Why did John the Baptist baptize with water?

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

Hello GrafedIn73,

Wow. I am very pleased to meet you. I think everything you said in your response is spot on. From what I have seen of your posts, your words ring true. It very much seems you are led by the Spirit.

If you see any threads going on right now that are of interest to you, let me know. We can start directing our posts to each other. Of course, if you don't see something of interest, you can always start a new thread.

What is your religious affiliation and personal religious history?

SbT

Hi SbT,

I didn't want you to think that I missed this or am ignoring it. I am trying to compose a response that won't rival War and Peace for length! I will hopefully be able to post it later today.

GI73

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by GraftedIn73

Hi SbT,

I didn't want you to think that I missed this or am ignoring it. I am trying to compose a response that won't rival War and Peace for length! I will hopefully be able to post it later today.

GI73

Hi GI73

LOL. It is amazing how difficult getting the correct words down can be. It's because posting on these boards makes us so aware of how easy it is to be misinterpreted. Good luck on your response. Alas, maybe that's really what finally did poor Yorick in.

SbT

[GraftedIn73]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

Hi GI73

LOL. It is amazing how difficult getting the correct words down can be. It's because posting on these boards makes us so aware of how easy it is to be misinterpreted. Good luck on your response. Alas, maybe that's really what finally did poor Yorick in.

SbT

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

Hello GrafedIn73,

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

Wow. I am very pleased to meet you. I think everything you said in your response is spot on. From what I have seen of your posts, your words ring true. It very much seems you are led by the Spirit.

If you see any threads going on right now that are of interest to you, let me know. We can start directing our posts to each other. Of course, if you don't see something of interest, you can always start a new thread.

What is your religious affiliation and personal religious history?

SbT

Hi Sbt,

Well, in order to keep this from being so long, I am just going to post the 'outline' version. Please let me know if you need me to elaborate on any area.

I posted a detailed account of the spiritual struggle that I went through prior to becoming a Christian in another thread. Here is the link to that post:

http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/showpost.php?p=13996&postcount=10



I became a Christian in 1973, hence GraftedIn73.

I got involved in the Charismatic movement and joined a Church of God church that later left the denomination and became independent.

During this period I discovered Walter Martin on the radio.

After becoming disillusioned with many excesses I saw in the Charismatic movement, I moved to a more mainstream Conservative Baptist church. I still believed then, and still do now, that God is at work today and miracles still happen. I was just disappointed with the excess, greed, doctrinal error, casualness, etc., that marked so many people who were supposedly 'filled with the Spirit' and 'walking in God's power'.

My doctrinal understanding about this time was basically evangelical Protestantism. The conclusions I had come to were arrived at by a fervent studying of God's word. Some of the significant highlights are:

*I held a Pre-Millennial view of scripture.

*I held a Post-Tribulational view of the Rapture. After reading tons of material by Hal Lindsey, John Walvoord and others, I remained convinced that the Bible did not teach a Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

*Contrary to the popular view that "God is a gentleman and would not violate my free-will," I believed that God chased me down, threw me in the dust, put His foot on my neck and His sword under my chin to confront me with my sin. who was I to refuse such an offer?

*I believed that I could lose my salvation. As with the Pre-Tribulational Rapture, I read lots of material on the subject of 'Eternal Security'. After a long period of prayerfully considering the scriptures and the arguments from both sides of the issue, I was convinced I had been wrong and embraced the view of the Security of the True Believer.

Some time after this, a person gave me a book on the 5-points of Calvinism. As I read this book, I was amazed to find that it was describing what I had come to believe already. I was unaware that there was anything called Calvinism, or the Sovereignty of God, or Doctrines of Grace, or Reformed Theology. What shocked me was to find a book that was describing a set of beliefs that I had come to just by reading the Bible - with the exception of the Eternal Security issue.

I learned that the Reformed view of Eternal Security was called the Perseverance of the Saints. The main difference between the two positions as I understood it was that the people who believed in Eternal Security also for the most part believed in Free-Will. "You've got free-will until you decide for Christ, then you no longer have free-will!" That never made any sense to me. The Reformed perspective, the Perseverance of the Saints, was more logical (though that in and of itself does not make it true or false). God chose you, God pursued you, God enlightened you, God regenerated you, God gave you faith, God is going to keep you. God's work is what freed your will from the bondage to sin and death, and God's work is what perseveres in a Christian's life.

*Since that point in time, I have attended churches that have a Reformed view of scriptural interpretation.

While attending one such church, a friend of mine wanted to challenge me on my millennial view. I politely told him that I was not inclined to do that at that time. It bugged him, but I was just being honest. I was not ready at that time to investigate the subject.

Later, I was...

And...

After reading tons of material on every millennial view I could find, and prayerfully considering them all, I came to the belief that the Amillennial view was the position that was most consistent with Scripture.

I don't think I ever told my friend as he had moved away and I lost contact with him. One point why this is important here. He was a really aggressive guy - very pushy - very argumentative - even with friends. That is not how I am induced to consider a proposition. I did not want my study of an important scriptural doctrine to be clouded with resentment over pushiness and pressure from him. That would have impeded my ability to carefully and prayerfully consider the various points. That's how I'm wired. That's in a nutshell why I don't try to be pushy and argumentative.

Please see the next post for two more areas I need to address in answering your question.

