Sermon: Baptism in Corinthians
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios.com :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get our TV show, After Show, and Apologia Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free acount to recieve access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: apologiastu... 
Развлечения
Support the mission of Apologia Church by subscribing to Apologia All Access! Click here for more info.
ean.link/bahnsenu
I find infant baptism arguments come lacking and often straining for biblical support, where as believer's baptism is wholly supportable.
Well preached doc.
I think 1 cor 15:29 is Paul taking the argument of the opposition and saying “what’s the point of baptism then?” Since baptism is a picture of death and resurrection it wouldn’t make sense if there were no resurrection.
So, if you assume Jesus has not been raised then you could say “you are baptizing people for the dead (Jesus)” which Paul shows to be lunacy.
Wow I never heard it put that way, it makes a lot of sense!
That makes sense in English, but in Greek “the dead” (των νεκρων) is plural (i.e. “the dead people”), so it would not refer to just Jesus.
Psalm.77:10-29
John 3:5
Titus 3:5
Baptized into the Covenant of Christ...Acts 2
Acts 8
Acts 10
Acts 19
Eph.2:11-22
Baptized into the COVENANT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST..
EPH.2:11-22
1 COR.10:1-2
ALL WERE BAPTIZED INTO THE COVENANT OF MOSES (MOSAIC COVENANT)
Paul knows the covenant creation.
Gen.1
44:30 So I don't know if Apologia holds to the same standard any more but I partook of communion for the first time as a child. That was the day I first believed and while I'm not really arguing for any sort of doctrine here, I just know I was saved then and for the intervening years until I was Baptised. I don't think this is wrong and even if Baptism should be encouraged strongly for a new convert I don't feel convicted for having taken Communion before I was Baptised. At the very least Jesus called me that day through what James might consider the wrong sacrament.
Gen.17
God imposes the covenant not your faith but God's choice...
In the wilderness..idoloatry.
What comes first their baptism or idolatry..
Always enjoy James' sermons or other appearances, this one included. I have been both baptized as a child and an adult, and obviously believe in obeying Christ's commands. My slight bit of confusion regarding baptism, however, is the fact that there was no opportunity for the converted thief on the cross (next to Christ) to be submerged in water. Unfortunately, there was no such opportunity for my young nephew, either, as I lead him to Christ on his death bed. Any thoughts?
Baptism is an ordinance to be obeyed by believers. Obviously believers who die prior to an opportunity to obey is not in some kind of legal quandary regarding one's salvation.
Um, what are you confused about? The thief on the cross believed therefore was saved because he received the imputed righteousness of Christ. Why would he not having the opportunity to be baptized confuse you? It symbolizes what he in reality actually had. So . .what then?
Count me as one of those skeptics mentioned @ 44:33. Its hard for me to believe that the Lord is waiting to begin his good work in me until I can find another person to immerse me in water. That seems 'works' based, and my salvation is dependent on that other person (pastor, say) to get involved first before I can begin my walk with Christ. Hard to buy that one.
He never said your salvation is dependent on your baptism... hello!?!? But baptism is very very important, and you shouldn't be partaking of the Lord's supper if you're putting off baptism... there's no excuse.
@@ameliacoburn4787 the Bible makes clear baptism is how one gets into Christ (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27)
Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 baptism is the very moment forgiveness occurs. The greek grammer is perfect when it comes to proving this fact. God commands baptism and people have to make a choice of being foolish by refusing the necessity or people can choose to be faithful and obey. Obedient faith is the only saving faith. Not this denominational misinterpretation of belief only. Too many Bible passages that utterly destroys that notion.
@@Kurt2222 NO it is the picture or symbol of our union. We are united with Christ by faith alone. Anything else is heresy,
@@ameliacoburn4787 then why does the Bible say baptism INTO forgiveness of sins according to the greek language in Acts 2:38?
Why does the Bible says baptized INTO Christ in Galatians 3:27?
Deal with the precise language of the greek manuscripts. Because so far you haven't proved anything.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Paul commands us all to "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good "
You are not obeying this Holy Spirit inspired command. So learn what the Holy Spirit intended in Acts 2:38 and others.
Baptism is the only way anyone can become a Christian, the only way to initially receive forgiveness of past sins.
Any gredk scholar, whether or not they agree with the implication, they all agree with the rendering, the gredk preposition "eis" always denotes action "into" a goal. There is no way to get around this dilemma. Man made denominations invented the doctrine of belief alone. You fail to infer from what is implied from other statements in the new testament. Statements that destroy completely the erroneous idea of faith without obedience. Go read Hebrews chapter 11 and see what saving faith is described as, then get back with me.
@@ameliacoburn4787 God/Christ/Holy Spirit NEVER gives a commands directly tied to forgiveness that is optional. That means that God gives arbitrary commands that possess absolutely no impact whatsoever, which implies God possesses the characteristic of being arbitrary and the whole idea of arbitrary is that it's actually lacking purpose. If it lacks purpose then that implies God is unwise, unknowledgable and on the exact same level as foolish men!
