For those who speak in tongues...

[D28guy]

Ahem.

(Just to stir the pot a little)

bbs = bulliten boards

yes

BB = Baptist Board

yes, but...

I know of a couple of sites that use the abbreviation BB for "bulliten board".

and then this...

bbtasit

means "bulliten board that advocates speaking in tongues"

while this...

bbtatpoltbbstasit

means "bulliten board that allows the posting of links to bulliten boards that advocate speaking in tongues"

Hope that helps!

Mike

 

[hillclimber]

The accounting of water baptisms stopped about this time because they ceased. Paul is heard to say with pride that he had not baptized but a scant few. John was baptizing as a sign to Israel that their Messiah was at hand. Baptism has continued pretty much unabated since then but in direct conflict with the will of God.

DHK as to your list
1. Baptism is for all believers but not by water.
2. The Spirit at indwelling baptizes one.
3. Water B is simply not for the age of Grace.
4. Again, Christ was requiring baptism as he was exhorting the Jews to Himself. He was readying the world for His Kingdom. Not a word to the Gentiles.
5. Again as part of the coming Kingdom. Baptized into the Kingdom Gospel, of which we today are not a part.
6. The church, (The Body of Christ) began in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.
7. Mischaracterization.
8. Huh
9. Wrong. Peter’s method of salvation was to believe and confess, and be baptized.
10. As the Lord added to them daily, they were being installed in the kingdom church, with Peter’s gospel.
11. There was much overlapping as Paul constantly had to fight against Judiasers, and even went toe to toe with Peter himself.
12. Actually it was a while after becoming an Apostle, as change is hard. Did not Paul have to take up a hefty collection for Jerusalem later because they had begun living in Koinonea, before their time (Kingdom) had come?
13. I believe that water baptism is very wrong today. See how all the various denominations try to explain their reasoning. I think it is a diversion, by satan, to keep Christians off the straight path, but it doesn’t render them powerless. Baptism was commanded under the law of the day. Believers baptized in the scriptures aren’t to my understanding.

I guess according to this, you suppose me out to lunch also. Oh well. I try to do the best I can with that I have been given of God. I’m sure I’m not completely correct on anything, but no one is.

 

[prophecynut]

You lost your marbles hillclimber, now I understand why you're not able to understand those Scirptures I gave you.

 

[prophecynut]

Hillclimber quotes:

3. Water B is simply not for the age of Grace.

6. The church, (The Body of Christ) began in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

Water baptisms after Acts 9:

Acts 10:47; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16.
1 Cor. 1:16.

And water baptisms occurred before Acts 9:

2:38,41; 3:27; 8:13,36,38.

Before Pentecost (2:1-3) believers were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt.28:19), after Pentecost in the name of Jesus (2:38).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
The accounting of water baptisms stopped about this time because they ceased. Paul is heard to say with pride that he had not baptized but a scant few. John was baptizing as a sign to Israel that their Messiah was at hand. Baptism has continued pretty much unabated since then but in direct conflict with the will of God.

This is your opinion, but not what God's Word says. Never is baptism condemned in the Bible, only by you. It is a command of Christ (Mat.28:19,20), why would it be condemned. Its symbolism is explianed in Rom.6:3,4. There are numerous examples, such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, and the Philippian Jailor in the Book of Acts. There is no place where Scripture indicates that baptism is in direcct conflict with the will of God. Instead of giving an opinion prove your case by Scripture.

DHK as to your list
1. Baptism is for all believers but not by water.[/qb][/quote]
That would make Jesus a liar wouldn't it? He is the one who commanded all believers to be baptized in water (Mat.28:19,20).
2. The Spirit at indwelling baptizes one.[/qb][/quote]
No doubt every believer is baptized at the point of salvation into the family of God, at which time he also becomes indwelt by the Holy Spirit. However what does the Bible say:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They were baptized, by water. Denying that fact is denying the Word of God. There is no way that the context can read any other way.

3. Water B is simply not for the age of Grace.

Your opinion again. Chapter and verse please. Demonstrate what you say through the Word of God.

4. Again, Christ was requiring baptism as he was exhorting the Jews to Himself. He was readying the world for His Kingdom. Not a word to the Gentiles.

