[KingSolomon1611]

In my church we don't join by baptism...I was jumped into the fellowship by the deacons. Now I now why they carry canes and absolutely refuse to cash in their roles of nickels.

[peopleoftheway]

Originally Posted by chette777

Is water Baptism correct for believers today?

It is not for today if one is doing it to be saved?
It is not for today is one is doing it for the remission of sins?
It is not for today is one is wanting to join the Body of Christ?
It is not for today if it is for regeneration?
It is not for today if it is used for any other reason than the believers desire to make a public profession of their faith and Publicly identify with Christ?

You are a dispensationalist if you agree that Old Testament Salvation is different that Church Age Salvation.

You are a dispensationalist if you agree God has a different times dealt differently with mankind at different times. i.e. Garden, pre flood, post flood, pre-Israel, Israel, body of Christ, Tribulation, Millennial Kingdom, Eternity.

I agree with all of the above, saved me a few lines extra

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

In one of the recent threads elsewhere in the forum, the issue of water baptism was brought up. I am not a dispensationalist myself, so my interpretation is different from the start, but I would like to find out how widespread is this doctrine that water baptism is not for today's believers.

In WW2 Dick Winters of Easy Company led his men into the Battle Of The Bulge, to secure a perimeter around Bastonge to keep the Germans from accessing all the roads in and out of this city, as related in two episodes of the TV mini-series BAND OF BROTHERS. He also coined a world famous phrase. when told he would be surrounded, Winters said "We're paratroopers, we're supposed to be surrounded..." In that spirit and experience since first getting on the Internet in 1999 I have coined my own little phrase that many identify me by and with:

I'm Not Happy Unless I'm Outnumbered.

I'd like to offer this disclaimer: Since I joined this forum in Feb., one man came in here trying to I think preach Sabbatarianism and another tried to worm in with some kind of Gap Theory/Pre-Adamic Race cult. That is not the reason I came into this forum, I came for friendship, fellowship, and the chance to teach and be taught. My friends locally nicknamed me Apollos, but you never stop learning. I left a question on Pauline Dispensationalism by Bible Protector unanswered, and a question by Stephanos on my teaching on water baptism unanswered, and also when Tandi brought it up in another thread, I referred her to this thread. To those three and any others who asked me about it and maybe I missed answering them on this topic, I did not mean to be rude or ignore you. I'm not, as I stated before, here to preach Pauline Grace Movement dispensationalism. I'm here to help answer questions on general Bible topics and to lend my voice and identify myself as a "KJV-Only Extremist"/Discord-Among-The-Brethren-Sower/Church-Splitter on the bible "version" issue. Further, I am in no way affiliated with The Berean Bible Society or Cornelius Stam. Stam is a petrified extremist Calvinist, which he brought over into his dispensational teaching as baggage due to him being a prior member of The Dutch Reformed Church. Stam(I believe he died in 2003) was an Original Manuscript Fraud, and delighted in quoting the ASV of 1901 and retranslating the KJV. I studied under Pastor Richard Jordan who was fired as president of the Bereans by Stam in 1988 becasue Jordan said the KJV was the inspired word of God and the only version the Bereans would use. Jordan also attended Dr. Ruckman's school in Pensacola. I also reject the teaching among some sects of Grace Believers that the New Birth is not "for today", Ye must be born again, and also the kenosis theory of Christ "emptying Himself" of His Deity has also crept in unawares and I eschew and refute it. The Universalists have also a sect claiming to be "Pauline Mid-Acts Dispensationalists" who deny an eternal hell. Right, no hell. And my dog chews bubblegum too.

So, the overwhelming vast majority of you are Baptists, I am overwhelmingly a Great Commission/water baptism-denying Pauline Grace Believer. Is this a friendly, Scriptural debate, or just a poll? Are we just going to discuss why water baptism is not Grace Age Jewish-Gentile Body of Christ church doctrine for today, or just conduct a poll of who does and who don't? If so I will offer answers to objections to the doctrine of no water baptism for believers, if not, I'll return to my work of bible verse corruptions and the general forum.

Grace and peace my friends.

Tony

[Brother Tim]

As the originator of the thread, I am qualified to define the purpose of the thread. I began with a poll because it is the simplest way to identify the degree of interest in the question.

I would hope that any (one at this moment-Tony) would expound on the reason why we today should not be baptized.

I would also hope that those of us who recognize the Scriptural mandate for believers to be baptized will back up our belief with evidence. [translate-show Tony the error of his ways and hope that he sees the light ... yeah,right! ]

Finally, I would hope that we who are right will present ourselves in a Godly way in all of our posts.

Be it known to all. I am not a dispensationalist. In this issue, I do not think that it makes a difference unless one falls completely over the dispensational ledge, as it appears that Tony has. [After all, he can't be right about everything! ]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

So, the overwhelming vast majority of you are Baptists, I am overwhelmingly a Great Commission/water baptism-denying Pauline Grace Believer.

Just kiddin' brother, you know I had to do it...
But seriously, do we have to go there?

