized (baptizo) are both aorist participles.  According to Machen (and other Greek scholars), “The aorist participle denotes action prior to the action denoted by the leading verb, whether the action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pp. 116-17).  The leading verb in this passage is shall be saved (sozo).  Thus, the actions indicated by the aorist participles believeth and is baptized, MUST occur prior to the actions indicated by the main verb.

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

[OkiMar]

Let me ask you this:  if someone confesses faith in Jesus and believes in Him and His Word, and while walking down to the river to get baptized trips and falls on a stump and dies, is this man going to be tossed into the lake of fire?

A man is traveling to a church building to be married, is involved in an automobile crash, and dies within sight of the bride.  Was he single or married at the time of his death? 

Kevin - the analogy doesn't apply, in my view.  Salvation is the work of God.  This is where I believe is the danger of the perspective you shared.  The emphasis for salvation is found in what a man is able to accomplish and not in what Christ Jesus accomplished.  This makes salvation a man-centered issue - which is my criticism of the Spiritual Sword. 

Steve,
I understand your position, but my take is fundamentally different as you well know.  Since it is wholly impossible to save myself after sinning a single time, I cannot accomplish anything of merit.  Nothing I do can atone for the stain of a single, solitary stain on my soul.  All I can do is humbly submit to the will of God and accept the gift of salvation as He has prescribed.  In my opinion, it is a Christ-centered issue. 

Kevin -

I want to compliment you and honor you for the manor in which you express you points of view.  We do disagree on some things but I so appreciate your heart.  We all can take notice of how to debate without pointing the accusing finger at one another.  Thanks for setting that high standard - a standard that honors our Lord and Savior.  Semper fi, my brother.

Steve

Steve,
I appreciate your kind words more than you know.  While we do disagree, I always afford your posts a great deal of consideration because of your credibility.  I am looking forward to having that coffee someday soon. 

May God bless and keep you,
Kevin

[Brian Kelley]

I accept the canon, therefore I believe Mark 16:9-20.  I was simply giving reasons why some people don't.  This doesn't change my opinion that 16:16 doesn't condemn those who are on their way to be baptized.

Brian,
I, of course disagree.  As I understand Mark 16:16, believeth (pisteuo) and baptized (baptizo) are both aorist participles.  According to Machen (and other Greek scholars), “The aorist participle denotes action prior to the action denoted by the leading verb, whether the action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pp. 116-17).  The leading verb in this passage is shall be saved (sozo).  Thus, the actions indicated by the aorist participles believeth and is baptized, MUST occur prior to the actions indicated by the main verb.

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

Fair enough, OkiMar.

My disagreement in part comes from my understanding of the New Testament as a whole.  There are lots of religious peoples who rely on deeds and acts to save them, but much of the New Testament is refuting them and telling us that acts aren't going to get us in God's graces, only faith in Him through our Lord Jesus.

[mistergus]

My disagreement in part comes from my understanding of the New Testament as a whole.  There are lots of religious peoples who rely on deeds and acts to save them...

Who is doing this?

I get so tired of people erecting straw men to rail and flail against, when no real such opponents exist (among churches of Christ).

Exactly who is guilty of doing this offensive act?  Who are you talking about?

Robert G

[marc]

There are still a few in the Church of Christ that teach this, but this is a minority, I think.  I've heard a few comments over the years, most of which stemmed from a misinterpretation of what the person making the comment had heard preached.  I don't think that this statement really applies to the baptism issue, though.

Strange as it may seem, I would say that the people who do this the most are the irreligious.  Those without religious affiliations tend to think along the lines of doing enough good things so that God will save them. 

[OkiMar]

I accept the canon, therefore I believe Mark 16:9-20.  I was simply giving reasons why some people don't.  This doesn't change my opinion that 16:16 doesn't condemn those who are on their way to be baptized.

Brian,
I, of course disagree.  As I understand Mark 16:16, believeth (pisteuo) and baptized (baptizo) are both aorist participles.  According to Machen (and other Greek scholars), “The aorist participle denotes action prior to the action denoted by the leading verb, whether the action denoted by the leading verb is past, present or future” (New Testament Greek for Beginners, pp. 116-17).  The leading verb in this passage is shall be saved (sozo).  Thus, the actions indicated by the aorist participles believeth and is baptized, MUST occur prior to the actions indicated by the main verb.