As I said: You cannot find a single individual in the New Testament that was saved and not Baptized--Study the Book of Acts. It isn't there. The Philippian Jailor, The Ethiopian Jailor, The 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, Philip at Samaria, Paul at Corinth (Acts 18), etc. All believers were baptized in water. Study the Book of Acts. It is not Christ here; but the Apostles. And the Apostles were preaching to both Jews and Gentiles alike.
They were not 'readying' a kingdom for Christ. They were carrying out the Great Commission, which was accomplishing the will of God, in calling out a nation for Himself, a nation apart from Israel.

5. Again as part of the coming Kingdom. Baptized into the Kingdom Gospel, of which we today are not a part.

What is this Kingdom Gospel are you talking about. You give opinions but not Scripture. Back up what you say with Scripture or it is worthless.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The above is the gospel. There is no kingdom gospel. There is only one gospel, and Paul spells it out right here. There is no mention of any kingdom in this gospel. By believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, that is the atoning work of Christ, one is saved, and becomes part of the family of God. There is no kingdom involved here. Once saved, one needs to be baptized according to Mat.28:19,20.

6. The church, (The Body of Christ) began in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

More opinion--no Scripture. Give evidence for the outlandish statement that the church started in Acts 9.

7. Mischaracterization.

7. Only Jews were present on the Day of Pentecost. Thus only Jews were saved. But he doesn’t recognize that once a Jew is saved he becomes a Christian, and is no longer a Jew. Thus the Church started at Pentecost, and its origin has nothing to do with Paul.

What mischaracterization? You just said that the church started in Acts 9. He also said that the people all present on the Day of Pentecost were Jews, and thus had to do with the Kingdom. Correct. This is where your kingdom theology comes from. From Acts 2 to 9, there is no church, according to what you have just stated. I have not mischaracterized anyone or anything. This is gross error.
Paul taught in all of his epistles that once a Jew became saved he became a Christian; just as once a Gentile became saved, he became a Christian. They both left their background: Judaism and paganism behind. You can't be a Jew (in religion) and a Christian at the same time. You can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. Jew or Gentile, we are all one in Christ.

8. Huh

Yes I agree. He refers to the Kingdom Church as that church that is referred to in Acts 2, which is ridiculous. As I pointed out to you, the Kingdom was not being offered to the Jews in Acts 2; they were being commanded to repent. That was not an offer; it was a command!!

9. Wrong. Peter’s method of salvation was to believe and confess, and be baptized.

This is like Church of Christ doctrine. Baptism throughout the Bible has never been a part of salvation. It has always been a command for the believer after salvation. It is for the believer, not for the unsaved. It is not in the process of salvation. First be saved, then get baptized. Acts 2:41 makes this clear.
So does Acts 2:39
Acts 2:39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
--Salvation was to those (Jews or Gentiles) that called upon the name of the Lord. Baptism had nothing to do with it.

10. As the Lord added to them daily, they were being installed in the kingdom church, with Peter’s gospel.

There is only one gospel defined in 1Cor.15:1-4. Peter did not have a different gospel. There was no kingdom church here. You are dreaming and imagining things. Provide Scripture for your imaginary doctrines. All you have provided is opinion. You don't back it up with Scripture.

11. There was much overlapping as Paul constantly had to fight against Judiasers, and even went toe to toe with Peter himself.

The enemies of the gospel of Christ have nothing to do with "overlapping." And when Peter himself compromised, Paul rebuked him. That also has nothing to do with "overlapping." Judaizers were false teachers. They were trying to destroy Paul's ministry saying that there was another way of salvation--by works; by the keeping of the law. Paul said that those who came with such a gospel were accursed.

12. Actually it was a while after becoming an Apostle, as change is hard. Did not Paul have to take up a hefty collection for Jerusalem later because they had begun living in Koinonea, before their time (Kingdom) had come?

Deal with Scripture. In Acts 2:47 does it or does it not say that the Lord added unto the church?
What gives you the right to redefine what the Bible teaches?

13. I believe that water baptism is very wrong today.

So Christ lied, and what he said is very wrong, and what he commanded us to do is very wrong???

