[chette777]

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.