[George]

Aloha brother Tandy,

A few comments and questions concerning your Post #127 (Thread > "Is water baptism for today?")

Your quote:

“Let me tell you a little secret. If you want to know how God dealt with men in the Old Testament just get a concordance and look up the word "heart."

I’d like to let you in on a “little secret” – Most of the people who Post on this Forum use an Electronic Concordance called SwordSearcher, which, by the way, the Forum Administrator, Diligent (Brandon Staggs) happens to be the Author of. {And which is 100 times faster and more convenient to use than a Concordance}

Your quote:

“God deals with men's hearts and their works prove what kind of hearts they have! That is why you see so many men who claim to be Christians but live their entire lives like devils. They give a mental assent to the gospel and Christianity but their hearts have never been converted. The same goes with a Jew under the law. He could keep all the ordinances and have all the outward appearance of piety yet have a heart just like the Pharisees and go straight to hell."

I must take exception to your statement: “God deals with men's hearts and their works prove what kind of hearts they have!” The Lord Jesus Christ said: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

There are so many false religions and cults out in the world that have lots of “good works”, but their “fruit” is rotten and corrupt. Works do NOT “prove” – “what kind of hearts they have”; according to the Lord - “FRUIT” is what we are to look for in men’s lives – NOT “works”.

Your quote:

"Many hyper-dispensationsalists refuse to preach about REPENTANCE when it comes to salvation because they turn it into a WORK. Repentance (a heartfelt sorrow for sin and a desire to turn from it) is no more a work than believing the gospel!”

Brother Chette is both a missionary and pastor on the Island Palawan in the Philippines. He is NOT a novice, nor is he a “Hyper-dispensationalist”; you didn’t tell him anything that he doesn’t already know, but I’m afraid that your tone came off a bit condescending toward him.

Perhaps you can clarify your position for us:

Do you believe that “God’s Salvation has ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME since Adam’s Fall?

Do you believe that Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were saved the SAME "way" as we are today? {And what about Lot’s “works”? - 2Peter 2:7}

Do you believe that Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Judges, David, and the Prophets were saved the SAME "way" as we are today? (And what about Samson’s “works”? Hebrews 11:32)

Do you believe that Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Disciples were “saved” just exactly the SAME "way" as we are today – BEFORE the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord?

And do you believe that it is absolutely necessary that a person REPENT of their sins BEFORE they can be “saved” today?

Perhaps if you would explain yourself more clearly we would have a better idea as to WHERE you are coming from. I would suggest that you use the “search” function (advanced) on this Forum and look up “hyper-dispensationalism”; “justification”; “repentance”; salvation”; etc.; etc.; (and read at least some of the Threads & Posts) to get an idea of WHAT some of the people on this Forum believe, before making any “judgments”.

At this moment there are over 1,100 “Threads” & nearly 20,000 “Posts” concerning those “Threads”. Much of what you have presented here has already been discussed, and for some of us it would be like going over “old ground” and involve a lot of repetition.

Perhaps after you have answered some of the questions I have posed to you, we can proceed to an amicable “discussion” of the issues involved.

[Brother Tim]

fruits<>works (although good fruit will produce good works)

Great point, Bro. George!

So many get the two confused (and most, unintentionally), as if they were synonymous.

Tandy, I want to second George's recommendation for SwordSearcher. Nothing else on the market can match it for ease of use and effectiveness.

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Tandy,

A few comments and questions concerning your Post #127 (Thread > "Is water baptism for today?")

Your quote:
I’d like to let you in on a “little secret” – Most of the people who Post on this Forum use an Electronic Concordance called SwordSearcher, which, by the way, the Forum Administrator, Diligent (Brandon Staggs) happens to be the Author of. {And which is 100 times faster and more convenient to use than a Concordance}

Your quote:I must take exception to your statement: “God deals with men's hearts and their works prove what kind of hearts they have!” The Lord Jesus Christ said: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

There are so many false religions and cults out in the world that have lots of “good works”, but their “fruit” is rotten and corrupt. Works do NOT “prove” – “what kind of hearts they have”; according to the Lord - “FRUIT” is what we are to look for in men’s lives – NOT “works”.

