Dispensationalists

ituttut, Acts is a Book of transition.

These men were Jews (or proselytes) still under the Law. They were saved by faith in the message of the Apostles but were still under the Law until Acts 15 even though the Spirit had fallen upon them.

The full definition and scope of the Gospel had not yet been defined in the Scriptures.

In particular that the Jew and the Gentile would be co-heirs together in the promise to Abraham by faith and not under the Law but led of the Spirit.

We get in trouble when we use our hindsight from the completed Scripture looking back to the earliest days of the formation of the Church.

Their Baptism was an act of obedience publicly demonstrating their faith in Christ just as it is today.

HankD

 

quote:

Originally posted by ituttut:

 

Now we have two ways of Salvation,

1. saved only by the Grace of through faith

2. repenting and being water baptized for the remission of sins

Weird! Heretical! take your pick!

Sorry OldReg. That doesn’t work with me. If you will just slow down, and quit trying to post as many posts as you can, and read and understand some of what others are trying to show you. I do however know that not too many here believe the pure gospel of Paul that Christ Jesus revealed only to him. One dispensational gospel of the Jew was to pass away, and one dispensational gospel of the Gentile was to go forward.

Please answer. In Acts 2:37-38 how does Peter tell Israel to receive the Holy Ghost? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ only, or add to that “they had to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”. Do you take it here to mean “water baptism”, if so then they had to do it, if you believe what John the Baptist said, Jesus Christ said, and the gospel that He gave to Peter to preach. Are these three, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and Peter lying to you?

Please answer. In Acts 16:30-21, ”And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Are these two, Paul and Silas lying to you?


In the Name of God what does John 3:16 mean; what does Genesis 15:6 mean? You are spewing hyper-dispensationalism of the worst sort. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]If you will only listen just for one moment, and do something for me. Read what scripture says. What was the first “great commission” that Jesus gave to His Apostles? Notice this is while He is on this earth, and God had not yet begun reconciling the world unto Himself by His Grace. Matthew 10:5-7, “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Let me ask you a question. Can you find one reference where Jesus ever preached to a Gentile while on this earth? Not heal, for that is not preaching and is not salvation in Christ Jesus. He did not preach to one, and neither did any of His earthly Apostles, until Christ sent Peter to Cornelius, and this was after Christ from heaven had talked to Paul on Damascus Road, and times after that.

Nobody had any idea what this verse meant, that John quoted Jesus as saying. How could they? In verse 12 He told His people they could not understand earthly things, so how could they understand heavenly things. And He proves this as He immediately tells them such things as John 3:16, but they cannot understand it. This is the reason for Paul for Christ gave Paul the Wisdom when He gave Paul the Secret. Jesus had the Wisdom, but He could not tell Israel at that time. Also as He was not speaking to the Gentile while on earth, means the message was hidden, and even from Satan.

And you now come along, with others that do not take Paul at his word, and say [/b]"In the Name of God what does John 3:16 mean.[/b]You now know. I hope you are glad that you asked. That is the only way that you are going to understand the Holy Spirits interpretation.

It is very easy for us to now know what this verse means. Everyone knew first the meaning of obscure, and hidden messages because of Paul’s gospel, for Christ from heaven told Him to explain all of what He (Christ) had said on earth. He also told Paul things no one had ever heard of before. If you understand Paul it is possible to understand Jesus’ earthly ministry, and hints given in the Old Testament and from the beginning, and then to understand Paul’s gospel to only we in this dispensation.

Without the Gospel of Paul what you would have is Jesus contradicting Himself. Don’t you believe Jesus when He says He did not come for me a heathen dog? Don’t you believe His first “great commission” of don’t have any association with the uncircumcised?

Take away the gospel of Paul, and then tell me how your could have believed John 3:16, when the whole of all the Bible, with the exception of Paul says Jesus must have been speaking with “forked tongue”.

Think about this. Aren’t you saying before Christ shed His blood that He offered heaven to the whole World, and they would immediately be with Him in heaven? How could anyone believe this heavenly gospel while He was down here, and He had not finished His work, defeating Satan, then taking His seat beside His Father in Heaven. Salvation was conditional until His arising.

Now be real honest. Leave Paul completely out of the picture. …..Take the rest of your life without the Gospel of Paul, and you will never find one verse in the Bible that would substantiate the understanding of John 3:16. This verse tells us that the saving of the Gentile was in Gods plan all along, and He never told anybody about this, before Saul/Paul, as no one would have believed it because Jesus’ first “great commission” did not include the whole world.

If Peter, John and the rest had any idea of what this meant, then why did they not preach the gospel of salvation to all by the Grace of God Through Faith? It was not known to them until God revealed the secret in the mysteries of God to Paul. It appears Satan was Gods greatest and brightest creation. He had no idea of what Jesus was talking about.

Genesis 15:6? Good pick. What we must understand from the start is that it is by the Grace of God that any are saved. But we must depend on Him and believe Him as we live to tell how we are, and what we must do to be saved.

Let’s go back a little further to Noah for understanding. Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord out of the Millions or Billions then on earth. We have to notice that Noah had to perform a work to be saved, for that is what God required of Noah. Noah believed God and did the Work, and God fulfilled His promise.

OK, so on to Abram. Did Abram have to do anything first. Abram had to do a work first, for if He had not, the promise of God would not become effective. He had to “move out”. You being in the Navy can understand if your ship didn’t move out of the harbor, you went nowhere. We have to obey. Abram had to hightail it out from among the idol worshippers.

Could it be you that has no understanding of His Word. All are not saved just alike from the Beginning, that is, if we believe the Word of God. Let me know when you finish reading the entire Bible again, where you find all are saved the same.

Is Noah saved immediately into the Body of Christ? Is Abram/Abraham saved immediately into the Body of Christ; David? These had to die to obtain salvation. We have this assurance while we live in these bodies. In this period of the Grace of God, are we not the only ones from the beginning told that we are saved “unconditionally”?

