Saturday study 5/2/26 Final Baptism series

 The Obedience of Faith

• The Great Comission command by Jesus in Matthew 28:19: 

“Go…make disciples…baptizing them…”

• The command is not temporary, Matthew 28:20  “...to the end of the age”
• End of this present evil age until the age to come at the parousia (Matt. 24:3)
• Therefore: Baptism is part of disciple-making until his coming;
• Baptism is not optional, something to be questioned, let alone part of some old dispensation!
• Faith is not merely intellectual but active, "to bring about the obedience of faith": Romans 1:5
• Baptism is a concrete act of submission to the gospel: The God-ordained response to the Kingdom message
• It defines what is a Christian and marks your membership into the one body of Jesus, the church: 1 Corinthians 12:13

"For in one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free; we all were made to drink of one spirit."

AB footnote: 

This is not a “second level” of conversion but the common initiation of every true believer into the Church. There is no noun phrase “baptism of the holy spirit” in the NT, but being immersed in spirit is the common experience of all NT believers. It is the essential mark of becoming a believer. Water baptism was the required public sign of joining the body of Messiah.

Christian SOP 

• John and Jesus, Mark 1; John 3-4.
• Baptism Saves, Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved”
• Acts 2:38 “Repent and be baptized…for forgiveness of sins”
• Acts 22:16 “Be baptized and wash away your sins”
• Pattern: Hear the Gospel → Believe/Understand → Repent → Get baptized

Christian Living 

• Romans 6:3-4 Baptism = identification with Jesus’ death and resurrection
• Galatians 3:27 “All who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”

Exceptions Not the Rule

• Cases like “the thief on the cross” are: Exceptional, not normative
• The Great Commission sets the rule: Make disciples → baptize them
• Doctrine is built on: Clear commands + consistent NT pattern; Not hypothetical “what if” scenarios

Rebaptism 

• Was I baptized as a repentant believer in the Gospel about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus (Acts 8:12)?
• If not, then being baptized again is not “repeating baptism" but receiving Christian baptism for the first time.
• The NT shows that when someone’s first baptism was based on an incomplete or defective understanding they should get baptized again, Acts 19. 

Takeaways

• From Jesus’ command (Matt. 28:19–20) until the end of the age, baptism remains:
• A commanded response to the gospel;
• A defining moment of Christian conversion;
• An expression of "the obedience of faith."

Addendum

• I was recently asked if I was teaching that baptism is required for salvation?
• The concern was that I seemed to be saying you're not a Christian unless you're baptized.
• 1 Peter 3:21 makes baptism part of the biblical response to salvation — your obedience of faith. 
• But not because water itself has some kind of magical, mystical quality.
• Peter says, baptism is an appeal or "pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Messiah."
• This fits the NT pattern to:

“Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38); 

• Those who believed the Gospel of the Kingdom and the name of Jesus were baptized (Acts 8:12);
• Cornelius’ household, though having received the spirit, was still commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:47-48); 
• In Acts 22 Jesus asked Paul: What are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away"!
• Paul then goes on to link baptism with Messiah’s death and resurrection to mark the born again experience (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27).

Last Word

• Baptism is the commanded public response of faith, repentance, and allegiance to Jesus. 
• In the NT, a Christian is normally a baptized believer.
• To question or knowingly refuse baptism, while calling yourself a Christian or clain church membership, is simply foreign to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

Numerología: El estudio de los números en la Escritura

Los números en la Escritura pueden tener significado, pero no poseen poder mágico ni espiritual en sí mismos. El poder pertenece a Dios, y específicamente a Su evangelio acerca del Reino de Dios y del nombre de Su Hijo, Jesús Mesías (Hechos 8:12). Pablo dice que este evangelio es “el poder de Dios para salvación de todo aquel que cree” (Rom. 1:16).

No se puede negar que Dios usa números como parte de Su revelación. Después de todo, la Escritura comienza con la verdad fundamental de que “¡Yahweh nuestro Dios, es un solo Yahweh!” (Deut. 6:4). Jesús afirmó esto como el mandamiento principal (Marcos 12:29), identificando a Dios como una sola Persona no humana, a quien él llama su Padre. Por lo tanto, el número “uno” tiene la mayor importancia al definir el credo de Jesús.

