The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is water baptism to be practiced today?

There is no need to become obnoxious in your replies. First of all, my reply was not to you but to Peytonator. Your question, "So who is right? You or Paul?" is rather insulting to me and quite presumptuous on your part, as if you are the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Perhaps, just perhaps you could consider another interpretation of 1Cor 1:12,13 in contradistinction to your own?

Is Christ divided? Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of their divisions and strifes. His general argument is, that Christ alone ought to be regarded as their Head and Leader, and that his claims, arising from his crucifixion, and acknowledged by their baptism, were so pre-eminent that they could not be divided, and the honours due to him should not be rendered to any other. The apostle therefore asks, with strong emphasis, whether Christ was to be regarded as divided? Whether this single supreme Head and Leader of the church had become the head of different contending factions? The strong absurdity of supposing that, showed the impropriety of their ranging themselves under different banners and leaders.

Was Paul crucified for you? This question implies that the crucifixion of Christ had an influence in saving them which the sufferings of no other one could have, and that those sufferings were in fact the peculiarity which distinguished the Work of Christ, and rendered it of so much value. The atonement was the grand, crowning work of the Lord Jesus. It was through this that all the Corinthian Christians had been renewed and pardoned. That work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by an other. And as they had all been saved by that alone-as they were alike dependent on his merits for salvation-it was improper that they should be rent into contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything that will recall Christians of different names and of contending sects from the heat of strife, it is the recollection of the fact that they have been purchased by the same blood, and that the same Saviour died to redeem them all. If this fact could be kept before their minds, it would put an end to angry strife everywhere in the church, and produce universal Christian love.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Or into, or unto the name of Paul. To be baptized into, or unto any one, is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher, professing to receive his rules, and to be governed by his authority.--Locke. Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service of the only Saviour. "Did I ever," was the implied language of Paul, "baptize in my own name"? Did I ever pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been baptized?" It is remarkable here, that Paul refers to himself, and not to Apollos or Peter. He does not insinuate that the claims of Apollos or Peter were to be disparaged, or their talents and influence to be undervalued, as a jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as having no claims to be regarded as a religious leader among them, or the founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual father, had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name; and he thus showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.

Is this a Campbellite response? My main point is that baptism is not an inherent part of salvation so that if one is not baptized salvation is impossible. Notice Jesus' own words on this matter:

Mark 16:16 (ASV) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned."

The negation doesn't include baptism, does it! Jesus did NOT say, "but he that disbelieveth and is not baptized shall be condemned." So, my point again, which is solidly biblical and totally consistent confessionally, is that salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE... not by faith and baptism.

Yes, assumptions because we are not told how it is that the eunuch became familiar with the practice of baptism. And no, you will not find "baptism in his name" in the OT, but that was hardly what I was implying. You obviously missed the point entirely. My point was that "baptism" was not something totally new to the NT era. Other cultures and religions practiced baptism and the practice of baptism was very much prominent in the OT, e.g., ceremonial washings, etc.

To sum it up, I see alot of antagonism and disrespect, especially coming from someone very new to this board. I certainly don't mind being challenged by anyone, including you. But your attitude, at least as it can be discerned from your rhetoric, is less than amiable at this point. A change would be most appreciated.