Take a good look. We in this dispensation are the only one’s from the beginning that do not have to do a work. This was unheard of?

Please listen up. The reason is because Jesus Christ did every bit of the work for us. Do you believe He offers you a free gift. You being a Christian must have taken it, because this is the only way that He will take us. We must believe what He tells us, and not what He told Noah, Moses, the prophets, or anybody before He died on the Cross, and began reconciling the world unto himself.

Funny, but in a previous post you spouted off about how we dispensationalists throw hate, and slurs in all directions. Can’t you now see it is you that is the guilty party of in the “name calling game”.

God loves you any way, but is probably scratching his head over you’re parting shots. By the way they either missed, or was deflected by the armor I am wearing. It’s comfortable and fits like a glove. It comes free with His Word. Try it out.

 

Hello HankD. Was heading to bed when I finished to OldReg, but saw yours. Probably given a little more detail, as will only get 4 hours sleep tonight with this quick answer. Thanks for the input.

 

I assume you are referring to the following passages:

Colossians 2
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Corinthians 1
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Priorities. Paul being a former pharisee probably had a fixation on "baptism" or "mikvah". The ordinance of Christian baptism has its roots in the jewish ritual of mikvah. Jewish folks and their possessions were immersed then as now (more then than now) in water for several reasons.

Christian water baptism is important because it is 1) the outward and public declaration of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the believers identity with it. 2) a graphic illustration of the cleansing nature of the rebirth.

I believe 1 Corinthians 1:17 speaks of Paul's priorities being re-arranged by the Lord.

Jesus did not baptise His followers in water either but left that to His disciples

John 4
1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Apparently in a similar manner this was His will for Paul to make preaching the Gospel of Christ his highest priority and leave the baptising in water to others so that he could move on to other pastures.

HankD

 

HankD,


You neglect some very, very important things.

1) Although you are “technically” correct in this statement, you are in error on the ”purpose” of John’s baptizing. Scripture very clearly states that John's baptism was a baptism of "repentance." John came before Jesus "as the prophet Elijah." John’s purpose was “a call” to the Israelites to repent "for the Kingdom of Heaven" was at hand and in the midst of them. The role of the “prophet” was to proclaim a future event. The Cross had not happened yet. Therefore, they “could not” have been baptized “into” Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus WAS the baptism. It is Jesus that we are baptized INTO for the "forgiveness of sins" and that could not have happened until the New Covenant was instituted by his blood sacrifice.

This is serious error. It is adding to scripture when there is absolutely no basis for that humanistic statement whatsoever and to the complete neglect of the context! The “arguing” or ”contentions” among the Corinthian church was that they were trying to claim that they were baptized into Paul – not Christ. (v. 13) Verses 14 and 15 says why. It was because superficial observers might imagine that he baptized them into his own name - to be his followers, though he baptized them into the name of Christ only.

1Co 1:11 For it has been declared to me,... that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 But I say this, that every one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
1Co 1:15 lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.

1Co 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel;…”

There is no indication also that Christ “re-arranged Paul’s priorities” so that he could move on to other pastures whatsoever. Paul knew precisely what his priorities were and what he was sent to do right from day 1. To say that Paul was erring and that Christ had to set him straight is to do injustice to Paul and to scripture.

You really should spend more time reading the scripture so that you will have a better understanding of the context of God's Word.

 

I am "actually" correct.

How in the world can I be in error on the purpose of John's baptism since I didn't give any definition or "purpose" of John's baptism?

Read Acts chapter 9. Paul's whole life was rearranged by Jesus Christ from a pharisee to an apostle.

In the rest of your post you give the context surrounding Paul's statement but that context is not the reason why Christ did not call Paul to baptise "lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name." but "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel". It's a simple statement of fact without a reason.

"lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name." is Paul's reason not Christ's.

True, I gave a probable reason but a probable reason cannot be construed into a "serious error" IMO.

I still contend for "priorities" in 1 Corinthians 1:17 in spite of your accusation of "serious error".

HankD

 

I assume you are referring to the following passages:

Colossians 2
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Corinthians 1
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Yes, these are some of the verses. One verse, sometimes a few verses can make the case that is undeniable. But other scripture is sometimes needed on subjects such as this to solidify, making sure there are no contradictions.

Priorities. Paul being a former pharisee probably had a fixation on "baptism" or "mikvah". The ordinance of Christian baptism has its roots in the jewish ritual of mikvah. Jewish folks and their possessions were immersed then as now (more then than now) in water for several reasons.

Yes, agree Paul was well versed in washings, but they became unimportant to him. Of course, "mikvah" does not apply to me. Please note that all ordinances under the law have been nailed to the Cross for we in this dispensation. The ordinances of the law were done away with, so why should we pry that ordinance loose that God meant to remain dead, in this dispensation?

This ordinance of the Pentecostal church was demanded by Jesus Christ, and his chief spokesman Peter, for the preview of the kingdom that was to come, and showed the sacrifices and ordinances would continue in the kingdom. The kingdom did not make it as Israel refused Messiah, and His kingdom. Jesus warned this could happen in a parable, and they lost it with the stoning of Stephen, a year after Pentecost. The law of the ordinances nailed to the Cross looks to have become effective beginning with the “incident” of Peter and the first Gentile saved just by believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This of course could not happen until Damascus Road, which preceded the “incident”.

We are in Christ Jesus in His kingdom of heaven, only because Israel refused Messiah, and we are placed there differently than are His people. Also we are not in the kingdom of the 12 earthly Apostles that Jesus gave to them.

Agree Paul was very much a follower of the law, before becoming the first Christian. He obeyed the “schoolmaster” as well as any other. History does not adequately give Paul credit for “scattering” the “kingdom church” from Jerusalem after the stoning of Steven. Paul was decimating when necessary, and rounding up and jailing every Israelite follower that “repented and received water baptism for the remission of sins”. This was sacrilege, and the High Priests and all of the house of Israel gave him authority to do these things.

