Mikes Question

[eph3Nine]

Acts 22:12-16
12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized , and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. KJV

So apparently Ananias, Christ's chosen vessel to minister to Paul during his conversion, had a faulty understanding of the doctrine of Paul's gospel? Apparently, both he and Paul believed that baptism was an appropriate step.

Please explain why Paul was baptized when he was saved under the same gospel as we, and w e need not submit to water baptism.

Mike

Well, for one thing, Ananias wasnt the one commissioned by God to change the criteria, so he simply did all he KNEW to do, which was to water baptise Paul as was the required custom under the Kingdom Program. This is still a program IN TRANSITION...that is to say, that the OLD is phasing OUT and the new is PHASING in...it took time and at this stage, Paul is BRAND SPANKIN NEW "outta the box".

The other thing to note is that Paul was saved NOT by what he did (ie: water baptism), but by what he BELIEVED.

As Paul continued to receive new revelation from the Lord, he STOPPED with the baptizing as he realized it was not necessary in the present economy.
1 Cor. 1:17 "For Christ sent ME not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words, less the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect."


OUR baptism is not with hands OR water...but by the Holy Spirit placing us INTO the new creation...the BODY of Christ. Eph 4:5

 

[Markea]

Paul DID baptize though.. as he says that he did..

 

[msortwell]

Paul DID baptize though.. as he says that he did..

Then your point would be . . . That the first one the was saved under the dispensation that did not require water baptism WAS water baptized. And that same person, Paul, the one who was THE apostle to bring foward this gospel (the one not accompanied by water baptism) himself, baptized with water.

And that seems consitent to you . . . and sufficiently clear to set aside hundereds of years of orthodoxy?

WOW.

 

[Markea]

Then your point would be . . . That the first one the was saved under the dispensation that did not require water baptism WAS water baptized. And that same person, Paul, the one who was THE apostle to bring foward this gospel (the one not accompanied by water baptism) himself, baptized with water.

And that seems consitent to you . . . and sufficiently clear to set aside hundereds of years of orthodoxy?

WOW.

The point that I would try to make here is that Paul did say that he baptized believers.. whereas eph3Nine seems to believe that Paul did not feel that this was necessary after a certain period of time..

I believe that baptism is still a necessary ordinance in the Christian life.. not for salvation.. but in obedience and to bear witness of giving one's life to Christ..

That's what I meant if it didn't ring clear the first time.

 

[msortwell]

The point that I would try to make here is that Paul did say that he baptized believers.. whereas eph3Nine seems to believe that Paul did not feel that this was necessary after a certain period of time..

I believe that baptism is still a necessary ordinance in the Christian life.. not for salvation.. but in obedience and to bear witness of giving one's life to Christ..

That's what I meant if it didn't ring clear the first time.

I am sorry. I was under the misimpression that you supported the position offered by our friend. My mistake. So then . . .

It would be up to the originator of this thread to address what seems to me, and I expect to others a great inconsistancy.

. . . That the first one the was saved under the dispensation that did not require water baptism WAS water baptized. And that same person, Paul, the one who was THE apostle to bring foward this gospel (the one not accompanied by water baptism) himself, baptized others with water.

And the answer would be?

 

[GLJCA]

OUR baptism is not with hands OR water...but by the Holy Spirit placing us INTO the new creation...the BODY of Christ. Eph 4:5

Are you looking at baptism from a New Testament prospective only? As long as you leave out the Old Testament you can make baptism whatever you want but when you bring in the OT and see what baptism really is for then it will change your prospective.

Remember in the OT God required all males to be circumcised as a sign of covenant membership. Circumcision required the shedding of blood so it had to be done away with in the New Testament and baptism was established as the new sign of covenant membership. The Passover also changed from the killing of a spotless lamb, to the Lord's Supper where bloodless bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ. Both ordinances changed from a blood shedding ordinance to bloodless. The circumcision of Christ being baptism is talked about in Col. 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Circumcision changed to baptism as a sign of covenant membership. The requirement is still there and the warning is still applicable except now baptism is the requirement.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

In the OT when the head of the house entered into the covenant of God all the males in the household, whether they were slaves, servants, sons, or whatever they were, had to be circumcised. In the NT there is no difference. Take Cornelius for instance. When he was baptised his whole household was baptised. How about the Philipian jailer. They told him that if he believed on Jesus Christ he would be saved and his house and he was baptised with his house. The same with Lydia. The parallel is obvious.

What was the first thing everyone did who was saved in scripture? Everyone who got saved in Acts was baptized afterward. In your church can someone be a member without having been baptized? I doubt it. If so the church is not orthodox. In almost all churches one must be baptised before partaking of communion. Baptism is the mark or sign of covenant membership in the NT.

It is interesting how that in the OT God required the outward sign, which was circumcision, and he also required the inward sign, which was circumcision of the heart. Now in the NT some Dispensationalists say that the outward sign of baptism is not needed anymore only the inward. In the OT God said that without the outward that person was cast out of the covenant of God. Could it be the same in the NT?

GLJCA

 

[Markea]

I am sorry. I was under the misimpression that you supported the position offered by our friend.

No need.. I know that I do not always convey my thoughts accurately.. which was obviously the case here..

 

[eph3Nine]

First. Our bibles arent divided by OT and NT, but by Prophecy (that which was written to and about the NATION Israel, and MYSTERY (that which was written to and about we the Body of Christ )

The pages in your bible which have OT and NT on them werent placed there by GOD thru Inspiration, but by the publishers of the Bible.

Second..the Church the Body of Christ isnt under any covenants...as scripture clearly tells us that both the OLD and NEW were to the nation Israel. We arent Israel.

WE are under the MYSTERY program which was HID In God and revealed to OUR apostle, Paul, by direction of God Himself. Its NEW. Its UNPROPHESIED. ITS the ONLY place where you will find the words of the RISEN Christ, the LAST words of God to mankind today...and they are recorded for you.

It is not only IGNORANT to apply Israels calling and promises to yourself, it is to MIS apply and MISREPRESENT the very God you say that you serve.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The any other gospel means the gospel that was preached by Peter BEFORE the most recent information was given to us by God.

Peters gospel is no longer on the table. GRACE is the name of the game, and at NO Other time in history is the dispensation of Grace given...grace is dispensed as God sees fit, but NEVER as a rule by which we are to live UNTIL NOW...until Paul.

 

[GLJCA]

Hi EPH,

Second..the Church the Body of Christ isnt under any covenants...as scripture clearly tells us that both the OLD and NEW were to the nation Israel. We arent Israel.

Our God is a covenant keeping God and the New Covenant is given to the Church because the Kingdom of God was taken away from the unbelieving nation of Israel. This is clearly shown in the fact that the promises of God were requoted in Hebrews to Christian Jews who were part of the body of Christ. It is also proven by Paul in Ephesians 2 where he tells Gentiles that at one time they were alienated from the covenants of promise but now are made nigh by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is also proven by Paul again in Galatians (Gal 3) telling the Gentiles that if they are IN CHRIST they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Paul again tells the Galatians that as Isaac was so are we Children of the promise(Gal 4). Now you can ignore these scriptures but you can not make them go away. To ignore what God has told us in the New Testament is not rightly dividing the Word of God. If we have to ignore scripture then it really should show us that what we are believing is not scriptural.

WE are under the MYSTERY program which was HID In God and revealed to OUR apostle, Paul, by direction of God Himself. Its NEW. Its UNPROPHESIED. ITS the ONLY place where you will find the words of the RISEN Christ, the LAST words of God to mankind today...and they are recorded for you.

The church being the mystery is a figment of your imagination as you have given no support showing that the mystery is even talking about the Church of Jesus Christ. There is no reference even placing the name "church" with the mystery. The mystery is that the Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree, covenant Israel. The mystery is that the gospel was even given to the Gentiles.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

"Any other gospel: is talking about a gospel that teaches that someone can be saved in any other way except through believing in and relying on the shed blood of Jesus Christ, which is what you are teaching concerning the Jews. Again you are making statements that you can not support. It is easy to just say it like it is truth but, especially with Dispensationalism, it is hard to prove it. Don't just tell us what you were taught, show us scriptural support. Of course that may make you change your mind about Dispensationalism, it did me. I was a dispensationalist all my life until I started researching the different beliefs, such as A, an Postmillenialism. Dispensationalism made claims without proof and when it does show scripture it is taken out of context, the other two backed up their claims with New and Old Testament scriptures.

I was thinking the other day that if the enemy can get the Church to think that the promises of God are not our's then half of his battle is won. He also has succeeded to get much of Christendom to forget about discipleship today and only worry about winning souls, because the rapture is supposably coming soon, to the point that few know the Word of God in our churches. I was a Southern Baptist for 50 years and I have seen a slow descent of Bible study by the members of every church that I was in. Just get them in the church and get them saved because the rapture may come tomorrow. Making disciples, not converts, is the command that we were given. That is a direct result of the false teaching of an emminent rapture, which is another figment of the Dispensationalist imagination.

The rapture will occur at the end of time. (Matt 25:31-46) Notice that there is only one kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world to which the sheep of God will inherit, not one on earth and one in heaven. There is only one place where all sheep will go.

Isn't it amazing to you that for 1800 years no one saw the beliefs of Dispensationalism? All of the godly theologians since Christ never saw what Darby saw. These were brilliant men devoted their lives to the study of God's Word yet they missed it. You don't find that amazing? I find it hard to believe.

GLJCA