[tonybones2112]

I am a moderate dispensationalists and when I took and looked at Matthew as transitional from law to grace and from OT times to NT times, it makes a whole lot more sense than trying to fit it in as just the dispensation of Law

Chette, As far as the time progression, I see no break between the OT and Matthew. If you cross-refer to Luke you see John's father still performing the Temple duties. Christ told the apostles after the resurrection to teach their disciples whatsoever He had shown them: Keep the commandments to the rich young ruler, and the woman with the demon possessed daughter He taught them that Gentiles were dogs. A lot of people can't see the progression and step back into that time to see what really had been revealed. Acts is the best display of the transition. Cross referring Acts 15 with Galatians 2 we see pretty graphically laid out that the "Commissions" He gave the Twelve had been turned over to Paul and the gospel of grace and of the Mystery of Jew and Gentile together in one Body. While Paul still ministered to Jews we see up until Acts 28 water baptism, the signs and wonders of Mark 16 still in effect.

Then it all stops.

This had led some grace believers to think the Body began at the end of Acts("Late Acts Dispensationalists"). If we "rightly divide Paul" we see his early works to the Romans and Corinthians while the letters written after the Acts period are decidedly different. I can't see any "transition" in Matthew, just that it seems to go right into the early Acts period, the truly transitional book to me and many others.

I later the other day after posting found that John's father was of the priesthood. But John himself was not involved in the priesthood as he was committed to the Nazarite Vow and such was exempt from duties of a priest per se. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah of which nothing was spoken of concerning the priesthood. then that takes us into Hebrews of which Tandi already got everyone.

Not only was his father a Levite, the text mentions his mother was of "the daughters of Aaron..." John's birth was another miraculous birth, as was Abraham's, as his mother was far beyond childbearing years. John also was sanctified a Nazarite in the womb. Chette, it's only mour denominational teachings of a life time to many of us that blinds us to the fact that John did not pop up out of the ground declaring something the Jews did not understand, something new, he came to "fulfill" promises already made. The Jews understood water baptism better than the majority of Christianity for 2000 years, if you'll pardon me for saying that.

having said that what do you think the Apostles would of though Jesus Meant in Baptize them? of course they only knew of water Baptism (mat 28). If I am correct they did not consider the empowerment of Acts 2 to be a baptism.

I don't fully understand what you are saying here Chette, I need a little clarification.

Paul is the only one we know that presents a different Baptism other than water and he never commanded or taught anyone to water baptize.

Brother, the only thing I see Paul taught different in that respect is the sealing of the Holy Ghost to the believer. Paul was an apostle and had the signs of an apostle, with water baptism included. Yes, he baptized through the book of Acts but rarely, as he states to the Corinthians, water baptism was not his commission. The Philippian jailer is often used as a proof against the grace believer's teaching. I've never met a "hyper" yet who denied Paul baptizing in water in Acts. In 400+ messages to this forum since I've been here I have never once stated Paul didn't baptize in water. in the book of Acts. Paul raised the dead and shook of deadly serpents after they had bit him, and household salvation was present in Acts also, which are not in effect today. Build a church doctrine on the book of Acts? It's Bible doctrine, but it's not sound doctrine.

I wouldn't think anyone will ban you for your belief on this issue. I do think Brother Tim should rethink why the forums of AV1611 have been established. they weren't done so anyone could "rip em up" on anyone's belief on Baptism. this is an area that I thank God is a non essential to our salvation.

Brother Parrish's joke brother, and long since settled.

As I said if anyone claims to follow the command of Matthew 28 they have a lot more than water baptism to follow. Most here will first say they can't go forth and heal the sick, cast out demons because they do not believe those gifts are for today. but there is no choice here, you do "ALL" that Jesus commanded or you are in disobedience.

I agree 100 percent. Those who teach water baptism for today read to Mark 16:16 and stop. Everything after is not "dispensational". Neither is Mark 16:16. This commission is a kingdom of Heaven commossion, and not Body of Christ commission.

My last note "in the name", Jesus said many would come "In my name" and would say and teach many blasphemous things. "In the name of" is an approved Authority from God to do such things, not the actual physical or spiritual baptizing or immersing of the father, son, and holy ghost's name. the Pharisee's could not crucify Christ without Pilate's Name on the permit. his name was the authority and I believe the commission of the Apostles was the same.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were new concepts to the Jews Chette, as John so clearly states in I John 5:7, an interna;l witness to it's validity. The followers of Johns baptism that Pual found had never heard of the Holy Ghost.