This is the reason Saul was on his way to Damascus with authoritative documents in his hands to bring these “law breakers” to justice. He could not find the 12 Apostles (They never got out of Jerusalem for some time, after the stoning of Stephen, and not before either). Paul had cleaned house so to speak of the sacred Temple in the Holy City of Jerusalem, and other parts of Judah and Israel. He wanted more scalps of these enemies of His God. Saul may have been the first “Terminator”.

This guy was a Holy Terror to the Pentecostal church of Israel. Paul knew his scriptures pertaining to the law and ordinances probably better than any Jew. Was Paul a Priest? How about any of the twelve Apostles? I don’t believe there was one. Paul wasn’t about to be baptized as he was not of the priestly line, and he was determined that no Israelite not qualified as such would be either. He must have these turncoat lawbreakers of Moses’ law brought to justice in the house of Israel. I believe what Paul saw and others of Israel was their covenant with God. They made covenant that they would keep Gods Law and what it contained. Paul knew Moses’ Law. Paul saw the breaking of the law, as none were from the line necessary to be “washed”, or “baptized” to enter into the Priesthood. Of course he, and they missed the whole point.

Christian water baptism is important because it is 1) the outward and public declaration of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the believers identity with it. 2) a graphic illustration of the cleansing nature of the rebirth.

Just as some today in Christian churches believe they must be baptized, so did some back then. Nothing has changed. There were two gospels, just as there is today.

Do Baptist’s believe the same as the Catholics’, or some other churches? Some still believe the belief of the Judaizers’, the church that James became the head of for the Jew. Back then it was circumcision, which of course would force them into baptism, sacrifices, and the rest. This is the gospel that Paul referenced as another gospel, yet is not another. All that was to have ended, but the baptism for the remission of sins remain, and a head of the church remained, bringing with it idol worship of a man, and then of a woman, then,,,and then,,,,,and then..



I believe it is better said that they of Pentecostal water baptism is not only important, but also necessary for salvation. We Christians are saved and Jesus Christ knows our name, and we know His as that is how we are saved.

Outside of mans thinking is His Word. Please show scripture as proof of this “outward” sign to the world is preached for we today. Is there scripture that baptism is to identify us with Him. Water baptism only identifies us in our denominations, or a specific church. The one’s there on the day of our baptism are the only ones that ever witness this joining of that one local church. It doesn’t do any good to tell others outside our church, or denomination that we have been baptized. What purpose does it serve? Most of the world does not believe in Jesus Christ, so I find no reason they would believe me, or any Christian. Who cares? Jesus Christ? He has His own baptism for us. We do this for our own purposes, to identify and join with others that believe close to what we believe.

So again we have two ways of doing things. One I call the intellectual and superstitious. The other is “Unions”.

We know which this one is -- Fraternities and Sororities. They usually have a rite, or rites to perform to gain entrance in the “brotherhood”, or “sisterhood”. These are strong and lasting bindings for those involved. However to gain entrance into for bonding, they must first perform some sort of ritual, then they enter. This is the acceptable way, if I am not mistaken that the Catholic is saved, or at least part of their salvation. They are in the Catholic church now, so they are saved, after a work performed.

Not being able to come up with any better at the moment, I chose “Union”. If we go to work under a union contract, we, if qualified in the view of the union and the employer, we are allowed to go to work, and believe most Unions collect at the end of the month. This to me then puts us in contention with that other gospel of works, as we are first accepted and then, in the Baptist church, we do something to join, which could be considered being born to good works I suppose, so we do as they ask to stay in their ranks and become baptized in this church that has no saving power.

I have made this simply so that I can understand it.

So to me this baptism after the fact has nothing to do with identifying me with Christ; just allowing me to join in fellowship with others. If I am saved and never join a church, I have been identified by and with Christ Jesus, and that is all anyone needs. If it takes a church, or a service of or in a church to identify me with Christ, I am in the wrong church. I have joined a Fraternity.





I believe 1 Corinthians 1:17 speaks of Paul's priorities being re-arranged by the Lord.

Jesus did not baptise His followers in water either but left that to His disciples

John 4
1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Apparently in a similar manner this was His will for Paul to make preaching the Gospel of Christ his highest priority and leave the baptising in water to others so that he could move on to other pastures.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE][/QB]We are to understand why Jesus did not, and could not water baptize anyone, either the circumcised, or the uncircumcised. John the Baptist plainly tells us the reason. This perhaps will help you to see why baptism is something of our own making in Christianity. We are not different than the Jew in making up things for us to do. But that is what humans do, as we think we must do something. If not before salvation, then afterwards, that becomes a dead work and is for our own satisfaction.

Matthew 3:11. This should knock the “socks off” at first reading. It doesn’t so we then just read it and use it in some sort of reference to a question, over, and over again. How many times have you ever seen it used in your church, in any church, in print, radio, TV, Internet, or what ever, in the manner shown below, and made simple to understand:

”11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Jesus will only baptize with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Not with water down here. This is the reason as He (Christ) taught Paul many of the mysteries of God over a period of time, and had Paul quit water baptizing. It was no longer necessary, especially of a Gentile. Christ has taken over what John the Baptist said He would do in this dispensation. Jesus did not correct John, showing it is Christ Jesus that baptizes us, being sealed by the Holy Spirit.

We know the earthly Apostles quit this practice of “repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins”? You say how do we know this, and why did they stop this procedure.

First we know by Paul. Second, people do not quite trust Paul, as the reply is always – “I believe what Jesus Christ said on earth, and Paul seems not to agree with Him on occasion. But people actually do not really understand what was said while Jesus walked this earth, or what applies on earth, and what applies to Christ Jesus in heaven, and do not quite understand Paul. Does not the above of John the Baptist prove this. This water baptism was a temporary holding, just as was blood sacrifices.

