"I never knew you: depart from me, you that work inquity."

[bbyrd009]

"Buried with him by baptism into death" sounds like it a supernatural work and He decides, who and when He gives life.

to you, who is willing to pay the cost maybe, but see that those who are not willing can just appropriate the language;
"i got baptised. And i don't know what you mean by 'count the cost,' because i love Jesus and He gave me a free gift"

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

When I was in my twenties I was baptized in a church, totally submerged before a congregation. It felt good, like it had fulfilled a major part or role of performance that needed to be done before I could be counted as a member of the body. I said the prayer. I confessed. Every one celebrated and the date is written in my bible. Nothing changed.

In my forties something else fell upon me that did change everything: I was “washed by the Word”, made clean. And I was baptized by fire from above, the Holy Ghost. Washed by the word; to be cut (pruned) in the heart. God choose the day of my birth both times: when I was born into this world and when I was taken out of this world...born new of Spirit belonging to (a new creation).

Which do you prefer the ceremony or genuine repentance and turning? Does it really matter which you prefer when a person's walk is between them and God? Especially if what you judge is by the outward man. God searches the heart. He does it.

John 1:26-27
[26] John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

"I baptize with water" is important to the "whom ye know not".

Acts 11:15-18
[15] And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. [16] Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. [17] Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? [18] When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Acts 22:16
[16] And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

John 13:8-10
[8] Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. [9] Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. [10] Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.​

1 Corinthians 6:11
[11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.​

Romans 6:4
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

"Buried with him by baptism into death" sounds like it a supernatural work and He decides, who and when He gives life.

Being water baptized is an humble act of submission to the will of God and the obedient are the ones God saves (Hebrews 5:9)

By the time Paul penned his Ephesian epistle there was "one baptism" now in effect (Ephesians 4:5). That one baptism being the human administered water baptism of Christ's great commission that has been commanded to all men, that saves, that is to be taught, is how disciples are made and lasts till the end of the world. (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). None of these are true of any other type of baptism mentioned in the NT.

I know there are those that claim to have received some type of spirit baptism or some other baptism but they cannot provide any proof for that claim, cannot provide any biblical bases to back that claim. It is an attempt to find a way to get around humbly obeying God's command to be water baptized.

Above you posted "When I was in my twenties I was baptized in a church, totally submerged before a congregation."
Colossians 2:12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." It is the point when one is buried with Christ in water baptism that God does the work of removing the body of sin, the circumcision made without hands. Did you not have faith in the operation of God in removing your sins or have you put your faith in man made ideas?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

to you, who is willing to pay the cost maybe, but see that those who are not willing can just appropriate the language;
"i got baptised. And i don't know what you mean by 'count the cost,' because i love Jesus and He gave me a free gift"

You are correct. “I got baptised. And i don't know what you mean by 'count the cost,' because i love Jesus and He gave me a free gift" was me twenty nine years ago.

I guess it is an individual thing that we need not get too caught up in worrying over whether a person has truly received Him or not. since the fruit of the spirit speaks for itself, right? A person can say what they want all day but the truth always comes to the surface.

 

[bbyrd009]

Thanks for sharing...personal stuff..God Bless you

hopefully i have made it plain that we are talking about Deacon Material here; active in the church, considered himself a prophet, all that. Not hated by those who did not know him.

These posts are the closest anyone in my family has come to even mentioning him in the two years since he died. Mom included. It's not that we remember him poorly; we do not remember him at all.

 

[bbyrd009]

It is the point when one is buried with Christ in water baptism that God does the work of removing the body of sin, the circumcision made without hands.

so you say, but i'm pretty sure baptisms are something that happen IRL now, and not in rituals
birth is a baptism (water), etc

"baptizing in the Jordan" is a passage laden with symbology, which would of course be perceived as an act of sedition in a Theocracy. A death sentence, basically

there would also certainly be a spiritual, and a fire baptism
IRL though, no ritual even for the last one i guess
but it occurs nonetheless, right; just bc we have no ritual for it does not mean ppl are not experiencing the baptism of fire

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

so you say,

Not me but Col 2:12 says it.

but i'm pretty sure baptisms are something that happen IRL now, and not in rituals
birth is a baptism (water), etc

"baptizing in the Jordan" is a passage laden with symbology, which would of course be perceived as an act of sedition in a Theocracy. A death sentence, basically

there would also certainly be a spiritual, and a fire baptism
IRL though, no ritual even for the last one i guess
but it occurs nonetheless, right

I am not familiar where the physical birth is ever called a baptism in the Bible.
Ephesians 4:5 just "one baptism" in effect today just as there on one Lord and one faith.

 

[APAK]

hopefully i have made it plain that we are talking about Deacon Material here; active in the church, considered himself a prophet, all that. Not hated by those who did not know him.

