[Fredoheaven]

Originally Posted by George

Every time the word "baptize" shows up in the Bible it doesn't ALWAYS mean "WATER BAPTISM". Every time the word "church" shows up in the Bible it doesn't ALWAYS mean a NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. And every time the word "gospel" shows up in the Holy Bible it doesn't ALWAYS mean THE SAME "GOSPEL" EVERY TIME.

Well, I'll agree with that statement, however, the New Testament Church included Jewish believers. So they must be of the same gospel that Peter preached in Acts 2. Is Acts 2, not a New Testament Church? Paul said that he was once a persecutor of the church. This church was composed firstly the apostles including Paul which were of Jewish descendants. So that Paul for persecuting the church means that his message of salvation is the same as of that Peter in Acts 2.To be noted, these Jewish people converts were added unto them in what we called the church. Therefore, we can say that this is a “New Testament Jewish church” and since they were baptized, I prefer to call them the “New Testament Jewish Baptist Church”. Interestingly, our Lord added them and not Apostle Peter.

1 Corinthians 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Accordingly, the message of Salvation for Paul was that of Christ death burial and resurrection as stated in 1 Corinthians 15. This is also clear to Apostle Peter as he preached in Acts 2. The only difference was that of the recipient but the message is still the same, salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek(Gentile).

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by ChaplainPaul

Interesting discussion. I never would have expected it to develop like this. I didn't know water baptism was such an issue. I do believe it is for today. To me, it's just as simple as plain obedience in good faith. I can't really add anything else to the posts that so many capable people have already written.

I would say, though, that it's a personal obedience to the Lord. A person shouldn't be baptized to satisfy their Pastor's belief. I'd much rather someone come as the eunuch, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"

Paul, my entire position is founded on the signs of an apostle, water baptism being one, fading from the scene after Acts 28. The Jews require a sign according to Paul, and the baptism of Jesus's day was the consecrational washing of Exodus 29, 40, and Lev. 8 as the first step in consecrating aJewish priest. The prophecy of Exodus 19 was the "righteousness" fullfilled by John and Jesus both in Matthew 3, to make Israel, the whole nation, a kingdom of priests. Christ's baptism was the first step, the second step being sanctification of pouring the oil, a type of the Holy Spirit. God the Father sanctified Christ after His baptism, and Christ thus became the great High Priest after the order of Melchisidek per the book of Hebrews, which He had to be in order to bring His own Blood into the Holy Place in heaven in similitude to the high priest in OT Israel bring the blood to sprinkle on the Mercy Seat for the sins of Israel, Christ's blood was for the whole world, He was not of the Levite tribe so His order was after Melchisedek. When John the Baptist spoke to the gathered common people and the Levites represented by the Pharisees and Sadducees they knew exactly what he meant when he said, thus I come baptizing with water. That baptism was Lev. 8.

JWs and Church Of Christ use debate word-games. I'm surprised that a few in this thread see water baptism as so great a part of the ministry of reconciliation that these word-games are used by blood-bought Christians. "Baptism" is not found in the OT". True and False. It's found in Hebrews 6 and 9 referring to the OT. "Judas Iscariot is the Anti-Christ" is not found in the whole Bible. By using Isaiah 28 we see it is found here:

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

'Believer's baptism" is another term not found anywhere in the Scriptures and some have to go back to Christ's earthly ministry to try and justify a work of the Law(water baptism, the Levite washing)if we are going to play JW/COC word-games rather than Scripture with Scripture.

Ro 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

I am obeying Jesus Christ's message to me through Paul to be a minister of the reconciliation rather than a minister of the the circumcision. I am not "of" Paul but I follow Paul. Paul's commission was not to baptize in water but to preach the gospel. That's my commission, not to make Jewish priests through water baptism, a work of the flesh and a dead work. The one baptism is not water, and is not performed by a minister or pastor or evangelist but the Holy Spirit.

Paul says we must rightly divide the Scriptures then in Ephesians 2 he tells us how to divide it. Times Past, But Now, Ages To Come. Genesis through Acts 28 is Times Past. All the signs were operative in the book of Acts, I have never denied that though the "Scripture" I have been given in opposition to this position is nearly always someone being baptized in Acts, when it was operative.

It was operative in the OT(Exodus-Crucifixion).
It was operative in the book of Acts.
It's not operative for today, because the Scriptures written to me mention water baptism only once, and that was Paul denying he was sent to do it, a work of the Law to consecrate a Jewish priest, written to a primarily Jewish Church(Corinth).

Romans through Philemon is But Now, doctrine for today, Hebrews-Revelation is Ages To Come, Tribulation, Millenium, Eternity. Times Past doctrine and Ages To Come Doctrine are interrelated, the Sermon On The Mount is the "Constitution" for the Millenium, as an example.

God said he would teach me by similitude, by precept upon precept, line upon line, by comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. In doing that I have established a line straight back from Acts 28 clear through to Exodus 19 that water baptism is a work of the Law of Moses. An OT ordinance? Yes. A NT ordinance? No.