For further proof, read the gospel of John from cover to cover, and also his three Epistles. We also have to understand John had talked to Paul, and read all of his Epistles, as had Peter. John wrote all of his books (Revelation is in prophecy) after the death of Paul, and after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Outside of John the Baptist and Jesus, can you find where John makes reference to “water baptism”? How about Repentance? He will not even mention the word. These are no longer necessary as they were while the Temple stood, and sacrifices, and priest preformed their duties. That today is all dead.

John assumes that we should know that repentance is synonymous with believing, and assumes we will read the Epistles of Paul to understand our baptism is now in heaven, so John does not address these subjects. He also assumes we will believe John the Baptist when he says Jesus will not baptize down here with water.

We have no priest now days that must be baptized or have any washings. Not in this dispensation. Even if they did, no Gentile could ever become a priest.


I am in Christ Jesus now in heaven in Spirit and Soul with other Christians. I have been reborn, and my New glorified body will be up there also at the rapture.


I’m not sure where I am in His Body, but I’m waving. Can you see me? If so wave back. If not Christ may have placed you in another part of His Body. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Dear Bro. ituttut,

I guess I wasn't clear about John's Baptism since you and covenant have both brought it up and I'm sorry for that.

I am fully aware of the fact that there is a difference between John's baptism and the baptism practised by the church from day 1.

You also said

This was part of my reasoning concerning the ritual washings/dippings of the Law (mikvah) and how these rituals were the root of the "baptisms" (Hebrew 6:2) of Jesus day, Christian baptism remaining however because of the giving of the Great Commission to baptise in the name of the Trinity.

Obviously, I know that there is no saving power in water baptism and there never has been or ever will IMO.

Believe what you will, to me my water baptism was a public witness to the world that I had been saved by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Where does he or any other apostle use the word "quit" or indicate that he left off baptising completely?

After reading your post, I would have to assume then that you look upon the other ordinance of the church, "the Lord's supper" as "dead" because it has it's root of origination in the Hebrew Passover which is "dead" because the Temple in Jerusalem, the only place where it can be performed, is gone.

The "rite" of water baptism called an "ordinance" by Baptists as well as the Lord's Supper also has as it's witness the unbroken tradition of the Church which must be of some value since the authoritative books all of us here at the BB call the NT of the Bible (the canon of Scripture) were assigned after a long struggle of a couple of hundred years of debate by early church leadership.

In fact some non-canonical books were openly read and used in some local churches before the establishment of the canon of the NT.

Which leads me to ask this question whch has been asked by others here at the BB: How do you know that the Apocrypha (for instance) is not canonical apart from tradition?

A minority tradition at that considering the size of the Church of Rome.

RE: The Gospel of John
True John does not mention several items in the Gospel which bears his name (that also via "tradition")including "the church".

Water baptism : Because of the tradition of the apostles who practised and allowed it including Paul although it was not his first priority.

I understand the difference between the Old and New Covenant priesthood.

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ...
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

I did not say that Christian water baptism was necessary to become a NT priest.

One last thing

ituttut, I am fine with what I consider an oblique insult by innunedo as long as you can apply it yourself.

Do you assemble together with others of like belief at your local church on Sunday?

Why and is this a "dead work" on your part?


HankD

[ March 17, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Brother in Christ, HankD. Finally got my Income Tax off, and out of the way. May go partying, as will get some back thanks to our good friend President Bush.

This was part of my reasoning concerning the ritual washings/dippings of the Law (mikvah) and how these rituals were the root of the "baptisms" (Hebrew 6:2) of Jesus day, Christian baptism remaining however because of the giving of the Great Commission to baptise in the name of the Trinity.

Agree, as Jesus walked the earth, all references are to Israel only, and the uncircumcised were ignored.

Just about every church known “water baptizes”. However we know, along with some other churches that this “hands on” baptism has nothing to do with our salvation and is a ritual we perform in our denominations.

Some adhere to being baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Some do not?

Please note that the “great commission” includes Mark 16, and Luke 24. For this reason, I do not believe as do most Baptists, for Mark is also included in Jesus Christ’s “great commission” to His earthly Apostles, to the Jew first, and also the Gentile. The Apostle’s and the Jew were to be the ones to take the kingdom gospel to the uncircumcised.

I find troublesome also that Peter and the other Apostles in preaching the “great commission” used a different approach on the uncircumcised. Peter did not apply “in the name of the Trinity”. A question you can perhaps help me out on. Cornelius and the other Gentiles who received the Holy Ghost by just believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ were “water baptized”, by the Jews, in the name of the Lord?

Obviously, I know that there is no saving power in water baptism and there never has been or ever will IMO.

Fully agree with His Word.

Believe what you will, to me my water baptism was a public witness to the world that I had been saved by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We saved believe as we believe.

My public witness is His Word speaking of salvation beginning with His spilled blood, through faith in His blood that is in heaven where I was baptized. I submitted to water baptism of the Baptist church so as to be able to worship, and take communion with my Dad, Mother, Sister and Brothers, and be in fellowship with others in that church. A Christian joins the Baptist church in the manner they demand, otherwise one remains a wondering visitor, unable to take part in what a Christian wants to participate in, but is denied. Isn’t this what your church adheres to?. If it does it is a Baptist church.

Where does he or any other apostle use the word "quit" or indicate that he left off baptising completely?

He evidently quit for people were becoming confused, and God wanted Paul to begin concentrating more on the Gentile, for they would believe the “grace commission”.

Paul is the only Apostle Appointed by Jesus Christ that went to the uncircumcised, after Christ sent Peter to Cornelius, until the fall of the Temple. James, Peter, John and those of the Jerusalem Jewish church shook hands with Paul, and Barnabas, all agreeing to whom they would go. James and the Apostles chosen by Jesus agreed they would go only to their people, just like Jesus Christ had taught them. Paul and Barnabas agreed to go to the Gentiles, but know even Barnabas had difficulty, as did Peter, when the going got rough.

We must keep in mind all Israel kept their distance from the heathen, so this New Commission from Christ had to be absorbed over time. People today have the same difficulty, but I cannot see how a Gentile would wish to believe as the Jew. Today, all are considered heathen. God has not forgotten His people, but today He is saving them as He saves us (Peter agrees), and that is without ordinance under, or associated with Laws given to the Nation of Israel.