Is that how you think of God Almighty?
Yes or no?
Because that's the implication you bring about whether you realize it or not. Nothing God commands is arbitrary. It DIVINELY guides men to God, OF NECESSITY. That is purpose, not arbitrary. An unnecessary action given by God to man is a waste of time and God doesn't waste time.
Nothing in New Testament living and worship is unneeded. Singing songs to praise God impacts positively within man. Songs encourage Christians at their worst times, melodies that strengthen the weaknesses we have, and God KNOWS that and therefore commands we make melody "with the heart".
God commands weekly attendance instead of once a year or once a month, WHY?? Because weekly attendance strengthens in a reciprocal fashion, men and woman who deal with temptation throughout the week, they can have CONSISTENT encouragement compared to "once a year or once a month" church attendance.
God doesn't make arbitrary instructions! All DIVINELY MADE for man's own benefits. Find one instruction in NT Scriptures where we are commanded something that is useless. I challenge you.
Who are the real children of Israel
@Caleb Marquez who is Esau because God said he loved Jacob and hated Esau
@Caleb Marquez if there is not being spoken of a physical Israel what do these verses mean in the same book of Romans you just mentioned.
Rom 1:16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 11:1-2 KJV 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
Stop with the philosophy.
@Caleb Marquez In fact in the whole book of Romans Chapter 11 Paul is warning the gentiles not to boast and think that Israel has been cut off so that they may be grafted in. Exactly as you are saying now.
Rom 11:17-21 KJV 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
@Caleb Marquez but who is Esau
@jesper laursen Please explain how I have pitted the two against each other?
I always think of Simon in Acts 10... he believed and was water baptized then rejected the Holy Spirit
What on earth are you talking about? Rejected the Holy Spirit where?
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 acts 8. I said Acts 10 that was incorrect. Also, not Peter but Simon Acts 8:13 is where it starts. Enjoy
To partake of the Lord's Supper you must be a *baptized* believer. Agree 100%! It's overwhelmingly Scriptural and historical. I guess the harder question is what baptism is accepted. Do you accept pedobaptism as a valid baptism? Also, in your church history sermon (will be praying BTW) can you address the early church emphasis on the connection between baptism and salvation.... many in the early church seemed to have a view that baptism was very strongly tied to salvation and forgiveness of sin. Thanks!
Hmm, well personally I had communion as a child and this was when I first believed. I got Baptised later and was just following Christ as best I understood. I think age of accountability is a tricky thing and I don't regret taking communion for those years.
Ephesians 4:4-6 KJV
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM (spirit)
The one baptism is not Spirit baptism. This is easily falsified by going back to the great commission Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:16, Christ gave His apostles to makes disciples of ALL NATIONS, and by Christ commanding His apostles to baptize all nations along with teaching them, excludeds the error people like you make by claiming what only Christ could do. Christ sent His Spirit upon the apostles in Acts 2, Cornelius in Acts 10. Thats it. No other account in scriptures of Spirit baptism. Acts proves its water baptism. Men are commanded by Christ to do all the baptizing, men cannot baptize in the Holy Spirit.
You must apply sound logic to these matters. No way to get around this fact.
@@Kurt2222 your logic is irrational. When a true believer has faith to believe In the salvation Gospel, 1Cor15:1-4 (NO WATER!!) he is indwelt by the holy spirit.. This is salvation 101. What Bible are you reading??? Water does absolutely NOTHING !. A dry sinner comes out a wet sinner.
Why did Jesus multiple times say he came ONLY to the "lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL" & told his disciples to ONLY go to ISRAEL? (Matt 10:6, 15:24) And even called the woman a Canaanite dog? (Matt 15:26) His message was "repent & be baptized". Why? for ISRAEL to repent as a nation and accept him as Messiah. They didn't and God put ISRAEL aside (Rom 11) and revealed the "mystery" Salvation gospel for the WORLD to Paul (1Cor15:1-4) which is for us today. Don't mix up what the 2 different messages are, to who, when, and why. Believing faith in what Jesus did on the cross is what saves us today, and Paul is the apostle to Gentiles we are to follow, as he follows Christ (1Cor11:1). You really are unlearned & need to reevaluate your "theology". Be a berean and see if what I've said is not scripturally true
Paul was not writing about his views on baptism. He was writing about a church that had divided itself along the lines of which prominent church leaders they identified: Jack Wilkie
Correct. Baptism is not a salvation thing, it is a commandment from Jesus yes, but baptizing has nothing to do with getting us into heaven.
Baptism is how one is clothed with Christ Galatians 3:27. So what is the inverse of that statement? If you have not been baptized INTO Christ, then you have not been clothed with Christ......so you are spiritually NAKED!
