[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

[kevinvw]

Tony, I don't want to start anything about baptism, or any arguments or fights or anything. I'm just a little confused. The pouring of the oil was for the high priest. His sons were only sprinkled. Are you saying that everyone that the Holy Spirit was poured on is a high priest the same as Jesus?

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by kevinvw

Tony, I don't want to start anything about baptism, or any arguments or fights or anything. I'm just a little confused. The pouring of the oil was for the high priest. His sons were only sprinkled. Are you saying that everyone that the Holy Spirit was poured on is a high priest the same as Jesus?

No fight here brother, what the Scriptures say is the consecration of Aaron(high priest) and his sons(normal priests)in the water baptismal washings and their sanctification of the pouring of the oil(a type of the Holy Spirit) was identical.

God promised Israel, before Aaron and his sons ever became priests, that He would make Israel a "kingdom of priests" in Exodus 19. Look at the performance system Israel was under as the Chosen Nation: God says, you do this, I will do that. Don't do this, I won't do that. If Israel is going to lead the world, then they needed a period of time to train in God's Law. In Exodus 29 and 40 He tells Moses how to set up this priesthood. In Leviticus 8 Moses does it:

Normal Priests:
1. Water baptismal washing(consecration to be clean to wear the garments of a priest)
2. Pouring out of oil(a Bible type of the Holy Spirit, this is the second step, sanctification)

High Priests:
1. Water baptismal washing(consecration to be clean to wear the garments of a priest)
2. Pouring out of oil(a Bible type of the Holy Spirit, this is the second step, sanctification)

Jesus Christ As Israel's Great High Priest:
1. Water baptismal washing under John the Baptist(Matt. 3)
2. The literal sanctification in the Holy Ghost by God the Father(Matt.3), not in the OT "type", but what the type was a figure of and pointed to, the Holy Spirit.

Believing Israel Under John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles:
1. Water baptismal washing under John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles.
2. These converts did not receive the second act, sanctification, until after Christ died and was resurrected, because Christ was the Sanctifier and did not pour out the Holy Ghost as sanctification until Acts 2 Did this unknown group have then to be "rebaptized" at Acts 2?

No.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve.

These are the twelve men, one for each tribe, who then laid hands on the converts of John, Christ and His apostles that were not present at Pentecost in Acts 2 and gave them their second act of sanctification, the literal Holy Ghost and not the "type" of the Holy Ghost, oil. A question comes up: Who are these "lost converts" I am talking about here and why were not all of John and Christ's earthly converts present at Pentecost?

I don't know why they weren't present at Pentecost, I do know 12 of them shows up in Acts 19, because if these 12 had been at Pentecost, they would have already had the Holy Ghost and known who He was.

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 [U]ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost./U]

Believing Israel In Acts 2, the "kingdom of priests":

1. Baptized in water, consecrated as priests in the water baptismal washing of Lev. 8 and Matt. 3.
2. Jesus Christ as the great High Priest pours out the sanctification, not in oil, but what the oil typified, the Holy Ghost of God.

Kevin, if I am hammering home anything in my messages and responses, it's consistency:

Water first, oil second.
Water first, Holy Ghost second.
Consecration(water), sanctification(oil, Holy Ghost).

What I am teaching is something that goes completely across the grain from what nearly all of you have had for church doctrine all your lives. I know I am frustrating in going against this belief of all of you on water baptism. If I have, am now, and will continue to give you a gift, it's this: I am consistent, I'm not confused about this, I don't change in the middle of a discussion. If I am a pain in the neck, at least give me that much credit.

Note these similutudes:

Israel needed a cleansing washing.
We need a cleansing washing.

Israel's washing was in water.
Our washing is in the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Israel's washing was in water to make them clean in order to put on their priestly garments.
Our washing is in the Blood of Jesus Christ to make us clean to put on Christ.