See how all the various denominations try to explain their reasoning.

COC believes in baptismal regeneration.
Catholic Church believes in infant baptism.
Mormons baptize for the dead.
So because such denominations as these exploit and misinterpret baptism, that makes the Biblical doctrine wrong? Surely you can do better than that! By that logic, because the JW's teach an unbiblical way of salvation, then every way of salvation is unbiblical. This is your reasoning. I guess we are all doomed.

I think it is a diversion, by satan, to keep Christians off the straight path, but it doesn’t render them powerless. Baptism was commanded under the law of the day.

Baptism is commanded by Christ under grace today. If not prove otherwise through the Scriptures. Don't make groundless statements without Scripturas proof.

Believers baptized in the scriptures aren’t to my understanding.

Aren't what? Rendered powerless? Is this what you think of baptism? I feel sorry for you.
DHK

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Ahem.

(Just to stir the pot a little)

bbs = bulliten boards

yes

BB = Baptist Board

yes, but...

I know of a couple of sites that use the abbreviation BB for "bulliten board".

and then this...

bbtasit

means "bulliten board that advocates speaking in tongues"

while this...

bbtatpoltbbstasit

means "bulliten board that allows the posting of links to bulliten boards that advocate speaking in tongues"

Hope that helps!

Mike

Well I was way off.......BBS to me ='s Bible Believin' Sisters. Ok I feel better gettin that off my chest.

 

[D28guy]

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why it seems that it must be "one or the other" regarding the different baptisms.

I see in the scriptures "water" baptism for jewish converts, and also for gentiles.

I see "Spirit" baptism (when one enters into a faith relationship with Christ...*prior* to water baptism) for jewish believers and for gentiles.

And I see the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" also for both jewish believers and gentiles.

All applied then...all apply now.

It seems pretty simple to me.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

"Well I was way off.......BBS to me ='s Bible Believin' Sisters.

Ooops, I forgot about that one!

And anyone who is married can attest....you (((DO NOT))) want to forget about The Sisters!

And let all the church say.....

"A....MEN!!!"

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by D28guy:
I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why it seems that it must be "one or the other" regarding the different baptisms.

I see in the scriptures "water" baptism for jewish converts, and also for gentiles.

I see "Spirit" baptism (when one enters into a faith relationship with Christ...*prior* to water baptism) for jewish believers and for gentiles.

And I see the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" also for both jewish believers and gentiles.

All applied then...all apply now.

It seems pretty simple to me.

God bless,

Mike

Dependng on your definition of "baptism of the Holy Spirit," I would agree with all of your post, and even in that one point there is room for disagreement without any grievous error.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

How much harm and division the various doctrines of water-baptism has caused!
I was baptised - by immersion and as a believer. I count it of no consequence today - rather as something I would have been better off without. Before God, I know it counts NOTHING! So what's the use?

I had to work out some solution for myself, and have concluded water-batism was a sign of Apostolic authority to the exclusive advantage of Christianity in its beginnings.
Jesus' command in Mt.28 does NOT presuppose water in the event of Baptism. The disciples were to baptised "IN, the NAME ...". The Name was the medium of baptism - the baptism of Jesus.
There are many difficulties; I don't think anatema's solve any.
Would you accept a Christian for his confession of faith solely? That, to me, is the ultimate claim a person is a Christian, which NNE has the right or authority to deny or to decline!
This was the exact reason THE APOSTLES baptised with water - because they only received authority to accept for genuine or not the confession of a person - whether it was for real, or not.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:

Would you accept a Christian for his confession of faith solely? That, to me, is the ultimate claim a person is a Christian, which NNE has the right or authority to deny or to decline!

NO! At least not as a member of our local church. To be a member of a Baptist church one has to be saved and then baptized just as the order is given in Acts 2:41, and all throughout the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts. You will not find any believer from the Book of Acts onward that has not received water baptism. It was a command of Jesus incorporated into what is called the Great Commission, the last command that he gave before ascending into heaven. Who are we to neglect and treat so lightly such a great command??
Paul also puts great emphasis on the reason for this command in Romans 6:3,4.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:

Would you accept a Christian for his confession of faith solely? That, to me, is the ultimate claim a person is a Christian, which NNE has the right or authority to deny or to decline!

