Water Baptism

[thereselittleflower]

I am going to skip to the end of this thread and say this.

The scriptures tell us both Jew and Gentile believers were baptized in water.

The scriptures tell us the Gospel preached by Peter and the Gospel preached by Paul were the same Gospel.

The scriptures tell us that the Kingdom preached by Peter and the kingdom preached by Paul were the same kingdom.





Peace

 

[eph3Nine]

Water has NO significance for ANY believer today. You are either baptized with the ONE baptism of Eph 4:5 or you are still in ADAM.

Only two groups of people in the world today. Those who are still IN ADAM, and those who are IN CHRIST.

The ONLY way to get from one to the other is to believe the gospel of OUR salvation found in 1 Cor 15:1-4

NO water found anywhere!

 

[thereselittleflower]

And of course, this is simply more of your dispensationalist rhetoric and traditions of me .

There has been nothing offered that backs up anything you have claimed.

Sorry eph . . but you are simply stating claims, which are meaningless unless they can be proven . . you have not establisehd the validity of your claims above..

So they are unsubstantiated.



Peace

 

[FreeinChrist]

And of course, this is simply more of your dispensationalist rhetoric and traditions of me .

There has been nothing offered that backs up anything you have claimed.

Sorry eph . . but you are simply stating claims, which are meaningless unless they can be proven . . you have not establisehd the validity of your claims above..

So they are unsubstantiated.



Peace

Actually it is hyperdispensationalist (aka ultradispensationalism, Bullingerism) rhetoric.

Classic Dispensationalism does NOT separate Peter and Paul, does believe that the Lord's Supper and water baptism is for today and that salvation has always been by grace through faith.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Actually it is hyperdispensationalist (aka ultradispensationalism, Bullingerism) rhetoric.

Yeah . . you're right! Most of what she is saying is hyperdipsy. . . . I know that most dispenationalists even can't agree with much of what is being promoted.

Classic Dispensationalism does NOT separate Peter and Paul, does believe that the Lord's Supper and water baptism is for today and that salvation has always been by grace through faith.

I know .. thanks for pointing that out .. I should have made the distinction.



Peace

 

[FreeinChrist]

Well, I think most dispensationalists do agree on much.... but just don't get into it with the hyper's - particularly one who starts threads over and over and over and over on the same thing and resorts to ad hominen comments as Eph does in this forum. It is disheartening.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well, I think most dispensationalists do agree on much.... but just don't get into it with the hyper's - particularly one who starts threads over and over and over and over on the same thing and resorts to ad hominen comments as Eph does in this forum. It is disheartening.

I can understand that. It seems as though this forum has become predominately an ultradipsy forum . . .


Peace

 

[eph3Nine]

Truth should NEVER be disheartening! And the only reason it gets repeated so often here, is because nice folks like you dont seem to think that scripture is important, and never acknowledge what it SAYS. We are kindly repeating the information for those who ASK, and for those who obviously didnt understand it the first time. Even God repeats information so that we clearly understand it.

Unfortunately, if you dont acknowledge the foundational truths, we cannot go any further. Without the proper premise, the wrong conclusion is inevitable. Thus, repetition is NECESSARY to establish the CORRECT foundation.

 

[WAB]

Actually it is hyperdispensationalist (aka ultradispensationalism, Bullingerism) rhetoric.

Classic Dispensationalism does NOT separate Peter and Paul, does believe that the Lord's Supper and water baptism is for today and that salvation has always been by grace through faith.

Glad to have someone else point this out... and think that from now on I will use the phrase "Classic Dispensationalist" to describe my own position rather than "Acts 2 dispy"...

Shalom... WAB

 

[Dispy]

Actually it is hyperdispensationalist (aka ultradispensationalism, Bullingerism) rhetoric.

Classic Dispensationalism does NOT separate Peter and Paul, does believe that the Lord's Supper and water baptism is for today and that salvation has always been by grace through faith.

Glad to have someone else point this out... and think that from now on I will use the phrase "Classic Dispensationalist" to describe my own position rather than "Acts 2 dispy"...

Shalom... WAB

Dispy responds:
I AM NOT A ULTRA/EXTREME/HYPER-DISPENSATIONALIST!!!. However, I am not offended when I am refered to as one.

When I am asked my church affiliation, I usually respond by saying that I am what is refered to as a hyper/extreme dispensationalist. That brings on the responce "What's that?" that question give me the opportunity to present the gospel of the grace of God.

The following is taken from a past issue of the Berean Searchlight.

ARE WE HYPER-DISPENSATIONAILSTS:
By David M. Havard

Keywords: hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, dispensationalism, H. A. Ironside, Charles Baker, Pastor C. R. Stam, E. W. Bullinger, J. C. O'Hair, revelation of the mystery, body of Christ, Paul's gospel, gospel of the grace of God, Apostle Paul, rightly dividing the word of truth

Many years ago, H. A. Ironside (1) published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930's. Besides, it's much easier to label us as "hyper" and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.

