Baptism

[- DRA -]

Paul is writing to believers who are now members of "the Body of Christ," the Chruch for today, which has a heavenly hope, []NOT[/B] an earthly kingdom to look forward to. We are already positionaly seated with Him in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6)

Uh, Dispy, Eph. 1:22-23 plainly says that the church is His body (the body of Christ). Can you show us where Jesus promised to built two churches -- one solely for the Jews and a different one for both Jews and Gentiles? I am only aware of His promise to build one church i.e. Matt. 16:18.

Rev.9:1 does say that he is in the kingdom, but that is true of all believers. We belong to the kingdom of God. He didn't say that he was in the earthly kingdom, but he did say that he was on the Isle of Patmos.

Your reasoning, as I understand it, is that John was in the kingdom, but only in the sense that he belonged to the kingdom. However, John says (Rev. 1:9)that he is in the kingdom, not that he just belonged to a kingdom that has yet to be established. It's that extra wording that causes us problems when we attempt to gain a common understanding of the Scriptures.

In John 18:36 Jesus is saying that the authority of His kingdom is from heaven. If His authority came from earthly sources, then He would have had armies to defend it.

Nope. John 18:36 says, "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (NASV) The nature of the kingdom is under discussion in this passage, not the source of Jesus' authority. That subject was dealt with much earlier in the gospel of John e.g. 3:2,13,17. Jesus' point was that His kingdom was not earthly or physical -- if it were His servants would be physically fighting to establish and defend it.

Please explain your 1st sentence. It just doesn't make sense to me. The earthly kingdom that Jesus will establish had not been established yet.

How can you be sure that Jesus promised to establish an "earthly kingdom"? Consider. It was established when Dan. 2:44 and Mark 9:1 said it would be (Col. 1:13). And, John 18:36 explains the nature of the kingdom -- it is spiritual -- not physical.

I do agree that Jesus is the physical seed of Abraham. However so is the nation of Israel. In Genesis 12:2 God is refering to the nation of Israel as Abram's seed that will bless the famlies (nations) of the earth.

Acts 3:26-26 is declaring who the seed or blessing promised to Abraham was in Gen. 12:3. It is Jesus, not the nation of Israel.

Matthew 6:19-34

19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

If you are not living the above to the letter, you are building your house upon the sand. If you have saved money for your future, better get rid of it. It says you shouldn't plan ahead.

In the "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus is speaking of how things will be when He establishes His kingom upon the earth. He has yet to establish His kingdom upon the earth, and I cannot find where the 12 disciples are sitting on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Isreal. Chapter and Verse PLEASE.

The above verses don't say "try." They say "DO"

The instructions in righteousness that I try to follow are the ones addressed to the Body of Christ in Paul's Epistles.

Then I suggest that you live up to the standards that you set for those under the kingdom, because the kingdom is in existence.

Sorry, but I don't have a chapter and verse for the 12 disciples sitting on 12 literal or physical thrones. Since the kingdom is of a spiritual nature, I view this as figurative language.

BTW, which passages do you think say "try" as opposed to "do" under the Scriptures that you view as addressing the "Body of Christ in Paul's Epistles"?

My reply to Mark 9:1 is Luke 9:27-36.

Did I miss something. Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 are parallel passages. Bottom line. Did Jesus make a promise and fulfill it, or make a promise and NOT fulfill it? Oh, BTW, your answer should harmonize with Col. 1:13. Well . . . . . . . . .

The promised kingdom on earth to Isreal has yet to be established. That is still future and the subject of yet unfulfilled prophesy. I explained earlier that all of God's creation is His kingdom.

Scripture please -- book, chapter, and verse -- where Jesus promised to build and earthly kingdom.

 

[western kentucky]

Matthew 3:11 " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,...: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.:"

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin,..."

According to the above Scriptures; both John and Peter required baptism for the remission of sins.

My contention is that Paul NEVER re-baptized them in Acts 19:5. They received the Holy Ghost by Paul just laying hands on them (vs 6). They were already baptized by John for the remission of sins (vs 3).

Dispy,

First off, how have you concluded that John the Baptist baptized for the remission of sins? The verse doesn't say that. Matt. 3 clearly states that John baptized those unto repentance -- preparing the way for the Lord (Matt.3:3, 11).

