[tonybones2112]

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

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

Then it all stops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brother, thank you.

Grace and peace

Tony