Kevin, there is no "fight", for one thing, I do not expect you to understand this in one reading instantly. I don't expect anyone to do anything except what God tells them to. As I told Brother Parrish, God uses us in whatever sect or denomination we may belong to. He uses most of you who are Baptists. He used Billy Sunday to massive effect, Billy Sunday was a Methodist.

I've apologized to brother Parrish for my part of his and my contention in the water baptism thread and in others. Let be men and discuss this thread like men and do the same in the water baptism thread until we move on to other topics and discussions.

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Grace and peace Kevin

Tony

[chette777]

TBones,

I hope your reference to Acts 29 was just a typo as there is no Acts 29.

Interestingly enough at least you have divided the Baptism and limited to whom they were preaching the Jews. this may be the key as to why Paul never went into details to Gentiles about Baptism and it's purpose. the only thing he confronted was it was being used to cause division.

I do see that you are tying together of the Ministry of John the Baptist and the Priestly washing. however it is never said that that was part of his earthly ministry. As John told us plainly his ministry was to be the forerunner of Christ nothing more nothing less. His baptism as I see it was not for anointing the priests but if they had believed his message of the soon coming king and that the kingdom was at hand they were to be baptized as proof they believed his message. so they show their repentance by baptism and the result is remission of sins. Faith in the word John preached resulted in their work repentance and Baptismal obedience (works) which resulted in their sins being remitted (God's Grace).

And From what I understand from the scriptures is that it is the High Priest Job to anoint and wash the priests. Jesus will when he returns anoint Israel as a nation of priests. that doesn't take place until he establishes the Kingdom. John was in no way a high priest so he would be in violation of Exodus and Leviticus Rules and regulations. plus the Kingdom was not established so no need for the priest to be anointed until Christ is on the throne and then He as the Great High Priest will indeed do all that is required for the nation of Israel to fulfill its duty as a nation of priests. It is quite clear John was under Nazarite vow from Luke. anyone of the Nation of Israel could take this vow. But it would not make them a priest, nor give them the right to fulfill the role of one in anointing others for the priesthood.

[George]

Aloha all,

These Posts are not meant as teaching commentaries (i.e. a verse by verse exposition); if they were they would be much longer and far more detailed. The purpose of these Posts is to point out WHERE, in the early Chapters of the Book of Acts, the Holy Spirit was dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel (Jews and Proselyte Jews) and WHY He hadn’t turned to the Gentiles - yet.

As I have pointed out (over and over) in Acts Chapters 2 through 4, Peter and the rest of the Apostles continually confined their preaching and teaching to the nation of Israel, and they continued to do so in Acts Chapter 5. [Acts 5:31] They did not address the Gentiles - because God had NOT led them to do so - yet.

Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, {Only Jews}

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. {Only Jews}

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? {Only Jews}

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. {Only Jews}

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. {Only Jews & Proselytes}

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. {Only Jews}

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. {Only Jews}

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. {Only Jews}

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. {Only Jews}

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. {Only Jews}

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. {Only Jews & Proselytes}

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. {Only Jews}

This is probably the only time in the history of the church of God where all of God’s people “were all with one accord” – Notice the PHYSICAL “signs” & “wonders” [1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:]. Is this “FAITH” ONLY? [Hebrews 11:1]}

13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. {Only Jews}

14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) {Only Jews}

15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. {Only Jews}

16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. {Only Jews}

17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation, {Only Jews}

18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. {Only Jews}

19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, {Only Jews}

20 Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. {Only Jews}

21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. {Only Jews}

22 But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, {Only Jews}

23 Saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. {Only Jews}

24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. {Only Jews}

25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. {Only Jews}

26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. {Only Jews}

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, {Only Jews}

28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. {Only Jews}

They said this, after having only recently said:

Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. {And it WAS! Under the Roman General Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem - 70 A.D.}

Religious “ELITES” have very short memories (no matter what century they live in). In other words – they are HYPOCRITES!