In Acts 2, Peter baptized the believers "in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins" (38). Doesn't this fit with Acts 19:1-5? I am confused how you can conclude that the believers in Acts 19 were not rebaptized (5). The text states that Paul rebaptized them; in the next verse it states that Paul laid his hands upon them and they recieved the Holy Spirit.

Also, explain why the believers in Acts 10 were water baptized in the name of the Lord after recieving the Holy Spirit.

Here's what the passages teach us:

-The Baptism of John: For repentance (Matt. 3:11)
-Holy Spirit Baptism: For confirmation of the word (Mark 16:16-18)
-Water Baptism in the name of the Lord: For the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

*This would explain why believers in Acts 10:48 needed to be baptized after recieving the Holy Spirit, why the believers in Acts 8:16-17 did not need to be rebaptized, and why believers in Acts 18:1-5 needed to be rebaptized.

Now, it's your turn to harmonize the passages...

 

[western kentucky]

Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-18 are both accounts of the "so called" great commission that Jesus gave His disciples.

Besides Peter going to the house of Cornelius, When do we find the disciples going "to all the world?" Suggest you read Acts 11:19 and Galatians 2:9. Looks to me that they never got "off the ground" with their commission. Also, it cannot be carried out in this dispensation of grace.

Jesus instructed the disciples "to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." I fully believe they followed His command. Does this mean that each of these disciples had to "go" teach the gentiles? No, the ones that focused on the "jews" appointed other men to teach the gentiles (Acts 11:20, Gal. 2:9). They knew their capabilities and opportunities and acted on them. The point is, the work was still done and Jesus's command was still followed.

BTW, If you are attempting to carry out the "so called" great commission, How much of Matthew chapters 5-7 and you actually doing today? If you are not doing it all, your hous is built upon the sand (Matt.7:24-27).

The Old Law was still in effect at this time (Heb. 9:16), but Jesus was still laying out the new principles to be followed. Which commands are you referring to that cannot be followed? Are you suggesting we can't obey them?

In Acts 22:19 Paul is recounting the days following his conversion in Acts 9. Baptism was still required and practised at that time. Why didn't you use Acts 9:17-18 instead?

Ok, I'll consider Acts 9:17-18 with Acts 22:16. Skim back up to Acts 9:15-16. The Lord tells Ananias that Paul is "a chosen instrument" to spread the gospel to the gentiles. What would Paul need to confirm the gospel to the gentiles? I'll play easy and answer your question -- The Holy Spirit (17). Also, consider verse 18. Paul was commanded to get up (Acts 22:16) to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Why would he be commanded to get up and be baptized in the name of the Lord? Consider (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:1-5, and Acts 22:16).

 

[Imblessed]

AMEN - dry-cleaned.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

I just want to say your post are very good and true to the most part. I'm quaker and believe a lot of disspenlationism stuff but not all of it. BY THE WAY THIS IS W JAY SCHROEDER NOT IM BLESSED WHO IS MY SISTER. IM JUST USING HERE COMPUTOR. ignore DRA i've debated him before and he is way of on undestanding basic scripture such as 1 peter 3:20 and Titus 3:5 and even john 3:5, which is why he is so off on the water baptism thing. Go back a few pages and look through the old water baptizm discussions you will find my ideas there. MARK 16:16 is about the Holy Spirit not water for all those interested.

 

[Stinker]

I just want to say your post are very good and true to the most part. I'm quaker and believe a lot of disspenlationism stuff but not all of it. BY THE WAY THIS IS W JAY SCHROEDER NOT IM BLESSED WHO IS MY SISTER. IM JUST USING HERE COMPUTOR. ignore DRA i've debated him before and he is way of on undestanding basic scripture such as 1 peter 3:20 and Titus 3:5 and even john 3:5, which is why he is so off on the water baptism thing. Go back a few pages and look through the old water baptizm discussions you will find my ideas there. MARK 16:16 is about the Holy Spirit not water for all those interested.

W Jay Schroeder: I used to debate with you a lot on these passages of scripture. God has enabled me to see more clearly (maybe reduced my pride, I don't know for sure) and I have changed my understanding on (1Pet.3:20, Titus 3:5, Jn.3:3-8) and the way I understand them now I am better able to defend them than before.


First off, how have you concluded that John the Baptist baptized for the remission of sins? The verse doesn't say that. Matt. 3 clearly states that John baptized those unto repentance -- preparing the way for the Lord (Matt.3:3, 11). [Western Kentucky post #102]

The position I used to hold was the same as Western Kentucky, DRA, and some others. However, I never denied what the scriptures plainly say about John's Baptism....that it was for [unto] the remission of sins. What I was taught about John's Baptism (when I was in the CofC) was that it differed from Acts 2:38 in that it was a baptism of repentance (Mk.1:4). Whereas in Acts 2:38 it was no longer a baptism of repentance but a baptism unto remission of sins.
The only question is.....Is it the same baptism in both instances but under different names? I have found that they are.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)

"...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,.." (Acts 2:38)


The conflict as to which water baptism was valid was ended with the Apostle Paul writing Eph.4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism."


To me, the most defendable (and only essential) baptism is the one that only the Holy Spirit operates on our soul when we first come to believe and places it into the universal spiritual body of Christ. (1Cor.12:13)

 

[Dispy]

Dispy,

First off, how have you concluded that John the Baptist baptized for the remission of sins? The verse doesn't say that. Matt. 3 clearly states that John baptized those unto repentance -- preparing the way for the Lord (Matt.3:3, 11).

When I compare Matt.3:11 with Acts 2:38, I find that they both require repentance. I agree with W JAY SCHROEDER in that that baptism is for the remittance of sins. Their sins wouldn't have been remitted unless they repented and then baptized.

In Acts 2, Peter baptized the believers "in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins" (38). Doesn't this fit with Acts 19:1-5? I am confused how you can conclude that the believers in Acts 19 were not rebaptized (5). The text states that Paul rebaptized them; in the next verse it states that Paul laid his hands upon them and they recieved the Holy Spirit.

"Acts 19:3 " And he (Paul) said unto them, Unto what they were ye baptized? And the 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 Jesus Christ.
5. Whey hear this (what John said), they were baptized (by John) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
6. AND WHEN PAUL LAID HIS HAND UPON THEM, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Can't seem to find in the passage above that specificly says that Paul re-baptized them. It was AFTER Paul laid hands upon them that they received the Holy Ghost. Just as in Acts 8:14-17.

Also, explain why the believers in Acts 10 were water baptized in the name of the Lord after recieving the Holy Spirit.

I will admit that those in Acts 10 were baptized "in the name of the Lord," but notice also, that was a departure from Acts 2:38. There they had to repent and be water baptized prior to receiving the Jesus (non-water) baptism of the Holy Ghost. Can't even find anywhere that Cornelius and his house even repented prior to receiving the Holy Spirit.

Here's what the passages teach us:

-The Baptism of John: For repentance (Matt. 3:11)
-Holy Spirit Baptism: For confirmation of the word (Mark 16:16-18)
-Water Baptism in the name of the Lord: For the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

*This would explain why believers in Acts 10:48 needed to be baptized after recieving the Holy Spirit, why the believers in Acts 8:16-17 did not need to be rebaptized, and why believers in Acts 18:1-5 needed to be rebaptized.

Now, it's your turn to harmonize the passages...

Your phrase "Here's what the passages teach us," would have been better said if you would have used the pronoun "me,"

To fully understand my position on water baptism; to back to posts #18, 19 and 20 on page 2 of this thread.

Will be more then happy to discuss any portion of it with you.

*This would explain why believers in Acts 10:48 needed to be baptized after recieving the Holy Spirit, why the believers in Acts 8:16-17 did not need to be rebaptized, and why believers in Acts 18:1-5 needed to be rebaptized

Now, it's your turn to harmonize the passages...[/QUOTE}

Can't find the * above, as to where it belongs.

Our harmony would be "discord".

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

=Originally posted by Dispy
Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-18 are both accounts of the "so called" great commission that Jesus gave His disciples.

Besides Peter going to the house of Cornelius, When do we find the disciples going "to all the world?" Suggest you read Acts 11:19 and Galatians 2:9. Looks to me that they never got "off the ground" with their commission. Also, it cannot be carried out in this dispensation of grace.

= reply by western kentucky

Jesus instructed the disciples "to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." I fully believe they followed His command. Does this mean that each of these disciples had to "go" teach the gentiles? No, the ones that focused on the "jews" appointed other men to teach the gentiles (Acts 11:20, Gal. 2:9). They knew their capabilities and opportunities and acted on them. The point is, the work was still done and Jesus's command was still followed.

The "so called" great commission was given to the 12 PRIOR to Saul/Paul ever being saved. The order of the commission is stated in Acts 1:8 (I've explained this in another post, but if you hadn't seen it, I will repeat it.)

God's promise to Abram that he would make him a "great nation" (Israel), Through that nation (Israel) all the families (nations) of the earth would be blessed. Further, Israel was to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:3-8). Also, to be an Isrealie priest, one had to go through a ceremonial washing (baptism). (Another reason Jesus was baptized, as He is the High Priest of Israel.

With Israel, as a nation being set aside (Romans 11:7-12), How could the "so called" great commission be fulfilled? Didn't God commision 12 to do it, and they decided to stay with the Jews? Why would God raise up one man to go to the Gentiles, kings and Jews, when He had already commissioned 12 to do it?

I've posted the following before, but I will repost it. It is from the book Common Questions About the Grace Message" by Joel Finck.
Question 13) Aren’t we supposed to be carrying out the Great Commission?
To answer the question, let’s take a mental stroll through the Bible. From the fall of Adam and Eve until this present day, God has always sought the salvation of mankind. He has always provided some way for man to approach Him on His terms. Throughout the ages, God has even gone the extra step of commissioning certain individuals or groups to carry His message to the people of the earth so that they clearly understand just what God expects of them. Before the flood, Noah was commissioned as a preacher of righteousness. For 120 years, as he was building that ark, he proclaimed God’s righteousness to an increasingly sinful and wicked world.

After the flood, the world soon turned away from God once again. Mankind showed its rebellion against God by building a tower and a city to make a name for themselves. To this day we know the name of that tower - the Tower of Babel, the city of Babylon. At this point, God commissioned someone else to become a separate nation through whom He could reach these unbelieving Gentile nations. That person was Abram, soon to become Abraham. This nation, which eventually was known as the nation of Israel, inherited the commission to be a light to the other nations, to lead them to the true and living God. Here is how it was supposed to work: God promised the people of Israel that if they would obey His covenant, then He would be their God and they would be His people. As the nations round about Israel looked at the blessing of God falling upon this one nation, they would ask why they were so blessed? Then they would come and inquire, and Israel would point them to their God and say, “We’re blessed because we serve the living and true God.”

Let us give an Old Testament passage to illustrate how this was supposed to operate. This was God’s order for bringing the nations of the earth to Himself through Israel. We sometimes call this the Kingdom program or the prophetic program. We call it the prophetic program because it was revealed in the prophets. It was spoken of by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:21). Isaiah 60:1-3, “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” Who is He talking about? In this context, He is referring to Zion. Zion is another name for Jerusalem, the capital city of the nation of Israel, in biblical times. In verse 3 we read, “And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.” God’s intention and plan was to bring Israel as a light to the nations and to lift her up on high so that the nations would see that light and so that kings would seek out the glory of God through Israel. This was how it was supposed to work. But unfortunately, many times, it did not work that way. Israel, as the centuries rolled on, failed to be the light that God wanted her to be. Israel, herself, slipped into apostasy. She slipped away from the truth of God’s word and God’s revelation to her. This was the condition that Christ found her in when He came to the earth as a babe in the manger. As our Lord ministered on the earth, His first commission to His apostles was not for them to go out unto all the world. In order for the world to be saved according to that kingdom or prophetic program through the nation of Israel, first Israel had to rise up as a great light. Israel herself was in great darkness when Christ came.

Notice how He first commissioned His apostles. Matthew 10:1-4: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican;James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbeaus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Verse 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.’” We should ask the question, why not? Did not God love the Gentile nations at this time? Did not Christ desire to see them saved? Of course He did. But He was operating according to knowledge and understanding that God would bring His light to the nations through Israel. If Israel herself was lost, she first needed to come to the Lord, then Israel could be a light to the nations. This is why He says in verse 6, “But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In Matthew 15 we see that this commission applied even to our Lord. Matthew 15:21 says, [ B]“Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts.”[/B] Notice that the Holy Spirit inspires the writer to show us this is a Gentile woman; a woman of Canaan. Why is that so important? Because of what the Lord is about to say. She comes with a request in verse 22: “She cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Does that sound like our loving, caring Lord? He does not even talk to her. Why does He do this?