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

Fair enough, OkiMar.

My disagreement in part comes from my understanding of the New Testament as a whole.  There are lots of religious peoples who rely on deeds and acts to save them, but much of the New Testament is refuting them and telling us that acts aren't going to get us in God's graces, only faith in Him through our Lord Jesus.

Brian,
I wholeheartedly agree that our works, deeds, or acts do not earn or merit salvation.  Perhaps our difference stems from how we view human activity.  ISTM that perhaps you may, either consciously or subconsciously, attach value or merit to human activity.   I would argue that, because of sin, human activity is incapable or producing any merit whatsoever.  We may comply with the commands of the Lord, but such compliance does not place God in our debt because of the sins that we have committed.  The only way human activity might merit salvation is if a person lived his entire life WITHOUT sinning a single time.  Only under such circumstances could a person rightly claim to have earned salvation; however, Paul assures us that living a sinless life is impossible.  Based on this understanding of sin and human activity, I believe it can be rightly stated that it is an absolute impossibility for man to comply with any of the Lord's commands and attach any merit or worth whatsoever, even though such compliance or obedience to the Lord's commands may relate to salvation.  

[da525382]

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

This is a misrepresentation of the gospel of John.  That gospel had nothing to do with baptism because that gospel is evangelical, it is engaged directly with salvation, i.e., the salvific effect of belief.  John stood right there and listened to Christ give that Great Commission, which you seemingly can only relate to in Mark 16:16.  He did not spin Christ's words as you have done, neither did he do so in his letters or in Revelation.  John furthermore sat at Peter's feet when he gave his Acts 2:38 declaration.  Interestingly, having been an eye witness to both of those pivotal historical events, he wrote nothing declarative about either one even close to your own endless representations about what they must and can only mean in any of his writings, and all of them were written years after those events.   

[Brian Kelley]

My disagreement in part comes from my understanding of the New Testament as a whole.  There are lots of religious peoples who rely on deeds and acts to save them...

Who is doing this?

I get so tired of people erecting straw men to rail and flail against, when no real such opponents exist (among churches of Christ).

Exactly who is guilty of doing this offensive act?  Who are you talking about?

Robert G

I'm not making people up, nor am I asking you to attack those who do preach incorrectly.  We should pray for them.  When I was in college, we used to have a group come by and preach ridiculous ideas using catchphrases like "Drunkards, Catholics, Fornicators and Masturbaters, you're all going to hell!"  These people from Kansas preach similar things.  The world is not without churches that corrupt the minds of people so they can whip them into obedience and get their power trip.

[OkiMar]

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

This is a misrepresentation of the gospel of John.  That gospel had nothing to do with baptism because that gospel is evangelical, it is engaged directly with salvation, i.e., the salvific effect of belief.  John stood right there and listened to Christ give that Great Commission, which you seemingly can only relate to in Mark 16:16.  He did not spin Christ's words as you have done, neither did he do so in his letters or in Revelation.  John furthermore sat at Peter's feet when he gave his Acts 2:38 declaration.  Interestingly, having been an eye witness to both of those pivotal historical events, he wrote nothing declarative about either one even close to your own endless representations about what they must and can only mean in any of his writings, and all of them were written years after those events.   

Don,
Why are you so caustic? You seem so bitter. It's a shame really.

Anyway, you are wrong; I've not misrepresented the gospel account of John at all. I mentioned John 3:18, which quotes Jesus as stating that unbelievers are condemned already. Do you agree or disagree that unbelievers or condemned already? If you disagree, please stated why you disagree. If you agree, then kindly do us all a favor and read other's post a bit more carefully. It will save us all time, aggravation, and caricatures of Baalam riding Don.

Incidentally, I didn't relate baptism to the gospel account of John (although I do believe it is there, specifically in John chapter 3, but that is for a different thread). I did use the above mentioned verse to reiterate the truth as revealed in Mark 16:15-16, namely that unbelievers are condemned already. Neither have I spun Christ's words. He said what He said, and that's the way I used them. No more and no less. You, however, have spun my words into an unintelligible mess. You would have me placing baptism in John 3:18 (although I have no idea how that could be accomplished) and guilty of "endless representations about what they must and can only mean," (whatever that means).   