This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:

"One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul's Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord's Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter's gospel message was not the same as Paul's….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected."(2)

This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside's book3)

"What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King's College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O'Hair and Charles Baker.

"There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.

"Beside these points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by Bullingerism. Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism."

"But wait!" You're thinking, "I don't believe those things!" Well, neither do I, but these are their tactics. As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned, we agree with Bullinger's far out views regarding soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, universalism, and that the Body of Christ did not start until Acts 28. You either believe in their interpretation of dispensationalism or you are an extremist like Bullinger. They do not recognize any middle ground. This is what we are up against.

In the above quote, Ironside lists some the "outstanding tenets" of what he calls "ultra-dispensationalism." While this is a convenient label, it does not Biblically address the issues. Let us examine what Ironside said (and everyone else seems to repeat) and see if we agree or not.

"First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church": We do not believe that the four gospels have no real message for the church—Paul says that ALL Scripture is profitable. However, we do believe (because we hold to a literal historical interpretation of the Bible) that Christ's earthly ministry was in keeping with Israel's prophetic kingdom program (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). We find application in the gospels to be sure, but to say that the basic message of the gospels is directed to the Body of Christ is not being consistent or literal. As Scofield says in his reference Bible, "The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive character....Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the Body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,' that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,' and that living saints shall be `changed' and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace…Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His Body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh." And if, according to traditional dispensationalism, the Body of Christ started at Pentecost, how can it be found retroactively in the gospels? The message that Peter preached at Pentecost was an offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel (Acts 2:22) conditional upon their repentance and recognition of Jesus as their Messiah—something that we now know will not happen until after the tribulation.

"Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles": You'd think they would at least understand this! Regarding the assembly in the book of Acts, we have both "churches" mentioned, depending on the context. If you see the Body of Christ in the gospels, you are closer to a covenant position than a dispensational one. If the Body is found in the gospels, then to be consistent, it also has to be found in the Old Testament prophetic program as well. It was Bullinger (with whom we do not agree) who said that the Body of Christ did not start until the close of the book of Acts and that only Paul's prison epistles are for us today.

"Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body": We do not agree with Bullinger on this point either. We do say that Paul received a special revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), but we do not agree that only his prison epistles are applicable to us today. Paul began to receive his special revelation of the mystery upon his conversion in Acts 9.

"Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation": Regarding the "ordinances" of the church, there is no place in Scripture where water baptism and the Lord's supper are linked. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that we are instructed in I Corinthians 11 to keep "until He come." However, we do feel that water baptism is a Jewish ordinance and is something that was phased out during the transition period. It is also rarely pointed out that we are not unique in understanding that water baptism is not for today. Other groups throughout church history, such as the Quakers, have also come to this same conclusion.

"Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism": This is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I'm sure you see the implication. If you believe in a mid-Acts position, then, according to them, you also believe in these extreme and unscriptural viewpoints as well. By associating us with these cult-like beliefs we can be discredited without ever having to answer our Biblical arguments.

This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.

Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul's epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul's epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with "Lordship Salvation").

We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.

Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.

Endnotes

1. If you can find someone who has a copy of The Controversy (it's now out of print), you can read more about Ironside's history as related to the Grace Movement.

2. William MacDonald, "Distinguishing things that differ," Up-look, July/August 1999, pp. 11-12.

3. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, 1938.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Much and Love The Lord!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Truth should NEVER be disheartening! And the only reason it gets repeated so often here, is because nice folks like you dont seem to think that scripture is important, and never acknowledge what it SAYS. We are kindly repeating the information for those who ASK, and for those who obviously didnt understand it the first time. Even God repeats information so that we clearly understand it.

eph .. I am not the one ignoring the fact that the scriptures state that

BOTH Peter and Paul preached the SAME Gospel The Gospel of GOD

PAUL

Rom 15:16​

​

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
​

PETER

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
​

BOTH Peter and Paul preached the SAME Kingdom, The Kingdom of CHRIST

PAUL

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
​

PETER

2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
​

BOTH Peter and Paul were commissioned by GOD, individually, to each go to BOTH the Jews and the GENTILES.

PAUL

Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (PAUL) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
​

PETER

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
​

You can continue to posture all you want, but it is evident to EVERYONE by now that you are IGNORING these scriptures . . .


Your protestations above come upon your own head, for you are doing what you accuse others of doing.


DEAL with these versese . . . . in a multiiplicity of threads now they have been brought to your attention.

Yet you CONTINUE TO IGNORE SCRIPTURE!


Why is it that you don't think what scripture has to say is important eph?

Unfortunately, if you dont acknowledge the foundational truths, we cannot go any further.

Eph .. Christianity is not Christianity according to eph.