But Christ had told Paul he had the authority to preach “both gospels”. Paul preached to both groups, but to not confuse the Gentiles, as well as the Jew, He had to stop water baptizing. Christ informed Paul He was to preach the risen Christ, and this risen Christ that is in heaven seated beside His Father, said He will do the One Spiritual baptism without hands, and the Holy Spirit will seal us in.

Luke gives reference to Paul’s baptizing in water, but Paul does not reference this act in his Epistles. We have only one reference, and that is to those of whom water baptism had been preached. And this reference is in the book to the race of the Hebrew of the nation Israel in the Jewish religion.

After reading your post, I would have to assume then that you look upon the other ordinance of the church, "the Lord's supper" as "dead" because it has it's root of origination in the Hebrew Passover which is "dead" because the Temple in Jerusalem, the only place where it can be performed, is gone.

Not at all. Paul tells us Christ Himself told him (Paul) we Christians should also do this. We are going to be in Christ’s kingdom too. If we make it an ordinance, then we make it an ordinance. But Christ Jesus made it a “remembrance”, a “memorial” to Him. One must keep and do ordinances, and if one believes we must keep ordinances, isn’t this something like the Jew had to do, who were under the law?

This is off subject here, but this is the reason I don’t believe Christian’s should be observing our “Holy Days” of Christ-mass”, and Easter. These are observances from the mind of man, and Christ had a purpose in asking us to “remember Him” in only One-Way. We become diverted from our Spiritual way of how we are saved, and bring him back down to earth, for we have decided that is the way we want to honor and remember Him.

It is He in heaven we are to worship and remember Him as He requests. We are to commune with Him, whether we are in church or not, and He tells us how to do it. As oft as we will. Of course we do this in church, and we should make sure that it is He that we are communing with as we eat the bread and drink the wine with Him. This is the time to really praise and thank Him for letting us eat the bread, and drink the wine at His Table and remember what He did for us. He of course cannot participate now with us as we drink our wine, but shortly He will join us as He makes that “first batch” that will be so much better than we drink. And we will get to meet the earthly Apostles there also, as He will have them come over from their kingdom to join Him at His Table. What a reunion that will be for Jesus and His personal friends in trails and tribulation.

The "rite" of water baptism called an "ordinance" by Baptists as well as the Lord's Supper also has as it's witness the unbroken tradition of the Church which must be of some value since the authoritative books all of us here at the BB call the NT of the Bible (the canon of Scripture) were assigned after a long struggle of a couple of hundred years of debate by early church leadership.

See above, noting that I believe His Word, as He shows me. If authoritative books do not agree with His Word, then I always choose His Word.

In fact some non-canonical books were openly read and used in some local churches before the establishment of the canon of the NT.

I’ll not deny that.

Which leads me to ask this question whch has been asked by others here at the BB: How do you know that the Apocrypha (for instance) is not canonical apart from tradition?

Thus far, He hasn’t sent be to them for understanding. For some years, I read just about anything, searching. I finally asked Him about this matter, as I knew I didn’t understand many things. It was His will to narrow my study to His Word, the Baptist belief, and two or three others that believe as do the Baptists, but dig a little deeper into the gospel of Christ Jesus from heaven, as revealed to Paul.

A minority tradition at that considering the size of the Church of Rome.

Christ would move me over there immediately if that is where He wanted me. I don’t just pick-up and go without Him.

RE: The Gospel of John
True John does not mention several items in the Gospel which bears his name (that also via "tradition")including "the church".

I find John references “church” in his writings. But the Holy Spirit didn’t want John spending too much time on that subject. You know what I find in John? He tells us about time, and eternity. He begins two of His books from there, and really gets into it in His last book. His writings tell us of the beginning, and the ending and much more. This one is very close to our Saviors heart.[/qb]

Water baptism : Because of the tradition of the apostles who practised and allowed it including Paul although it was not his first priority.

[/QB]I believe what you have said.

I understand the difference between the Old and New Covenant priesthood.

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ...
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Peter is an Apostle to the Jew. He wrote His books before the destruction of the Temple. One place we can verify this is in I Peter 2:12. James and Peter’s are directed to the Jew, and for the Jew.

I believe “Stones” is Jewish talk in references such as this. I must believe Paul for he says he will not build upon another man’s (especially Peters) foundation. Paul advises he also builds on the foundation of Jesus Christ, but he will not build on the foundation that Peter is laying down. Paul says he is the “master builder” on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

Paul tells me he is my Apostle and as such I’m building on the foundation that Paul has laid. There is more than one building. Ours is still in the process of being built. and so as Paul builds per instructions from blue prints given him by Christ Jesus, so I must follow Paul’s “master plan”. Is not that other building of the 12 Apostle’s related to David. They are related to David on earth, and I am not. That Temple church will have to be rebuilt. But not until after this one we are in is finished. I believe it to be very close to completion, but nobody knows for sure.

I did not say that Christian water baptism was necessary to become a NT priest.

Yes, I know that.

One last thing

ituttut, I am fine with what I consider an oblique insult by innunedo as long as you can apply it yourself.

I believe you will see I included myself. How much more directly could I put it? Didn’t God toss them back in with we heathen? God knows how, and who we are, and we should admit it. I don’t believe you are Jewish. Want to be insulted? Then understand your position while He was on earth. You may well have not existed, for He would have completely ignored you.

I don’t insult you or myself. I’m only saying we need to understand that we are not perfect, and every work we do is not perfect. Some people are touchy about this way of looking at themselves.

Do you assemble together with others of like belief at your local church on Sunday?

Why and is this a "dead work" on your part?</font>[/QUOTE]We are saved sinners, so I am no better than anyone else. So I understand that not everything I do will bring a reward, and many will surely be burned.

I am not like many that believes everything that everybody else believes. No I do not believe everything I hear, see or read in my local church. And I won’t believe everything in any earthly church.