NO! At least not as a member of our local church. To be a member of a Baptist church one has to be saved and then baptized just as the order is given in Acts 2:41, and all throughout the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts. You will not find any believer from the Book of Acts onward that has not received water baptism. It was a command of Jesus incorporated into what is called the Great Commission, the last command that he gave before ascending into heaven. Who are we to neglect and treat so lightly such a great command??
Paul also puts great emphasis on the reason for this command in Romans 6:3,4.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that Godhath raised Him fom the dead, thou shalt be saved."
May the Church add any other conditions?

As to "the Commission" - "baptise them IN THE NAME" = immerse them in the knowledge of the mercy of the Lord. It says nothing about 'in water'.
And Jesus spoke to the Apostles - consider that too as literally as you consider the indispensible command to baptise.
He did not address you or me!

 

[hillclimber]

You will not find any believer from the Book of Acts onward that has not received water baptism. It was a command of Jesus incorporated into what is called the Great Commission, the last command that he gave before ascending into heaven. Who are we to neglect and treat so lightly such a great command??
Paul also puts great emphasis on the reason for this command in Romans 6:3,4.


Jesus was still preaching to the house of Israel, not to the age to follow, which is todays Age of Grace.

Paul speaks of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, which occurs at the moment of salvation, and which is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Remember that he was proud of not having baptised very many, in light of his realization of this new covenant.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Hillclimber quotes:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
3. Water B is simply not for the age of Grace.

6. The church, (The Body of Christ) began in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

Water baptisms after Acts 9:

Acts 10:47; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16.
1 Cor. 1:16.

And water baptisms occurred before Acts 9:

2:38,41; 3:27; 8:13,36,38.

Before Pentecost (2:1-3) believers were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt.28:19), after Pentecost in the name of Jesus (2:38). </font>[/QUOTE]Yes of course WB's occurred before, as a sign that Israel's Messiah was at hand, and afterward as the change over from Prophecy to Mystery was happening. It took a while for the changeover, but the Body Church of today never accepted it and we still have Baptisms today. Pauls mystery church revelation was all but forgotten at the end of his life and has only recently been revived. You baptists and all those that gleefully dunk folks will resist that truth to your dying day.

After the Cross the work of baptisn shifted from Man to the Holy Spirit, again for which Paul was glad to have baptised only a few.

We went all through this before PN but you and I are pretty thick headed, aren't we.

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
You lost your marbles hillclimber, now I understand why you're not able to understand those Scirptures I gave you.

Now that you understand, the debate may be worded "one of us has lost his marbles." On this forum I would win that vote, I'm sure, as most baptisers view dispensationalists as heretics.

I've come to realize that this is a vehicle for debate only and not an arena for learning, as we each have our doctrines written on our hearts, and are lothe to accept change. For the most part.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hillclimber:

6. The church, (The Body of Christ) began in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

[qb]

Water baptisms after Acts 9:

Acts 10:47; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16.
1 Cor. 1:16.

And water baptisms occurred before Acts 9:

2:38,41; 3:27; 8:13,36,38.

Before Pentecost (2:1-3) believers were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt.28:19), after Pentecost in the name of Jesus (2:38).

Yes of course WB's occurred before, as a sign that Israel's Messiah was at hand, and afterward as the change over from Prophecy to Mystery was happening. It took a while for the changeover, but the Body Church of today never accepted it and we still have Baptisms today. Pauls mystery church revelation was all but forgotten at the end of his life and has only recently been revived. You baptists and all those that gleefully dunk folks will resist that truth to your dying day.

After the Cross the work of baptisn shifted from Man to the Holy Spirit, again for which Paul was glad to have baptised only a few.

We went all through this before PN but you and I are pretty thick headed, aren't we.

