Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[Silk Queen]

Christ said, except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God, nor enter into it, John 3:3,5,8.

Would someone help with this, sounds like water baptism is necessary according to this.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Christ said, except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God, nor enter into it, John 3:3,5,8.

Would someone help with this, sounds like water baptism is necessary according to this.

It is neccessary, as an obedient child of the Father, if one continues to dwell on earth in their old Adam -which is what is submitted to water baptism in faith, in the Name of Jesus.

"Water" represents the Word of God, which is also represented as "streams of Fire" coming from beneath His throne, in Enoch. His Word is like Fire.
Jer 23:29 [Is] not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer [that] breaketh the rock in pieces?

Luk 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?


His Word is seen as a "burning Light" and His Spirit as a smoking oven "Two Persons" in YHWH, who appeared and ratified the land Covenant to Abraham in Genesis 15.
We must be born of the Word, the Fire, and of the "Spirit" of Regeneration, to be Temples for the Father's Glory to indwell. -Then we will not delay to obey His Word to us and to be baptized in water for the "dead" "old man" we wear until the release from him.

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down , and it was dark 05939, behold a smoking 06227 furnace 08574, and a burning 0784 lamp 03940 that passed between those pieces.

burning;
1) fire
a) fire, flames
b) supernatural fire (accompanying theophany)
AV - fire 373, burning 1, fiery 1, untranslated variant 1,
fire + 0800 1, flaming 1, hot 1; 379 http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Gen&chapter=15&verse=17&strongs=0784&page=
lamp; AV - lamp 7, firebrand 2, torch 2, brand 1, lightning 1, burning 1; 14.



From Enoch 14

And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of 19 cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look 20 thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and 21 was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason 22 of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him. The flaming fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand times 23 ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most holy ones who were 24 nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him. And until then I had been prostrate on my face, trembling: and the Lord called me with His own mouth, and said to me: ' Come hither, 25 Enoch, and hear my word.' And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me, and He made me rise up and approach the door: and I bowed my face downwards.

His Word is the Fire from His mouth that will destroy the unrepentent at His coming, when no one will be able to speak a lying word before Him.

 

[godrulz]

Christ said, except a man be born again of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God, nor enter into it, John 3:3,5,8.

Would someone help with this, sounds like water baptism is necessary according to this.

It is not talking about believer's baptism. Several possible interpretations have been proposed. Check your quote. It should not say born again of water, but born of water. Water is a symbol of the Spirit. It may also refer to natural birth (bag of waters).

 

[Tico]

The order of Pentecostal Spirit baptism vs water baptism does not matter. It is not a matter of both not being true. It is a matter of you making a mountain out of a molehill.

With all due respect, you are the one who accused me of a lack of knowledge of the Greek, but when presented with the facts, you are unable to respond. Regarding the molehill, didn't you send me the link to the lengthy (or mountainlike) dissertation about this very verse? You're right, it's not a matter of either one of them being true. I mispoke, since they have both been true at one time. However, they both can't be true at the same time.

All believers receive the Spirit at conversion. Whether they are filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues or whether they are water baptized or not is not an issue. You are confusing the issues due to a lack of understanding of water baptism and the Pentecostal experience (as opposed to conversion issues).

Regarding my lack of understanding, you have been unable and unwilling to point how this is the case. Instead, you repeat your conclusions in order to support your conclusions (a logical error). You say that no verses contain all the truth, but are unable to say what the truth is except to restate your conclusions by saying all the verses indicate what your conclusion is. You do this, conveniently, without using verses once they are shown not to stand for the proposition you intended them for. You criticize MAD without understanding it, nor acknowledging your own biases causing you to repeat your conclusions as support for your conclusions. The position that water baptism has passed away in this dispensation has been won, not because I am more intelligent (probably the opposite is true). It has been won because the Scripture says as such. You can think I am dillusional, but I would point out how your use of Scripture has declined and your tendency to state your conclusions in place of Scripture supports my assertion. My use of and confidence in the Scripture increased throughout the debate. Pastor Hill used nothing but Scripture to make his case. Why wasn't John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins for the remission of sins? Because your conclusion says it can't be. This has been typical of your position. Unfortunately, your desire to see your position stand the test of Scripture has caused you to ignore the truth:

Jesus didn't really mean "all that He taught" in Mat. 28. One baptism doesn't really mean one, but maybe two according to Eph. 4. John's baptism of repentance for the remission of sins isn't really for the remission of sins. James 2 is a contextualization for a Jewish audience (how? not stated). Acts 2:38 doesn't really mean what it says since you have to chose the second second person personal pronoun, instead of the first, to make it seem to fit the already concluded conclusion. The difference in the order of events regarding baptism, belief, receipt of the Spirit is just a molehill made into a mountain. In fact, to quote from above, it "does not matter". The baptistic position relagates some of the most significant events in the Bible to "it does not matter".

 

[godrulz]

Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. (thoughts from Geisler/Rhodes 'Correcting the Cults'...paraphrase outline)

Was the law of Moses done away with by Christ? (you are nit picking about obeying all that Jesus did...principles for your musings)

i) There is a confusion of time.

During His lifetime, Jesus always kept the law of Moses, Himself, including offering sacrifices to Jewish priests, attending Jewish festivals, and eating the Passover Lamb. He did on occasion violate the Pharisaical (and false) traditions that had grown up around the law. The verses that indicate the law has been fulfilled refer to AFTER the cross when there is neither Jew nor Greek...for all are one in Christ.

rulz- verses available...Mid-Acts wants to talk about grace, but fails to understand the nature of the law, even under Pauline teaching.

ii) There is a confusion of aspect.

At least some of the references (if not all) to the law being done away with in the NT are speaking of OT ceremonies and types. These were done away with when the Lamb of God fulfilled the predictions about His coming. Jesus declared all meats clean, doing away with ceremonial law. In this sense, believers are not under the law of Moses.

rulz- the Great Commission is after the resurrection. I do not understand your wooden literalism insisting that post-resurrection believers are to obey the exact things Jesus did. Yours is a most unusual reading of the text. Are you a Pharisee?

iii) There is a confusion about context.

Jesus fulfilled the moral demands of the law for us. They were originally given in a national and theocratic context in the OT, not in a Christian setting. Moses expressed the commands for Israel and talked about rewards of land for Jews, for example.

"When the moral principle expressed in this OT commandment is stated in the NT, it is expressed in a different context, namely, one that is not national or theocratic, but is PERSONAL AND UNIVERSAL......(talks about Sabbath, etc.) However, this does not mean that the moral principles embodied in the Commandments, that reflect the very nature of an unchanging God, are not still binding on believers today. Indeed, every one of these principles contained in the 10 Commandments is restated in another context in the NT (except Sabbath type). "

Christians do not need to be circumcised or offer animal sacrifices. This is NOT what Jesus was talking about in the Great Commission, so don't twist His words to suit your ultradispensational view (my discussions with Mid-Acts makes me think they are antinomian...Christians can't sin...grace, not law, etc.).

Jesus' disciples clearly rejected much of the OT law, including circumcision. The penalty was also different e.g. adultery OT stoning vs NT excommunication from Church (again, on TOL ?Enyart, homosexuals, adulterers, etc. are to be stoned...displays ignorance of OT vs NT).

I have answered Acts 2:38, etc....just not to your liking.

I trust you will continue to preach the gospel as a missionary without the divisive and heretical Mid-Acts hobby horse. Check out its roots in Bullingerism before you get too dogmatic.

Among Jesus' last words were to make disciples, teach, and baptize with the promise that He will be with us to the end of the ages. You can dispensationalize it away or limit it to genetic Jews for a brief time in church history. I chose to obey it (you are obeying it as a missionary...you just will not admit it due to hyper-Paulinism...my new phrase?).

 

[Tico]

i) There is a confusion of time.

Yeah, that is where the discussion centers. The disciples continued to keep the law through the first part of Acts (circumcision and the like). The council of Acts 15 is evidence of this.