GI73

[GraftedIn73]

I'll try to quickly address the other two areas. I'm pointing these two out, as these two subjects are addressed elsewhere in this forum: http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/...read.php?t=105

One of the things that used to amuse a number of my Charismatic and Baptist friends is that I spent a great deal of time reading the Old Testament as well as the New. I was always surprised when I encountered this reaction. It was amazing to me how many people felt that I should be 'concentrating' on what God had done for us in Christ, not what He had done for and with the Jews. Without implicitly or explicitly accusing or looking down on anyone else, I just think that the words of Jesus, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me," from John 5:39 had a different impact on my thinking that it did on theirs. This p***age, as well as others made me realize that the teachings of the New Testament could best be understood, if a person were very familiar with the Old Testament.

One such area is the relation of the Church to Israel. Dispensational Theology teaches that Israel and the Church are two distinct groups of people. Many Dispensationalists believe they will remain so throughout eternity. This viewpoint is behind the Pre-Tribulational Rapture as well as other doctrinal distinctives. Despite a considerable amount of study, I was never able to agree that the Scriptures were to be properly understood ("rightly divided") as Dispensational. I believe that it is only by reading INTO the Bible that a person is able to come to that conclusion. What I believe Bible teaches is that the Israel of God, True Israel, and the Church are one and the same. There are a host of scriptures that I believe teach this, both from the OT and the NT, but I am not trying to defend this position here, just clearly point out WHAT I believe. When Paul says in Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved..." I believe he is including the grafted in Gentiles of the preceding verses. (GraftedIn73). True Israel is composed of the OT believers who anticipated Christ by trusting in the faithfulness of God, and the NT believers from all nations who have been grafted in through the accomplished work of Christ. This is the heart and essence of Covenant Theology. In this, Covenant Theology is opposed to the temporal/eternal separation between True Israel and the Church as taught by Dispensationalism.

The second area I wanted to mention is Eschatology. Despite the claims of 'Prophecy Teachers' galore, interpreting Biblical prophecy relating to the 'end times' is not as simple as picking up your newspaper. The Jews of Jesus' day misinterpreted many of the Scriptural prophecies pertaining to the coming of the Messiah. As a result, many of them rejected Jesus. Even the disciples had a difficult time fitting the words of Jesus about His coming suffering, death and resurrection into their 'view' of prophecies related to the Messiah. They as others had been influenced by the ‘Hal-eem ben Lindseayroth’ of their day. It was not until Jesus was resurrected and opened their understanding (Luke 24:44-46) that they could 'see' what had been written so long before.

In our day, there are competing Eschatological views. A person's core theology will to a great extent determine which viewpoint they embrace, and which they reject. I have always urged anyone I have spoken to about this area, to be patient, loving and comp***ionate on those who hold to different viewpoints than themselves. Sincere, genuine believers can have great differences of opinion in this area. Of all areas of Biblical teaching, this is probably the area that we should give the greatest amount of la***ude to others. As I mentioned before, I have personally moved from the Pre-Millennial to an A-Millennial position. I did it without becoming a Liberal or a heretic (although some would disagree). I changed my views because I was convinced BY SCRIPTURE, not IN SPITE OF SCRIPTURE that the A-Mil position is more accurate. But, I could be wrong. The same la***ude should even be extended to those holding the Preterist viewpoint of Eschatology. There clearly are extremists in any 'camp' and Preterism is not without their own. But we need to be careful that we don't go about condemning others, as that is a two-way street. there are many Preterists who would call Dispensationalists heretics and vice-versa. Sincere men can be sincerely wrong, and yet not be heretics.

I personally believe there is much about the Preterist view that is compelling. At this point, I would say that I am a partial Preterist. Again, for the purposes of this thread, this is merely a self-identification in response to SbT's questions. I would be most willing to discuss any of these issues in a thread more appropriate to such discussions.

Sorry two posts were so long. Remember though, this is the 'outline' version!

GI73

[alanmolstad]

from the things I have read....the idea of a "baptism" is one that was known in OT times.

There is the story in the OT where a type of "baptism" was performed to bring healing - 2 Kings 5:14


So it was not an unheard of thing for a preacher like John to start doing baptisms.

[alanmolstad]

I also think that the reason John baptised is that john felt that even with the temple stuff there was something lacking in how people got their hearts right with God.

And people that went out to listen to john seem to also have understood that the blood of birds and sheep and stuff just did not help their hearts need to be changed and made new.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I also think that the reason John baptised is that john felt that even with the temple stuff there was something lacking in how people got their hearts right with God.

And people that went out to listen to john seem to also have understood that the blood of birds and sheep and stuff just did not help their hearts need to be changed and made new.

But baptism has the same power to change the heart as does the blood sacrifice of birds, calves, and lambs.. Baptism is just another religiosity that has the same power to cleanse us of sin as does the blood of animals.. The Holy Spirit through the prophet Hosea taught "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6). For one ordinance to replace another doesn't change the heart of man. Our heart (in the flesh) is deceitful above ALL things and desperately wicked... (Jeremiah 17:9) So it turns out that that any ordinance is nothing, what matters is a change of heart, a change or our nature.. This is found only in an act of God creating in us a new heart (Psalm 51:9-10), by an act of His grace we can be reborn spiritual (John 3:1-6).

It is clear that a new heart, a completely new SPIRITUAL rebirth is what we need. Washing off the old heart, the old nature isn't enough.. It must be completely replaced with a new creation.. Neither water nor the blood of breasts can change us. That that a creative act of God.. This is a major failing with mormonism.. They see nothing wrong with our nature. They teach that we can "choose the right".. Strange that no man other than Jesus has EVER been able to do that, it isn't our nature.. IHS jim