You have absolutely no evidence for your claim. Do you hang your theology on just one verse (Acts 2:38)? That because Peter used the phrase "in the name of Jesus," you automatically assume that all baptisms before Acts 9, were "in the name of Jesus." Can you demonstrate that? How did Thomas baptize? What about Bartholomew? What about the rest of the Apostles that you absolutely nothing of? Your argument is out of silence, and avoids the direct commandment of Jesus Christ Himself. It was Jesus that commanded to baptize in "the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," not Paul. I am prone think that the Apostles obeyed Christ not Peter. The weight of evidence lie in the words of Christ, and His command to all believers, especially as they were given at that time to the Apostles. Why would the Apostles deliberately disobey their Saviour. How did James baptize? Remember, he met a martyr's death in Acts 12. Why would Peter change his mode of baptism in Acts 12 from what it was in Acts 2?, just because chapter 9 happens to fall inbetween the two? You position holds no weight. It is better that you think and reason out: why did Peter use the phrase "in the name of Jesus" in this one occurence in Acts 2:38, and what is meant by it, instead of building an entire theology around it, like the Oneness Pentecostals do--baptismal regeneration.
It just may have another meaning than you think.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that Godhath raised Him fom the dead, thou shalt be saved."
May the Church add any other conditions?

As far as salvation is concerned, no.
As far as church membership is concerned, yes.

Every church does. Every person that becomes a member of our church must agree with our statement of faith, and that includes being baptized. It also includes being saved. Adhering to the statement of faith is tantamount.
Why would we accept a Charismatic, for example, into a Baptist church, though they be saved and baptized. They wouldn't agree with our doctrine nor would they want to. Only division and strife would result. We strive for a "unity of the faith." Thus there must be an agreement to the statement of faith. We don't allow Catholics either. I hope you get the point.

As for baptism specifically, almost every place the word baptism is used in the Bible it refers to water baptism. The word simply means immersion. People were immersed in water. John the Baptist immersed people in water. Jesus and his disciples immersed people in water. And the practice carried on from there. Look through history. Water baptism has become the door to church membership for almost every church throughout history from the time of the Apostles to the present century: whether Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or otherwise. Its practice is based in the Bible. Its pattern can obviously be seen ih Acts 2:41. The heard the Word of God (were saved), were baptized (in water), and were added unto the church (became members). That is the Scriptural order that has been followed down throughout the centuries, and there is no need to rewrited the Bible now.

As to "the Commission" - "baptise them IN THE NAME" = immerse them in the knowledge of the mercy of the Lord. It says nothing about 'in water'.

The disciples knew nothing of what you are suggesting. The only baptism they knew is the baptism they had already been practicing--water baptism. They had done much baptizing up to that point. The Bible says: "Yet Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples baptized." Baptism obviously refers to water, that which the disciples were familiar with.
You are throwing your own pre-conceived ideas into this verse. How on earth would the disciples read your mind (2,000 years ago) for you to tell them--this is what Jesus meant?? This is how you are to interpret these words of his? You are not making sense. They took the words of Christ literally as he spoke them, not allegorically as you are reading them. They had a commission to carry out, and so they did. Read the Book of Acts. What did they do? They preached the gospel. They baptized in water. And they taught or discipled them further in teaching the Word of God. That was the pattern in Acts 2, and in Acts 14. It was the pattern throughout the entire book of Acts. It was never changed.

And Jesus spoke to the Apostles - consider that too as literally as you consider the indispensible command to baptise.
He did not address you or me!

Paul wasn't addressing you or me when he wrote about the resurrection in 1Cor. 15, nor about the gospel in the same chapter. He was not addressing you and me when he wrote about love in chapter 13 of the same book. So I guess not one iota of the Bible applies to us becasue it was all written about 1900 years ago, and none of it bears your name on it.
DHK

 

[mman]

Originally posted by DHK:
As for baptism specifically, almost every place the word baptism is used in the Bible it refers to water baptism. The word simply means immersion. People were immersed in water. John the Baptist immersed people in water. Jesus and his disciples immersed people in water.

I agree. Also in Rom 6, we see that we are baptized INTO His death, that we are buried in baptism, and raised to walk a new life. We are baptized INTO Christ. That is how we obey the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection by obeying a form of that (Rom 6:17), since we don’t actually die, and are buried, and raised.