During His lifetime, Jesus always kept the law of Moses, Himself, including offering sacrifices to Jewish priests, attending Jewish festivals, and eating the Passover Lamb. He did on occasion violate the Pharisaical (and false) traditions that had grown up around the law. The verses that indicate the law has been fulfilled refer to AFTER the cross when there is neither Jew nor Greek...for all are one in Christ.

God was still dealing with Israel through the first part of Acts. Refer to Peter´s sermon--no mention of gentiles. Acts 15 is where Peter describes the first gentile conversions of Acts 10. Thus, there was no body of Jew and Gentile until there were gentile conversions apart from doing all those things necessary through the gospel of circumcion such as baptism as stated in Acts 2:38.

rulz- verses available...Mid-Acts wants to talk about grace, but fails to understand the nature of the law, even under Pauline teaching.

You can generalize what the MAD position is, but it´s not really helpful since I may very well have a different opinion than other Mid-Acts folks.

ii) There is a confusion of aspect.

At least some of the references (if not all) to the law being done away with in the NT are speaking of OT ceremonies and types. These were done away with when the Lamb of God fulfilled the predictions about His coming. Jesus declared all meats clean, doing away with ceremonial law. In this sense, believers are not under the law of Moses.

I totally agree. Jesus did away with the ceremonial law at the time when He declared all meants clean--Acts 10!

rulz- the Great Commission is after the resurrection. I do not understand your wooden literalism insisting that post-resurrection believers are to obey the exact things Jesus did. Yours is a most unusual reading of the text. Are you a Pharisee?

Apparently, the believing disciples (some of which were believing Pharisees) didn´t think it was so unusual. Nope, not a Pharisee and I don´t believe that you think so either since you say later on that you think that we might even be antinominian.

Jesus fulfilled the moral demands of the law for us. They were originally given in a national and theocratic context in the OT, not in a Christian setting. Moses expressed the commands for Israel and talked about rewards of land for Jews, for example.

Yes, praise God He did. How about this passage:

Ezekiel 18:21“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

"When the moral principle expressed in this OT commandment is stated in the NT, it is expressed in a different context, namely, one that is not national or theocratic, but is PERSONAL AND UNIVERSAL......(talks about Sabbath, etc.) However, this does not mean that the moral principles embodied in the Commandments, that reflect the very nature of an unchanging God, are not still binding on believers today. Indeed, every one of these principles contained in the 10 Commandments is restated in another context in the NT (except Sabbath type). "

Again, we pretty much agree. Who is causing division? I have only tried to seek common ground.

Christians do not need to be circumcised or offer animal sacrifices. This is NOT what Jesus was talking about in the Great Commission, so don't twist His words to suit your ultradispensational view (my discussions with Mid-Acts makes me think they are antinomian...Christians can't sin...grace, not law, etc.).

We sure don´t need to offer animals--that was Jesus, He is the ultimate sacrifice. He did come to fulfill this righteous requirement (just like it says in Mat. 5) so that no one had to sacrifice. However, as you correctly pointed out, Jesus did not do away with the ceremonial laws until declaring so in Acts 10.

Again, you just don´t understand the MAD position. I´m sorry that some one along the line as misinformed you. The requirement of this dispensation is to please the Lord (Eph. 5:8-11). Since God´s righteous character doesn´t change, the moral portion fo the law is a perfect place to see what God does and doesn´t like. However, it is not the law that gives us righteousness, it´s Jesus. I´m sure that you and I both agree on this.

Jesus' disciples clearly rejected much of the OT law, including circumcision. The penalty was also different e.g. adultery OT stoning vs NT excommunication from Church (again, on TOL ?Enyart, homosexuals, adulterers, etc. are to be stoned...displays ignorance of OT vs NT).

They rejected it for the gentiles after the middle of Acts. This a different topic, but if you want to discuss government, I suppose you should ask yourself if God got wiser in the OT with respect to the way in which governments should be run.

I have answered Acts 2:38, etc....just not to your liking.

If you are firm ground, it should easy to counter my rebuttal. Your explanation just doesn´t exist in the text.