Eph you have no authority given by God to determine what are and are not foundational truths.


Youi have been repeatedly given scripture that CONTRADICTS what you claim are foundational truths . .


YOU IGNORE THESE SCRIPTURES!

Why is it that you don't think what these scriptures have to say is important eph?

Without the proper premise, the wrong conclusion is inevitable.

Abosultely in agreement with you there.


That is why we are showing you how your premises are faulty.

The scriptures have been presented to you that show your premises are faulty

BUT YOU REFUSE TO DEAL WITH THEM!


You can't legitimately claim you have the right premise when you IGNORE scriptures that contradict your premise!

This is intellectually dishonest.

Thus, repetition is NECESSARY to establish the CORRECT foundation.

[/quote]


Repeating an error over and over and over again will NEVER make it more right or correct.


You have never established you have the right foundation to lay.


You have been presented over and over again with scripture that contradicts your claims.


BUT YOU REFUSE TO DEAL WITH THEM!


Of course, this is what people do who can't defend their claims in the light of scripture to the contrary.


When you are willing to be intellectually honest, we can discuss this further.



Peace

 

[eph3Nine]

Dispy responds:
I AM NOT A ULTRA/EXTREME/HYPER-DISPENSATIONALIST!!!. However, I am not offended when I am refered to as one.

When I am asked my church affiliation, I usually respond by saying that I am what is refered to as a hyper/extreme dispensationalist. That brings on the responce "What's that?" that question give me the opportunity to present the gospel of the grace of God.

The following is taken from a past issue of the Berean Searchlight.

ARE WE HYPER-DISPENSATIONAILSTS:
By David M. Havard

Keywords: hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, dispensationalism, H. A. Ironside, Charles Baker, Pastor C. R. Stam, E. W. Bullinger, J. C. O'Hair, revelation of the mystery, body of Christ, Paul's gospel, gospel of the grace of God, Apostle Paul, rightly dividing the word of truth

Many years ago, H. A. Ironside (1) published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930's. Besides, it's much easier to label us as "hyper" and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.

This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:

"One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul's Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord's Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter's gospel message was not the same as Paul's….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected."(2)

This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside's book3)

"What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King's College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger's positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O'Hair and Charles Baker.

"There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.

"Beside these points, there are many other unscriptural things which are advocated by Bullingerism. Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism."

"But wait!" You're thinking, "I don't believe those things!" Well, neither do I, but these are their tactics. As far as most Acts 2 folks are concerned, we agree with Bullinger's far out views regarding soul sleep, annihilation of the wicked, universalism, and that the Body of Christ did not start until Acts 28. You either believe in their interpretation of dispensationalism or you are an extremist like Bullinger. They do not recognize any middle ground. This is what we are up against.

In the above quote, Ironside lists some the "outstanding tenets" of what he calls "ultra-dispensationalism." While this is a convenient label, it does not Biblically address the issues. Let us examine what Ironside said (and everyone else seems to repeat) and see if we agree or not.

"First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church": We do not believe that the four gospels have no real message for the church—Paul says that ALL Scripture is profitable. However, we do believe (because we hold to a literal historical interpretation of the Bible) that Christ's earthly ministry was in keeping with Israel's prophetic kingdom program (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24). We find application in the gospels to be sure, but to say that the basic message of the gospels is directed to the Body of Christ is not being consistent or literal. As Scofield says in his reference Bible, "The Epistles of the Apostle Paul have a very distinctive character....Through Paul alone we know that the church is not an organization, but an organism, the Body of Christ; instinct with His life, and heavenly in calling, promise, and destiny. Through him alone we know the nature, purpose, and form of organization of local churches, and the right conduct of such gatherings. Through him alone do we know that `we shall not all sleep,' that `the dead in Christ shall rise first,' and that living saints shall be `changed' and caught up to meet the Lord in the air at His return. But to Paul was also committed the unfolding of the doctrines of grace…Paul, converted by the personal ministry of the Lord in glory, is distinctively the witness to a glorified Christ, Head over all things to the church which is His Body, as the Eleven were to Christ in the flesh." And if, according to traditional dispensationalism, the Body of Christ started at Pentecost, how can it be found retroactively in the gospels? The message that Peter preached at Pentecost was an offer of the millennial kingdom to Israel (Acts 2:22) conditional upon their repentance and recognition of Jesus as their Messiah—something that we now know will not happen until after the tribulation.

"Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles": You'd think they would at least understand this! Regarding the assembly in the book of Acts, we have both "churches" mentioned, depending on the context. If you see the Body of Christ in the gospels, you are closer to a covenant position than a dispensational one. If the Body is found in the gospels, then to be consistent, it also has to be found in the Old Testament prophetic program as well. It was Bullinger (with whom we do not agree) who said that the Body of Christ did not start until the close of the book of Acts and that only Paul's prison epistles are for us today.

"Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body": We do not agree with Bullinger on this point either. We do say that Paul received a special revelation (Gal. 1:11-12), but we do not agree that only his prison epistles are applicable to us today. Paul began to receive his special revelation of the mystery upon his conversion in Acts 9.

"Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation": Regarding the "ordinances" of the church, there is no place in Scripture where water baptism and the Lord's supper are linked. The Lord's Supper is a memorial that we are instructed in I Corinthians 11 to keep "until He come." However, we do feel that water baptism is a Jewish ordinance and is something that was phased out during the transition period. It is also rarely pointed out that we are not unique in understanding that water baptism is not for today. Other groups throughout church history, such as the Quakers, have also come to this same conclusion.

"Many boldly advocate the sleep of the soul between death and resurrection, the annihilation of the wicked, the universal salvation of all men and demons, the denial of the eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit. All these evil doctrines find congenial soil in Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism": This is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I'm sure you see the implication. If you believe in a mid-Acts position, then, according to them, you also believe in these extreme and unscriptural viewpoints as well. By associating us with these cult-like beliefs we can be discredited without ever having to answer our Biblical arguments.

This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.

Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul's epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul's epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with "Lordship Salvation").

We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.

Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.

Endnotes

1. If you can find someone who has a copy of The Controversy (it's now out of print), you can read more about Ironside's history as related to the Grace Movement.

2. William MacDonald, "Distinguishing things that differ," Up-look, July/August 1999, pp. 11-12.

3. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New York, 1938.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Much and Love The Lord!

Good post , Dispy. I DO wish, however, that those who oppose us so vehemently would give us the common courtesy of ASKING what it is we DO believe instead of ASSUMING. The best way to find out what a dispensationalist believes is to ASK.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Good post , Dispy. I DO wish, however, that those who oppose us so vehemently would give us the common courtesy of ASKING what it is we DO believe instead of ASSUMING. The best way to find out what a dispensationalist believes is to ASK.

eph, the scriptures that contradict your position on two gospels, two kingdoms, etc have been presented numerous times already.

You have consistantly chosen to ignore them.


When you are ready to discuss this with us with intellectual honesty, let us know.



Peace

 

[Schroeder]

The Spirit uses water to visibly represent the cleansing He is doing. You say there's only one thing that could be called a seal? The invisible Spirit? Why? In many cases there are visible seals needed or talked-about in Scripture (such as Paul talking about Corinth as the seal of his Apostleship).


And if there's a need that there be only one thing called "seal", what about "washing"? Why are there multiple "washings" that involve both the Spirit and water?

there isnt you just must make them that way.

If any one is not born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God Jn 3:5

read verse 8 hje says so it is with those born of the SPirit. NOTICE it is SINGULAR. doesnt say those born of water and Spirit. It Should should it not IF what you believe is true.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word Ep 5:25-26

it says with the word. So it isnt speaking of a rite.

Such were s me of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

the Spirit does the washing Heb 9:14

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit Titus 3:5

is not doing a rite you say GOD commands a DEED. So this is again the SPirit as it says BY THE SPIRIT. And is clarified if you would just finish the passage. whom he POURED out THROUGH Christ. it is sayhing washing of regeneration and renewing( both together) BY or OF the Holy Spirit. So you can read it backwards. the Spirit does the washing of regeneration and renewing.

let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb 10:22

is your baptismal pool or pond or lake or river PURE water. it is obviouse what is pure THE SPIRIT. again read heb 9:14

​

The use of visible seals is exemplified in Scripture:

he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised Rom 4:11

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. Col 2:11-12​

first one notice he was righteouse BEFORE he did it. COl you need to put it in context. verse he used the circumcision and uncircumcision as your sinful nature and being circumsied by the Spirit(not the hands of man) as putting of the sinful nature. verse 13 so you are getting it al wrong WHY BECAUSE you ONLY see water baptism when the word baptism shows up. read rom 8 it tells us we are raised by the Spirit just as he raised Christ from the dead through the Spirit. rom 8:11

​

So in reality, a "seal" can be a visible outgrowth or signature on a promise; or it can be the inward power and guarantee on a promise. The outward seal: water baptism. The inward seal: the Spirit of God.

So in reality circumcision has NOTHING to do with a seal or sig on a promise. i already showed you eph 1:13-14 which speak of both. no such thing as a outward seal. PLEASE show scripture that even closly says this.

