View Single Post
  #39  
Old 05-01-2009, 08:56 PM
chette777's Avatar
chette777 chette777 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Puerto Princesa City, Palawan Philippines
Posts: 1,431
Default

Tbones,

I agree with most of what you shared.

However I don't believe or think that Baptism is an OT law. I would not liken it to the washing of priest in the Aronic priesthood. As these Israelite's being Baptized by John. and John himself would be in violation for that washing was ONLY for the priestly cast. the washing was for cleansing and Baptism today in both the HS and the Physical are not for cleansing.

The Baptism was a new thing even Pharisees would not/could not say where it came from. For if it was from the Law, as you claim, they could of answered Christ's question of where it came from and Jesus would of had to tell them who gave him authority to forgive sin.

I agree with the dispensational view of Baptism of Matt 28

I also agree that Paul never taught it.

Bro Tim, Philip was a disciple and Apostle Matt 10:3 lists him as an apostle and he was present at the time of the Lords ascension. the point is it was a direct act of obedience to Matt 28 because Philip was a disciple and the Eunuch was a proselyte to Judaism.