Here is the command that Jesus gave the Apostles in a private location he had chosen for them: Mt 28:19 Go (first to go) ye therefore, and teach (second to teach) all nations, baptizing them (third to baptize)in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (this is the Authority) they were to go in the name of God, they were to teach in the name of God and they were to baptize in the name of God. Of course Jesus expounded God to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but it is still means the name of God.

Verse 20 is the clarification or addition of information concerning the command of verse 19 (if my understanding of what follows a colon is correct and it is - see "colon" in sword searcher's unabridged Webster's dictionary meaning) 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. here the will also run into a problem because many will not teach converts to go and heal the sick cast out demons or go into the mission field without raising money (by the way I did that and it makes for a trial of faith as God approves your ministry)/

I can just imagine the problems of going without support Chette.

blessings bro and thanks for the answers that all can appreciate.

Brother, thank you.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Fredoheaven

Well Brothers in Christ, the poll says 2 out of 20 voted for NO which was equaled to a 10% or a "tithe". Tithe was being practiced in the Old Testament(OT). "Father" Abraham commenced it and it was commanded by Moses(Deut. 12:6) thus incorporated in into a law. Tithes is God's own and is rightful to be brought out to God. This tithe being practiced in the OT was commended by our Lord Jesus Himself (Lk.11:42; Mat.23:23) thus it is practically needful fo us today. The point is, the similitude could be right because the tithe like the result of the poll is 10% God's own. It may be right after all.
Now what about those who voted with an enormous 18/20 or 90%? For me, it could be likened to that of "offering" ie. Grace giving. Offerings in the bible was also practiced in the OT. Testament and in the New Testament, Paul referred to it as "Grace giving". Paul gave much emphasis of this kind of giving which is more than the tithe. It is to be noted that the 90% originally own by God. God placed that in our hands in oder for you to give. We have to remember, God owns every thing but we practically own anything. I for one voted for a Yes in the Poll because I believe it and that settles it. If it's good enough for Peter, Apolos, Ananias even Paul and above all our Lord Himself then its good enough for me. Matthew 28:19-20 was a command to be followed by the true church of Christ. "Go" is a command "ye" not only refer to his 11 apostles and other of Jewish people around him but to those who will eventually believed the Gospel and be added in the church as stated in Acts 2:41-47.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Acts 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


Grace and peace to everybody.

Brother, I think it's 5 to 29 now which sort of throws the numerics off and I aslo think far too much emphasis is placed on a OT ordinance.

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Eph. 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.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by CKG

It's difficult for we who were raised in Baptist churches to question if baptism is for us today. If it weren't for Matthew 28:19-20 I would probably say it was a matter of liberty for today's believer. Still it's interesting that Paul doesn't make a strong statement for baptism like he does the Lord's supper. And are there only two ordinances? Wouldn't reading, preaching, and teaching God's word be considered an ordinance when the body comes together?

Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (1 Timothy 4:13)

Is baptism the first step of obedience? It comes across like once you are saved you are in neutral in your spiritual growth until you get baptized. If baptism is the first step, what is the second step? How many steps are there? Some Baptists are in such a hurry to get a person into the baptism waters that you would almost think they were COC.

Some of you church historians might want to correct me, but I believe during the dark ages whenever a Catholic got saved and joined up with true believers they were baptized (immersed) which infuriated the Catholics. That's a good enough reason to practice it right there. If I remember correctly believers were persecuted for this (among other things). In some areas even to this day being baptized could be like signing your death warrant. Having said all of that here is a link (if it works) with a pretty good study on baptism by a Baptist pastor.

http://www.daytonabeachbaptist.com/s...onseries_id=36

Craig, the present misunderstanding has it's roots in the battle with Rome over infant baptism and continues to linger due to the contentions within Protestantism and fundamentalism over water baptism. The Campbellites I have debated were not prepared for someone who attaches no efficacy at to with water baptism today, to their detriment. Formerly the debate was just between which side of salvation is baptism necessary. To the Paulicians through the ages it has no necessity right on down to me.

People asked me what is the correct form of baptism, sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, and this question has caused me to build up quite an eye collection from where they roll from heads when I say,none. Biblical water baptism is a washing.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Sorry, Brother Tony, but that last post has me wondering what was in my pizza tonight.

