[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

In fact, the term "baptism" doesn't even appear anywhere in the entire Old Testament.

Somehow I feel like that won't matter.

Tony has been shown scripture after scripture from the start of this thread as to why the Lord's INSTRUCTIONS on believer's baptism are important and applicable for today and not part of any law. Bro. Chette just gave a very good overview also, as to "washings" vs. baptism.

Brother Tony has been treated with "kid gloves" on this thread because he is very likeable and a welcomed contributor. Sadly, now he is out in the ring swinging his Bible, challenging the Baptists and suggesting they might be "afraid" of his views? Oh brother...

This is the nature of doctrinal disputes, churches have been split and entire denominations have been started over things like this. IT IS WHAT IT IS, peeps. Brandon, I'm glad to see you involved in the discussion brother.

Brother Parrish, you and I differ because the instructions given by Christ in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 are not aimed at me. We're mincing words and at the point many "go to the Greek" to criticize the translation of "baptismos" in Hebrews 9 as "washings". If you want to follow the 1st post-resurrection commission given to the apostles to Israel, that's up to you brother. There are several commissions given to the apostles after the resurrection; I am following the one given to Paul for me found in Acts 9 given to Paul personally by Christ, as the other 12 Apostle's were to Israel. There is no one "great" commission, all God's commissions are great.

By this time I have demonstrated to Chette why John's consecrational washing of all Israel was known as the washing(baptism) of repentance. The Levites were in as bad a shape as the rest of the nation, as witnessed by a seemingly insignificant breaking of the Law by the high priest at Christ's trial:

Le 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

Mt 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

Mr 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?

This is the nature of doctrinal disputes, churches have been split and entire denominations have been started over things like this." Amen brother! The largest and most well known and longest reaching church "split" with the greatest impact was called the Protestant Reformation, which led to the translation of the KJV, among other things.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

I'm not sure anyone replied to you, but I would refer any readers to the passage in Acts 19, when Paul came to Ephesus on his third preaching trip, he found some disciples there and asked them some very important questions...

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We can see in the passage above how the men remarked that they knew only the baptism of John. Paul responded by CLEARLY explaining why John's baptism was different (verse 4). John's baptism looked FORWARD to the coming of Jesus. Obviously, Jesus had not yet died when John baptized people. John's was a baptism of preparation looking FORWARD to Jesus' death (see Matthew 3:3).

This shows that John's baptism cannot be the identical baptism which Jesus instructed people to receive under the gospel (Mark 16:15,16; Matthew 28:18-20). Today's symbol of BELIEVER'S baptism looks BACKWARD to Jesus' death, burial and resurrection (the Gospel) as accomplished facts. We are baptized into His death, picturing His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Before we can participate in believer's baptism, we must believe in Jesus as God's Son who has been raised from the dead (Rom. 10:9,10; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-38).

One of my favorite passages of believer's baptism is right here in Acts chapter 8, regarding the Ethiopian eunuch...

29 "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

So thanks to our beloved King James Bible, there is the clear doctrine on believer's baptism, like a diamond in the dust. I like the way verse 37 demonstrates the simple plan for this important ordinance which is reserved for all believers. This is why I was baptized after I was saved, even though I was not baptized in a Baptist church, and I was actually baptized long before I ever became a Baptist.

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The Ethiopian and Cornelius were Gentile proselytes to Judaism brother, the order somewhat reversed as these proselytes spoke in tongues also prior to water baptism and no more a pattern for church practice today that in Mark 16 where tongues were to follow baptism.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

For anyone who is interested in the history of Bullingerism and other teachings,
I submit a few notes from David E. Walker and his book on
THE BIBLE BELIEVER'S GUIDE TO DISPENSATIONALISM...

"I would say it is the closest thing to a DEFINITIVE work on
Dispensationalism as I have ever read." - Dr. Peter S. Ruckman


HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM...

Ruckman outlines the teachings of
hyper-dispensationalism as follows:

1. There is a period of time called “THE GRACE OF GOD” which began in Acts 9 (Stam, Baker, Moore, Watkins) or in Acts 18 (O’Hare and others) or in Acts 28 (Bullinger) . . .

2. Water baptism is not for “THIS AGE” since “THIS AGE” began in Acts 9 or Acts 13 or Acts 18 or Acts 28.

3. Bible-believing Baptists are heretics who do not follow PAULINE teaching (1 Ti. 1:16).

4. Since Paul did not COMMAND anyone to be baptized, it is UNSCRIPTURAL.

5. Since Paul was not “SENT TO BAPTIZE,” water baptism is PRE-PAULINE (1 Cor. 1).

6. The “ONE BAPTISM” of Ephesians 4 automatically cancels water baptism.

HUNG UP TO DRY
Below are the Bible answers
to this anti-baptism (dry-cleaning) fixation...
http://www.victory-baptist.net/hyper.htm#_ftn13

I notice Dr. Ruckman does not offer any Scripture to back up his 6 claims here.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Yes brother, I understand your point perfectly. Sadly, your point is still just as wrong as it was when you first made it, and that's why none of the Bible believers here have fallen for that stuff brother. Bro. Chette covered it quite well, there is no reason to re-hash, recap, recall or re-invent the ceremonial washings of the OT and the Levites. You are "mixing OIL with VINEGAR," and you can shake that bottle until the cows come home but they won't mix for you any more than they have for any other ultradispensationalist including Dr. Bullinger himself. The term Baptism is never found even ONCE the entire Old Testament. Nothing like a King James Bible to clear up doctrinal issues.

Brother, neither does the phrase "believer's baptism", nor "following the Lord in believer's baptism" occur anywhere in the Bible, OT or NT.

There is nothing like precept upon precept, line upon line, for establishing what is efficacious for times past, for now, for ages to come.

As I said, I've established a straight line of the OT baptisms of Hebrews 6, the "washings" of Hebrews 9, from their first commandment by God in Exodus 29 and 40, into their first actual practice as like figures of Jesus Christ as High Priest in Leviticus 8 right into the last of these washings in Acts 19.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[chette777]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

By this time I have demonstrated to Chette why John's consecrational washing of all Israel was known as the washing(baptism) of repentance. The Levites were in as bad a shape as the rest of the nation, as witnessed by a seemingly insignificant breaking of the Law by the high priest at Christ's trial

The priest were required to first make a sacrifice for themselves for an atonement and forgiveness of sins. I have not seen any verse that Levite priests are washed for remissions of sins. Under Mosaic law they were to make a sacrifice before commencing the duties of a priest for the forgiveness of their sins

[chette777]

Originally Posted by BroParish

One of my favorite passages of believer's baptism is right here in Acts chapter 8, regarding the Ethiopian eunuch...

29 "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."

So thanks to our beloved King James Bible, there is the clear doctrine on believer's baptism, like a diamond in the dust. I like the way verse 37 demonstrates the simple plan for this important ordinance which is reserved for all believers. This is why I was baptized after I was saved, even though I was not baptized in a Baptist church, and I was actually baptized long before I ever became a Baptist.

this is clearly John's Baptism. you will notice a few things though this man is a Gentile he is a convert to Judaism hence why he is reading the OT.

1) Philip never mentions the death Burial and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. it only says he preached to him Jesus. you would have to do a lot of assumption to make this the gospel of Grace. but if you will notice what they were preaching and teaching about Jesus from Acts 2-7 you will see that it is that he is their Messiah and King whom they had killed. Philip was teaching the kingdom gospel as he had before with Peter and the rest who had to go to Samaria to lay hands on the converts there to show they were submitting to Jerusalem for their religious authority and not that of Samaria when the kingdom was divided. this is God reuniting the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea.

2) The eunuch never believes on the finished work of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Only that he is the Son of God.

3) He is not a believer in the Gospel of Grace as you or I are so this is not our believers baptism. this is the believers Baptism as that of John the Baptist those who believed the Kingdom Gospel in that sense only is it believers baptism but not church age believers baptism

The gospel of Grace is not revealed yet it will be in Chapter nine to Paul. again you read into the scripture things that are not there.

[Fredoheaven]

Originally Posted by chette777

this is clearly John's Baptism. you will notice a few things though this man is a Gentile he is a convert to Judaism hence why he is reading the OT.

1) Philip never mentions the death Burial and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. it only says he preached to him Jesus. you would have to do a lot of assumption to make this the gospel of Grace. but if you will notice what they were preaching and teaching about Jesus from Acts 2-7 you will see that it is that he is their Messiah and King whom they had killed. Philip was teaching the kingdom gospel as he had before with Peter and the rest who had to go to Samaria to lay hands on the converts there to show they were submitting to Jerusalem for their religious authority and not that of Samaria when the kingdom was divided. this is God reuniting the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea.

2) The eunuch never believes on the finished work of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Only that he is the Son of God.

3) He is not a believer in the Gospel of Grace as you or I are so this is not our believers baptism. this is the believers Baptism as that of John the Baptist those who believed the Kingdom Gospel in that sense only is it believers baptism but not church age believers baptism

The gospel of Grace is not revealed yet it will be in Chapter nine to Paul. again you read into the scripture things that are not there.

Good day bro. Chette,

If the Eunuch never believed on the finished work of Christ and that he believed Christ as the Son of God which would qualify him as convert to Judaism, then Paul's preaching of Christ as the Son of God to many of his converts were members of Judaism and not the New Testament Church. However, in addressing to the believers in Thessalonians, Paul could simply wrote them as a church.

2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I notice Dr. Ruckman does not offer any Scripture to back up his 6 claims here.

Grace and peace

Tony

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

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Tony, are you having "flashbacks"? You're dredging up a lot of posts from the past. It is hard to keep up with the context.

Bro. Tim, this is merely an attempt to extend the thread and keep it at the top of the forum until it becomes the focus of the group. This is because Hyperdispensationalists and Bullingerites are obsessed with the issue and they HATE BELIEVER'S BAPTISM, and they CAN'T STAND THE IDEA of any pastors baptizing new believers. It's almost cult-like. This thread started out good, but has become a dream come true for a Hyper, they will always ride it until the "bitter end" even at the price of destroying the unity of the believers they are "camping" with at the time. Many pastors consider them to be "nomads of dissension." This is why the "Hyper" movement has never built churches, or edified anyone, and this is where the term "church splitter" comes from.

[Winman]

Bro Parrish

Thank you for those links, I read them and am in agreement with you. I never really understood these terms such as Hyper-Dispensationalist before, I need to do some study.

I would disagree with whosoever said the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was not preached to the Ethiopian eunuch. Look at the very scriptures this man was reading:

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

How could Philip have not teached the death, burial, and resurrection? These verses were prophesy of Jesus being put to death. It says he began at these very verses, so it is not a wild assumption to believe that he explained to the eunuch how Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead. This is the Gospel.