Ah, so you're allowed to dance without explaining why you think Scripture is one way -- yet I'm not! I see. "Let me get that splinter out of your eye."

how did i dance i quoted scripture word for word. do you want me to do this without commentary because i can and it will still show the same thing. i have explained it and shown scripture as to why i do say it. i am saying you are not shgowing me why my scripture is not saying what it clearly seems to say. as above you speak of a outward seal but gave NO scripture which suggest such a thing. i gave scripture that used all the WORDS you spoke and it said the SPirit was all of those without even a hint of water baptism. you cant seem to think that the SPirit baptism used the water cleansing analogy because how else would anyone understand it. just because they did this WHY does it mean there must be a physical showing of it or be a part of it to make it happen or be done. you can use water to discribe something with out the use of it, opr it needing it or ahveing anything at all to do with it. it is FACT the SPirit cleanses your conscience. heb 9:14 but it is FACT there is no reference to water baptism(or the need of it) AT ALL along with it.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Truth should NEVER be disheartening!

And as usual, you miss the meaning of the comment.

And the only reason it gets repeated so often here, is because nice folks like you dont seem to think that scripture is important, and never acknowledge what it SAYS. We are kindly repeating the information for those who ASK, and for those who obviously didnt understand it the first time. Even God repeats information so that we clearly understand it.

Actually, I think you are spammng and it is obnoxious. Perhaps you believe you are accomplishing something, but I think it is very rude....and typical of the hyperdispensationalsists I interact with.

 

[Dispy]

thereselittleflower:
PLEASE read Matthew chapters 5 through 7, which is what is know as "The Sermon on the Mount."

In that sermon, Jesus is speaking of a kingdom. Where will this kingdom be, on the earth or in heaven?

If I read correctily, Jesus is speaking of conduct in that kingdom. If you believe that this kingdom will be upon the earth, then it would be the conduct that those spoken to should conduct themselves in the earthly kingdom. If this is the kingdom in heaven, Do you believe that this is how heaven will be run and governed?

Or, do you believe that Jesus is speaking of the way we should live today?

I find it impossible for me to live in the manner depicted in this sermon. In fact, I don't know of anyone who can.

In His closing remarks, Jesus says: 7:24 "Therefore whosoever heareth these saying of mine, and doeth them I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock;
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house: and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it felll, and great was the fall of it."

Verse 24 says: "heareth these saying of mine, and DOETH them." It does not say "try your best."

How is your house built, on rock or sand?

If salvation/justification today is based upon the manner in which one lives according to the above sermon, there would no one good enough enter that kingdom that Jesus is speaking of. That includes me and you.

Would appreciate your views on that sermon.

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

 

[thereselittleflower]

there isnt you just must make them that way.

No . . it has been the teaching of the Church since the beginning that Baptism by Water is the mechanism by which God has chosen to give the new birth.

If you look throughout the NT, God uses the ordinary to do the extraordinary.

read verse 8 hje says so it is with those born of the SPirit. NOTICE it is SINGULAR. doesnt say those born of water and Spirit. It Should should it not IF what you believe is true.

Umm . .. you are making false distinctions.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
​

"A man" refers to ANY person, male or female. It refers to ALL people.

Jesus did not have to state it in the plural to make it apply to all.

It would be the same thing as me saying, "one should be careful how they read scripture" . . of course that would apply to all.

So making a false distinction like you have here is a logical fallacy.


Now, to take this further, we see that the underlying Greek does not agree with your position:

τίς
tis
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).
​

So . . . your argument above is baseless.

Jesus said ANYone who is not born of the WATER and SPIRIT will not enter the kingdom of God. (ie water by itself is not enough, it must be both the WATER and the Spirit).

it says with the word. So it isnt speaking of a rite.

Yes it is . . read it again

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word Ep 5:25-26
​

WASHING of WATER WITH the word.

Without the word, the water is meaningless.

The word is this:

I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit .. . in accordance with Jesus' instructions:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
​

The words above are "the word" referenced by Paul, added to the water and the action of baptizing, are indeed the RITE of Baptism you are denying.

Bu not understanding Christian History, and ignoring the teaching of the Church from the beginning, you are simply approaching scriptures stripped of their full context . . .the full context is what were the Chirstians actually doing when Paul wrote those words . . .

They were baptizing . .the washing of water with the word . . the rite explained above.

the Spirit does the washing Heb 9:14
is not doing a rite you say GOD commands a DEED.

Yes, it is a deed. One cannot have obedience without deeds.

Do you think you can believe and do nothing, yet have a saving faith?

So this is again the SPirit as it says BY THE SPIRIT. And is clarified if you would just finish the passage. whom he POURED out THROUGH Christ. it is sayhing washing of regeneration and renewing( both together) BY or OF the Holy Spirit.

Baptism does now save you

Do you know where that is?

So you can read it backwards. the Spirit does the washing of regeneration and renewing.

Without the Spirit, water can only clean the outside. But God has chosen water as the ordinary means to do the extraordinary. . . . That is God's Choice. Our's is to submit in obedience or rebel.

is your baptismal pool or pond or lake or river PURE water. it is obviouse what is pure THE SPIRIT. again read heb 9:14

Failing to understand the whole issue, you are looking at things that have no bearing on the subject.

first one notice he was righteouse BEFORE he did it. COl you need to put it in context. verse he used the circumcision and uncircumcision as your sinful nature and being circumsied by the Spirit(not the hands of man) as putting of the sinful nature.