Its pattern can obviously be seen ih Acts 2:41. The heard the Word of God (were saved), were baptized (in water), and were added unto the church (became members). That is the Scriptural order that has been followed down throughout the centuries, and there is no need to rewrited the Bible now.

The actual order is:

1) Believed what they heard (Acts 2:37)

If they were actually saved at this point, why did Peter tell them to do anything when they asked what must we do? What would the answer be by many today? You don’t have to do anything, only believe. Is that what Peter said? No. Remember, these believers had not even repented.

2) Peter did give them instruction. He told them to repent (Acts 2:38)

3) Other passages in Acts show that confession precedes baptism (Acts 8:36-38)

4) He told them to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)

You have the believers being saved before they repented and were baptized. That is not true to the text.

You also have the saved not in the church which is contrary to verse 47.

Acts 2:41, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

Acts 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved

Just a simple comparison of these two verses shows that at baptism, we are saved and added to the church.

When you read the other passages dealing with this subject, they all fit perfectly (Mk 16:16, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27, I Cor 12:13, I Pet 3:21… to name a few).

If they were saved when they believed, then Jesus would have added them to the church at belief according to vs 47, right? And if they were added to the church when they believed, then who were they added to in verse 41 when they were baptized?

Remember, Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” – Mark 16:16. He did not say, “He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized”, as you are teaching.

Paul said there was just one baptism in Eph 4:5. While there were many, now there is just one.

I agree with much of what you have said on this subject, but what I do not agree on is the purpose of baptism. To understand the purpose of baptism, we must look at the passages that deal directly with it.

Mark 16:16 – At first glance it appears that we must believe and be baptized to be saved
Acts 2:38 – At first glance, it appears that baptism is for the remission of sins
Acts 22:16 – At first glance it appears that baptism washes away our sins
Rom 6:3-4 – At first glance it looks like at baptism we die, are buried, and raised to walk a new life and we are baptized into Christ
Gal 3:26-27, At first glance it appears that we are the children of God by faith because we have been baptized into Christ
I Pet 3:21 – At first glance it looks baptism now saves us

Can we see the bible alike? Only if we take it for what it says. Think of all the mental gymnastics required to explain away these clear passages. If a person reading the bible without any outside “help” or preconceived notions were to read, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he the believeth not shall be condemned”, what do you really think would be their obvious conclusion to this passage?

 

[hillclimber]

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They were baptized, by water. Denying that fact is denying the Word of God. There is no way that the context can read any other way.

I don’t deny that at all. I mean that these sign gifts, one of which is Water Baptism, were to cease, and the practice should have stopped with Pauls revelation that God’s focus was shifting to the Age of Grace where all are under Grace. The fact that they continued, shows that there was a period of time during which the change of dispensations was occurring. But Paul was constantly fighting against the Judiasers, that wanted many old customs retained, the practice of water baptism was never fully left behind and continues today.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The above is the gospel. There is no kingdom gospel. There is only one gospel, and Paul spells it out right here. There is no mention of any kingdom in this gospel. By believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, that is the atoning work of Christ, one is saved, and becomes part of the family of God. There is no kingdom involved here.

Precisely, Paul by this time is preaching the Gospel of Grace. Once saved, one needs to be baptized according to Mat.28:19,20. This is not part of Pauls gospel but of the Kingdom Gospel, that you carelessly dragged in.


More opinion--no Scripture. Give evidence for the outlandish statement that the church started in Acts 9.

If God’s plan was to be brought out by Paul, and nearly everyone today believes that is so, we must start with God calling Saul of Taurses to the ministry. Annanials relays Gods message that Paul will go to everyone including Gentiles, which had been afar off until now. This is God’s commission to Paul, a wholly new mission of the Gospel of grace.

What mischaracterization? You just said that the church started in Acts 9. He also said that the people all present on the Day of Pentecost were Jews, and thus had to do with the Kingdom. Correct. This is where your kingdom theology comes from. From Acts 2 to 9, there is no church, according to what you have just stated. I have not mischaracterized anyone or anything. This is gross error.
Paul taught in all of his epistles that once a Jew became saved he became a Christian; just as once a Gentile became saved, he became a Christian. They both left their background: Judaism and paganism behind. You can't be a Jew (in religion) and a Christian at the same time. You can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. Jew or Gentile, we are all one in Christ.