I believe with those of like faith in the church, whether it is Sunday or not. The observance of days to worship Him is not important to me, whether it be days of the week, or “holy days”, for we are in the spirit daily. We believe we are saved by grace through faith, without works. That is all that should be necessary and compelling on us to believe.

Does every Baptist on this Board believe alike? Hardly. There would be no Board if we all believed exactly alike. I don’t believe Christ has a fat “tummy” and is going to cram all of us into one place in Him. No telling how many “facets” there are of Christ. He is molding me to fit where He puts me, and you where He will put you.

Your words leave the impression you think you are saved by “doctrine” of a church, of which from your point of view is a Baptism into life. If so then you believe that your baptism was alive, and has something to do with your salvation. I was not baptized into a “doctrine”, but a church that has a doctrine of accepting Christians, if they will submit to their baptism. It is not John the Baptist’s baptism, nor Jesus Christ’s, nor Peter’s, for that baptism was for the purpose of “repentance and being baptized for the remission of sins”. Baptists can’t believe this baptism for they flatly deny that Baptism Saves.

All my sins are forgiven even if I never got baptized. I don’t believe it that big of a deal, until we decide which church to join. For various reasons I chose a Baptist church, for Baptist don’t believe in “water baptism” salvation.

I am a Christian in a church, and that church happens to be Baptist. I joined for they, or any Baptist church I know of, says our earthly baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. I do not plan on joining the Catholics, Church of Christ or any other church that says it does.

I believe repentance and saving baptism are found in Jesus Christ, and not a church. I accept the Baptist for what they say and preach, and that is salvation by the grace of God through faith without any works necessary for salvation. That means I don't believe the "great commission" is for me, though many wish it to be so. So does the Baptist church teach a living savior to us in our baptism, or a work afterwards that is not of life but of fellowship with other believers, which should be the Christian faith of no required works. I trust you don’t believe otherwise? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12
[/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Hi Bro, ituttut,

I think I’ll only focus on a couple of your inquiries:

I believe it is telling that the Gospel according to Matthew should give the Trinitarian formula as the authoritative words (in the name of...) of the “great commission.”.

Personally, I believe that Luke in the Book of Acts uses the formula “in the name of the Lord”, or “in the name of Jesus Christ” to clearly set it apart from the baptism of John as to human authority (Jesus Christ being both Son of God and Son of man).

KJV Acts 10
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

KJV Acts 13
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

ASV Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

But, If one is going to limit John’s baptism to Judaism then to be consistent so also must we limit the Spirit-fire baptism of Jesus Christ because John the Baptist uses the word “you/ye” plural (speaking directly to Jews) for both baptisms thereby making the Jews the only recipients of this Spirit-fire baptism, excluding the gentiles (to be consistent, although we know that the gentiles were included).

I asked “Where does he or any other apostle use the word "quit" or indicate that he left off baptizing completely?” to which you responded:

Why confused? Again I ask were they confused concerning the ordinance of the Lord’s supper of which you indicate is for the church? Why then the Lord’s baptism?

Actually, indeed many have been confused as to the nature of the Lord’s Supper and call it a “sacrament” a channel of grace, or worse the “sacrifice of the mass” confusing also the ordinance of Christain water baptism, attributing to it the power to remove “original sin” and/or regenerate.

There will always be error until He returns.

I believe that it is an assumption or a speculation on your part that Paul was told to “quit” water baptizing. But we all make these assumptions including myself when and where the Scripture leaves things unsaid or when after a search of the Scriptures a question still remains in our minds.

And in my mind 1 Corinthians:
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

relates to priorities. You would have an iron-clad case had paul used the "quit".
This also applies to the word "priorities" though this seems IMO to be more likely.

So, having my own solutions and speculations, I respect yours, though I don’t see eye to eye with you concerning some of the details.

To me, believer’s baptism is an act of identity and declaration just as is the Lord’s Supper, neither of which should be called “dead works” both of which BTW are post-salvation.

Believer’s baptism: an act of identity with and a pictoral declaration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in association with a local gathering of like-minded Christians.

The Lord’s supper in which we identify with believers of like-mind and “proclaim the Lord's death till He comes”.

To be sure, some of what we do in our local churches may approach qualifying as things of little or no value.

But, I can understand the use of the term “dead works” coming from a personal desire to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ pure from the defilement of legalists.

Please don’t feel compelled to answer. We have both made our points, basically, we both desire the same thing.

KJV Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


HankD

 

I believe it is telling that the Gospel according to Matthew should give the Trinitarian formula as the authoritative words (in the name of...) of the “great commission.”.

But you have no basis for your statement. Scripture is needed. Of course, from you point of view then is that Peter was wrong to baptize in the first place, as He did not follow the “great commandment” of they had to “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”. The Gentile’s didn’t need baptism for this purpose, and they had no church to join. So this tells us that Peter was so shocked and bumfuzzled He didn’t know what to do, or He knew that the baptism of the Gentile was not to be the same wording in baptism required of God’s people, Israel. There were still Jew’s living in that day, but they could change and come as the Gentile. This means there were two gospels preached during the lives of all of the Apostles

Personally, I believe that Luke in the Book of Acts uses the formula “in the name of the Lord”, or “in the name of Jesus Christ” to clearly set it apart from the baptism of John as to human authority (Jesus Christ being both Son of God and Son of man).

Yes. Agree as all is said by man while on the earth, as far as “water baptism for the remission of sins”. Didn’t Jesus preach the same message as John the Baptist? Didn’t Peter preach the “great commission” to the Jew. Can you not admit that Peter did not preach the gospel of the “great commission” to the Gentile, for God would not let Him. God put into Peter’s mouth what He would say, and God stopped Peter in mid-sentence, as the Gentile does not have to come to Him as the Jew, and that was by adhering to the “great commission”. What was Peter to do? He couldn’t use the same wording, so by the Lord Jesus Christ they were baptized, as that is whom they believed could save them, and He did. Are we not saved by believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?