Your quote: Brother Chette is both a missionary and pastor on the Island Palawan in the Philippines. He is NOT a novice, nor is he a “Hyper-dispensationalist”; you didn’t tell him anything that he doesn’t already know, but I’m afraid that your tone came off a bit condescending toward him.

Perhaps you can clarify your position for us:

Do you believe that “God’s Salvation has ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME since Adam’s Fall?

Do you believe that Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were saved the SAME "way" as we are today? {And what about Lot’s “works”? - 2Peter 2:7}

Do you believe that Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the Judges, David, and the Prophets were saved the SAME "way" as we are today? (And what about Samson’s “works”? Hebrews 11:32)

Do you believe that Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Disciples were “saved” just exactly the SAME "way" as we are today – BEFORE the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord?

And do you believe that it is absolutely necessary that a person REPENT of their sins BEFORE they can be “saved” today?

Perhaps if you would explain yourself more clearly we would have a better idea as to WHERE you are coming from. I would suggest that you use the “search” function (advanced) on this Forum and look up “hyper-dispensationalism”; “justification”; “repentance”; salvation”; etc.; etc.; (and read at least some of the Threads & Posts) to get an idea of WHAT some of the people on this Forum believe, before making any “judgments”.

At this moment there are over 1,100 “Threads” & nearly 20,000 “Posts” concerning those “Threads”. Much of what you have presented here has already been discussed, and for some of us it would be like going over “old ground” and involve a lot of repetition.

Perhaps after you have answered some of the questions I have posed to you, we can proceed to an amicable “discussion” of the issues involved.

Brother George sometimes unless one is standing on the outside and looking on he may not realize the impression he is making. I suppose you are right that my “tone” could be take the wrong way. I don't wish to be condescending. I have been humbled many times down through the years and take what you said to heart.

I would consider one who rejects the commission given by our Lord just before his ascension to be a hyper-dispensationalist. That doesn't mean that he is a heretic or anything of that sort but I do believe it is an important doctrine given to the church. The gospel given is after the death, burial and resurrection and clearly is the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15.

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

It is certainly not the “gospel of the kingdom” given to the nation of Israel. It is the gospel that is to be given to “all nations.” The apostle Paul simply brings to light many things that had been a mystery up to that point.

I must take exception to your statement: “God deals with men's hearts and their works prove what kind of hearts they have!” The Lord Jesus Christ said: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

Let me explain what I am saying.

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Yes. Abraham was justified by works but not before God. Clearly men before the law and under the law were justified by faith without works when it came to righteousness. That is my position.

[George]

Aloha brother Tandy,

I appreciate your honest and quick response. I have to go somewhere for a while today, but I shall try to lay out my "position" on this issue, so that you might better understand WHERE I am coming from, as soon as I possibly can.

Until then, if you get the opportunity, try to check out some of the "Threads" on the Forum that may be of interest to you.

Yes George, please lay out your position on water baptism and why it is not part of the Mosaic Law or unscriptural as suggested by hyperdispensationalism... I'm sure that we would find it enlightening.

[George]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Yes George, please lay out your position on water baptism and why it is not part of the Mosaic Law or unscriptural as suggested by hyperdispensationalism... I'm sure that we would find it enlightening.

Aloha brother Parrish,

This Post is answer to your requests.

Brother Tony said:

“I believe the Body of Christ was present but not yet manifest and identified and had, as Paul said, "above 511" members: The 11 apostles and those over 500 believers who saw Christ resurrected.”

And I agree with him here – although this point has been “debated” by the “scribes” & “scholars” for centuries.

Brother Tony said:

“Within the But Now Age I rightly divide Paul into”

Early Paul - "To the Jew first..." Acts 9- Acts 28

Mid Paul - But Now, "...neither Jew nor Gentile..." Acts Chapter 29

Late Paul – ”Ages To Come, wise masterbuilder who was the custodian who administered the transition from Gospel Of The Kingdom Of Heaven(Restored Isreal) which is the gospel committed to Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Twelve, into the Grace Age of today and on into the Tribulation, as Paul authored Hebrews, the first book of Tribulation doctrine, and was the most qualified to write it as a human oracle.”

