this couldn't just like my last one! ;)

we were talking about you and Susan at dinner last night. we had Dennis and Benita Allen(she is Rob Speer's sister) over for dinner because they are here for a gospel meeting. we got to telling camp stories after a while and ya'll came up. :)

or not....

so you are going to get to hear about Mount and blade.

Mount and blade...that's right, told me before that was the name, but I've since gone back to thinking it's "Mountain Blade." lol

Soon...it's been over a month...

thus the or not post......

And turnips.

fluffy bunnies!

Angry Marines.

It might be worth noting that entire event happens before Jesus' death and the institution of the New Covenant - thus features of the New Covenant, like Baptism, may not have come into force just yet...

Out of curiosity, what prompted this post? Your blogs are usually so...terse. :-)

I was going to mention what Jonathan already said. The law of baptism wasn't in place yet...

Good points, and likewise, what they said.

Hope you're doing well!

The only problem of their argument lies in why Jesus's disciples were baptizing BEFORE Christ's death... or why John's disciples were baptizing... If Christ's disciples were baptizing people before His death (which they did) would they then have needed to be baptized a second time? I bring this up because many who argue against John's baptism argue against it on the basis that it was a baptism looking forward to the death of Christ on the Cross, while the baptism in which Peter commands on the Day of Pentecost is one that looks backwards to Christ's death. But this argument fails because why, then, would Christ command His disciples to baptize people before His death?

Sorry, just thinking out loud.

It was a side point to a conversation we had in the car.

Well, for what it's worth...Acts 19:2-5 seems like a clear indication that there was something...lacking from the baptism of John. In other words, that it wasn't quite the same as the baptism the apostles taught. I don't have all the answers to such questions, but I think that's a reasonable conclusion. And just give scriptural to the other thing I said earlier, I know that the New Covenant wasn't in force yet, since he wasn't dead yet (e.g. Heb. 9:15-17).

I understand that there was something lacking in John's baptism, but I don't agree with the argument that it was because it was looking forward to coming of Christ (because of the reasons that Christ's disciples were baptizing before Christ's death). Instead, isn't it more likely that John's baptism WAS for the repentance of sins, but it was lacking because it wasn't doing the same thing that Christ's baptism was doing (i.e., declaring Jesus as the Son of God and as Lord). However, in response to Heb. 9:15-17, the baptism of Christ ("of" in the sense that it is from Christ) acted in a twofold manner, it forgave sins but was a declaration on the part of the "baptee" of their recognition of salvation in Christ as Lord, however; the forgiveness of sins was not able to be brought into effect until the death of Christ on the cross for the reasons mentioned in Heb. 9:15-17.

Those that were part of the baptism of John were still Jews afterwards because they still adhered to the Law even though they were being baptized for the repentance of their sins, if you had Mr. Hamilton for NTHG, you might remember him discussing that there were many "Baptizers" before Christ, and they all were baptizing to declare their faith in the Messiah that would bring a new way to live. Yet those that were of the baptism of Christ were, in effect, declaring that they were going to follow a different way than that which was set forth by Moses, because Christ's baptism was a declaration that Christ is the Messiah and would bring a new way for man to live. This is perhaps why Christ had to be baptized himself of John's baptism. (John 1:1-34, Matthew 3:1-17)

We make so much emphasis on the death part that we forget that our baptism isn't just about putting the old man to death, but it is also a declaration of how we are going to live. John's baptism failed because it still saw living in terms of the Old Covenant. Christ's baptism wins because it sees living in terms of walking by faith with Christ as Lord. The New Covenant then tells men how to live with Christ as Lord. Christ's death pays(paid) the price for those sins that men commit(ted) and provides the means of forgiveness.

So for us to say that John's baptism failed ONLY because it was looking forward to Christ's death is not fully accurate because those of Christ's baptism before His death would not truly have been of Christ's baptism.

Just some thoughts.

NIce post, Robert, with a spiritual theme. Nice to have you around too. See ya tonight.

Hmm...I think, if I understand you, that you are now going off into a different issue that what Robert initially brought - you're now discussing WHAT was lacking in John's baptism. I never said John's baptism "failed" in any way, certainly not becaue "it was looking forward to Christ's death." My point was simply to indicate that the Bible makes a distinction between them - I was not at all trying make any claims about WHAT was lacking in John's baptism. Mr. Hamilton wasn't at FC when I took freshman Bible...so I didn't have him. :-)

Let's see if I understand your points... I would agree that, based on the Biblical text, the baptism of John was for forgiveness of sin. I would agree that the big difference was the meaning behind it - it couldn't possibly have meaning of connecting with Christ's death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 6) when Christ hadn't done those things yet. I would agree that ALL forgiveness ever ultimately comes from Christ's sacrifice, although the submission to God to accept that sacrifice took different forms (animal sacrifices, baptism) at different times. I would agree that there was no "failure" of John's baptism - it was simply "replaced," as it were, by something greater.

My original comment was to say that under the old covenant for the Israelites, a.k.a.47 the Law of Moses, baptism was not an essential part of doing God's will. When the "thief on the cross" (why don't we call him "the thief on the OTHER cross?") died, the new covenant, in which we see that baptism seems to be an essential part of accepting that covenant, was not in effect. Thus, at the time it happened, Jesus was not making some sort of big exception for the former thief, not saying "Well, everyone else has to be baptized but I'll make an exception for you." Hopefully I'm on track with this line of thinking. Either way, I think we have to leave room for the grace of God to work in the case of people who truly turn to him.

I did not understand your penultimate sentence, which seems to be some form of conclusion or summary - could you restate that? I hope that otherwise I've understood what you're saying, and clarified what I was trying to say.

Sorry, I was in a rather peculiarly "Robert" mood... and so I was using fail in more of a humorous sense...

Also, I had gone off on a completely different tangent whilst posting that comment, then I decided to delete most of my tangent, so my complete thoughts were not put up there.

My apologies.

Apparently at one time people used the letter "f" in places that we today would use "s." For example, "We failed this day about thirty miles." Or the phrase "bad failing veffels."

hey, you. nice to have you back for a while.

well, i guess you should have come over for spaghetti monday night. that was very non-stressful.

yes it is.

I agree. Although challenges can make you a better person, too.

And "master of the obvious award" goes to....