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. {Only Jews}

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. {Only Jews}

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. {Only Jews}

According to the "message" - that Peter is preaching, the "repentance" and "forgiveness of sins" is LIMITED TO ISRAEL! WHAT happened to the “Gentiles” here? WHY aren’t they (Gentiles) INCLUDED in these “promises”?

32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. {Only Jews}

If this were the SAME “gospel” as Paul’s “Gospel” - shouldn’t Peter have said:

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Does God give the Holy Ghost to “them” that “OBEY” Him today or does He give the Holy Ghost to “them” who BELIEVE Him? Do you see the difference? It’s the “difference” between Jews (still under the Law) SEEING “signs” and “wonders”; and hearing that they killed their “Prince” and “Saviour” (the Lord Jesus Christ); and being convicted of their sins (rejection of, and killing the Lord) and OBEYING God by being Baptized in water in order that they might receive “the gift of the Holy Ghost” [Acts 2:38].

That is not the “order” of things when the centurion Cornelius (a Gentile) got saved [Acts 10:34-48]. Cornelius (and those that were with him in his house) received “the gift of the Holy Ghost” (BEFORE they were Baptized) by just simply hearing the word of God and BELIEVING it, [Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.] i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”.

WHAT was it that “ASTONISHED” Peter and the Jews that were with him? It was the fact that the gift of the Holy Ghost was not only given to the Gentiles, but that He was given WITHOUT water Baptism (or the “laying on the hands” of the Apostles [Acts 8:18])! WHY would Peter, and those Jews who were with him, be “ASTONISHED” - unless some thing EXTRAORDINARY had just occurred? Something that they did not expect, and would not have accepted, except for the fact that those Gentiles (who had just been saved by only “hearing” the word of God) were “speaking in tongues” – a “sign” [1 Corinthians 14:22] which the Jews “REQUIRED” in order to “believe” [1 Corinthians 1:22], and which (”signs” & “wonders”) God faithfully gave them from Abraham on down to Moses, and on down to the Lord Jesus Christ and then to His (ONLY - JEWS) Apostles.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. {Only Jews}

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; {Only Jews}

There are a whole lot of “DOCTORS” out there in “Christendum” today, who are very much like “Gamaliel” (“had in reputation among all the people”); and just like Gamaliel (highly educated and knowledgeable) they are “AGNOSTIC” when it comes to BELIEVING in God’s Holy words. {Remind you of “anyone” here on the Forum?}

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. {Only Jews}

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. {Only Jews}

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. {Only Jews}

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if {AGNOSTIC} this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: {Only Jews}

39 But if {AGNOSTIC} it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. {Only Jews}

41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. {Only Jews}

42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. {Only Jews}

Lord willing, I will take this brief study to at least Acts Chapter 10 – in the hopes that some of the brethren here on the Forum might see WHY, and HOW, and WHERE, I attempt to “rightly divide the word of truth” (according to God’s commandment concerning the study of His word).

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Winman]

Bro George

Thank you for your kind post #19. Perhaps that is the problem, perhaps I look at the scriptures differently than you, I will have to think about that awhile.

I will say this, I am sincere in my study of the Bible, I pray always that God would help me to understand the scriptures as He intended, not the interpretations of man, or my own personal interpretation.

And I have been around long enough to know that not all men come to the same understanding of the scriptures.

I will continue to study this subject.

[chette777]

But we are to be of the same mind or one accord when it comes to scriptures. only since 1890's have men become divided more and more over the word of God. until then very few Calvinism and Armeninism but neither one was centered on the Bible they were centered on their scholarship and opinions.

The RC and those of the reformation divided because of their Scholarship and private interpretations. you will find many Kingdom Doctrines being carried over into Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican and Puritan churches which makes them of a different mind to the word of God.

