[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by chette777

Just a little input

All these books fall under the dispensation of the Law for Israel and Acts is a transition to the Age of Grace. But Acts 2:38 is still a presentation to Israel so that the Kingdom can be established. Matthew is transitional from OT to NT of what some call the preparation for the Kingdom.

Have you read the book "One Book Rightly Divided"? I would not say that the dispenstional divisions that Staufer presents are not so cut and dry. Most tend to over lap. it is in the Sword Searcher.

Chette, the reason I have not so far commented in this thread is "for" the simple reason that neither Acts nor Matthew are a mystery to me and because I understand that Acts and Matthew are the two most dangerous books in the Scriptures to found a church, a theology, or a denomination in. I'm commenting at this time because I see a red flag and that red flag is in Acts 2:38, because I see a retranslation of the KJV and a redefinition of the English language in order to prove a denominational doctrine, not a sound doctrine.

I had two debates with two Church Of Christ "elders", both over a two-night span. In both debates of two hours each, I spent two minutes in Acts 2:38. I've seen denominational debaters with COC spend nearly the whole debate fighting over the Greek word "eis" ("for")in Acts 2:38. The simple reason that Acts 2:38 is not a point of contention between me and COC or anyone in opposition to COC is that without water baptism in Acts 2:38, there was no remission of sins, and this is found in The Great Commission No One Talks About:

Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

First place we go to prove the signs of an apostle, tongues and miracles are not for today is Mark 16. There is one sign no one speaks of, becasue the Catholioc Church has claimed it, and few want to "exposit" or even discuss it, but along with the signs of Mark 16 was given the apostolic sign to remit sins or retain them, and this is just what the apostles had, including Paul, which is why Paul felt he needed to baptize(wash) Crispus and Gaius and the other Jews at Corinth. Paul knew this, and in describing his own water baptism knew that he, Paul, a Jew, had no remission of sins without first being baptized in water:

Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Tell me what is wrong with these two readings, these two denominational interpretations:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What's wrong with these two verses above, brother Chette? What's wrong is that like Eve, in the first reading the denominationaists add to the word of God("because of" rather than "for"). This leaves us with the second reading where the denominationalists takes from the word of God.

Do you see it? Do you see the key? The key is not in wresting the word "for" over into another definition, the key is the word "the"

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 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Without water baptism in Acts 2:38 there was no remission of sins. I know how to read English, I understand the word "for", and I understand the word "for" when used in the context of "the". i know and understand that the apostles, Paul included, had to power to remit and retain sin. I know that water baptism, tongues, signs, wonders, healings, and the power to remit and retain sins are all no longer operative today and ceased after Acts 28. I know this mostly because there are no apostles today, an apostle must be chosen personally by Jesus Christ, and the Lord don't put in personal appearances in this age, other than His Spirit living in all of us who believe.

Acts 2:38 is a mirror image of Exodus 29, Exodus 40, and Leviticus 8:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Le 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

First step is above, consecration by water washing to cleanse the "priest", which John the Baptist came to do, the fulfillment of "all righteousness" of Matt. 3 to make a kingdom of priests.

Le 8:12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

Thus we see the converts at Pentecost:

Le 21:10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;

In this age, Acts Chapter 29, we are washed in the Blood of Jesus Christ and in regeneration by the Spirit so that we may put un Christ, not priestly garments

Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

His indwelling Spirit has been more than poured "on" us, but He fills us:

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

I appreciate brother George's, as usual, expert understanding and commentary on the Scriptures, but if this thread bears a topic "buried" in the water baptism thread, then it needs to be discussed over there in the water baptism thread, because I see the purpose that this study is heading towards is to try and define there as being "different types" of water baptism. We are going to end up with two threads discussing the topic of water baptism, and that's redundant and a waste of all our time.

From Lev. 8 through to it's last mention in I Cor., it's all the same baptism.

Grace and peace friends

Tony