It is not a statement of arrogance at all. it is one that needs to be understood if someone has accepted a Gospel that is not the gospel of grace they are not saved it is that simple. we have seen men already claim that the gospel as seen in Acts 2-7 is the same as today's. if they believed the gospel of Acts 2 then they are not saved.

so it is only one of pointing out factual truths. if the wrong gospel is preach like repent and be baptized and people follow that, Fred, they are not saved people.

Brother, I think there are at least TWO or THREE topics (maybe more) that are running like wild horses on this thread.

The topic is "WATER BAPTISM, IS IT FOR TODAY," and I have tried very hard to STAY ON TOPIC for the entire thread. As far as I can tell Chette, you and I are in AGREEMENT that water baptism is for today. As far as what Ruckman believes on WATER BAPTISM, I already posted the link so THERE IS NO GUESS WORK, everyone can see for themselves EXACTLY what Ruckman believes and he clearly believes that WATER BAPTISM IS FOR TODAY. He also considers the ERROR that believer's baptism is "UNSCRIPTURAL" or "JEWISH LAW" to be part of the "FUNDAMENTAL HERESY" of Hyperdispensationalism. Anyone who doubts that can go back and read his entire article which I linked.

As we have seen, there are always going to be VARYING VIEWS on dispensation as it relates to the book of Acts, etc., and that is NEVER gong to be resolved on this thread. Even the Hypers themselves don't all agree on their various views! So, I politely suggest anyone who wants to to "chop chop chop" up the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ into a dozen other gospels, and discuss rabbit trails and "every wind of doctrine" they should go and start a another thread on those things. I hope this reasonable and I rejoice that we can at least agree on the topic at hand. May God bless each of you as you seek His wisdom on this issue...

Actually it is part of the Topic because there are Baptism for Peters Gospel and the Believers baptism we practice under Grace. and in order to understand which Baptism is to understand which Gospel is being preached.

in essence if you preach the gospel of the Kingdom as Peter did, which is not for today neither is the Baptism in the name of Jesus for the remissions of sins.

If you preach the Gospel of Grace as Paul did, then you have a different Baptism which are two, one spiritual never happened before, and two you have the one Paul practice which is what we truly label believers Baptism and it is nothing like Matt 28:19 or Acts 2:38 or Acts 3:19 or Acts 8 with the Eunuch. it is not that they believed it is WHAT THEY BELIEVE. and it wasn't death burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of the sins of individual men as Paul teaches.

though these two baptism are similar in that they are water and full immersions that is where they halt at being similar. their effects and purposes are different. and we would need to clarify which water baptism is for today John's or the one that Paul practice but gave no instruction?

Ruckman believes in water baptism as far as it is our Identification with Christ. He does not agree that it is for the remissions of sins as you seem to imply when you call Acts 2:38 a believers Baptism. and he does not believe that Acts 2 teaches the Gospel of Grace as you say it does.

and once again I am not a hyper dispensationist please stop putting me in that camp.

I responded to your use of Ruckman's picture/drawing because he essentially agrees with my view and Georges view on Act2-7 we are not chopping it up as you implied. in fact using it under that context you are saying Ruckman chops up the scriptures as well.

Winman,

when is the times of refreshing?

IN context of Acts 3:18 you better put these thing into context

Ac 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.


When shall he send Jesus?

When is the times of restitution of all things?

It is the Millennial Kingdom at the end of the Great tribulation. this put the context is not for today

EH??? Funny, I don't recall putting you in that camp. In fact I made a point to remind someone you were NOT in that camp (see post no. 152) and call out where we agree, do you see that or do you prefer to only focus on the negative aspects of everything...

Whatever. Let's face it; if any one is in a "camp" it's because they pitched their own tent and put themselves there, no one else did it for them. :cool:

Why?
you're one of a kind, bro!

I can't respond to the posts as often as I wanted to do -- I moved to my new home -- no computer, no internet connection.:)

But if you will, please, go to this thread I started, this may show you my position: http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=647


Concerning the two points you gave above, I've thought about it. I think you missed Romans 6, Colossians 2, and Ephesians 2.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12 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.

I believe Paul's WATER Baptism (and he DID BAPTIZE and gave no commandment to stop it) is a picture of the BAPTIST BY ONE SPIRIT INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST.

1. We are CRUCIFIED with Christ. (Standing)
2. We are BURIED with Christ. (Under water)
3. We are RISEN with Christ. (Standing up again.)

BP,
My Bad I musta misread it.

well anyone who is a Bible believer will come to be close to Baptist anyway. I did attend a Baptist Bible college. My doctrinal stand is very much like the baptist

I'm not a "die-hard" Baptist, but you're right; "a Bible believer will come to be close to Baptist".

Chette, I would agree with the point you made here. Where you and differ is whether Peter preached forgiveness of sins to the Jews in the early chapters of Acts which you say he did not. I have already shown that Peter did indeed preach forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ several times.

As concerning Jesus returning to restore the kingdom, the apostles asked Jesus this very thing in chapter 1.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Now, I would not take Jesus's answer as a yes, neither was it a no. Jesus told them it was not for them to know this time or season. So, for Peter to preach that if the Jews would accept Jesus, that Jesus would immediately return would be a little presumptuous wouldn't it??

And in the very next verse Jesus mentions the Gentiles.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

So, I see only one gospel here. The gospel that went unto Jerusalem, Judaea, and Samaria, would be also preached to the uttermost part of the earth.

And Jesus had told the apostles several times that the gospel would go to the Gentiles, although it is most likely they did not understand.

Matt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Hey Winman, can you PM me your e-mail I wanted to ask you a couple of questions off the forum.

Re: "Is water baptism for today?"
 

Aloha brother Winman,

I don't intend to stretch this out much longer, but I have to take exception to your statement: "Now, I would not take Jesus's answer as a yes, neither was it a no. Jesus told them it was not for them to know this time or season. So, for Peter to preach that if the Jews would accept Jesus, that Jesus would immediately return would be a little presumptuous wouldn't it??"

My answer to your "speculation" is: NOT IF he was speaking under the GUIDANCE of the Holy Spirit - WHICH HE WAS! Do you honestly think that an Apostle, who is called of God and who has been "FILLED" with the Holy Ghost, is going to have the audacity to "presume" upon God when he is preaching, and insert his own "little presumptions" in his message to God's people? :confused: To question Peter's judgment here is akin to questioning the "guidance" of the Holy Spirit Himself!

Peter wasn't giving his "private opinion" here (like so many preachers do today); he was speaking as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance, and so the offer of Christ's return was both a legitimate and bonafide offer - made by God the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Peter. Peter was either speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit, as the "holy men of God spake" in times past, or he wasn't - but one thing's for sure, the Apostle Peter was NOT "PRESUMPTUOUS"; he was preaching exactly WHAT God led him to preach, the context removes all doubt, this "message" was from God Himself. [2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.]

The offer of Christ's RETURN was CONTINGENT on the nation of Israel repenting of killing their Messiah and King - when they rejected God's offer of reconciliation, God rejected them (temporarily) and turned to the Gentiles. It's that simple. :)

Bro George

I have already addressed this in your post on rightly dividing the word in Acts.

And you missed my point completely. No, I absolutely do not think Peter was being presumptuous.

I DO NOT THINK PETER WAS PREACHING THE RESTORATION OF THE KINGDOM!

This is where we differ. I believe Peter was preaching the very same gospel that Paul preached.

I have already answered this in your other thread.

Re: "Is water baptism for today?"
 

Aloha brother Winman,

And the "POINT" is - and you've "missed" mine. :confused: