Baptists not believing in Baptism?

Street Preacher said:

So does that mean you're a baptist who doesn't believe in baptism or that you're not a baptist because you deny baptism for the church?

Click to expand...

@@Paul@@ said:

Hi BT,
If we look at the first 10 chapters of Acts, whether it was supposed to be a Jewish ministry or not, It clearly was....

The question is, If we believe Gentiles should have been let in, then Peter was clearly wrong. OR, the offer of grace given to Israel (a second chance) was the beginning of "the dispensation of grace" BUT also the beginning of a transition to a calling apart from the nation of Israel (the One New Man)... God knew they would fall at Acts 28, so He made provisions accordingly (fitly framed)… that does not mean the offer of the Kingdom was not valid. What happened during Acts was the door was opened to the Gentiles – so when God picks up his plan during the Tribulation, Gentiles will still be invited to the wedding.

The Kingdom was "at hand" in the Gospels because the King was there and was going to sacrifice Himself for the sins of ALL... The kingdom could not actually be offered prior to the events of Calvary... thus sayeth the scriptures.



Peter was now offering the kingdom in the first part of Acts. - the first few speeches confirm this.

Act 10:36-37 KJV

(36) The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
(37) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
​

And when Peter uses the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to let Gentiles in, He states the “word” has not changed since the “baptism which John preached” (which was sent to Israel).


I believe there was “Two Witnesses” running around during acts, just like there will be during the Tribulation….

Here’s a great summary of Acts written by my Pastor. - Lesson 1 explains the above much better...
http://www.opendoorbaptist.com/articles/actslssn.html

Click to expand...

BT said:

I think you're a little crazy ... but since this is way off topic I'll open a new thread for us...

Click to expand...

@@Paul@@ said:

But it's one reason WHY i think Water Baptism is NOT for this calling... so i think it's a little on topic.

Click to expand...

BT said:

I suppose you are right about that. SP the theology that @@Paul has adhered to is ultradispensationalism (as we discussed in the other thread). This group does not believe that the two ordinances of the church which are a part of the Baptist distinctive are for the church today. Which begs the question, are they not in fact quasi-Baptist? We should ask Erwin to make a new icon for them (jk). I can honestly say that @@Paul and his church are the first people I've met (online or otherwise) who have taken on the idea of ultradispensationalism. I have never ever seen a church that believes this in Canada (not that I've been to every Baptist church in Canada or have even really looked, but I talked to my Pastor about it who has been in the ministry for 33 years from one side of Canada to the other.. and he has never seen it either, which still of course doesn't mean that there aren't some somewhere..).

Click to expand...