Someone asked why I wasn't Baptist. I replied if a person is a true Bible believer they will line up with the baptist. that should be qualified seeing there are a lot of Baptist today not teaching the word of God but the theologies of men's private interpretation (Calvinism), Opinions of Scholarship and purpose driven activities.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by chette777

TBones,

I hope your reference to Acts 29 was just a typo as there is no Acts 29.

Interestingly enough at least you have divided the Baptism and limited to whom they were preaching the Jews. this may be the key as to why Paul never went into details to Gentiles about Baptism and it's purpose. the only thing he confronted was it was being used to cause division.

I do see that you are tying together of the Ministry of John the Baptist and the Priestly washing. however it is never said that that was part of his earthly ministry. As John told us plainly his ministry was to be the forerunner of Christ nothing more nothing less. His baptism as I see it was not for anointing the priests but if they had believed his message of the soon coming king and that the kingdom was at hand they were to be baptized as proof they believed his message. so they show their repentance by baptism and the result is remission of sins. Faith in the word John preached resulted in their work repentance and Baptismal obedience (works) which resulted in their sins being remitted (God's Grace).

And From what I understand from the scriptures is that it is the High Priest Job to anoint and wash the priests. Jesus will when he returns anoint Israel as a nation of priests. that doesn't take place until he establishes the Kingdom. John was in no way a high priest so he would be in violation of Exodus and Leviticus Rules and regulations. plus the Kingdom was not established so no need for the priest to be anointed until Christ is on the throne and then He as the Great High Priest will indeed do all that is required for the nation of Israel to fulfill its duty as a nation of priests. It is quite clear John was under Nazarite vow from Luke. anyone of the Nation of Israel could take this vow. But it would not make them a priest, nor give them the right to fulfill the role of one in anointing others for the priesthood.

Yes Chette, there is a 29th Chapter to Acts. Look in the mirror, the 29th chapter of Acts is us, those who practice Roman's-Philemon, the church that Paul built, not Peter.

What's clear is John the Baptist was a Levite of a Levite priest father and a mother who was of the daughters of Aaron, that he knew when where and why and what he was doing in baptizing in water and what his baptism was, and that the line from Levite to Levite could not be broken as the Scriptures can not be broken. John was more than a Nazarite recorded is Luke, John was sanctified a Nazarite in his mother's womb. John came as Consecrator, Jesus Christ came as Sanctifier, and it a private interpretation to say John did not have the authority to make either the High Priest or the kingdom of priests under Him, and I waqnt to see Scripture that John couldn't.

In all my messages on Jewish OT water baptism I've given the Scripture with Scripture in context tp prove it Chette. I've been given the Baptist and other denominational teachings on it, and am yet to see one single exposition on or one single Scripture verse on what the promise of Exodus 19 really was, and no Scripture to prove John, Jesus's disciples, Peter's, Philip's, Pauls' or any other water baptisms as practiced and received we "different" baptisms.

Rather than show me in rebuttal:

1. The meaning and fulfillment of Exodus 19
2. How common Jewish priest and high priest are really consecrated and sanctified.

...most all I get is the Campbellite technique of trying to completely disconnect the ministry of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and His disciples, from the OT, to Israel, and then thrown over into being something for us. To speak in brother Greek Tim's language, I'm seeing the conflation of Classical Covenant theology over into practical, present day Pauline ecclesiology. The other response is to call me a cultist, a false teacher of false doctrine. If that's the case I can be removed from the forum if I'm Charles T. Russell or Joseph Smith.

Chette, you also missed the glaring and intentional doctrinal and Scriptural citation error I wrote into this message you are responding to which proves my messages are being gleaned, "read", but not STUDIED. There is no way I am going to be accurately or honestly "impeached" and "rebutted" without it. Henceforth any message in any thread on any topic by me is going to be shortened, it of no edification to me or any Christian who doesn't want to investigate a challenge to their denominational belief.