I fully agree, as you now see Pauls mission. Never before was there Jew and Gentile in one body.

Yes I agree. He refers to the Kingdom Church as that church that is referred to in Acts 2, which is ridiculous. As I pointed out to you, the Kingdom was not being offered to the Jews in Acts 2; they were being commanded to repent. That was not an offer; it was a command!!

Where were they being told to repent in Acts:2? Jesus himself is talking about His coming Kingdom, stating its time is known by the Father, and is not now. Acts2: 7. In vs. 8 he speaks of a future time where Israel will send witnesses to all the earth. Israel is certainly not doing that today or before now.

The enemies of the gospel of Christ have nothing to do with "overlapping." And when Peter himself compromised, Paul rebuked him. That also has nothing to do with "overlapping." Judaizers were false teachers. They were trying to destroy Paul's ministry saying that there was another way of salvation--by works; by the keeping of the law. Paul said that those who came with such a gospel were accursed.

I guess I shouldn’t have use “overlapping”, but I fully agree with the rest of your statement that Paul consistently had to fight against Judiazers, one battle was dragging water baptism into this new Age.

Deal with Scripture. In Acts 2:47 does it or does it not say that the Lord added unto the church?
What gives you the right to redefine what the Bible teaches?

In Acts 2:38 we see Peter telling them to repent and be baptized every one for the remission of sins, and you will be given the gift of the Holy Ghost. We today receive that gift the instant we believe. We go on in this chapter to prematurely begin living in Koinonea which is a promise of the coming Kingdom, and it turns out disastrous. But the Lord is adding to THE church daily such as should be saved. (oh boy here I go) These converts were not added to the Kingdom church at all, but were actually put into the same Body of Christ we are a part of today, because the Kingdom has not come in yet.

So Christ lied, and what he said is very wrong, and what he commanded us to do is very wrong???

Christ was talking to Israel and no one else.

COC believes in baptismal regeneration.
Catholic Church believes in infant baptism.
Mormons baptize for the dead.
So because such denominations as these exploit and misinterpret baptism, that makes the Biblical doctrine wrong? Surely you can do better than that! By that logic, because the JW's teach an unbiblical way of salvation, then every way of salvation is unbiblical. This is your reasoning. I guess we are all doomed.

We are not doomed. We believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross, do we not? Then we are eternally saved. If Biblical error kept us from our heavenly inheritance, no one would make it.

Baptism is commanded by Christ under grace today. If not prove otherwise through the Scriptures. Don't make groundless statements without Scripturas proof.

You can in no way prove Christ addressed His Body church today.

Aren't what? Rendered powerless? Is this what you think of baptism? I feel sorry for you. DHK

I’m afraid I’m woefully ill equipped to argue at your level, because as I came on here, my challenge became, to examine why I believe the way I do. This has been a terrific time for me, and I just wish I could spend many hours studying and listening to my Lord, but as of now I have obligations that prevent me from that. Please don’t feel sorry for me as I am perfectly comfortable in my walk with Jesus, but I know I’m in error a lot and I learn things very slowly. He is always having to discipline me, for my inability to give up my whole self to Him unequivocally.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by hillclimber:
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They were baptized, by water. Denying that fact is denying the Word of God. There is no way that the context can read any other way.

I don’t deny that at all. I mean that these sign gifts, one of which is Water Baptism, were to cease,

Nowhere in Scripture is baptism ever called a sign gift. Sign gifts were supernatural in nature, given by the Holy Spirit. They were gifts of the Holy Spirit. They are listed in 1Cor.12, and baptism is not among them. The supernatural gifts of the spirit (i.e., sign gifts) were gifts such as the gift of miracles, gift of tongues, gift of prophecy, gift of revelatory knowledge, gift of healing, etc. Those are the sign gifts--miraculous gifts that don't exist today. They ceased at the end of the first century.
Baptism isn't a gift at all. It is a work--a work of obedience done by a believer to another believer in obedience to the command of Christ. It is not a gift; it is obedience to a command.
DHK