[George]

"Be it known to all. I am not a dispensationalist. In this issue, I do not think that it makes a difference unless one falls completely over the dispensational ledge, as it appears that Tony has. [After all, he can't be right about everything! ]"

Aloha Brother Tim,

And as for me, since I am a Bible believer (who considers myself a "moderate" Dispensationalist) and have (in the past) attended "Brethren" churches and Independent Baptist churches; and other Independent "Bible" churches, etc., etc.; and for the last 17 years or so have been a part of a small independent Bible church (modeled on the churches of the New Testament). I not only find myself in agreement with brother Tony most of the time, but would prefer to have him as a friend and a member of this Forum than the Bible deniers; or the Bible correctors; or the Bible "harmonizers"; that have shown up or who may still be members on this Forum today.

I would rather have brother Tony "at my back" than the Humanistic, intellectual, elite, feminized, wishy washy, Humanisnistic "Christians" that abound in our country today. From the moment he joined the Forum, brother Tony has been open and above board about his belief (unlike many who come here), but he also has been circumspect about not "pushing" his personal belief on this Forum.

I personally don't want to see a "debate" over water baptism; we all know what he believes - what will such a debate accomplish? Who will be "edified"? Is the purpose going to be to "isolate" a fellow brother in Christ and possibly drive him away? I want no part in this.

I have disagreed with you on several issues - mainly because I hold dispensational convictions and you don't. But I have never "ragged on" you because we differ on the topic of dispensationalism; rather I have tried to stick to whatever issue we differ on and if at the end of an "exchange" between us, I see that no edification can be gained - I leave it be.

Why is that so? Because I appreciate your testimony; and your attitude; and conduct; and I have learned from your example. Even though we differ on some matters that are important to me (and to you), I consider you a fellow brother in Christ - just as I consider brother Tony a fellow brother in Christ (with whom I differ on a few issues also). I could fellowship with both of you, despite our differences.

I will not take part in a Scriptural "witch hunt" or a Bible "lynching". Brother Tony does not believe that water baptism is for the church; most of us on the Forum believe that it is - but in the broad scope of things that matter in the Bible are we going to castigate, or chastise, or censure him for his belief? I for one - will not participate in such a venture. I refuse to "gang-up" on a fellow brother in Christ over this issue.

If brother Tony came on this Forum and had been obnoxious or antagonistic over the issue, that would be another matter, but he has been careful not to push it, while still letting it be known where he stands. I respect his honesty, even if I disagree with him. And if we were sitting around the kitchen table hashing water baptism out with him, I would "put my oar" in once in a while in support of my belief. But I do not think that the Forum is the place for a knock-down, drag-out battle over water baptism since I know ahead of time that there will be absolutely no profit in the debate at all, and the only thing that we may accomplish is "hard feelings' (or worse) over an issue that has very little bearing on the spiritual state of individual Christians.

There are Scriptural issues that are worth fighting over (and you know that I don't "shy away" from them), but on the other hand there are issues where there is no "profit", i.e. no "edification" to be had. I would suggest we stop biting and devouring one another, and get on with the business at hand: "the ministry of reconciliation". Let sleeping dogs lie brethren, this thing could come back and bite us - big time. Worse yet, if we succeed in driving brother Tony away, we would have lost a fountain of Biblical knowledge , and a "viewpoint" that is both refreshing and unique.

Someday the Lord Jesus Christ is going to straighten us all out on the places where we have been wrong on doctrine; until then: lets extend the "right hands of fellowship" to a fellow brother in Christ. We are in a "WAR", and brother Tony would be a good soldier to have alongside of us as the battle intensifies; and I guarantee you - it will intensify!

We've got enough to contend with (the enemy without & traitors within), without shooting a "combat veteran" because he doesen't want to get wet!

[Billie]

and , Brother George...I agree.

[Brother Tim]

George, I'm not interested in getting into a fuss with Tony or seeing anyone else do so over this question. I would like to see Tony's explanation of his view so that I can better deal with the question should it arise by some seeker of truth. I know that Tony is settled in his belief as I am in mine, so fussing won't help. But there are those who are unsure. Should we not provide for them some evidence of what is right and wrong? It is not a minor "take-it-or-leave-it" decision.

I would like to know if Tony considers believer's baptism as practiced in the average Baptist church to be a sin.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by George

If brother Tony came on this Forum and had been obnoxious or antagonistic over the issue, that would be another matter, but he has been careful not to push it, while still letting it be known where he stands. I respect his honesty, even if I disagree with him.

I agree with you, Brother George.
Brother Tony, although I also disagree with you, well, "grace and peace" to you!

[chette777]

In my church I only Baptize the ones who request it. I hold a Bible study to be sure they are not using baptism for anything other than their personal Identifiation with Christ. I explain it is not for salvation, forgiveness of sns, entrance to the body of Christ, regeneration but simply personal ID withour Lord and His finished work.

if a person gets baptized or does not get baptised I will not condemn them. I want it to be something of their free will. when I come across the scriptures concerning it I teach it in light of the context and application.