I do not agree with brother Tony on this teaching, because I am NOT told to “rightly divide Paul” – I am told to “rightly divide the word of truth.” And so - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul is a “construct” that may or may not be true. I could just as easily say that Early Paul = the time between Paul’s conversion and his taking up residence in Antioch; and that Mid Paul = the time that Paul spent in Antioch before his “call”; and Late Paul = the time after Paul’s “call” up to his death.

I believe that a careful reading of the Book of Acts will reveal that it is a “transitional” Book (transitioning from the exclusive call and “appeal” to the nation of Israel {as a corporate entity}, [Acts Chapters 1-7] - to the call and inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God and the establishment of the “church of God” - saints – both Jews & Gentiles [Acts Chapters 8-28]).

I am fearful of “construct’s” based upon suppositions (or history), and NOT upon clear Scriptural words themselves. No where’s in the New Testament does it talk about - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul. And for that reason I shy away from this kind of teaching; just like I shy away from declaring (with no reservations) that the Apostle Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews. And although I personally “think” he did, since I cannot prove my speculation, I will not declare something to be true which I cannot demonstrate (with the exact words) from Scripture that it is so.

I’m not trying to make excuses, but when it comes to brother Tony’s presentation from the Old Testament – brother Tony can “leave me in the dust” when it comes to this subject. I have not done an in-depth study on the subject, since I personally haven’t seen its importance. I will make this one comment though – the word “baptize” cannot be found in the Old Testament, and so any “connection” between New Testament water baptism and the Old Testament will have to be done through “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the word “baptize” or “baptism” is completely absent from the Old Testament record; and since we are told to “rightly divide the word of truth” – any teaching derived from the Old Testament in regards to the subject of water baptism will be completely dependent upon “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the words “baptize” or “baptism” are not in the Old Testament. And although I believe that there are legitimate “Similitude’s” & “Type’s” to be found in both Testaments, I am, again, extremely reluctant to rely solely on them for doctrine, since without the specific words, there is a too broad an area for personal “interpretation”.

This I do know - water Baptism conveys no special “grace” on a believer, but on the other hand, since Paul did Baptize (1 Corinthians 1: 13-17 - which he did do & didn’t deny); and he is our “example” [1Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; Philippians 3:17], I believe that water Baptism is one of the two main “ordinances” for a New Testament church – especially since there is NO clear commandment PROHIBITING its practice.

Tony’s point based on Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul is (to me) not very strong, but on the other hand his point about “one baptism” is (to be honest) extremely difficult to deal with.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Now we all know WHAT that ONE BAPTISM is referring to (or we should know). It’s referring to the Holy Spirit “baptizing” a believer into the body of Christ at the moment he or she BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ, and RECEIVES Him as their personal Saviour [John 1:12-13 & 1 Corinthians 12:13]. So what do we do about “water Baptism”?

Absent a commandment NOT to Baptize, I believe that it is perfectly alright, as long as we don’t try to make it spiritually “efficacious” in any way other than identifying with the Lord’s death [Romans 6:3], burial, and resurrection (and possibly as a “testimony” for the dead in Christ, that shall rise again from “the dead” one day - 1 Corinthians 15:29).

Just as there is only one “church of God” (with many churches); and just as there is only one “body of Christ” (manifested in many individual bodies); I believe there is only ONE BAPTISM (of which water Baptism is a “type”). I will not “fight” with a fellow brother in Christ over this doctrine {admittedly there are some verses that support Tony’s conviction}; and unless brother Tony were to persist in bringing it up (which I doubt he will), I have no problem fellowshipping with him at all.

There are many other doctrines that are of far more import than water Baptism in the Bible. Someday the Lord Jesus Christ is going to straighten me out on all of my doctrine [1 Corinthians 13:9-12]; in the mean time, I try to be careful not to “shoot our own troops” (with whom I may disagree – as long as we are of the “same mind” on the weightier matters”). The enemy is at the gates; they are within our ranks; they have taken over practically all of the “Christian” schools & colleges; they have taken over most of the leadership rolls; they are undermining our morale; and destroying genuine Bible believers’ faith in God’s Holy word.