Water Baptism is the circumcision without hands.

Water Baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant.

verse 13 so you are getting it al wrong WHY BECAUSE you ONLY see water baptism when the word baptism shows up.

In the majority of contexts, that is its meaning . . water baptism.

read rom 8 it tells us we are raised by the Spirit just as he raised Christ from the dead through the Spirit. rom 8:11

Water, without the spirit, accomplishes nothing.

That is why the Trinity is invoked when one is baptized in water.

So in reality circumcision has NOTHING to do with a seal or sig on a promise.

I am sorry, but circumcision has EVERYTHING to do with a seal or a sign or a promise.

It was the sign of the Old Covenant. It initiated one into the Old Covenant with all its promies and obligations. It was a seal of the Covenant.


Baptism is the same in the New Covenant.

i already showed you eph 1:13-14 which speak of both. no such thing as a outward seal. PLEASE show scripture that even closly says this.

Circumcision:

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
​

Baptism:

Col 2:11 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:
Col 2:12 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.
​

Paul relates Circumcision, which was an outwards seal as we see from scriptures to BAPTISM . . .

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
​

"How" is by Baptism

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
​

"How" is by Baptism

2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2Co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
​

"How" is by Baptism


Also

*** 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
​

This refers to Water Baptism

Peter also agrees:

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
​

Water by itself does nothing. It must be coupled with the word (as indicated above) and the work and power of the Holy Spirit.

It is the washing of regeneration. It is being Born Again of the Water and the Spirit. It is the New Birth.

how did i dance i quoted scripture word for word. do you want me to do this without commentary because i can and it will still show the same thing. i have explained it and shown scripture as to why i do say it. i am saying you are not shgowing me why my scripture is not saying what it clearly seems to say. as above you speak of a outward seal but gave NO scripture which suggest such a thing. i gave scripture that used all the WORDS you spoke and it said the SPirit was all of those without even a hint of water baptism. you cant seem to think that the SPirit baptism used the water cleansing analogy because how else would anyone understand it. just because they did this WHY does it mean there must be a physical showing of it or be a part of it to make it happen or be done. you can use water to discribe something with out the use of it, opr it needing it or ahveing anything at all to do with it. it is FACT the SPirit cleanses your conscience. heb 9:14 but it is FACT there is no reference to water baptism(or the need of it) AT ALL along with it.

By not taking the message in scriptures as a whole, but expecting to find the details YOU want WHERE YOU want them to be, you miss the the bigger picture.

Scripture was not written to cater to your personal senisblities.


And neither was the NT written to lay a foundatoin. It was written to build on the foundation already laid by the Apostles.

So, it is an error to demand that something that is part of the foundation of Christian faith be spelled out in what is built UPON the foundation.

If the foundation built in your life does not allow you to see that Water Baptism is a requirement for Christians and necessary for the New Birth, then the foundation that was laid in your life was faulty.



Think about it.



Peace

 

[heymikey80]

there isnt you just must make them that way.

Nah. I just pointed them out.

In John 3 Jesus is expecting those born of the Spirit to typically include all those born of water. Jesus is not writing, He's talking. You don't include all your qualifications in every sentence, either. Otherwise your sentences would be too long to listen to.

On the Ep 5 passage it says by the washing of water with the word -- what, you think the thing that accompanies the washing can supplant the washing? Funny, I don't think the Apostles accompanying Jesus could supplant Him ....

 

[Schroeder]

No . . it has been the teaching of the Church since the beginning that Baptism by Water is the mechanism by which God has chosen to give the new birth.

If you look throughout the NT, God uses the ordinary to do the extraordinary.

that is a lie. sorry to offend you but it is.

Umm . .. you are making false distinctions.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

​

"A man" refers to ANY person, male or female. It refers to ALL people.

Jesus did not have to state it in the plural to make it apply to all.

It would be the same thing as me saying, "one should be careful how they read scripture" . . of course that would apply to all.

So making a false distinction like you have here is a logical fallacy.



Now, to take this further, we see that the underlying Greek does not agree with your position:

τίς
tis
tis
An enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object: - a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all), certain (thing), divers, he (every) man, one (X thing), ought, + partly, some (man, -body, -thing, -what), (+ that no-) thing, what (-soever), X wherewith, whom [-soever], whose ([-soever]).

​

So . . . your argument above is baseless.