I've seen denominational private interpretation in opinion, I have not seen one single verse of Scripture that proves John was NOT performing the Levitical priestly function of consecration or that Jesus Christ was NOT performing His High Priestly function as sanctifier of the believing nation of Israel with the Holy Ghost, who the oil of sanctification pointed to. I've not seen one single verse of Scripture that says Gentiles are to receive water baptism for any reason or in any form. What I have seen in the other thread is the Campbellite attempt to make two baptisms into one baptism. I was born into and raised in COC, I know what I'm talking about.

Grace and peace brother, you'll get it if you study it through, you won;t see it in an instant.

Tony

[chette777]

The High priest is to do the functions you say John was performing if indeed they are priestly washings. Lev 8:6 where Moses washed Arron is not a single dip in water as John but a literal washing.

It is obvious by John's Baptism that those who followed it were doing so not to be cleansed priests but that they believed the words spoken by John. It is the high priest job to wash priests and to appoint them there duty.

it is not the washing of Moses that John did because there were no dressing of them for the priestly duties, no sacrifices for their sins, no 8 day period before they did sacrifices for the people as what took place in Lev 8.

There is absolutely no similarity between what Moses did and what John was doing. I have been reading it. the difference is I see John's baptism in context to what he was teaching and Moses washing in the context of priestly order and duties.

I can not use verse to support baptism of John from the Old Testament. it would seem to be a New thing. Luke 20:4 - 7The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. If John was doing the washings as given by both the command of God and the instructions and example of Moses as found in Lev 8 all these priests and scribes had to answer was that it was from the Law of Moses. These men obviously knew John was doing something totally unknown to them. plus John himself might have been of a priestly line but his duty was for that of incense only. his line was not that of the high priest. nor was John officially recognized as a priest. plus according to Moses only Levite's are to be washed and anointed.

He was only the one who was preparing for the coming of the Lord. The people response to his preaching was if they believed John's preaching was to repent, to be Baptized for the remission of sins. if they did not get baptized they were not showing their belief in what John preached and they were not repenting.

I have studied it and I do not see John's ministry in anyway similar to that of what Moses commanded the priest to do. I am not concerned about what COC teaches but what the Bible teaches. And the Bible does not teach John's Baptism is the washing of Levite Priests and that is a private interpretation.

[George]

Aloha brother Tony,

These comments are NOT meant to reprove or rebuke you. They are more in the nature of a declaration of concern.

I think that some of your comments on this Thread would more appropriate in the Thread on Water Baptism (i. e. some of your Posts – this Thread):

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...7&postcount=21
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...1&postcount=23
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...6&postcount=28

I am trying to make the point in this Thread about how God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel in the first few Chapters of Acts and I think that another "discussion" on and about water baptism will only serve to distract from the subject at hand.

I have stated my position on water baptism (see the additional Links below) in AV1611 Bible forums > "Is water baptism for today” > Post #136:

George’s quote:

"The word “baptize” cannot be found in the Old Testament, and so any “connection” between New Testament water baptism and the Old Testament will have to be done through “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the word “baptize” or “baptism” is completely absent from the Old Testament record; and since we are told to “rightly divide the word of truth” – any teaching derived from the Old Testament in regards to the subject of water baptism will be completely dependent upon “Similitude’s” & “Type’s”, since the words “baptize” or “baptism” are not in the Old Testament. And although I believe that there are legitimate “Similitude’s” & “Type’s” to be found in both Testaments, I am, again, extremely reluctant to rely solely on them for doctrine, since without the specific words, there is a too broad an area for personal “interpretation”."

The following Links contain some of my comments concerning water baptism:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19702&postcount=136
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20567&postcount=188
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20663&postcount=196
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20701&postcount=199
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...&postcount=218

We are commanded to rightly divide the “word” of truth – If the English “words” (baptize & baptism) cannot be found in the Old Testament, any teaching about “baptism” in the Old Testament will be totally dependent upon the interpretation of English “words” (other than “baptize” or “baptism”) that supposedly “mean” the SAME as “baptize”. But I have, on many occasions, already expressed concerns over people seeking the “meaning” of the words of Scripture, rather than seeking what God says.

