House Church Talk - Re: Baptisms and Administrations

[Ross J Purdy]

Hi Bruce,

You write:
> You also wrote:"If individuals wanted a relationship with God, they
formerly
> had to come through the covenant nation of Israel."
>
> Where in scripture do you find this idea taught?

Are there not instructions in the Law for how those of other nations are to
approach and worship God? Were they not required to come and conduct
themselves in respect of the covenant people? I can look up the passages and
present them but I am hoping you will do some of the research too, Brother!
;^)


>Job certainly had a relationship with God but as far as we know had no
contact
>whatsover with Israel!

When would you say Job lived? I read that he was probably contemporary with
Abraham. If so, that puts him before the existence of Israel as a nation.


> In II Chron.36:22,23 we learn that King Cyrus received instructions from
God
> re. the building of the temple in Jerusalem.  God calls Cyrus, "My
shepherd"
> (Isaiah 44:28) and "mine anointed" (Isaiah 45:1). But no Israelite was an
> INTERMEDIARY by which Cyrus had such a relationship with God!


We have a weird situation since Israel is in captivity and God sent Cyrus to
execute judgment. When God's people were not where God wanted them to be, He
was not hindered and used other nations as he saw fit to accomplish His
purpose. After all, He was using Cyrus to rebuild ISRAEL'S temple and thus
fulfill the prophecy made by ISRAEL'S prophet Jeremiah, again this was not
exclusively for Israel's benefit.



> The wise men of Mat thew 2 had revelation from God relative to the birth of
> the King of the Jews which was apart from contact with Israel.  God also
> spoke to them in a dream regarding their return to their own land which
had
> nothing to do with "coming through the covenant nation of Israel".


We have a weird situation since Israel is in captivity and God sent Cyrus to
execute judgment. When God's people were not where God wanted them to be, He
was not hindered and used other nations as he saw fit to accomplish His
purpose. After all, He was using Cyrus to rebuild ISRAEL'S temple and thus
fulfill the prophecy made by ISRAEL'S prophet Jeremiah, again this was not
exclusively for Israel's benefit.




> I also agree with you that Israel had a unique covenant relationship with
> God by the covenant  (The ten commandments) made with them at Sinai. But
the
> Lord Jesus' command to his disciples to make disciples of all nations and
to
> baptize those disciples was made AFTER the old covenant had come to an end
> at the death of Christ and the rending of the veil of the temple from the
> top to the bottom!  His command for them to baptize the disciples they
would
> make of all nations had to do, NOT with the old covenant which was
dedicated
> with the sprinkling of animal blood (Ex.24) but rather with the new
covenant
> that was dedicated with the shedding of the precious blood of Christ,
> Himself!  (Heb.9:13-28)


So noted, we will keep this in mind


> So brother, I am not at all certain that I understand your point at all!
> What specificly do YOU  see about John's ministry and baptism under the
old
> covenant, the Lord's disciples baptizing people under the old covenant and
> the Lord Jesus' commission to baptize disciples under the new covenant
that
> relates to the present day practice of baptizing believers in water??
>
> There were sprinklings which were not baptisms under the old covenant.
There
> were baptisms which were not sprinklings under the old covenant. And
> baptisms of the new covenant are not sprinklings at all.
>
> I think we are both agreed that there were baptisms practiced under the
old
> covenant, and there is a baptism in the Spirit under the new covenant
which
> is accomplished by God  in which men have no responsibility.  But the
> subject of our discussion (the baptism of believers in water) a baptism
> which is commanded and which is the responsibility of men under the new
> covenant is the one upon which we do not seem to agree.
>
> If I have understood you correctly, you have claimed that the "end of the
> age" (Matt.28:20) was when the church , which is Christ's body,  began.
Thus
> water baptism of believers was to cease at that point and thus is obsolete
> and totally out of place today.
>
> Brother, if this doctrine is correct, it will be stated in the very words
of
> scripture as all scriptural doctrines are!  If this doctrine is NOT stated
> in the very words of scripture it is NOT a scriptural doctrine but rather
is
> an invention of men as all doctrines are which are not stated in the very
> words of scripture.
>
> So please, let us not continue to reason and deduce and come to
conclusions
> never stated in the Book.  If you can show your conclusion on this matter
in
> the very words of scripture,(as Ps.12:6; Prov.30:5,6 and I Cor.2:13
> indicate) I will immediately concede that you are correct.  However, if
you
> are unable to state your doctrine in the very words of scripture,  are YOU
> willing to acknowledge that what you have claimed is NOT a scriptural
> doctrine?
>
> This matter need not be an unresolved issue. Let us allow the scriptures
to
> be the final arbiter.
>
> Looking forward to your response.
>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce


This we will get to in course. I am not intending to frustrate here, it is
just that I want to try to organise our presuppositions so that semantical
arguments don't derail the discussion. (Not to mention I am deliberate
also.) I appreciate your engagement in the exchange as it does challenge me
to critically look at and discover things I may have uncritically accepted.

Up to this point, I just want to make sure we have in mind the covenant
relationship that Israel had with God and see if it remains significant or
how it is relevant to the discussion involving baptism before and after the
cross.

The covenants have been described in various ways, some say they are just
elaborations of God's promises to Abraham. Of course, Paul distinguishes the
Law giving but even that served its purpose in preserving Israel until
Messiah came. The point is that there is a special relationship with the
elect nation through which God intends to work out His purpose. The
relationship is exhibited through the promises and covenants God made with
Israel. Again I am not excluding the nations here, just focusing on Israel
and trying to maintain that perspective as we come upon the Gospel accounts
and the book of Acts.

In Christ,

Ross Purdy