That's the implication of your position, it's an erroneous position. Baptism is how forgiveness first occurs under the new law of Christ Acts 2:38, 22:16.
In Acts 22:16 Paul is told to get baptized, for what reason though????
To wash away his sins. Read! The greek grammer proves that that is how one "calls on the name of the Lord". The greek word "epikalesamenos" is aorist tense, middle voice participle. So the literal translation would be "having called for yourself on the Lord".
Baptism IS a salvation matter!
Mark 16:16 He who has believed (past tense) and has been baptized (past tense) shall be saved. The greek word for Baptism here is aorist participle which denotes actions that ALWAYS occurs before the main verb, the main verb is "shall be saved". He who doesn't believe is condemned already John 3:18.
John 3:36 The one not DISOBEYING will not see life. So John 3 proves OBEDIENCE, not just belief is absolutely necessary.
11:55 lol hahha
Were you baptized in the name of Calvin?
🤦♂Thinking that someone's teaching/theology happens to best align with the Scriptures does not mean that they worship said person. Just stop.
@@douglasmcnay644 I never said he worships Calvin. But wouldn’t you agree that in this modern era the debate between Calvinism and Armenians or Molinists kind of reflects what’s going on in 1 Corinthians. I believe the Bible is true and we should extract what it says and live by it. But sometimes these camps are not so friendly to one another in the name of said doctrine because they feel the other is missing the mark. I’m not a Calvinist and I’ve witnessed people on both sides claim the other isn’t saved because of their theology.
@@ProjectAsylum54 exactly, why does there have to be a label. I think they sway one’s thinking when we should be using the Bible more to get our info. History is important to understand context, but after Christ “history” helps us understand where our traditions came from today. I would rather go with the Bible with biblical history for my doctrine.
@@ProjectAsylum54 my humble response would be that there doesn't have to be labels, there is no imposing idea or gospel that carries that.
The man made labels are simply there to make the distinction easier to identify.
The idea driven by the people in the first chapter of Corinthians gives a strong impression of boasting who they were baptized by, as if being baptized by a certain individual meant something more than being baptized by anyone else.
I don't see any similarities to that ideology when examining the classifications of being Calvinist or Arminian. Dr White has repeatedly stated he considers Dr Brown (Arminian) an exceptional defender of the faith, and without a doubt holds him in the position of a Brother in Christ. So while the age old in-house debate forever exists, they both acknowledge there should be no "division", as you see Paul address in 1 Corinthians 1.
@@dantate7528 well put, I was going to say the comparison was not valid, just a repeatedly sad equivocation! You explained it well 👍
I wonder if he ever spends time reading the other books that were considered New Testament books. Athanasius doesn’t recommend out current list until 368AD. That list of books is first adopted by a bishop for use in his churches in 395; however, the Chriam church went for more than 5 centuries without a uniform canon. Churches used different books bc they had the “traditions” that Pail tells us about. The traditions were what guided them, not a set of books (that’s Church history 101). I wonder if Dr White ever considers the teachings of those Christians before he speaks; most pastors don’t.
Ironic it is, to hear a man preach on the problem of divisiveness, yet his social media platform causes some of the most division I’ve seen from a preacher
His social media platform causes division? Wow, that's a shamefully false accusation! If you're referring to his program on RUclips called; " The dividing line " then you are either confusing the premise of dividing ideals, theology and teaching with ppl. His program is very informative, while distinctions are made and distinguishing between right and wrong, true and false are very important and already divided on their own, it's preachers with bold insight who can highlight and show why and where the opposition is with clear definition.
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 I’m referring to his Twitter. Where he seems to forget to condone him self with honor and respect for brothers and sisters in the faith too often. He has a ‘precise theology’ mentality where he will but heads with other believers simply because he doesn’t fully agree with them. It’s a bad look for the church.
He doesn’t know what proselyte baptism was. And he doesn’t know the origin of the term for baptism in Greek. How could a scholar teach in baptism with out definition and custom and culture.
I commend to you the second sermon in this series where he defines baptism from pre-NT Greek literature.
@@miniwars123 You got a link? Or the exact title?
@@miniwars123 Ok. I found it.
He never once talked about the history and meaning of the Greek word. He even missed the citation by Justin Martyr as if Martyr was talking about physical water. Martyr even explained what the water was in the citation White read, but it went right over his head. White Read into the text what he wanted to hear. The very thing he says not to do at the beginning of the video.
Also, if Martyr was talking about physical water then you can’t go by what Martyr did as biblical anyway. Because White said himself that there was allot of error in the church right in the epistles themselves. So you can’t count on the early church for truth and accuracy anyway.
Look up Jim brown grace and truth ministries baptism. Learn from a more studied scholar than James White.
No...no...no..this is wrong interpretation..
You are bad theologian