En Apocalipsis, leemos acerca de los doce apóstoles, las siete lámparas, los 144,000, los 1,260 días, los cuarenta y dos meses, y el reinado milenario del Mesías en Apocalipsis 20. Pero estos números son siervos del texto, no fuerzas espirituales. Significan lo que Dios quiere que signifiquen dentro de su contexto literario, profético y teológico.

El peligro surge cuando las personas pasan de decir: “Dios usó este número con un propósito”, a decir: “Este número posee poder oculto, conocimiento secreto, fuerza ritual o capacidad predictiva”. Eso no es bíblico. Cruza hacia el terreno de la adivinación, la interpretación de presagios y la predicción del futuro, cosas que Yahweh prohíbe explícitamente (Deut. 18:10-12).

Así que la línea puede ser estrecha, pero es clara. El uso bíblico de los números pertenece a la revelación inspirada de Dios acerca de Su evangelio y de Su Hijo humano, procreado de manera única.

La numerología, en el sentido ocultista o místico, trata los números como códigos ocultos o poderes mediante los cuales las personas buscan conocimiento secreto aparte de la palabra de Dios.

Dios puede usar, y de hecho usa, números de manera significativa en la Escritura, pero los números en sí mismos no tienen poder espiritual. Cuando la Escritura usa números, debemos interpretarlos cuidadosamente en su contexto, no usarlos para predecir eventos, inventar doctrinas o buscar poder oculto.

La pregunta correcta siempre es esta: ¿Este uso de los números me conduce a la obediencia de la fe en el único Dios y Su Mesías, o me atrae hacia el “conocimiento secreto” y las prácticas prohibidas?

Numerology: The Study of Numbers in Scripture

Numbers in Scripture can be meaningful, but they do not possess magical or spiritual power in themselves. Power belongs to God, and specifically to His gospel concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of His Son, Jesus Messiah (Acts 8:12). Paul says that this gospel is “God’s power resulting in salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).

There is no denying that God uses numbers as part of His revelation. After all, Scripture begins with the foundational truth that “Yahweh our God, is one Yahweh!” (Deut. 6:4). Jesus affirmed this as "the first and greatest of all the commandments" (Mark 12:29), identifying God as one single, non-human Person, whom he calls his Father. Thus, the number “one” holds the greatest significance in defining the creed of Jesus.

In Revelation, we read about twelve apostles, seven lamps, the 144,000, the 1,260 days, the forty-two months, and the thousand-year reign of Messiah in Revelation 20. But these numbers are servants of the text, not spiritual forces. They mean what God intends them to mean in their literary, prophetic, and theological context.

The danger comes when people move from saying, “God used this number for a purpose,” to saying, “This number carries hidden power, secret knowledge, ritual force, or predictive ability.” That is not biblical. It crosses into the territory of divination, omen-reading, and fortune-telling, which Yahweh explicitly forbids (Deut. 18:10-12).

So, the line may be narrow, but it is clear. The biblical use of numbers belongs to God’s inspired revelation about His gospel and His uniquely procreated human Son.

Numerology, in the occult or mystical sense, treats numbers as hidden codes or powers by which people seek secret knowledge apart from God’s word.

God can and does use numbers meaningfully in Scripture, but numbers themselves have no spiritual power. When Scripture uses numbers, we should interpret them carefully in context, not use them to predict events, invent doctrines, or search for hidden power.

The right question is always this: Does this use of numbers lead me to the obedience of faith in the one God and His Messiah, or does it lure me toward “secret knowledge” and prohibited practices?

De la Muerte a la vida del Reino

El Nuevo Testamento define el Reino de Dios de manera abrumadora como futuro, no como un evento ya cumplido o presente ahora. Jesús manda a sus seguidores orar: “Venga Tu Reino” (Mat. 6:10), y la Escritura mira hacia el día en que “el reino del mundo” llegue a ser “el Reino de nuestro Señor y de Su Mesías” (Apoc. 11:15). Sin embargo, Pablo dice que Dios nos ha “trasladado al Reino” (Col. 1:13), y Jesús dice que los creyentes tienen “vida eterna,” es decir, la vida de la era venidera del Reino (Juan 5:24).

