[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by larryb

One must be careful to read distinctions in the Scripture where they are warranted. There is a difference between the shadows of the OT that pointed to Christ (e.g. animal sacrifices), which were ceremonial laws...and the moral laws as summed up in the 10 commandments, which are still in effect in the new administration of the covenant of grace.

Allow me to quote James Knox in his new book The Law and Rightly Dividing The Word Reconsidered (pages 61-62),

"In a desperate attempt to cling to the law, many ministers and some denominations have tried to divide the law into sections or divisions. While we cannot list all the many ways their arguments are phrased, one example will suffice.

"We are told that the law of the Lord is the ten commandments and that the law of Moses includes the ordinances, offerings, feast days, and the dietary laws, etc. They say that Jesus' finished work did not include the ten commandments but that only the law of Moses was fulfilled at the cross.

The easiest way to put this error to bed is to show that the terms are used interchangeably by the Holy Spirit. Luke 2:22-24 says, And when the days of her purification according to the LAW OF MOSES were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the LAW OF THE LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the LAW OF THE LORD...

"Notice in the passage that Mary is said to have taken the baby Jesus to the temple to present Him to the Lord, in obedience to the LAW OF THE LORD and to offer a sacrifice according to the LAW OF THE LORD. Such a requirement is not found in the ten commandments but in the (so called) law of Moses. Again we read: And when they had performed all things according to the LAW OF THE LORD, they returned into Galilee... (Luke 2:39).

"One may find this same argument stated as, 'Jesus died to save us from the ceremonial law but we are still under the moral law.' The scriptures studed in this section show that such a position cannot be supported by the word of God.

"The believer is not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14). We are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6), free from the law (Romans 8:2), and dead to the law (Galatians 2:19). Praise the Lord!"

[JOHN G]

This has been a dispute from the beginning between believers.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing,

No one has ever kept the Law of Moses except our King Jesus!

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Here is the four commandments for the Gentiles.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

It is good news to be saved by grace and not by works of the law!

Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

[peopleoftheway]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

Allow me to quote James Knox in his new book The Law and Rightly Dividing The Word Reconsidered (pages 61-62),

"In a desperate attempt to cling to the law, many ministers and some denominations have tried to divide the law into sections or divisions. While we cannot list all the many ways their arguments are phrased, one example will suffice.

"We are told that the law of the Lord is the ten commandments and that the law of Moses includes the ordinances, offerings, feast days, and the dietary laws, etc. They say that Jesus' finished work did not include the ten commandments but that only the law of Moses was fulfilled at the cross.

The easiest way to put this error to bed is to show that the terms are used interchangeably by the Holy Spirit. Luke 2:22-24 says, And when the days of her purification according to the LAW OF MOSES were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the LAW OF THE LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the LAW OF THE LORD...

"Notice in the passage that Mary is said to have taken the baby Jesus to the temple to present Him to the Lord, in obedience to the LAW OF THE LORD and to offer a sacrifice according to the LAW OF THE LORD. Such a requirement is not found in the ten commandments but in the (so called) law of Moses. Again we read: And when they had performed all things according to the LAW OF THE LORD, they returned into Galilee... (Luke 2:39).

"One may find this same argument stated as, 'Jesus died to save us from the ceremonial law but we are still under the moral law.' The scriptures studed in this section show that such a position cannot be supported by the word of God.

"The believer is not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14). We are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6), free from the law (Romans 8:2), and dead to the law (Galatians 2:19). Praise the Lord!"

Amen! Yes of course you are absolutely right, we are dead to the law.
My Statement>

"Gods moral laws are to be kept, but the 1 ceremonial law was nailed to the Lords cross."

I probably could have worded that statement better

I Know that I am to have no other gods before him
I know that I should not make graven images of, or bow down to, other gods.
I know I shouldn't take the Lords name in vain
I know that I should honour my father and my mother
I know not to commit adultery
I know not to steal
I know not to Kill
I know not to bear false witness against my neighbour
I know not to covet my neighbour's house / wife / possessions

I realise that these commandments are our moral guideline and that we are not UNDER the law in the sense that breaking these commandments will result in the same punishment to those who where in time past UNDER the law, ie Old Testament Israel
Example in Exodus I stated in an above post

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

[chette777]

While their statement does Justice to defining the NT dispensations by book division. it looks similar to Doug Stoufer's outline of NT book divisions.

But those dispensations cannot be so cut and dry either. and because of that as was mentioned earlier could morph into over division or hyper-dispensationalism.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by pneuby

I'm concerned about 'some' of the doctrine I've found on this site, and I wondered if anyone of you were familiar with them. Since there is more than a few hourse of reading here, I'll point you to this page, specifically....

http://www.av-1611.com/Key_Understanding_Bible.htm

Since Pastor Jordan is a personal friend of mine and we agree on about 99 percent of Biblical doctrine, what are your "concerns" Pneuby?

Thanks for the link, BTW.

Grace and peace

Tony

the site in question is definitely hyper-dispensational and dry-cleaning! be careful!

[Luke]

Every single one of us on here are "dry cleaners" unless you think Baptism does some kind of spiritual cleaning ala Campbellites, aka Water dogs. When you were saved, you were made clean without water, by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Luke

Every single one of us on here are "dry cleaners" unless you think Baptism does some kind of spiritual cleaning ala Campbellites, aka Water dogs. When you were saved, you were made clean without water, by the Holy Spirit.

Not exactly how I have seen the term used before. I meant dry-cleaners in the sense that they don't administer the NT ordinance of baptism AT ALL. Baptism is an ORDINANCE not a sacrament. It is something we do out of obedience to the scripture for no other reason than to obey the Scripture. It has nothing to do with salvation.
But if you know your church history, you know that the Baptists were persecuted heavily by the protestants for insisting on baptism AFTER salvation, and not in connection with salvation. Our position implicated their doctrine as false, since by default, baby-sprinklers are forced to admit that baptism is connected to salvation, and that it is not necessary after salvation. WE have lost our sense of history because of our political freedoms.

Originally Posted by Steve Schwenke

Not exactly how I have seen the term used before. I meant dry-cleaners in the sense that they don't administer the NT ordinance of baptism AT ALL. Baptism is an ORDINANCE not a sacrament. It is something we do out of obedience to the scripture for no other reason than to obey the Scripture. It has nothing to do with salvation.
But if you know your church history, you know that the Baptists were persecuted heavily by the protestants for insisting on baptism AFTER salvation, and not in connection with salvation. Our position implicated their doctrine as false, since by default, baby-sprinklers are forced to admit that baptism is connected to salvation, and that it is not necessary after salvation. WE have lost our sense of history because of our political freedoms.

Excellent post brother Schwenke.

[chette777]

We try and keep our doctrines in line with what Paul teaches. If Jesus, John the Baptist, James and Peter teaches something, doctrine, baptism. I Will find scriptures where Paul teaches the same thing, then I make it a doctrine for the church. If not then I might find it as an application but not a doctrines. Paul does not teach Baptism as an ordinance.

Roms 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
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.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Paul teaches Baptism is an act of Identification of the believer with Christ. Just as Christ was baptized in the identification of sinners. Who were taught by John the Baptist to repent and be baptized for the remissions of sins. Jesus Identified himself with sinners in Johns Baptism and Paul taught we are baptized in His likeness. the water baptism is just an outward show of identification.

Christ had no sins so why be baptized? Identification an outward show. it was all part of God the Father overall plan for him to be in the likeness of sinful man that he might fulfill the purpose of death for the forgiveness of sins for all men. John said to him it is you who should baptize me. and he is right the baptism for the remission of John;s sins. but Christ said to let it be

Matt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Seeing Christ took time to show his identification with man through water baptism we should too. and we need no ordinance for that. it is something each man must be convinced by the Holy Ghost to do and not by rule or regulation of ordinances to enforce this. for Baptism today is not an act of obedience unless you place them under a Kingdom Gospel instead of the Gospel of Grace.

Paul's teaching under the Gospel of grace has baptism as an identification not an ordinance to follow.