Brother Tony said:

“Within the But Now Age I rightly divide Paul into”

Early Paul - "To the Jew first..." Acts 9- Acts 28

Mid Paul - But Now, "...neither Jew nor Gentile..." Acts Chapter 29

Late Paul – ”Ages To Come, wise masterbuilder who was the custodian who administered the transition from Gospel Of The Kingdom Of Heaven(Restored Israel) which is the gospel committed to Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Twelve, into the Grace Age of today and on into the Tribulation, as Paul authored Hebrews, the first book of Tribulation doctrine, and was the most qualified to write it as a human oracle.”

To which I responded - George’s quote:

“I do not agree with brother Tony on this teaching, because I am NOT told to “rightly divide Paul” – I am told to “rightly divide the word of truth.” And so - Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul is a “construct” that may or may not be true. I could just as easily say that Early Paul = the time between Paul’s conversion and his taking up residence in Antioch; and that Mid Paul = the time that Paul spent in Antioch before his “call”; and Late Paul = the time after Paul’s “call” up to his death.”

We are supposed to be “rightly dividing the word of truth”. I do not see a command for us to be “rightly dividing Paul” - into “Early Paul; Mid Paul; and Late Paul”. This kind of “teaching” is fraught with the danger of falling into “private interpretation”. The same goes for the dividing up of the Books of the Bible to the point where the only Books that apply to the Christian are Paul’s Epistles.

We are not told to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Epistles of Paul.

OR:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Books of truth.

We are told to: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” [2 Timothy 2:15]

The Bible says:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible also says:
Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

There must be a balance to “Dispensationalism”. Although much of the Old Testament is NOT written TO the Christian, there is a whole lot in the Old Testament that is – “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; although the Four Gospels are mainly about the Jews’ Messiah & King, there is much in the Gospels that is: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”; and although the Books of Hebrews; James; I & II Peter; I, II, & III John; Jude; and Revelation may very well be “Tribulation Books”, they still can be: “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” – as long as we rightly divide the word of truth.

As Christians, our responsibility in “studying” the Scriptures is to rightly divide “the word of truth” – wherever it is found; and to be on guard against ALL: “theological formulations”; ALL“systems of biblical interpretation”; and ALL“biblical constructs”.

Maintaining balance (i.e. moderation) is not always easy, but if we don’t continue to pursue “the simplicity that is in Christ”, we can end up with doctrines that are so complicated, complex, and confusing, that the only people who can understand them are a small handful of intellectual “scholars” (or “book worms”) with IQ’s of 150 or higher.

The issue of water baptism will NOT be “settled” in this Forum. If you wish to pursue it further I believe the proper place would be under the Thread dealing with the subject. The main reason I started this Thread was because I could see that I was straying “off point” in the Thread on water baptism, so I thought it would be better to have a Thread dealing with the “transitory nature” of the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, rather than add anymore confusion to the Thread on water baptism.

I believe that if a Christian can reach an understanding of what took place AFTER the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, but BEFORE God turned to the Gentiles; that this “understanding” will open up the Scriptures to an individual Christian so that they will be much more able to rightly divide the word of truth. Water baptism is only a part of the whole series of events that take place between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10. And if we divert our attention back to water baptism, the purpose of this Thread will be thwarted.

If you will recall way at the beginning of the Thread on water baptism, I wanted no part of it. I’ve already gone through it before, and I knew (ahead of time) that there would be NO PROFIT to be had in discussing (debating) the issue. I still feel the same way now. By now everybody knows (for the most part) what you believe about it, and you know (for the most part) what most of us believe. At this point, I see no point in pursuing it any further, unless it comes up in this Thread, and if it does I would try to keep it within the “context” of the Thread.

Grace and peace brother,