We need every single soldier for Christ that we can get. We cannot afford to alienate a fellow brother in Christ who clearly loves God’s word (i.e. the SWORD of the Spirit – Ephesians 6:17) the ONLY OFFENSIVE WEAPON in our entire arsenal - and knows WHERE to find it and HOW to use it.

If I thought that this issue was as important as the existence of God, angels, satan, and devils; or as the creation, the Flood, Heaven and Hell; or as sin, the atonement, redemption, salvation, being born again, and the church; or as the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, his virgin birth, His sinless life; His Blood Atonement, and His death burial, and resurrection (i.e. the “Gospel”) - if I thought for one moment that brother Tony were not of the “same mind” on all of these “weightier matters”, I would be the first one to “separate” myself from him; but his testimony rings true on those things (doctrines) that matter most to me (and I hope to God also); and so we will probably end up “agreeing to disagree”.

I have ended up in this same kind of a relationship with several other members of this Forum, whom I still appreciate (even though we differ on some issues). I refuse to have anything to do with Bible correctors and deniers; and I will NOT “tolerate” Hereticks (False Teachers); all other brethren are welcome “at my table” – I will not separate myself or refuse to fellowship with a fellow brother in Christ because we differ on how to “rightly divide the word” on this issue.

If I have disappointed some of you, because I haven’t taken as much time and effort (as is my habit) to refute each and every point (with Scripture) that brother Tony has brought up in defense of his convictions, I apologize. I just don’t have the time (nor am I inclined) to attempt to “contend” with him. And not only that, to be perfectly honest, I’m not so sure that I could refute each and every one of his points.

I will say it one more time: I believe that brother Tony is mistaken on this issue. I haven’t spent the kind of time studying this issue as I have many others, because I do not think that it is as important as the major Doctrines (i.e. weightier matters - some of which I have cited above). I’m all for putting this issue “to bed” (and leave it there). I believe that we all know (now) that brother Tony has scriptural reasons for his convictions in this matter, and he has ably supported his position from the Scriptures. If he is willing - lets all put aside all of the malice, rancor, and hard feelings that this issue has stirred up and get on with the work of God [John 6:29]. I believe the time is short – maybe a lot shorter than we think.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Originally Posted by George

I do not agree with brother Tony on this teaching, because I am NOT told to “rightly divide Paul” – I am told to “rightly divide the word of truth.” And so - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul is a “construct” that may or may not be true. I could just as easily say that Early Paul = the time between Paul’s conversion and his taking up residence in Antioch; and that Mid Paul = the time that Paul spent in Antioch before his “call”; and Late Paul = the time after Paul’s “call” up to his death.

I believe that a careful reading of the Book of Acts will reveal that it is a “transitional” Book (transitioning from the exclusive call and “appeal” to the nation of Israel {as a corporate entity}, [Acts Chapters 1-7] - to the call and inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God and the establishment of the “church of God” - saints – both Jews & Gentiles [Acts Chapters 8-28]).

I am fearful of “construct’s” based upon suppositions (or history), and NOT upon clear Scriptural words themselves. No where’s in the New Testament does it talk about - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul. And for that reason I shy away from this kind of teaching...

Excellent points overall, thanks for your comments and we agree on this. And just for the record—I don't see this as merely being about Tony, there are now three voters on the poll who are saying that water baptism is not for believers today, so I was hoping that as a group we would be able to stop "dancing around" at some point and set the record straight. Your points on the divisions of Paul are well stated brother.

Originally Posted by George

I believe that we all know (now) that brother Tony has scriptural reasons for his convictions in this matter, and he has ably supported his position from the Scriptures.

Hmmm, you'll have to speak for yourself on that one. I don't think the Bullingerites have scriptural reasons for the convictions that result in telling EVERYONE OF US that we were UNSCRIPTURALLY baptized. The only thing that was "supported" was the typical confusion that has been displayed by every hyperdispensationalist since Bullinger wrote the Companion Bible back in the nineteenth century.