[da525382]

In verse 17, we see that the unbeliever is damned.  Why no mention of baptism?  Because according to John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already (He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God).  The unbeliever is not DOUBLY condemned for unbelief AND for not being baptized into Christ; unbelief alone is sufficient for eternal damnation.  Neither, is the unbeliever saved even though he was baptized (either voluntarily or involuntarily).   

This is a misrepresentation of the gospel of John.  That gospel had nothing to do with baptism because that gospel is evangelical, it is engaged directly with salvation, i.e., the salvific effect of belief.  John stood right there and listened to Christ give that Great Commission, which you seemingly can only relate to in Mark 16:16.  He did not spin Christ's words as you have done, neither did he do so in his letters or in Revelation.  John furthermore sat at Peter's feet when he gave his Acts 2:38 declaration.  Interestingly, having been an eye witness to both of those pivotal historical events, he wrote nothing declarative about either one even close to your own endless representations about what they must and can only mean in any of his writings, and all of them were written years after those events.   

Don,
Why are you so caustic? You seem so bitter. It's a shame really.

Anyway, you are wrong; I've not misrepresented the gospel account of John at all. I mentioned John 3:18, which quotes Jesus as stating that unbelievers are condemned already. Do you agree or disagree that unbelievers or condemned already? If you disagree, please stated why you disagree. If you agree, then kindly do us all a favor and read other's post a bit more carefully. It will save us all time, aggravation, and caricatures of Baalam riding Don.

Incidentally, I didn't relate baptism to the gospel account of John (although I do believe it is there, specifically in John chapter 3, but that is for a different thread). I did use the above mentioned verse to reiterate the truth as revealed in Mark 16:15-16, namely that unbelievers are condemned already. Neither have I spun Christ's words. He said what He said, and that's the way I used them. No more and no less. You, however, have spun my words into an unintelligible mess. You would have me placing baptism in John 3:18 (although I have no idea how that could be accomplished) and guilty of "endless representations about what they must and can only mean," (whatever that means).  

We obviously are at diametrically opposite ends of the accusation spectrum of mutilation and misconstruing of one another's words.  Perhaps we have come to the ultimate impass? I will try perhaps one last time to repeat, in my opinion, what you have done and are doing to scripture, however if you simply wish to resort to personal attacks, really there is no sense in continuing.  If you can't take the heat in this kitchen as I go toe to toe with you, you are absolutely free to vote with your feet, leave the defense of your own faith, and withdraw from this exchange with me.   I'm sorry, but I disagree with your characterization of the "shame".  The shame to me is what you do to scripture and what you must in turn do to others, especially if you are a minister.  Anyway, for what it's worth, should you wish to continue in a civil, non-personal manner, here are my continuing thoughts of your gospel:

1)   You hang your theologic hat on the Great Commission only as presented in Mark 16:16...unfortunately as you peel this scripture from the Bible and construct your own theology with it singularly, you contradict not only the other six or so accounts of the Great Commission, you contradict every other scripture relating to belief in God, from Genesis on.  What is so tragic is that your interpretation of this passage, i.e., this pivotal foundation of your faith, is now in question as more ancient texts, and historical data, are being discovered, let alone in comparison to other scripture.

2)  It is you who read this passage and create what is not there.  You read it and conclude Christ is talking about the unsaved as believers who have not yet been baptized.    That is the irony of your gospel.  That creature does not exist anywhere in scripture, hence the reason it is not dealt with in this passage or anywhere else in scripture.  Hence the indictment of unbelief as the basis of condemnation in this passage...that comports with God's character since the beginning of Genesis, it's found all throughout scripture as the basis of condemnation, let alone the gospel of John.

3)  Your construction of this non-existant being, one who is an unsaved  believer absolutely trashes belief in God as presented throughout all of scripture.  One who is unsaved is a  non-believer, an un-believer.  Your gospel makes belief an impotent entitity, created by man(or maybe you even think it is an impotent creation of God), rather than as a created, empowering gift from God. 

