Our website is best viewed using any internet
browser besides Mozilla Firefox versions 6.0 and later (some
users don't have problems). We recommend Google
Chrome, Internet Explorer, and earlier versions of Firefox
(go to "Help
- About Firefox" to know your version).
Condemn the Fathers, Condemn the Father
Amongst other things, Damien wrote us:
Jesus has also taught me, as you state (actually in the bible), that
there is only one baptism. Yet, brother Victor, you mention two baptisms
as being required. You say
Water immersion is a symbolic act of identification,
an expression of faith, picturing the death, burial and resurrection
of the Lord
Jesus Christ
Water baptism, meaning only the baptism of John the
Baptist and no other form whatsoever, never meant any of these things.
Water baptism
was an act of obedience to God by a repentant Jew. It was only
sent to the Jews just as John and Jesus were only sent to the Jews. It
was Paul who was sent with a gospel to the Gentiles and it was
different
to what Peter preached to the Jews. It omitted all ritual form
but both gospels included the baptism of the Spirit. Even when Peter
was
sent to Cornelius he never got to preach water baptism. God interrupted
Peter before he could mention water and gave them the Spirit. But
the understanding of what God had done had to await the preaching
of Paul.
Requiring water baptism is a rejection of what Jesus died
for - the baptism of the Spirit. Any ceremony, any physical form is
a rejection
of Jesus.
Victor’s reply:
Concerning water baptism, you draw false conclusions in what I write.
Where did you find that I advocated water baptism as a necessity? You
don’t find it there. If, however, you do find it in any of my writings,
several of which are from many years ago, and I say, or give the impression,
that water baptism is a necessity, let me know. I will, Lord willing,
change it.
In the meantime, you are wrong to fault the Scriptures or Peter and
Paul for performing water baptisms. Peter was full of the Holy Ghost
when preaching to the Gentiles. You can say all you want that he was
still in the old way of thinking, but in so doing, you deny the sovereignty
of God. God was giving him revelation as He saw fit, and He could have
given Peter, in all those years with Jesus, the understanding that water
baptism was not necessary. He did not do that. Peter baptized, and it
was the will of God.
Saul of Tarsus was water baptized, Philip baptized the eunuch, the Samaritans
were water baptized, the Ephesian disciples were water baptized, as were
Lydia, the Philippian jailer and his house, and all those at Pentecost
after Peter preached. Paul baptized Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas’ household,
as he declared to the Corinthians, though he asserted that he was not
sent to baptize. If there is only one baptism (and there is only one
spiritual baptism), why did Paul baptize in water? Why would Jesus and
His disciples have water baptized? Why would Peter, Jesus’ close
disciple, baptize? One baptism does not mean there was only one of all
kinds. Consider what the Hebrews writer says:
“Therefore, having left the discourse of the beginning of Christ,
let us go on to full growth, not laying again the foundation of repentance
from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the baptisms, of doctrine,
and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of
eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits” (Hebrews
6:1-3 MKJV).
If there is only one baptism of all kinds, then what
is the Hebrews writer doing, speaking positively of more than one?
You err, Damien,
not I. Do you not know that it was Paul who wrote to the Ephesians
of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”? Why would Paul
and Peter include both water and Spirit baptisms in their teaching
and
practice, if there is only “one baptism,” period? Consider.
You are subject to a false teacher.
As to the significance of water
baptism, you err again. While Paul speaks of Spirit baptism to
the Romans, it does not take a superior
intellect to understand that water baptism depicts a death, burial,
and resurrection, water immersion portraying that which happens
spiritually, as described:
“Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried
with Him by
baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the
dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness
of
life. For if we have been joined together in the likeness of
His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection” (Romans
6:3-5 MKJV).
Peter and Paul both practiced water baptism and
taught spiritual baptism. You write: “Requiring
water baptism is a rejection of what Jesus died for - the baptism of
the Spirit.
Any ceremony,
any physical form
is a rejection of Jesus.”
You therefore foolishly accuse
Peter, Paul, Silas, Luke, Philip, and other saints of that
transgression. You err in
judging
these men, fathers
of the faith, chosen vessels of Christ, foundational apostles
no less, who have ministered in understanding to us, by
spiritual revelation. Do you see why the works of men are the paths
of the
destroyer, Damien?
You are found coming against the Body of Christ and against
Jesus Christ
Himself. These ideas of yours, these doctrines of John
Clark, are antiChrist. You write:
“God interrupted Peter before he could mention
water and gave them the Spirit. But the understanding of what God had
done had to await
the
preaching of Paul.”
Those are simply conjectures
and opinions, stupid at that, formulated by Clark and
company. They are unsubstantiated
in Scripture and
are not witnessed to by the Spirit.