My position on this has not changed; Hyperdispensationalism has destroyed many churches, we are told to RIGHTLY divide the Word, but blindly chopping up our King James Bible is not a scriptural reason for any doctrine—including those from Cornelius Stam and Baker, and it is certainly not grounds for accusing believers who take part in believer's baptism of being somehow involved in the Mosaic Law.

Originally Posted by George

If he is willing - lets all put aside all of the malice, rancor, and hard feelings that this issue has stirred up and get on with the work of God...

Agreed George, I think we have beat this one enough, and let's hope we can move forward. For the record, for me this is NOT ABOUT ANY ONE MEMBER on this forum. It's about Biblical New Testament baptism vs. the teachings of Ethelbert Bullinger and his legacy of hyperdispensationalism. No one here is angry about anything or anyone and I certainly have no "hard feelings" about this thread or this topic. I'm sure that if we had the opportunity we could all have fellowship on many levels. Thanks again for your well-written comments.

[chette777]

Originally Posted by tandy1650

I would consider one who rejects the commission given by our Lord just before his ascension to be a hyper-dispensationalist.

Seeing that Tandi didn't chime in on this post until he had something against what I said I take this remark to refer to me.

But Tandi didn't read my other post either.

I believe we are to go and preach the word that men may have faith in Christ. But I don't believe we are to preach the "Gospel of the Kingdom" which needs to be accompanied by baptism for the remissions of sins. This was a command of Christ to the Apostle and Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And here is one of the many specific commands they were told to teach Mt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

John 3:22 ¶ After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. Joh 4:1 ¶ When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) these verse indeed tell us Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize though he did not they were active. what baptism was this? the one we practice today? No this is John's baptism for the remission of sions. why because Christ has not died yet.

I believe that we should baptize because Paul Baptized and he said to follow his example. But i would not teach or do it for someone to have remission of sins for only Christ blood can do that. nor would I do it if they thought they are saved by it or become a member of the Body because of it.

I wouldn't teach anyone to go to the Jews and not to Gentiles we are to go to all men for Romans 10 makes it clear God is treating all men alike as if they were all Gentiles. so by faith alone in Christ for salvation.

My remarks about Matthew 28 in no way make me a Hyper-dispensationalist. It would seem Tandi has a misunderstanding of the difference between hyper-division and hyper-dispensationalists. Neither is practice in my statement of Matthew 28:19.

my point is Matthew 28 would be hard for us to do if we just follow the Gospels. what Paul teaches us to do is far more beneficial and clear as to what we are to share. and it is not commandment. it is a grace given to everyman to either follow or reject we are under no requirement to share our faith but for me it is a privilege and a duty as part of my new life in Christ.

Chette I will be very careful to not add or twist words. You keep saying that Jesus is talking about the “gospel of the kingdom” in Matthew 28. He clearly is not. He is referring to the same gospel Paul preached which is the good news of the death, burial and resurrection (Luke 24:46) and the commission is not to the nation of Israel but to all nations.

You object because the Lord says that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name..." Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. Does that mean he died in order for us to sin or because of our sins? Remission means "FORGIVENESS" not "redemption." People were FORGIVEN for their sins in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. So what's the problem? No man was saved by works in the Old Testament so why do you believe that is what Jesus is teaching?

Act 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should REPENT and turn to God, and DO WORKS MEET FOR REPENTANCE.

If Paul preached that would you object to a Baptist preacher following his example? Paul clearly teaches that good works will justify no man when it comes to righteousness BEFORE GOD (Romans 4).

I sincerely don't understand where you are coming from in rejecting the commission in Matthew 28 since it is a to be preached to ALL NATIONS.

I guess my last question is this. Do you believe ONLY Paul's epistles are for Church doctrine? That is about the only thing I can figure.

If I have misrepresented any of your statements please correct me.

Originally Posted by chette777

Seeing that Tandi didn't chime in on this post until he had something against what I said I take this remark to refer to me.

But Tandi didn't read my other post either.

Just to be clear, we have two members on the forum with similar user names; the other one is named Tandi, this is not Tandi.