These posts are the closest anyone in my family has come to even mentioning him in the two years since he died. Mom included. It's not that we remember him poorly; we do not remember him at all.

sad times...I understand...close to the heart

 

[Nancy]

One of the most debatable verses in the word of God: I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7:22-24 KJV
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [24] Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

"I never knew you"
"Knew" As in an intimate way. Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve..." in an intimate way. I never knew you meaning: My Spirit is not there. My Spirit does not inhabit you. My Spirit has not entered into you. You have not been born of God.

We read immediately after the Lords debated words..."Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:"

A spiritual rock: that rock being Christ.

Those spoken of in Matthew 7: 22-24 Use their works as justification. "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works"

Yet in Matthew there is another peculiar people spoken of: Matthew 25:34-40 KJV
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: [35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: [36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. [37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee ? [39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? [40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Those "in Christ" have works they know not of. Why? Because Christ worked through them. The Spirit of God worked their works; they rested "in Christ". If I can explain it this way: in a relationship of love we care for the needs of those that we love... naturally.

There is no work involved.

We just do. There is no labor, no boasting needed. That is what relationship is...being accountable to someone because you choose to be and naturally want to see to their needs. You love them. You want to see them happy and well and cared for. It is not a burden.

Then there is the others that boast in their works: obligation.
Haughtiness and pride... because you are obligated to see to the needs of another. It is work. A burden. It is work for the person doing the work to be able to say they have fulfilled an obligation, rather than an act of genuine love. It is heavy labor which makes a person defend themselves and their actions by stating "Have I not slaved for you?" Give me what I earned.

Again, consider the implication: "Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee ? [39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?"

Awesome post!

 

[bbyrd009]

I am not familiar where the physical birth is ever called a baptism in the Bible.

actually you likely are, and just deem it something else, as the authors intended; "baptism of water" iow,
which to us now means 'ritual' only right.

"just bc we have no ritual for it does not mean ppl are not experiencing it."

 

[bbyrd009]

Ephesians 4:5 just "one baptism" in effect today just as there on one Lord and one faith.

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

actually you likely are, and just deem it something else, as the authors intended; "baptism of water" iow,
which to us now means 'ritual' only right.

"just bc we have no ritual for it does not mean ppl are not experiencing it."

No, I'm not familiar where the physical birth is called baptism. I have seen some erroneously try and make "water" of Jn 3:5 mean the physical birth but that idea does not fit nor make sense in that context.

 

[bbyrd009]

"
By the time of John the Baptist — whose name means Merciful Immerser — the Greco-Roman world was duly obsessed with washing; hence the famous Roman baths and places like Siloam in Jerusalem. But since nobody quite knew how washing precisely worked, people were prone to believe that there was something inherently magical and powerful about water as a substance — quite like modern belief in the never abating power of healing crystals, icons or bloody expletives.

That in turn resulted in people sharing the same puddle over and over. Excavations show that people like high priests and royals had their own basement cisterns, chiseled out of the bedrock, in which they dipped themselves at every prescribed turn. That meant that many people exposed themselves to pools of stagnant water in which every sort of filth merrily proliferated, and the greater the dedication to ritualistic washing, the greater one's chance of a whopping disease.

A dog returns to its own vomit
In antiquity wisdom was the domain of an elite that knew how things worked and how to keep society going. And the rest had to do as they were told, without truly understanding exactly what they were doing. That led to a kind of bureaucracy of ritual — folks tapping idols, gesticulating symbols or uttering prescribed responses (like "bless you" when someone sneezes) — and daily life became permeated with acts and deeds that had no visible or logical result. Today we have the Internet and anybody can research anything, but still we take mysterious pills and undergo esoteric treatments when the doctor says so.

John the Baptist was a teacher like any other, and his preoccupation with washing was part of the greater Jewishobsession with wisdom-based survival: which in turn is a practical understanding of the way things work (Hosea 4:6). John's breakthrough was his understanding that water doesn't erase or neutralize contaminations; it merely absorbs it. The person emerges clean but the contaminants are now alive and well in the water, and the water in turn must be flushed like Azazel the scapegoat, to truly get rid of the contaminants. Stagnant water is diseased water, and only flowing water (or in Hebrew idiom: living water) does the trick:

"My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns ... " (Jeremiah 2:13).

In the Bible there is a strong correlation between the hydrological cycle and learning. The noun מורה (moreh) means both rain and teacher, and is closely related to the familiar word Torah..." http://www.abarim-publications.com/DictionaryG/b/b-a-p-t-om.html#.WuoNOogvyUk

 

[bbyrd009]

No, I'm not familiar where the physical birth is called baptism. I have seen some erroneously try and make "water" of Jn 3:5 mean the physical birth but that idea does not fit nor make sense in that context.

sure, and i don't disagree that there is only one baptism in a sense, either.

nonetheless, there are spirit and fire baptisms that we cannot even discuss, right, no one even knows what they are iow.
some believe they have a 'spirit' baptism, and even 'help' Acts 2:38 for that, and etc

i'm sure we could agree that the water baptism ritual is symbolic of "rebirth,"
and we certainly deem it a "baptism," yes. But baptisms are not rituals, at least imo

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire."