Jesús enfatiza la respuesta del creyente: oír su palabra del Evangelio, creer al Padre que lo envió, escapar del juicio y recibir en promesa la vida de la era venidera. Pablo enfatiza la acción de Dios: el Padre ha rescatado a los creyentes de la oscuridad, los coloca bajo la autoridad —el Reino— de Su Hijo amado, porque ha perdonado sus pecados.

La “muerte” y la “oscuridad” pertenecen a la presente era mala; la “vida” y el “Reino” pertenecen a la era venidera. Pablo habla de “la esperanza reservada para ustedes en los cielos” (Col. 1:5), no como una esperanza de ir al cielo, sino como la herencia prometida que será conferida cuando el Mesías regrese. Colosenses 1:13 no significa que el Reino ya haya comenzado mundialmente, sino que los cristianos están ahora en entrenamiento para ese Reino venidero. Al creer el Evangelio del Reino, los cristianos deben vivir ahora como pueblo del Reino mientras esperan su venida prometida.

En Efesios 1:13-14 Pablo explica que en el Mesías, “cuando oyeron la palabra de la verdad —el Evangelio de su salvación— creyeron en él y fueron sellados en él con el espíritu santo de la promesa, que es un anticipo de nuestra herencia, hasta que adquiramos posesión de esa herencia, para alabanza de Su gloria.” El espíritu es el “anticipo,” no la herencia completa. Los cristianos tienen ahora la vida de la era venidera del Reino como un adelanto, pero todavía esperan la inmortalidad en la parusía del Mesías.

De manera similar, en Juan 5, inmediatamente después de decir que el creyente ha pasado de muerte a vida, Jesús habla de la hora futura cuando “todos los que están en los sepulcros oirán su voz” y saldrán, ya sea a resurrección de vida o a juicio (Juan 5:28-29). Pablo dice lo mismo en Romanos 8:23-25: los creyentes tienen “las primicias del espíritu” mientras todavía esperan la redención del cuerpo.

Hebreos 12:22-24 usa el mismo lenguaje de promesa y perspectiva: los creyentes “han venido” al monte Sion y a la Jerusalén celestial. Hebreos 12:28 luego añade que estamos “recibiendo un Reino inconmovible.” Esto no es teología del Reino Ahora ni amilenialismo. Es la típica esperanza bíblica del Reino: el futuro prometido es tan seguro que se puede hablar de los creyentes como si ya pertenecieran a él.

Así que Juan 5:24 y Colosenses 1:13 enseñan la misma verdad desde perspectivas diferentes. El cristiano ha pasado de muerte a vida y ha sido trasladado de la oscuridad al Reino del Hijo amado de Dios. Sin embargo, el Reino mismo todavía no está aquí pública y mundialmente. Un día futuro, “el reino del mundo” llegará a ser “el Reino de nuestro Señor y de Su Mesías” (Apoc. 11:15). Hasta entonces, los cristianos viven como pueblo del Reino, esperando el día en que “entrarán en el Reino eterno de nuestro señor y salvador Jesús Mesías” (2 Ped. 1:11).

Cuando el Amor Cristiano se Vuelve Demasiado Costoso

La mayoría de los cristianos predican “Dios es amor” como la más alta forma de conducta cristiana, hasta que el amor se vuelve costoso. Es decir, los cristianos suelen detenerse en amar a sus enemigos. Pero Jesús no calificó su mandamiento de amar a los enemigos diciendo: “Amad a vuestros enemigos… a menos que os ataquen a vosotros, a vuestra familia, a vuestro prójimo, o invadan vuestro país”. El mandamiento permanece claramente sin condiciones y está unido a otro mandamiento que refuerza la naturaleza incondicional de las palabras de Jesús:

«Pero yo os digo: Amad a vuestros enemigos y orad por los que os persiguen.» Mateo 5:44

La objeción típica es señalar otros mandamientos, como proteger al inocente o amar a tu prójimo como a ti mismo. El argumento es que a veces el cristiano está obligado, si no es que mandado, a detener el mal, incluso hasta el punto de matar al enemigo. Pero una vez más, el mandamiento incondicional de Jesús de “amar a vuestros enemigos” lo prohíbe rotundamente.
¿Cómo podemos decir que hemos amado a nuestro enemigo si estamos dispuestos a matarlo, o peor aún, si ya lo hemos matado? 
En otras palabras, si tu enemigo yace a tus pies con sangre brotando de su cabeza, ¿puedes honestamente decirle a Jesús que amaste a tu enemigo?
Jesús va más lejos al prohibir la venganza personal, porque eso sería pagar mal por mal:

«No os venguéis vosotros mismos, amados míos, sino dad lugar a la ira de Dios, porque escrito está: “Mía es la venganza; yo pagaré”, dice el Señor. Antes bien, “si tu enemigo tiene hambre, dale de comer; si tiene sed, dale de beber. Pues al hacer esto, ascuas de fuego amontonarás sobre su cabeza”. No seas vencido por el mal, sino vence el mal con el bien.» Romanos 12:19-21

Jesús se presentó a sí mismo como el modelo de todo esto. Cuando fue arrestado injustamente, reprendió a Pedro por usar violencia letal:

«Vuelve tu espada a su lugar, porque todos los que tomen espada, a espada perecerán.» Mateo 26:52

Solo mucho después Pedro entendió plenamente este mandamiento del Nuevo Pacto, y nos recuerda a nuestro Maestro:

«Cuando lo insultaban, no respondía con insultos; cuando sufría, no amenazaba, sino que se encomendaba a aquel que juzga con justicia.» 1 Pedro 2:23

Por último, en Lucas 9, cuando Jacobo y Juan preguntaron si debían hacer descender fuego del cielo sobre sus enemigos, como había hecho Elías, Jesús los reprendió. El momento era equivocado. El método era equivocado. De hecho, ese mismo espíritu del Antiguo Pacto era equivocado. Como algunos manuscritos posteriores explican que Jesús dijo a sus apóstoles:

«Vosotros no sabéis de qué espíritu sois, porque el Hijo del Hombre no ha venido a destruir vidas de hombres, sino a salvarlas.» Lucas 9:55-56

Así que pregúntate a ti mismo: ¿Estás siguiendo el nuevo espíritu que practicó y predicó Aquel a quien llamas Señor y Maestro —el Mesías que nos enseñó a amar incondicionalmente a nuestros enemigos, a rechazar la venganza personal, a vencer el mal con el bien y a encomendarse a Dios? ¿O todavía estás apelando al espíritu del antiguo pacto que a veces permitía que el pueblo de Dios cometiera lo que hoy solo podríamos ver como genocidio (Deuteronomio 7 y 20)?
Hebreos 11 nos recuerda que “cuando Abraham (el padre de los creyentes) fue probado, tuvo fe y estuvo dispuesto a sacrificar a Isaac, porque estaba seguro de que Dios podía resucitar a los muertos” (Hebreos 11:17, 19).
El seguidor del Mesías debe vivir con esa misma fe. Somos llamados a “la obediencia de la fe” (Romanos 1:5; 16:26) y a confiar en el Dios único que resucita a los muertos.

Muhammad and the Arian Monk

Exert from John of Damascus and Islam: Christian Heresiology and the Intellectual Background to Earliest Christian-Muslim Relations by Peter Schadler, 2017

The Arian Monk

One point of clear convergence between the two theologians comes with the assertion that Muhammad studied under an Arian monk for his education in matters relating to theology. As discussed above, the idea that Muhammad had learned from a monk had a wide currency in the Middle East in the eighth and ninth centuries, both among Christians and Muslims.[1] In Christian sources, such as those of our authors, the monk is either made out to be a heretic, sometimes representing one of the competing Christian traditions in the Levant, or he is seen as an orthodox monk who taught Muhammad the truth, and whom Muhammad later ignored or misunderstood. In Muslim sources the monk is most often used to support the claim that Muhammad was a prophet, and his religious affiliation is not expanded on; its importance is not as relevant for Muslims unconcerned with, and often unaware of, intra-Christian disputation.[2] What makes the monk a unique connection between John and Theodore, however, is his status as an Arian, something claimed by virtually no other contemporary sources, Christian or Muslim.