Verse 25, ”Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.”[/ B] This is going from bad to worse it seems. The Lord knew His commission, didn’t He? He knew he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He knew that the nations could not be blessed until the children were filled. What children? The children of Israel. Let the children first be filled. But notice her faith in verse 27, “And she said, Truth, Lord.” Her answer shows that she understood the program under which she lived. She understood she did not have a claim on God’s blessings directly. She understood she did not have access to the glorious blessings that God promised to Israel. But then notice her statement of faith, “Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” She is saying in effect, Lord I don’t expect the direct blessing that you have promised to your children of Israel. I do not expect that. I just want a few leftovers. I just want a few crumbs. The Lord at that point saw her great faith and so He blessed her. Verse 28, “Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

You see that principle being well established that the nations are not to be blessed under this kingdom and prophetic program until Israel is first blessed. Once Israel was straightened out, then and only then, was the message to go out to the nations. Christ made this perfectly clear when He commissioned the twelve apostles.

Luke 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: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Here is that same principle. Let the children first be filled. Acts 1:8, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” When Israel was filled, then the message could go on to the nations. The only problem was that Israel rejected the kingdom offer.

This was a problem from our point of view. But was it a problem for God? Of course not. God had in His mind a plan by which He could reach the nations in spite of the stubbornness of Israel. He had a plan whereby the nations could hear His word and they would not have to come through Israel’s rising. Remember Isaiah 60:3 where God says the nations would come to the light of Israel’s rising. Now consider a contrast to that in Romans 11:11. Here the Apostle Paul draws a contrast between how God reaches the nations today as opposed to how the prophets spoke of Israel’s rising. Under the prophetic program, the kingdom program, the nations were to be reached through Israel’s rising. But in Romans 11:11 we read, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? [Referring to Israel] God forbid: but rather throughb their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to bprovoke them to jealousy.” Do you see the difference? In Isaiah, the nations are to come through Israel’s rising. In Romans, the nations are blessed through Israel’s fall. How can that be? And how does that tie into the Great Commission?

God revealed his plan to reach the nations in spite of Israel through the Apostle Paul. God determined that if Israel would not go to the nations, He would temporarily by-pass that nation and go directly to the Gentiles. He chose a messenger by the name of Saul of Tarsus to become the great apostle of the Gentiles. When He did so, He temporarily suspended the Great Commission which was given to the Twelve. This leads to the next questions:

14)Where in Scripture do we ever find the Great Commission that was given to the Twelve being suspended."

>SNIP<

=Originally posted by Dispy
BTW, If you are attempting to carry out the "so called" great commission, How much of Matthew chapters 5-7 and you actually doing today? If you are not doing it all, your house is built upon the sand (Matt.7:24-27)

.

= reply by western kentucky

The Old Law was still in effect at this time (Heb. 9:16), but Jesus was still laying out the new principles to be followed. Which commands are you referring to that cannot be followed? Are you suggesting we can't obey them?

According to Matthwe 5:19 and 20, Jesus is speaking of how things will be in the kingdom which He came to establish. How much of chapter 6:19-34 are you doing? According to chapterd 7:24-27 if you are doing those things, you are building you house upon the sand.

When Jesus was upon the earth, He taught "the gospel of the kingdom." The 12 were commissioned to go into all the world with "the gospel of the kingdom." How can that gospel be preached today when the "kingdom program" was interrupted with "the gospel of the grace of God" commission to Paul. The kingdom message teaches observance of the LAW, while Paul's message to the Body of Christ teaches GRACE. Aren't they opposing doctrines?

=Originally posted by Dispy
In Acts 22:19 Paul is recounting the days following his conversion in Acts 9. Baptism was still required and practised at that time. Why didn't you use Acts 9:17-18 instead?

=western kentucky
Ok, I'll consider Acts 9:17-18 with Acts 22:16. Skim back up to Acts 9:15-16. The Lord tells Ananias that Paul is "a chosen instrument" to spread the gospel to the gentiles. What would Paul need to confirm the gospel to the gentiles? I'll play easy and answer your question -- The Holy Spirit (17). Also, consider verse 18. Paul was commanded to get up (Acts 22:16) to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Why would he be commanded to get up and be baptized in the name of the Lord? Consider (Acts 2:38, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:1-5, and Acts 22:16).

At the time of Paul's conversion, it was still unknown that Israel was set aside. Paul was on his way do Damascus when he recognized Jesus as Lord in Acts 9:6. Verse 17 tell me that Paul received the Holy Ghost when Ananias layed hands on him. Being the revelation of the mystery was still unknown to anyone, Ananias' actions were in keeping what was in custom at the time. Also it appears to me that Paul already had the Holy Ghost prior to verse 18.

Again, highly recommend you read my posts #18, 19 and 20 on page 2.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!