It might have had a little too much John Gill and chunks of John R. Rice brother

You ever get into the OT and the NT and run the precepts as Isaiah states? If you do, you get the conclusions I do.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Kiwi Christian

I have a question for you Bro. Tony, in light of your belief about baptism being part of OT law and not applicable to the body of Christ, why do you think Paul exercised it (though he only baptised a few) and spoke about it in the Corinthian church? When Paul said "were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" in 1 Cori 1:13 the implication is that those Corinthian Christians had been baptised.

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Paul was not sent to baptize, he did in the book of Acts a few times. That I have never denied. He also circumcised Timothy without cause. He healed the sick, raised the dead, as did Peter. Both practiced water baptism to Jews. Gentiles were not of the commonwealth of Israel and have no part in the "kingdom of priests". This "kingdom" is restored Israel, an earthly kingdom that was about territory while our inheritance in in heavenly places. Paul was an apostle and had the "signs of an apostle", water baptism being the first as introduced by John. Every Jew that had a rudimentary knowledge of the OT Scriptures knew the significance of water baptism.

In Acts 15 Peter, James and John relinquish the commissions given to them by Christ after the resurrection unto Paul and the gospel of the grace of God. With Paul's cessation of a ministry to Israel at Acts 28, the sings, water baptism included, ceased, as there was no more making of "priests"

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Luke

First Step of Obedience....

This is something I am coming to grips with now. As soon as someone says that obedience is an action, a work, then straight-way, the believer is back under law and legality. No longer is he freed from the law, but that yolk of bondage is put back around his neck, and his baptism is no longer a proclamation, but a STEP of OBEDIENCE, which then allows him to continue in further STEPS of OBEDIENCE such as Lord's Supper and other ordinances. The believers life becomes one of rote obedience to the law of the church, rather than the freedom that is in Christ.

2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Knowing that when we believe on Christ, we are free from the law of sin and death, we are crucified with him, our life is dead, and the life we live is Christ's, we are given the MIND of Christ, and are to bring EVERY thought into captivity - whose captivity? - Christ's, who is our life!

While I believe baptism is for this age, I do not see it as a step of obedience, joining the church etc. It's simply public declaration of one's belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As soon as one starts on that old Fundamental Baptist way of "obedience", one is immediately caught up in other rubbish - Men wear pants! Attend Everything regardless of anything else! Faithfulness to Church is #1! - In my experience, obedience to the church becomes a life of futility, whereas if I die to self, live through Christ, and let Him do all the obeying, I find my life prospers in the grace of God.

Brother, are you under the Law or under grace? "License to sin" would be a valid argument for Arminians if everyone had the same problem in the flesh, the same sins. If you shaved today you sinned, and broke the Law, sin is transgression of the Law. As Paul said about these nagging sins each of us have, let he who stole steal no more. "Enduring to the end" merely drives you into these nagging sins even further. When the urge to commit nagging sins comes, do this:

Ro 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

This is the Scriptures Paul speaks of, renew your mind daily in the Scriptures rather than torment yourself , where el;se can you "prove" what Paul states above but in the Scriptures? I knew a man once was Christian, he was alcoholic. Evrey time he got away from the Scriptures he began drinking again. Until this verse above hit him between the eyes one day. Every time he had the urge to drink he ran for his Bible. He was in it a lot because the urge was there a lot. This don't work always but he was away from alcohol long enough to see the reason he drank: He was self;-medicating himself, he let the affairs of this life cause him to focus on him.

One day he discovered he no longer had the urge to drink. He was a good man, but for a time let sin abound rather than grace.

The man was my Dad Luke.

Let this be your, and Chris(Buzz) battlecries:

Ro 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

2Co 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

Grace and peace brother.

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Nonsense. I'm sorry to see you pushing this, and the only "negative" is the view you are promoting under your banner of confusion. No one is angry or upset brother, just sad to see this continue.

We have stated our position scripturally in the beginning before you ever showed up, and you were allowed to state yours. Now you want to "resolve" the positions. What can that possibly mean brother, other than you seek to spread your leaven that believer's baptism is a dead work and part of the Mosaic Law?

It's sad really, and the saddest part is—now I'm wondering what other leaven you're harboring under the hood of your Dodge.