It is an unusual occurrence that one "dry cleaner" can discuss the topic of water baptism with a forum made up primarily of Baptists but this forum is special. I hope we have all been decent and orderly and spoken towards edification, we differ here on Gaps, angels copulating with women in Gen. 6, and water baptism, but we are all still One in Christ.

I salute your work with our troops, and pray for them, and ask you join me in praying God will show our governement how to fight a guerrilla war.

Grace and Peace Chaplain Paul

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Bro. Tim that is a great post.

This is actually very typical of Bullingerites, they have been infiltrating and splitting Bible believing Baptist churches for many years, many pastors who have been in the ministry for 30 or 40 years know this. You will notice how this member constantly refers to himself in opposition to Independent Fundamental Baptists (IFB's) including those on other forums, and he has made no secret of this going back to his early posts, although several members have picked up on it and also picked up on his subtle references to "dry cleaning" in many of his posts. This is a tactic, and it's done for a reason, because there is a desire to ENGAGE Bible believers on the issue of water baptism, and many of them are obsessed with it. The passages being touted here are not new, they are the STANDARD FARE for Hyperdispenationalism. If you have ever had a Hyperdispensationalist come into your church and start holding home "Bible studies" with your young people then you know this. They love to debate this issue for hours using circular reasoning and in the end it will not edify anyone. He is also telling us that we are AFRAID OF HIS DOCTRINE, over and over. There is a reason for this tactic.

Bro. George has clearly stated that Tony is WRONG about water Baptism not being for the New Testament believer. Brandon has done the same. Are we to assume that George and Brandon ARE AFRAID OF TON'YS DOCTRINE? Of course not, but that is exactly what Tony is suggesting when he taunts all of us who do not agree with him.

I warned everyone involved several times on this thread, I stated my position from the SCRIPTURES, and have provided the warning of David Walker and Harry Ironsides for others to consider.

I am not angry or upset about any of this, but I find it peculiar that he is still being allowed to use these methods on this board, and if it follows the typical pattern I PROMISE YOU, it will get far worse as time goes on. Sadly, this is the typical "pattern" or M.O. that Ultras use to try to convince others that believer's Baptism is UNSCRIPTURAL and PART OF THE LAW, and it ALWAYS HAPPENS after they position themselves as an accepted authority in the group. Unfortunately, as I have already shown—believer's baptism is not simply BAPTIST THEOLOGY, it's BIBLE DOCTRINE, and the problems with Hyperdispensationalism do not stop with water baptism.
May God bless each of you as you seek His wisdom on this issue.

I think God has already blessed many on this issue Brother Parrish. With all respect to brother George, he has demonstrated it was operative in Times Past, no one has shown, from Scripture, it is operative for today. Paul mentions water baptism once, and that is to deny it was part of his commission.

Brother Tim is flat wrong on "taunting", I've taunted no one. I've been open and maybe some might interpret as brutally honest because I am still the relative newby. If there has been any "taunting" it's been you trying to taunt me into losing my temper and not presenting my side of the topic in a decent and orderly fashion and you've done this by making accusations and associating me with "heretics" as you ambiguously imply with this Bullinger-Walker-Ruckman-Ironside nonsense that contributes nothing to the thread. If I had "taunted" anyone I am sure Brandon would have brought it to my attention immediately in the thread and privately.

I've asked you several time to give me Scripture proving water baptism is not part of the Law of Moses. Not Tim, not George, you. What have you given me in return? References that I am a heretic because Harry Ironside, David Walker, Peter Ruckman, and you say and think I am.

Time for my gloves to come off and my claws to come out. I want, from you, the following:

1. The names, dates, and locations of churches "infiltrated and split" by "hyper" and "ultra" dispensational teachings.
2. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of David Walker's allegations.
3. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of Harry Ironsides allegations.
4. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of Bullinger's teachings on the topic of this thread.

IS water baptism Bible doctrine? Yes. It's just not sound doctrine for today.

Grace and peace Brother Parrish

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Time for my gloves to come off and my claws to come out.

Yes, well I had a feeling they would come out sooner or later.
I guess I just "smelled your leaven" a little faster than some of the brethren. But let me caution you about the "claw thing," your claws won't bother me any more than devil's darts, I have the whole armor of God, and He has girded my waist with truth. (Eph. 6:10-18)

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I want, from you, the following:

1. The names, dates, and locations of churches "infiltrated and split" by "hyper" and "ultra" dispensational teachings.
2. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of David Walker's allegations.
3. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of Harry Ironsides allegations.
4. The name of the book(s) and page numbers of Bullinger's teachings on the topic of this thread.

YOU WANT? PPFFFTTT... Do your own research, son!
I've got three teenagers to watch after and a business to run, I can't hold your hand and point you through ALL OF THIS. You got yourself "bogged down" in this nonsense and only you can dig your way out of it.