4)  You, in your construct, essentially demand that Mark 16:16 must say "he who believes through baptism shall be saved".  That is the catcher.  Neither Christ, nor any of his apostles constued belief as you have done, and again, I simply refer to John's masterful handling of belief in his gospel, and again, I repeat that John was there when Christ made those very remarks in Mark 16:16 you claim to know all about, yet his own gospel, written after he listened to these words, is not even recognizable when compared with yours, which essentially is dismissive of the effect of belief in the life of anyone.  Furthermore the use of the word "and" in this passage is a dividing line between belief and baptism, one first believes, THEN is baptized....under the logic of your interpretation Christ can only mean they are done at EXACTLY the same time.  It is, I'm sorry, a ridiculous road you traverse.

5)  Finally, to simply still your incessant harping on Mark 16:16, there need be only one contradiction in scripture to put an end to your presentation.  That would be the household of Cornelius.  To interpret that scriptural account, you similarly must conclude as you do with Mark 16:16 that believers are the walking dead, that is, that Cornelius, as a believer, remained a dead man, dead in his sins, dead in his trespasses, yet with the Holy Spirit, in other words God makes His Spirit present in the midst of sin, living in it, living in death.....In other words, you believe his subsequent baptism truly made him alive, not God's Holy Spirit, do you not?  And, with your theologic constuct of Mark 16:16, you have those who have believed with their hearts in and upon Messiah, the Son, as absolutely no different than they were before, that is, all of us are dead, in bondage to the death brought to us by sin before belief.....Yet you permit God to do nothing to and have nothing to do with those who believe in and upon His son....No, you demand those poor dead, hell-bound saps must wait until a baptism.  In doing so,you involve God intimately in the dead when God, as we know from scripture is the God of the living, not of the dead. 

6)  Finally, in your theologic construct, your faith, your trust, your belief that saves is in baptism.  What Christ did on the cross, my friend, is a tiny footnote on your gospel outline.  And tragically, your trust, because of that is not in Him, and as a result, remains only in yourself and your own theolgic construct, in my opinion, and I believe of course, scripturally.   If that seems harsh to you, then I'm sorry if you simply can't handle it. 

[OkiMar]

Don,

Now if we can just improve your fact finding skills, we might be able to have an honest, open discussion. Unlike you, I don't see your approach to scripture as shameful. I certainly disagree with your theology, but I wouldn't characterize it as shameful. Rather, I think your bitter disposition and fraudulent assertions are shameful. I feel sorry for you actually. With that frame of reference (bitter disposition and fraudulent assertions), I will address each of your points:

1)   You hang your theologic hat on the Great Commission only as presented in Mark 16:16...unfortunately as you peel this scripture from the Bible and construct your own theology with it singularly, you contradict not only the other six or so accounts of the Great Commission, you contradict every other scripture relating to belief in God, from Genesis on.  What is so tragic is that your interpretation of this passage, i.e., this pivotal foundation of your faith, is now in question as more ancient texts, and historical data, are being discovered, let alone in comparison to other scripture.

1) FALSE. More so than any other forum member at GCM, you exhibit a penchant for unequivocally stating what others believe in matters of faith. Of course, the problem is that you are wrong. That is the case here and throughout your post. I have neither hung my hat on Mark 16:16 only regarding the essentiality of baptism nor have I ever indicated such. IMO, this verse is merely a small portion of the whole body of NT teaching on the subject. Many other passages must be considered as well.

2)  It is you who read this passage and create what is not there.  You read it and conclude Christ is talking about the unsaved as believers who have not yet been baptized.    That is the irony of your gospel.  That creature does not exist anywhere in scripture, hence the reason it is not dealt with in this passage or anywhere else in scripture.  Hence the indictment of unbelief as the basis of condemnation in this passage...that comports with God's character since the beginning of Genesis, it's found all throughout scripture as the basis of condemnation, let alone the gospel of John.

2) FALSE. I used John 3:18 to demonstrate that unbelievers are condemned already. Christ's exact word BTW. The unbeliever does not suffer extra condemnation because he is unbaptized. Unbelief alone is sufficient to warrant damnation. That is my point, and it is a sound point. I deny that Christ has baptism under consideration in this verse, yet you pompously insist that I really do. I wonder why. What are your reasons for continuing to perpetuate this false assertion? I've already corrected you, yet you continue to insist. I think that's telling.

3)  Your construction of this non-existant being, one who is an unsaved  believer absolutely trashes belief in God as presented throughout all of scripture.  One who is unsaved is a  non-believer, an un-believer.  Your gospel makes belief an impotent entitity, created by man(or maybe you even think it is an impotent creation of God), rather than as a created, empowering gift from God.