In the course of John of Damascus' and Theodore Abu Qurrah's works on Islam, they report that Muhammad learned about Christianity from an Arian, whom John describes as a monk.[3] Theodore is more explicit in characterizing the Arian's relationship to Muhammad, but does not actually identify the person as a monk, saying only that Muhammad was the “disciple of an Arian”.[4] Given both Theodore's relationship to John, and the ubiquity of the view Muhammad had a monk for a teacher, there is no reason to doubt Theodore has a monk in mind when referring to Muhammad's teacher, and as we shall see in a moment, no reason either to doubt that Theodore received this tradition via John.

Neither of the two theologians assigns a name to this person in their other works, but given the scarcity with which later theologians in the Christian tradition identified the monk as an “Arian”, it is clear that we are dealing with one of the direct influences John of Damascus had on his spiritual disciple Theodore. Theologians who followed them, and indeed contemporary with Theodore, characterized the monk as proceeding either from the Jacobite, Nestorian, or other tradition.[5] This was the case whether or not the Christian portrayals of the monk depicted him as representative of their own orthodox tradition, or of a heretical tradition. In either case, apart from only one or two later Armenian traditions, apparently no other theologian, Arabic, Syriac, or Greek, made the sole source of Muhammad's knowledge about Christianity a monk of the ‘Arian' tradition.[6] This would become the case even with John of Damascus' text, as it was later circulated in one of the more widespread recensions. Ms Paris gr. 1320 (11th century) gives Jews, Christians, Arians, and Nestorians as influential over the Prophet.[7] The tradition preserved in this manuscript would become more popular in Byzantium than that showing an Arian influence alone, suggesting perhaps incredulity among later scribes that Muhammad's education could have been due to only Arian influence and their desire to attribute further heretical influences to him.

Whatever the reason so few other sources give an Arian as the sole teacher of Muhammad, we should regard the fact that both John of Damascus and Theodore Abu Qurrah refer to an Arian teacher as evidence that Theodore received this idea from John. Further, as I have argued above, whether or not the claim is justified, the two may well have had good reason to have believed the characterization literally.[8] At the same time, the evidence being as weak as it is does not allow us to argue positively for their belief as opposed to the possibility of their use of an Arian as a rhetorical device. For the case here, however, the mention of an Arian by both John and Theodore serves as a valuable link between the two, and for their theological views of Islam.

---

[1] See chapter 4 on Islamic and Para-Islamic Traditions for examples.

[2] For examples of how the monk was portrayed as an orthodox monk, whether proceeding from the non-Chalcedonian (Jacobite), Church of the East (Nestorian), or Chalcedonian (Melkite) tradition, see Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Bahīrā, pp. 123–34.

[3] John refers to the monk as “supposedly Arian” (ópolws åpslav@).

[4] Theodore is more explicit, saying that the false prophet of the Saracens was “the disciple of an Arian” ('Apelavoll dxpoatys). Glei and Khoury (eds.), Schriften Zum Islam, p. 118; Lamoreaux (trans.), Theodore Abu Qurrah, p. 225.

[5] For a good summary of the Byzantine polemical accounts of the monk and his relationship to Muhammad, see Khoury, Polemique Byzantine, pp. 76–87. The Medieval western sources seem most often to attribute Muhammad's education to Nestorianism and/ or Sabellianism, although Arianism and other heresies also sometimes feature. See N. Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (rev. edn., Oneworld, 1993), pp. 209–13.

[6] For the Armenian traditions, not all of which portray Bahīrā as an Arian, see Thomson, ‘Armenian Variations on the Bahira Legend. There were to be reports from later Byzantines which attributed multiple influential ideologies on Muhammad, some of which included Arianism, but none exclusively so, and most often these ideas were not identified with Arianism, as much as with Nestorianism and Judaism. For those, see Khoury, Polemique Byzantine, pp. 76–87.

[7] See Kotter, Die Schriften vol. iv, p. 6o. Interestingly, this would also appear to be the case in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, where a cursory look at the main secondary references all seem to be consistent with what I have said about Byzantium; namely that while ‘Arianism' is sometimes described as one of several contributing factors in influencing Muhammad, the idea that the Prophet was ever the disciple of an Arian, or that he learned from an Arian monk seem to be absent, although as I have said, a Nestorian monk is sometimes adduced. See for example, Daniel, Islam and the West, pp. 209–13, Tolan, Saracens, pp. 52-53.

[8] See Chapter 4 above on Islamic and para-Islamic Traditions.