Jesus said ANYone who is not born of the WATER and SPIRIT will not enter the kingdom of God. (ie water by itself is not enough, it must be both the WATER and the Spirit).

how you all twist this into what you do is amazing since it is spelled out for you right there. for one the issue was not the "no ONE" or the plural issue being people BUT it being water AND SPirit. in verse 6 he tells us what each is , the water and the Spirit. tell me what he is speaking of if not. the water is fleshly birth the spirit is spirit. he here seperates the two, WHY or what for if he isnt making the statement in verse 5 more clear for nicodemus, SINCE he only understands a EARTHLY FLESHLY birth. verse 7 speaks ONLY of the SPirit verse 8 ONLY the SPirit. as he CLEARLY says " So it is with EVERYONE born of the SPIRIT". DO YOU SEE WATER BAPTISM HERE? NOOOO. the Greek word for born above Anothen can also mean "from above" anotherr CLEAR hint. another good one is the john 3:16.

Yes it is . . read it again

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word Ep 5:25-26

​

WASHING of WATER WITH the word.

Without the word, the water is meaningless.

The word is this:


I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit .. . in accordance with Jesus' instructions:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

​

The words above are "the word" referenced by Paul, added to the water and the action of baptizing, are indeed the RITE of Baptism you are denying.

this word is not matt. 28 seeing how this passage does not deal with water baptism. it does NOT NOT NOT say "BY" baptizing them in the name of.... it is a COMMA. when you become a disciple you become a PART of the trinity or Church you JOIN, become a heir. why does NOT any scripture use this form as you would say when they water baptized. it is not a form or direction of prober wording for water baptism. so it is not a instruction on how to proberly water baptize so it works correctly.

Bu not understanding Christian History, and ignoring the teaching of the Church from the beginning, you are simply approaching scriptures stripped of their full context . . .the full context is what were the Chirstians actually doing when Paul wrote those words . . .
They were baptizing . .the washing of water with the word . . the rite explained above.

i do not ignore scripture i read it all together instead of cherry picking from it. notice you never give verse 8 of john 3:5-8. you hardly use full context. rites do NOTHING in way of salvation period. it is NOT what you do in church service but how you live. HIS two commands. only two.

Yes, it is a deed. One cannot have obedience without deeds.

Do you think you can believe and do nothing, yet have a saving faith?

no your faith is shown by what you do or how you live NOT by what rite or ordances you do or have done. it is shown by following Christ TWO commands his only two. so the fact that i do not or have not been water baptized or do all these rites or ordances does not keep me from showing my obediance or my Faith. if i love my neighbor and love they God with all my heart i show my faith.

Baptism does now save you

Do you know where that is?

1 Peter 3:21. BUT IT IS NOT WATER BAPTISM IT IS THE SPIRIT BAPTISM. just read heb 9:14. see if you put it into context with the REST or other scripture, you will see it.

Without the Spirit, water can only clean the outside. But God has chosen water as the ordinary means to do the extraordinary. . . . That is God's Choice. Our's is to submit in obedience or rebel.

let me ask you HOW you are to please God in your sinful nature. you are in it untill you receive the SPirit. rom 8:5-9. 1 cor 2:12-14. you say we gewt the Spirit when we are obediant to God in being water baptism. scripture says you cant please him unless the SPirit is in you. you have a problem seing how you say otherwise. CONTEXT.the FACT Is water ONLY cleanses the outside which is why it is NOT TRUE to say it does anything at all. read heb 9:14 again.

Water Baptism is the circumcision without hands.

Water Baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant.

another lie. scripture says and you give it that "...but with the circumcision done by CHRIST. what does john the baptist say is Christ baptism. YES THAT IS RIGHT SPIRIT BAPTISM. circumcision in the new testement is used to ilistrate your old self and new self sinful nature and new birth or removal of the old self. show you below.

In the majority of contexts, that is its meaning . . water baptism.

NOPE

Water, without the spirit, accomplishes nothing.

That is why the Trinity is invoked when one is baptized in water.

thats why it was NEVER spoke that way in scripture.

I am sorry, but circumcision has EVERYTHING to do with a seal or a sign or a promise.

It was the sign of the Old Covenant. It initiated one into the Old Covenant with all its promies and obligations. It was a seal of the Covenant.


Baptism is the same in the New Covenant.

wasnt speaking of the old covenant but the seal or sign of the new. which is NOT NOT water baptism.