KJV Acts 10
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

KJV Acts 13
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

ASV Matthew 3
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

The Jew refused (we didn’t) God. Therefore they were to be baptized in the name of “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost”. Why? Because they had refused all three. The Jew committed the unpardonable sin. They went whoring after idols – Refused God the Father. They not only refused but had Jesus, their Messiah killed. They then refused the Holy Ghost, of which Jesus told them in a parable could happen, and they did, and He said when they did this, they would be cut-off.

If they were to be saved they then had to be baptized into the names of the FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. This is not required of us. We believe Christ Jesus, and being in Him we can approach God the Father, by the Holy Spirit of God. All we have to do is believe the Words of Christ from heaven. Does Moses speak to you today? Does Jesus from earth? Peter in the year of the Power of the Holy Ghost? How about we try Christ Jesus from through the Epistles of Paul, which are the last words that Christ spoke to man on how to be saved.

But, If one is going to limit John’s baptism to Judaism then to be consistent so also must we limit the Spirit-fire baptism of Jesus Christ because John the Baptist uses the word “you/ye” plural (speaking directly to Jews) for both baptisms thereby making the Jews the only recipients of this Spirit-fire baptism, excluding the gentiles (to be consistent, although we know that the gentiles were included).

Give scripture please for your point of view. Where do you find FIRE[/] baptism for the Gentile? I find it for the nation Israel in Acts 2:1-5, ”And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”

I asked “Where does he or any other apostle use the word "quit" or indicate that he left off baptizing completely?” to which you responded:

Why confused? Again I ask were they confused concerning the ordinance of the Lord’s supper of which you indicate is for the church? Why then the Lord’s baptism?

I believe you misread my post. I do not agree that the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance.

Actually, indeed many have been confused as to the nature of the Lord’s Supper and call it a “sacrament” a channel of grace, or worse the “sacrifice of the mass” confusing also the ordinance of Christain water baptism, attributing to it the power to remove “original sin” and/or regenerate.

There will always be error until He returns.

But His Word is not in error. The Holy Spirit translates it for us.

I believe that it is an assumption or a speculation on your part that Paul was told to “quit” water baptizing. But we all make these assumptions including myself when and where the Scripture leaves things unsaid or when after a search of the Scriptures a question still remains in our minds.

Why do you associate Paul with always assuming. Paul says Christ did not commission Him to baptize, but to preach the gospel of salvation, which comes by believing in the name of the Lord. You still leave the impression that baptism is a must in order to be saved.

And in my mind 1 Corinthians:
KJV 1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

relates to priorities. You would have an iron-clad case had paul used the "quit".
This also applies to the word "priorities" though this seems IMO to be more likely.

I show you by scripture, and you still don’t believe. It is now up to you to prove that He didn’t “quit”.

If you wish to assume Paul went by “priorities”, than you must agree “water baptism” was on the bottom of His list wouldn’t you say. John won’t mention it, and Paul quit it. These two statements are true.

So, having my own solutions and speculations, I respect yours, though I don’t see eye to eye with you concerning some of the details.

As you can see, I have not speculated here. I am just putting forth words the Holy Spirit wrote. I also respect your point of view, but I don’t have to agree, as you do not with me, so we respectfully agree to disagree. Fifty or so years ago, I agreed with your position. But He wants me to recognize His dispensations, and brought me to them.

To me, believer’s baptism is an act of identity and declaration just as is the Lord’s Supper, neither of which should be called “dead works” both of which BTW are post-salvation.

Agree with after salvation. But what are the word’s we use in our baptism. Is it not “coming in confession of faith in baptism”? What does this mean to you.

Believer’s baptism: an act of identity with and a pictoral declaration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in association with a local gathering of like-minded Christians.

I agree with this. But is that all you believe? Don’t you also believe Jesus when He says ”And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues,” Mark 16:15-17?

The Lord’s supper in which we identify with believers of like-mind and “proclaim the Lord's death till He comes”.

I believe Jesus said “remember me”. We are to commune with Him on this occasion. Are all Christians only in the Baptist church? Are all Christians of like mind?

To be sure, some of what we do in our local churches may approach qualifying as things of little or no value.

But, I can understand the use of the term “dead works” coming from a personal desire to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ pure from the defilement of legalists.

Believe I would take another look. We today have not been commanded to be baptized “unless we obey Peter in Acts 2:37-38”, and Christ made a request, and not a command as an ordinance that must be done. Agree there is a legalist represented here.

Please don’t feel compelled to answer. We have both made our points, basically, we both desire the same thing.

KJV Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: </font>[/QUOTE]Whoops! Wish I had read your whole post first.

I Corinthians 1:3 “Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

This is pure nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that there were nine other Apostles in addition to Paul, Peter, and John. Who preached the Gospel in North Africa? As I posted earlier some of the Apostles were believed to have gone as far as India.

 

Bother intuttut responds to my post and I feel compelled to address a some of his responses:

Again, The book of Acts is transitional. Even after the Day of Pentecost Peter and the other Apostles were still not completely straight concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel of the grace of God which is indicated in Acts 15

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

First the text uses the singular “name of...").

In Acts 15:9-11 quoted above, Peter clearly shows that Jew and Gentile alike are to be saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus commandment in Matthew “19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” looking forward to the scope of the Great Commission: “all nations” , (the goyim) which IMO is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (“... in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ...”).

Had Jesus said “and teach the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, we then could limit the scope in the Matthew passage to those 12 tribes.

However He said “all nations”, a clear indication (although their understanding would have to wait until Acts 15 to be clarified) of the fact that the Gentile was included in the Gospel of Jesus Christ together with the Jew.

Later in Acts 19 “certain disciples” were baptized in water “in the name of the Lord Jesus” after having been baptized according to John’s baptism. I believe it is telling that these “certain disciples” are not identified as either Jews or gentiles.

