I see you are still re-hashing old posts and spreading dissension.

Brother, I'm tired of you taking cheap shots at Bro. Ruckman, maybe you should just settle down. Now I know why you talked about throwing his commentary in the garbage. There is PLENTY OF SCRIPTURE in the link I provided, you sir are either confused or simply being dishonest.



Pete Ruckman has dealt with this HYPER NONSENSE WITH AUTHORITY FOR YEARS AND YOU KNOW IT, he has written ENTIRE BOOKS on your group's leaven, here is a "quick article" for reference and I'm sure you will find (and ignore) plenty of SCRIPTURE here:
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/books/hy...tionalism.html

Since your hand is "apparently paralyzed" and unable to CLICK on the link I provided earlier to Dr. Walker's material, here are a few portions; I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO FOLLOW THE LINK AND GET THE BOOK AND FULL INFORMATION ON THIS ISSUE:

"Ryrie correctly notes that most “Dispensationalists say that the church began at Pentecost, while ultra dispensationalists believe that it began with Paul sometime later.”[6] Whether or not they hold to the “Acts 28” view (Bullinger), or the Acts 18 view (O’Hair) or the so-named “mid Acts” view (Acts 9 - Stam and Sadler) makes no difference. They all add an extra dispensation between Acts 2 and Paul. THIS IS DONE TO ELIMINATE WATER BAPTISM. [Bullinger, and his followers also did away with communion since they only held Paul’s prison epistles (of which 1 Cor. 11 is not included) as doctrine for the Church Age.]"......

Hung Up To Dry
Below are the Bible answers to this
anti-baptism (dry-cleaning) fixation:

Answer One
The commission in Matthew 28 is NOT distinctly Jewish, or the word “nations” would not have been used. [All the confusion over the different “commissions” overlooks the fact that Paul is the only apostle that fulfilled the “Tribulation commission” of Mark 16:16-18 (all except drinking the poison).]

Answer Two
The mode of baptism in Matt. 28 is NOT the same as Acts 2:38. All three names of the Godhead are used in Matt. 28 while only the name of “Jesus Christ” is used in Acts 2.

Answer Three
All three names (plural) are said to be a “name” (singular). This is interesting, because in Acts 10:48 Gentiles are baptized by Peter, not in the name of Jesus Christ, but in the “name (singular) of the Lord” - “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

Answer Four
Church history testifies to the fact of believers baptism (immersion) after conversion. Hypers believe that the truth was missing all these years, and was finally revealed and “recovered.” [27]

Answer Five
Paul was baptized, and we are to follow Paul. To this contention, hypers may respond, “Paul was circumcised too, but we should not get circumcised.” This comparison is not justifiable. For, Paul was circumcised as a Jew, but BAPTIZED AS A BELIEVER in Jesus Christ. Baptism was something NEW CONVERTS did! Paul was a new convert, placed into the “one body,” and was baptized as a “new creature,” not a Jew or Gentile! As Ruckman states, “Paul COMMANDED NO ONE to attend church, pass out tracts, proselyte Baptists who are already saved, or argue about water baptism.”[28]

Answer Six
Furthermore, Peter, James, and John WERE ALL BAPTIZED, and so was Jesus Christ. Hypers claim that Christ’s baptism was his priestly “anointing.”[29] They go to the Greek and are thereby confused with “washing” and “baptism.” Jesus was not anointed as a priest on earth! His earthly ministry was that of a prophet (John 1:25; 4:19; 6:14; 7:40; Deut. 18:18). The priestly role of Jesus Christ took place after He died and rose again! See: Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14.

Answer Seven
Paul baptized his own converts, AFTER Acts 9! The meaning of 1 Cor. 1:17 is clear if one adheres to the context. A verse without a context is useless. Christ did not send ANYONE just to baptize, but to preach!

Answer Eight
Just because the phrase “one baptism” is used, does not annul water baptism. If it did, Paul would not have baptized anyone, and would have COMMANDED believers NOT to be baptized in water.

The context again clears up any misunderstanding. Notice the framework is unity: “one another,” (vs. 2); “unity of the Spirit” (vs. 3); and seven “ones” in the passage (verses 4-6). Paul is saying that there is only one “saving baptism.” This would match Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12; 1 Cor. 12:13 and Matt. 3:11. That must be the correct “interpretation,” since we know there are MANY “lords,” MANY “faiths” and MANY “spirits...” FULL ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.victory-baptist.net/hyper.htm#_ftn13