So now you are suggesting that the majority of responders to this thread as well as the majority of Baptist Pastors have a MENTAL BLOCK. See, this is the problem with doctrinal disputes—we can all sing Kumbaya and sip lemonade, but at the end of the day, they are still disputes and they do not edify. (Romans 16:17, I Tim. 4)

Make no mistake—the only mental block here is in those confused Christians who can't see that those verses in no way shape or form negate the clear INSTRUCTIONS in verse 15, and they certainly don't negate the clear INSTRUCTIONS of Matthew 28 either. It's still there, never moved—and all the devils, tongues, serpents, Bullingerites and Quakers in the universe won't move it.



Actually brother, "rebuke" is a Scriptural response. I think most of us generally try to temper it with love.

Brandon Staggs, what is your position on this issue of believer's baptism being part of the Mosaic Law?

Brother, I'm not responding to a name-calling, spittle-flecked rant.

I got Scripture proving water baptism is an OT ordinance and part of the Law. You got Scripture to prove it ain't?

Grace and peace brother Parrish

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Simple brother I wanted to know what you thought about it.



I didn't start the thread, Brandon.
I actually tried to avoid the dispute on several occasions and still am—look at all my posts and you will see that.



As is mine.



Well by all means shut it down I don't care.
Tony is suggesting that believer's baptism (which is not confined to Baptist Theology, in fact I wasn't even baptized in a Baptist church!) is a dead work of the Mosaic law. As I understand it, that's Bullingerism. I'm not offended, angry or juggling donuts, but that is bad doctrine, and it should be exposed for what it is—no matter who is involved. It won't negate my love for Tony but it is what it is.

I've shown water baptism, and I don't use this as a cuss-word as "hyperdispensationalist" or "Bullengerite" is used against those like me, but I've shown water baptism to be hyperdenominationalism. If I am teaching bad doctrine, show me Scripture that it's bad, brother. Expose it. Brother, you didn't start the thread but you are as of this minute still participating in it. That's what I am waiting on, someone to expose it, with Scripture. I threw down no glove, I'm standing for what the Scriptures teach. If I am "pushing" the issue of water baptism not being efficacious for anything today, why are so many pushing back so hard? Why the opposition to simple Scripture with Scripture definition, brother?

Now, I'm not going to compare anybody to anything, I'm just going to stand on my convictions unto death as Peter did with the Jews in Acts 10 brother. I don't blame you for standing on yours, or Brandon on his, you've offered personal comments and little to no Scripture I can remember brother. Let's not have a barfight, let's talk Scripture.

Grace and peace brother Parrish

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Brother Brandon, as the initiator of this thread, I am going to ask that you do close it. A few of the brethren are getting a little too testy. I am not trying to turn this into a dispensational fight. Tony is not trying to "convert" us ( which won't work anyhow 'cause we know our Bibles too well ). I do not see any further discussion leading to beneficial results. Any further comments can be made directly via email. [or alternatively go to another less decent forum ]

Brother, don't be like Agrippa. What was that hymm I heard them sing once in a Ruckman church?

"I will not be
I will not be moved
I will not be
I will not be moved
I'll just sit here,
and grieve the Holy Spirit
I will not be moved..."

Some of the brethren have gotten slightly testy but why punish those who want to honestly discuss the matter? Why leave the impression with the drive-by readers that maybe someone is afraid of carrying the discussion to the end?

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by chette777

You see I mentioned it was not essential to our salvation not that any one had or thought that. But for a point.

the Point being, NO need to argue about it, or to label people concerning their view on water baptism for the body of Christ or not for the body.

Tbones Has done a very polite expounding of his view. but some of you have not returned the favor.

My questions and comments in this thread have in no way be disrespectful or belligerent in any tone. yet The post will be shut down because a few of you wont relax and chill a little. as I said it doesn't effect our salvation so no need to be all dogmatic about it.

Brother I am dogmatic about it, it's a doctrine, it's sound doctrine that it's no longer in effect, I'm just not going to slash tures over it with fellowsoldiers of Christ. Water baptism is part of the Law of Moses. Anybody got any Scripture, precept upon precept, line upon line, that is ain't? Brother George has a response of a few weeks ago I have not read yet so I'm working my way to it and we know George's messages are very little george and whole lot of Scripture. Let's discuss it and move on.

grace and peace

Tony