From the context, John is using the pronoun "you" twice in the context in a generic sense in announcing the type of baptism he baptized with (water) and the type of baptisms Christ would baptize with (Holy Spirit & fire). Therefore neither pronoun "you" specifically refers to those Pharisees he was speaking to at that time or anyone today. How do I arrive at this? Pharisees were in the audience and John was speaking to them when he said "I a baptize you with water". Why would John say that when he knew he had not baptized them with water, they rejected John's baptism (Luke 7:30).

Therefore John is using both pronouns in a generic sense. So one cannot tell from this immediate context who the "you" is that will be baptized with the Holy Spirit by Christ. One must look to the fulfillment of John's words found in Acts 1:1-5 where Jesus was with His apostles and references what John says in Mt 3:11. Now we know the "you" refers to the Apostles who were baptized with the HS in Acts 2. Some people try and make conveniently make themselves the second "you" and not the first "you" when neither 'you' refers to anyone today. John said Christ would also baptize with fire and fire in the immediate context refers to the fires of hell. So if one tries and makes himself the second "you" he also makes himself lost.

 

[bbyrd009]

"Our Greek verb βαπτω (bapto) means to dip and the derived verb βαπτιζω (baptizo) means to willfully immerse (see below). The latter verb implies total overwhelmment and commitment, but it says nothing about the medium in which the immersee is immersed, and this medium is far from only water. John the Immerser said that while he indeed immersed people in water, Jesus would immerse people in fire and spirit (LUKE 3:16), which in turn makes it a mystery why Christianity keeps insisting on water baptism..." ibid

 

[bbyrd009]

John said Christ would also baptize with fire and fire in the immediate context refers to the fires of hell.

to someone reading an English translation, where hell was invented, certainly. However Hades mythology contains no punishment in the grave, so you are left to ask where hell even came from; after wondering why Greek mythological gods are being invoked to describe the experience of death, perhaps

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

sure, and i don't disagree that there is only one baptism in a sense, either.

There is one baptism literally just as there is one God literally, one faith literally, one body literally.

nonetheless, there are spirit and fire baptisms that we cannot even discuss, right, no one even knows what they are iow.
some believe they have a 'spirit' baptism, and even 'help' Acts 2:38 for that, and etc

I do not agree nor can find Bible support for it.

i'm sure we could agree that the water baptism ritual is symbolic of "rebirth,"
and we certainly deem it a "baptism," yes. But baptisms are not rituals, at least imo

Jesus used the phrase "born AGAIN". So the word 'again' must imply I was born BEFORE in order for me to be born AGAIN.

I was first born physically and entered the world innocent and without sin. When I was water baptized a was born AGAIN spiritually when I was raised up from the waters of baptism just having all my sins remitted and became without sin when I was first born.

Lastly,
--2 Thess 1:8 says God will have vengeance upon those that "obey NOT the gospel of Christ"
--What is the gospel of Christ that one must obey as to not suffer God's vengeance?
--1 Cor 15:3-4 Paul said the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
--How then does one obey the historical events of Christ's death burial and resurrection, how does one obey the gospel?
--Rom 6:3-7 when one is water baptized the old man of sin DIES, one is BURIED in watery grave, then RESURRECTED up from that watery grave to walk in newness of life. Therefore water baptism is a form, a pattern, outline of the gospel (death burial & resurrection of Christ), In Rom 6:17-18 Paul said those Roman Christians had 'obeyed from the heart that FORM of doctrine".
--only water baptism of Christ's great commission is there a 'form' of the gospel's death burial and resurrection of Christ. This form does not take place in any kind of 'spirit baptism', or baptism of fire, etc.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

to someone reading an English translation, where hell was invented, certainly. However Hades mythology contains no punishment in the grave, so you are left to ask where hell even came from; after wondering why Greek mythological gods are being invoked to describe the experience of death, perhaps

Hell is a different topic and I stick with my point about both pronouns 'you' of Matt 3:11 being used in a generic fashion by John.

 

[bbyrd009]

Hell is a different topic and I stick with my point about both pronouns 'you' of Matt 3:11 being used in a generic fashion by John.

ok

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

"Our Greek verb βαπτω (bapto) means to dip and the derived verb βαπτιζω (baptizo) means to willfully immerse (see below). The latter verb implies total overwhelmment and commitment, but it says nothing about the medium in which the immersee is immersed, and this medium is far from only water. John the Immerser said that while he indeed immersed people in water, Jesus would immerse people in fire and spirit (LUKE 3:16), which in turn makes it a mystery why Christianity keeps insisting on water baptism..." ibid

F.F. Bruce: “baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning” (Questions Answered, p. 106)"

So we know to take the word baptizo at its literal sense, and what one is buried in can be found in other texts as acts 8 when both the Phillip and the eunuch went down into the water. The one baptism that is in effect is Christ's baptism that has disciples (humans) administering that baptism. Humans can administer water baptism but not any baptism of fire or spirit baptism. The Lord administers those type of baptisms Himself as seen in Mt 3:11.