<B>

Circumcision:

Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:​

he is speaking about GRACE and that even abraham was considered righteous BEFORE he was circumcised. goes with gal 3:16 read gal 5:5-6 DOnt know why you would even bring circumcision into it after this passage. it is Faith expressing itself through LOVE. that is your SIGN and you can NOT do this type of love WITHOUT THE SPIRIT IN YOU. </B>

​

<B>

Baptism:

Col 2:11 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:
Col 2:12 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.
​

</B>

​

Paul relates Circumcision, which was an outwards seal as we see from scriptures to BAPTISM . . .

see again you dont finish the passage which would put it into CONTEXT. verse 13. it show the relationship of circumcision uncircumcision with your sinfull nature. SOOO in christ the SPirit does the circumcision without hands of man, that is puts off the sinful nature and bring about the new man or new birth or BORN AGAIN. read 3:10 as for being buried with him in baptism(spirit baptism) read rom 8 again 8:11-14. read col. 2:11-12 with rom 8:9-14. ALSO read EVERY passage that speaks of circumcision and tell me it speaks of anything to do with water baptism and it being the NEW seal. you wont find it.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

​

"How" is by Baptism

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

​

"How" is by Baptism

HOW is told you in the verse when you heard and trusted the gospel and BELIEVEd you were sealed. eph 4:30 is not water as the verse you show right after it says sealed WITH THAT HOLY SPIRIT.

2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;​

​

2Co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

​

"How" is by Baptism

talk about ADDING something CLEARLY nnot spoke about. none of them even speak a HINT of water baptism YET you insert them in. and not only that the Holy spirit is in them yet you say it could not be the SPirit baptism that john the baptist said Christ would perform in us. find that funny.
​

Also

*** 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

​

This refers to Water Baptism

Peter also agrees:

nope that is a lie as well it is the SPirit only. as i showed. AGAIN not one of you who believes this as EVER answered me on how doing this water baptism is not a righteous deed if as you say it MUST be done in obediance to him when i have clerarly shown we can't UNTIL the spirit is in us, and which you dont believe we receive UNTILL we are obediant in doing water baptism.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


Water by itself does nothing. It must be coupled with the word (as indicated above) and the work and power of the Holy Spirit.

read heb 9:14. if it is as he says the cleansing of the conscience then heb 9:14 should prove my point that it is the SPirit baptism which john the baptist said Christ would do to us.

It is the washing of regeneration. It is being Born Again of the Water and the Spirit. It is the New Birth.

nope it is Christ in us performing the circumcision without hands of man that puts off the sinful nature and gives us the nature of Christ HOW(spirit baptism) because the new birth is the SPirit in us. our bodies are dead because of sin but the Spirit in us is alive. the SPirit is Our new birth. and as gal 5:22-25 says the fruit of the Spirit is.... or the new birth is.... we get the baptism of the SPirit when we believe in the gospel in our hearts. acts 15:8 proves it.

By not taking the message in scriptures as a whole, but expecting to find the details YOU want WHERE YOU want them to be, you miss the the bigger picture.







If the foundation built in your life does not allow you to see that Water Baptism is a requirement for Christians and necessary for the New Birth, then the foundation that was laid in your life was faulty.

taken as a whole. i think it is you that is doing such a thing. it is your traditions and church teaching that blinds your understanding. so as i have shown is that water baptism and the new birth are not at all related. notice you give passages that speak nothing of water and say HOW? water baptism. that is called assumption and out of context and not taking the scripture as a whole.

 

[Schroeder]

Nah. I just pointed them out.

In John 3 Jesus is expecting those born of the Spirit to typically include all those born of water. Jesus is not writing, He's talking. You don't include all your qualifications in every sentence, either. Otherwise your sentences would be too long to listen to.

which is why nicodemus didnt get it. he said born again nicodemus ONLY thought of water easrthly fleshly birth. THIS IS WHAT CHRIST KNEW. which is why he spoke of BOTH in verse 5-6. he is telling nicodemus YES you are born of the water,FLESH(first birth)BUT you must be BORN AGAIN.(the spirit) So he could understand the idea of TWO BIRTHS. or the second birth. that is why he spoke verse 6. verse 8 PROVES it is just the spirit. READ IT. and do not keep leaving it out when you bring this verse up all the time to prove something explained right there for you. if it is water baptism and spirit he would have said so in verse 8. why else or how could he in the same conversation say that EVERYONE who believes in me will have eternal life. if what you say is true he could not say this with out saying everyone who believes and is water baptized will have eternal life.

On the Ep 5 passage it says by the washing of water with the word -- what, you think the thing that accompanies the washing can supplant the washing? Funny, I don't think the Apostles accompanying Jesus could supplant Him ....

the spirit baptism does not accompany water baptism. there is only ONE baptism the one john the baptist said Christ would give us. water baptism was to show a ASSoCIATION with this belief or with Christ and his teachings. in other words it was showing they were leaving there past affiliation with the pagan beliefs they once believed. 1 cor 1 shows this. he is mad at them because they were associating themselves with the teacher and not the one taught about Christ. it shows it was nnothing to do with salvation otherwise Paul would have brought it up at this point. and he says the gospel is not water baptism but Christ and him crucified for us. he also says " God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those WHO BELIEVED." this saved by belief is all through scripture which PROVES water baptism has nothing to do with salvation. even Peter says it when they ask him WHAT they MUST DO to be saved. if water baptism is the WHAT must be done then why did he not tell them to do it. he told them WHAT? acts 16:31.