And where on earth do you get off demanding anything from anyone on this forum? You are just as wrong on this as any Campbellite or Calvinist on their "hang ups," and you're angry because I called you on that nonsense before you could spin your confusing web all over this board. Now you are ADDING MORE CONFUSION, by going back and dredging up posts from weeks ago.

Now I realize you could only get 4 people to "buy into that stuff" but you'll just have to deal with it. No one is angry at you brother, (I happen to think you have a wonderful sense of humor) but LET'S FACE IT—the vast majority of people on this forum are simply too grounded in scripture to fall for your constant attack on baptism—and that's a good thing.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

As everyone can see, it seems to me that Bro Tim and I are still here, we may not be able to babysit this thread all day long, but we have not "bailed out" of anything, and over 90 percent of the poll respondents agree so this is not about Bro. Tim and Bro. Parrish. WE HAVE MADE THIS CLEAR AS A BELL, Bro. George has already stated that Tony is WRONG about water Baptism not being for the New Testament believer. Brandon has done the same. Are we to assume that George and Brandon HAVE BAILED OUT BECAUSE OF TONY'S ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE? Because that seems to be what is being suggested.

Brother Parrish, with all due respect to everyone, and I am sure Brandon and George will agree with me here, I certainly don't think Brandon, you, George, me, or anyone else in this forum is the Holy Spirit of God. Both sides of this issue have sent Scripture out to support their position, and that Scripture will not return unto God void. If everyone on this forum says I am wrong, kewl, we're all friends and brothers and sisters but who is "right" and who is "wrong" is going to be determined by the amount of fruit we bear and we won't see that till the Judgment Seat Of Christ. If "following the Lord in believer's baptism" is sound doctrine, it will bear fruit. If "ultra/hyperdispensationalism" is sound doctrine, it will bear fruit.

I think personally you need to stop making the issue about "Bullinger", me, or "ultradispensationalists" and stick to the thread topic.

Grace and peace brother Parrish

Tony

[Winman]

Well fellas, I think we need to agree to disagree. As my old pastor used to say:

Those convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still

I understand that this is a very important topic. But it is obvious that we are not all going to agree. I myself have argued long on other subjects (I'm sure you remember). But after awhile you have to give it a rest.

The best thing you can do is post scripture supporting your personal belief, and trust the Holy Spirit to guide the readers.

I agree Winman, but for some reason I can't be quiet when Biblical doctrine is being attacked, maybe it's a character flaw...

[Fredoheaven]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

IS water baptism Bible doctrine? Yes. It's just not sound doctrine for today.

Good day bro. Tony,

Well, we cannot just separate the teaching of water baptism that it is not for today. I believe that as long as the Gospel is being preach even unto the end of the world and along with the establismnet of many "New Testament Church", the water baptism is still effect. This is actually a threefold fundamental truths that I found in the Bible. We cannot just deny it. The chained of command is still intact and every command must ought to be obeyed first. The saying goes "Obey first before complain".

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Fredoheaven

Good day bro. Chette,

If the Eunuch never believed on the finished work of Christ and that he believed Christ as the Son of God which would qualify him as convert to Judaism, then Paul's preaching of Christ as the Son of God to many of his converts were members of Judaism and not the New Testament Church. However, in addressing to the believers in Thessalonians, Paul could simply wrote them as a church.

2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

Fred,

What Paul taught about Christ after Acts 9 is different than what Peter and Philip and the other Apostle taught about Christ from Acts 2-8. I refer you back to Georges post.

Remember Paul taught the Gospel of Grace and Peter taught from Acts 2-8 the Kingdom Gospel.

[chette777]

Originally Posted by Winman

I would disagree with whosoever said the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was not preached to the Ethiopian eunuch. Look at the very scriptures this man was reading:

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

How could Philip have not teached the death, burial, and resurrection? These verses were prophesy of Jesus being put to death. It says he began at these very verses, so it is not a wild assumption to believe that he explained to the eunuch how Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead. This is the Gospel.

Never does Philip say once the death for forgiveness of sins. it is kingdom Gospel from the previous chapters that put the context of which Gospel he was teaching. It does state being led as a sheep to slaughter and this is true but NEVER DOES IT SAY HIS DEATH BURIAL AND RESURRECTION ARE FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. He is reading from Isiah. It is descriptive prophecy of what was to become of the MESSIAH it is just a prophetic narrative of what would happen when their King would come it was so Israel would know who their King was when he arrived. and it is from there Philip taught that Jesus was the Son of God the crucified King and Messiah the awaited one of Israel which the Leaders of Israel killed. this is whom the Eunuch believed he was.

sure he taught him Christ was crucified, was buried and God raised him up the third day. but he never equates that event tot eh forgiveness of sins of the Eunuch. the Eunuch never confesses his belief on Christ for the forgiveness of sons as you and I. he confesses him only as the Son of God. Philip came short of presenting the gospel of Grace just as Peter did in Acts 2:38

To think Philip taught the gospel of grace is to look at the scriptures with one gospel glasses. but I realize you are not a right divider. but I would refer you to Georges previous post as well.