3) Finally, you have presented a real issue (sort of) with which we might disagree, namely the notion of salvation by belief only. Yet, there is nothing substantive here. While Brian and I are discussing scripture, your contribution has been nothing but banal antagonism. Perhaps a less embarrassing methodology might be to actually discuss the arguments presented rather than engaging in drive-by sniping shrouded in fraudulent declarations.

4)  You, in your construct, essentially demand that Mark 16:16 must say "he who believes through baptism shall be saved".  That is the catcher.  Neither Christ, nor any of his apostles constued belief as you have done, and again, I simply refer to John's masterful handling of belief in his gospel, and again, I repeat that John was there when Christ made those very remarks in Mark 16:16 you claim to know all about, yet his own gospel, written after he listened to these words, is not even recognizable when compared with yours, which essentially is dismissive of the effect of belief in the life of anyone.  Furthermore the use of the word "and" in this passage is a dividing line between belief and baptism, one first believes, THEN is baptized....under the logic of your interpretation Christ can only mean they are done at EXACTLY the same time.  It is, I'm sorry, a ridiculous road you traverse.

4) FALSE. I contend that Mark 16:16 teaches “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Both are required. You continue to demonstrate an inept attempt at clairvoyance by falsely attributing 3 ideas to me: 1) “he who believes through baptism shall be saved,” 2) that I “claim to know all about” Mark 16:16, and 3) that according to my interpretation “Christ can only mean they (belief and baptism) are done at EXACTLY the same time.” The fact is that I reject all three beliefs that you have erroneously labeled as my own. I can't even guess how one and three are even possible. That you think you know my faith better than I know my faith is the truly ridiculously thing here, my friend.

5)  Finally, to simply still your incessant harping on Mark 16:16, there need be only one contradiction in scripture to put an end to your presentation.  That would be the household of Cornelius.  To interpret that scriptural account, you similarly must conclude as you do with Mark 16:16 that believers are the walking dead, that is, that Cornelius, as a believer, remained a dead man, dead in his sins, dead in his trespasses, yet with the Holy Spirit, in other words God makes His Spirit present in the midst of sin, living in it, living in death.....In other words, you believe his subsequent baptism truly made him alive, not God's Holy Spirit, do you not?  And, with your theologic constuct of Mark 16:16, you have those who have believed with their hearts in and upon Messiah, the Son, as absolutely no different than they were before, that is, all of us are dead, in bondage to the death brought to us by sin before belief.....Yet you permit God to do nothing to and have nothing to do with those who believe in and upon His son....No, you demand those poor dead, hell-bound saps must wait until a baptism.  In doing so,you involve God intimately in the dead when God, as we know from scripture is the God of the living, not of the dead.

5) Another valid difference that we may discuss. The account of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10-11 does not negate the essentiality of baptism IMO. If one contends that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell on him, thus before and without baptism, I would counter that the Gospel message and faith were not necessary either. Peter was to speak words (the Gospel) whereby Cornelius would be saved (Acts 11:14). We also know that faith comes by hearing the word (Rom 10:17). Thus it’s evident, by Peter’s own mouth, that Cornelius was not saved prior to Peter's message. After Peter arrived, when did the Holy Spirit fall on Cornelius? After Peter's message? No. According to Acts 11:14, Peter states that the Holy Spirit fell as Peter himself began to speak…i.e. Acts 10:34. The term began is vitally important. Thayer says the word "indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interrupted by something else." Thus to contend that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell is to imply that Cornelius was saved prior to hearing the Gospel, prior to resultant faith, and prior to baptism. The Holy Spirit in the case of Cornelius was provided as a sign to the Jews that the Gospel was available to the Gentiles (Acts 11:15-18). Thus, I do not believe Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell; I believe he was saved when he was baptized in Acts 10:48.

6)  Finally, in your theologic construct, your faith, your trust, your belief that saves is in baptism.  What Christ did on the cross, my friend, is a tiny footnote on your gospel outline.  And tragically, your trust, because of that is not in Him, and as a result, remains only in yourself and your own theolgic construct, in my opinion, and I believe of course, scripturally.   If that seems harsh to you, then I'm sorry if you simply can't handle it. 