One may entertain the thought one way or the other and it would seem that they were indeed either Jews or circumcised proselytes but it is not in the text and IMO this is because of the scope and directive of the “Great Commission” to “all nations” without distinction (apart from Romans 1:16 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).

Also telling is the statement of these “certain disciples” that they gave testimony “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” showing that they did not have the complete revelation concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit.

This also indicates to me that the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” were indeed used by the evangelizer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as opposed to John’s baptism) This makes sense of the question “Unto what then were ye baptized?” Why did Paul ask this question of men with gentile names and surprised that had they been baptised in the name of the Trinity why didn't they know of the Holy Spirit?

In my view it is one gospel as shown in Acts 15.

Acts 15
...Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Two peoples yes, faithful Hebrews who could now transition to the New Covenant and gentiles who could enter in immediately, both by grace through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, however

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

You showed me a Scripture which does not have the word “quit” in it but simply an expression that Paul was glad that he did not baptize the Corinthian membership apart from those individuals who were named and who BTW had gentile names. I gave you my answer with the word “priorities” concerning water baptism and the apostle Paul and while it is not in the text neither are the words Christ commanded me to “quit” baptizing.

“priority” makes more sense to me, Paul was itinerant and in some places he stayed only a few days (Thessalonica for instance) much as an evangelist whose priority is preaching, not baptizing. And yes, “baptizing” for Paul was definitely not at the top of his priority list as he indicates to the Corinthians.

You quoted from Mark: “16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”. Water baptism should follow believing as an act of obedience to Christ.

Not believing is the singular cause of damnation as is shown show in this passage and the Gospel of John as you have said.

I have given public and clear witness that I do not believe that the act of water baptism ever saved or ever will save one soul.

If I believed as you do, (according to your own words) that baptism for us is a “dead work”) then I would not have been baptized in water AT ALL, look to yourself brother.

Just because certain folk are confused about the meaning and purpose of water baptism will not affect the truth of that teaching. Folks are confused about (for instance) the deity of Christ, but that will not stop His children from proclaiming His Incarnation as well as His humanity.

The Corinthians were “carnal” and therefore it is no surprise that they misunderstood the meaning and purpose of Christian water baptism as well as many other things of the Lord.

Paul’s statement to them is localized: “14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;” naming names of Corinthian gentile believers.

Again I must reiterate that my view of “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” is one of a testimony of priorities, plain and simple.

What manner of Christians were they having been gentiles baptized in water by the Apostle Paul? Was it not Paul then who was the one who was confused?


Indeed, Paul was given “abundance of the revelations” specifically to him by the risen Lord and therefore it is very important that we view all the Scripture from hindsight when drawing conclusions concerning the Church including priorities.

I have chosen to fellowship with Baptists because of the “distinctives” and their view of the ordinance of water baptism. Specifically the view that it has no saving power but is a wordless picture and declaration of the personal faith of an individual in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ at the directive of Matthew 28:19 in the name of the Trinity. The book of Acts signifying the human/divine authority "in the name of Jesus" or "the name of the Lord" clearly separating it from the baptism of John.

The Lord’s Supper being an ordinance of communion-fellowship, a declaration of His death “until He comes”

But bro ituttut, this command to “remember me” was, in like manner, instituted and given to Jews in a setting of Judaism, namely, the Passover.

How is it that you would limit the baptism of Matthew 28:19 (which uses the phrase “all nations”) to Jews alone as the subjects of that commission but do not limit the Lord’s Supper of the Passover of Luke 22:19 to Jews?

Holding the view of water baptism, with no Scripture requiring it for the Christian, your reason then for submitting to water baptism is IMO, a compromise on your part.

What were the words (“in the name of ... who?”) of the one who baptized you and did it violate your conscience and what therefore kind of a testimony is/was it and what kind of mixed message did you send and are sending?

How then are you any different or better off than those who are baptized in good faith (possibly in ignorance) but without compromise?

Wouldn’t you have been better off not joining at all?

HankD

 

This is pure nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that there were nine other Apostles in addition to Paul, Peter, and John. Who preached the Gospel in North Africa? As I posted earlier some of the Apostles were believed to have gone as far as India. </font>[/QUOTE]Just scripture OldReg, and regret you do not believe it.

There were 10 other Apostles. Only twelve were with Jesus when He began His ministry, Matthias being one, but Paul was not one of them. Paul is the only Apostle appointed by Christ Jesus from heaven, making Paul the only Heaven appointed Apostle directly by Christ. The twelve speak of an earthly kingdom, and Paul of a heavenly one, while Paul lived.

If the reports are true, they are true, and they went to India, and North Africa to where Isralites had scattered to. How ever, John of the three you mention was the only one living after the destruction of the Temple, in A.D. 70. John was then free to go to the Gentile, as the gospel that He preached to the Jew had ended. Christ then allowed John to preach the only gospel that was left. It is the gospel of grace. You’ll not find John talking about repentance or baptism down here. Our repentance and baptism today is found in Him of which John and Paul agree.

 

KJV Revelation 2
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

 

KJV Revelation 2
1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. </font>[/QUOTE]Surely you don't believe John is Christ. That is not John talking down here to us today, which he was given freedom to do. Please notice this is Christ Jesus speaking again, and it is to His people. The Book of Revelation is a Book of Prophecy. We in His Body are not addressed here, as Prophecy is of His nation Israel.

I can find no mention of we Once Saved Always Saved by the Grace of God through Him addressed in your reference. Christian faith, ituttut

 

Paul33: "One thing I know for sure, historic dispensationalism
make utter confusion out of the Word of God."

That is an interesting statement.
I would hear more of this.
We even have a topic aleardy established for discussing
this matter at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2790.html

Meanwhile, what do you think is the meaning of the "rapture"
that is found in the Latin version of 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

 

------------------continued----------------

No, of course not. I now was saved, and would be with Christ and my family forever, except down here. To be with them in worship down here the church said I couldn’t join with them and my friends, unless I wanted the Preacher to baptize me into the church. I believe, even at that young age, I did the right thing. What do you think? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12