6) FALSE. Christ saves. His death, burial, and resurrection provided the mechanism whereby sinful man might be redeemed. The efficacy is in the blood. I have not, nor have I ever, trusted in myself for my salvation. It is absolutely impossible for me to save myself due to the odious nature of sin. Nothing I do can merit or earn salvation as a result of sin. Here you go again with your fraudulent assertions. How childish. Could I be in charge of my own thoughts and ideas for awhile? Or, would you like to continue making my decisions for me? Maybe you would like to make my house payment while you are so busy creating all my thoughts and beliefs? No, your post is not harsh; it's asinine. I don't know how you derive your ideas, but they are grossly negligent, uninformed, and presumptuous.

If you can't take the heat in this kitchen as I go toe to toe with you

That's too funny considering. 

[Brian Kelley]

Not really part of the theological discussion, but on topic, I think:  Why do most churches not baptize in a river (or at least natural running water)?

[Jaime]

Not really part of the theological discussion, but on topic, I think:  Why do most churches not baptize in a river (or at least natural running water)?

Probably the same reason we don't use real wine in the communion. 

[marc]

Not really part of the theological discussion, but on topic, I think:  Why do most churches not baptize in a river (or at least natural running water)?

There's a recent discussion on that in a strange place: the prayer board.  It happened on a thread about the baptism of James Rondon's son.

If you wanted to start a new thread about it, I think that would be a good idea.

[da525382]

Now if we can just improve your fact finding skills, we might be able to have an honest, open discussion.

I really am impressed with your corrective expertise with respect to fact finding skills.  Perhaps someday I may become as impressed with you as you are with yourself.  For now, however, I can only respond to what you say.  And, it really isn't necessary to lay on a final insult that my discussion is dishonest.  Why don't you just propound your responses and get on with it?  Ever think of that? 

I certainly disagree with your theology, but I wouldn't characterize it as shameful. Rather, I think your bitter disposition and fraudulent assertions are shameful. I feel sorry for you actually. With that frame of reference (bitter disposition and fraudulent assertions), I will address each of your points:

I really don't care what you think or what frame of reference you use, again, why don't you just get on with it?  It seems quite interesting that you are claiming bitter dispositions, etc.,  in others with these choice remarks of yours.  And no, somehow, I don't think you really feel sorry at all.

As to the gravamen of your arguments:

1) FALSE. More so than any other forum member at GCM, you exhibit a penchant for unequivocally stating what others believe in matters of faith. Of course, the problem is that you are wrong. That is the case here and throughout your post. I have neither hung my hat on Mark 16:16 only regarding the essentiality of baptism nor have I ever indicated such. IMO, this verse is merely a small portion of the whole body of NT teaching on the subject. Many other passages must be considered as well

Gee, a penchant?  Really?  Why, thanks, but I think not.  I'm sorry, I do not see your posts in that light at all, and I have read many of them.  Just as soon as you are led away from Mark 16:16, you gravitate right back to it.  I'm sorry it so disturbs you that I disagree with you here.  Many people in this world will disagree with you.  Get over it.

2) FALSE. I used John 3:18 to demonstrate that unbelievers are condemned already. Christ's exact word BTW. The unbeliever does not suffer extra condemnation because he is unbaptized. Unbelief alone is sufficient to warrant damnation. That is my point, and it is a sound point. I deny that Christ has baptism under consideration in this verse, yet you pompously insist that I really do. I wonder why. What are your reasons for continuing to perpetuate this false assertion? I've already corrected you, yet you continue to insist. I think that's telling.[

Who and in what posts have I ever discussed "extra condemnation"?  You really are a hoot.  No, your point is not a "sound" point, I have never pointed to your characterization of Christ and baptism in John 3:18 anyway, so I really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, nor do I even have the slightest idea what your argument is other than to just engage yet another insult. 

3) Finally, you have presented a real issue (sort of) with which we might disagree, namely the notion of salvation by belief only. Yet, there is nothing substantive here. While Brian and I are discussing scripture, your contribution has been nothing but banal antagonism. Perhaps a less embarrassing methodology might be to actually discuss the arguments presented rather than engaging in drive-by sniping shrouded in fraudulent declarations.

Now that is an informative statement.  What am I to do with this one, sir?  I haven't the slightest idea (again) what you are talking about.  Again, I'm so sorry I have disabled you so that you must resort to slinging an insult about fraud...that really is something that can only disarm your discussion.  No one here that I know of defrauds anyone.  You spend so much energy not responding, not getting on with it, I presume this technique is your defensive choice, it's too bad.

4) FALSE. I contend that Mark 16:16 teaches “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Both are required. You continue to demonstrate an inept attempt at clairvoyance by falsely attributing 3 ideas to me: 1) “he who believes through baptism shall be saved,” 2) that I “claim to know all about” Mark 16:16, and 3) that according to my interpretation “Christ can only mean they (belief and baptism) are done at EXACTLY the same time.” The fact is that I reject all three beliefs that you have erroneously labeled as my own. I can't even guess how one and three are even possible. That you think you know my faith better than I know my faith is the truly ridiculously thing here, my friend.

What is ridiculous is that you would assert that I claim to know your faith better than yourself.  If you can't distinguish between someone's analogy in discussing your logic versus what you actually believe, then really you do need to get out of that hot kitchen.  You seem to be about ready to erupt, and it is a bit scarey.  Calm down, calm down.

5) Another valid difference that we may discuss. The account of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10-11 does not negate the essentiality of baptism IMO. If one contends that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell on him, thus before and without baptism, I would counter that the Gospel message and faith were not necessary either. Peter was to speak words (the Gospel) whereby Cornelius would be saved (Acts 11:14). We also know that faith comes by hearing the word (Rom 10:17). Thus it’s evident, by Peter’s own mouth, that Cornelius was not saved prior to Peter's message. After Peter arrived, when did the Holy Spirit fall on Cornelius? After Peter's message? No. According to Acts 11:14, Peter states that the Holy Spirit fell as Peter himself began to speak…i.e. Acts 10:34. The term began is vitally important. Thayer says the word "indicates that a thing was but just begun when it was interrupted by something else." Thus to contend that Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell is to imply that Cornelius was saved prior to hearing the Gospel, prior to resultant faith, and prior to baptism. The Holy Spirit in the case of Cornelius was provided as a sign to the Jews that the Gospel was available to the Gentiles (Acts 11:15-18). Thus, I do not believe Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell; I believe he was saved when he was baptized in Acts 10:48.

Again, my response is the same.  Your analysis stands as a contradiction scripturally, and I don't think, from what you are saying here, that you really read what I wrote anyway. Cornelius was already a man of faith, a friend of God.  He walked with God and feared him. Your reference "when I began to speak" is Peter's summary of what transpired in the previous chapter Acts 10:34 and following.  No, the Holy Spirit did not fall the moment he opened his mouth in Acts 10:34 as you try to conclude with Acts 11:15.  Read it.  Even Acts 10:44 says while Peter was still speaking these words, i.e., those words just described in verses 34 to 43.  Peter parallels this happening to his sermon at Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit there didn't fall at the moment he opened his mouth either.  No, the Holy Spirit was received by these believers in verse 47 after believing. (Acts 11:17). Their subsequent baptism is for them, the saved believers.  Again, with your reasoning, the Holy Spirit engages itself in those who are dead in sins which is anathema to the very nature of God.  The Holy Spirit does not coexist with sin or in the deadness of sin anywhere in scripture.   They were indeed regenerated by and because of the Holy Spirit before any ritual of baptism.

6) FALSE. Christ saves. His death, burial, and resurrection provided the mechanism whereby sinful man might be redeemed. The efficacy is in the blood. I have not, nor have I ever, trusted in myself for my salvation. It is absolutely impossible for me to save myself due to the odious nature of sin. Nothing I do can merit or earn salvation as a result of sin. Here you go again with your fraudulent assertions. How childish. Could I be in charge of my own thoughts and ideas for awhile? Or, would you like to continue making my decisions for me? Maybe you would like to make my house payment while you are so busy creating all my thoughts and beliefs? No, your post is not harsh; it's asinine. I don't know how you derive your ideas, but they are grossly negligent, uninformed, and presumptuous.

Calm down.  Calm down.  I stand by my analysis of your presented beliefs, your irrational tantrum here notwithstanding.  I am sorry you can't handle it.  And you really can't. 

That's too funny considering. 

Good. I'm glad you can laugh at something.