I trust you will continue to preach the gospel as a missionary without the divisive and heretical Mid-Acts hobby horse. Check out its roots in Bullingerism before you get too dogmatic.

This has to be one of the more interesting things yet said. Who has been divisive? Listen to your anger and unsubstantiated claims that you have uttered through out this dicussion. I still accept you as a brother, but you are the one putting me out as heretic (without being able to substantiate it other than using conclusions to prove conclusions). I´m concerned not for your soul, but for the way that you treat Scripture: this or that isn´t important, that doesn´t mean what it says (because I have concluded differently). All relevant verses actually means no verses. You know the list.

Among Jesus' last words were to make disciples, teach, and baptize with the promise that He will be with us to the end of the ages. You can dispensationalize it away or limit it to genetic Jews for a brief time in church history. I chose to obey it (you are obeying it as a missionary...you just will not admit it due to hyper-Paulinism...my new phrase?).

Did Jesus (God the Son) write or say anymore after Mat. 28 through His own words or through His flawless inspiration? If there were only two baptisms, I would take you up on your offer. I really hope your concern for my ministry is sincere.

Again, when someone resorts to personal or general attacks and isn´t able or is unwilling to respond to arguments or rebuttals, there is no other conclusion to draw than that his position has lost the argument. Again, I say this because I don´t want to diminish you or your ability. You have been an able advocate of your position and you have stretched me greatly.

 

[godrulz]

TICO: The disciples continued to keep the law through the first part of Acts (circumcision and the like). The council of Acts 15 is evidence of this.

RULZ: The Jewish disciples did have some baggage relating to the gospel of grace during the transitional period leading up to Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. The Council in Acts 15 clarified issues, not supplanted a supposed legit. circumcision gospel (faith + works?) with another new gospel of uncirc/grace. The historical background relates to Judaizers, a false gospel of faith and works (even in the OT, grace/faith, not works was the foundation). The false Judaizers were dogging Paul's ministry (he once worked with Jews to persecute Christians; he now preached Christ vs Jewish law...he was not popular not trusted even by Jewish Christians whom he once persecuted to death). The false Judaizers were also causing division in the early and Jerusalem church. Paul and the Jerusalem leaders came together to stand against the common enemy of the cross, the false Judaizers (Gal. 1 a false gospel, not a legit. circ. gospel). They also brought correction to Jewish Christians who still retained elements of their former background. They clarified a few issues out of wisdom and necessity. It goes beyond the historical background to see two NT gospels (Gal. 2 proof text used by Mid-Acts...circ/uncirc. which is actually one gospel to two target audiences by two ministries, not two true NT gospels for a limited time).



TICO: God was still dealing with Israel through the first part of Acts. Refer to Peter´s sermon--no mention of gentiles. Acts 15 is where Peter describes the first gentile conversions of Acts 10. Thus, there was no body of Jew and Gentile until there were gentile conversions apart from doing all those things necessary through the gospel of circumcion such as baptism as stated in Acts 2:38.

If you are firm ground, it should easy to counter my rebuttal. Your explanation just doesn´t exist in the text.


RULZ: Given the fact that I follow 800 threads and get engaged with dozens of brilliant people such as yourself, I simply do not answer every long post sentence by sentence. I just hit and miss highlights of interest. I do not have an opinion on everything, nor the time to get bogged down in things that merit far more research and detailed answer. Will not is not cannot in some cases.

God was still dealing with Israel after the resurrection. Even Paul continued to reach out to his fellow Jews with the gospel of grace. Because of his track record of killing Jewish Christians and rejecting the Jewish faith, God wisely led him to shift to the Gentiles. This does not mean it was a different gospel than Peter or John preached after the resurrection. At some point, Israel rejected the Messiah and God focused on Gentiles (Rom. 9-11). This did not happen at Pentecost, but it does not mean Paul's conversion was a new gospel supplanting Peter's gospel. There is only one gospel after the resurrection of Christ.

Acts is SELECTIVE history. It is an argument from silence to assume that individual Gentiles were not coming into the Church earlier than Paul's conversion. The barrier between Jew and Gentile came down at the cross (It is Finished), not at Paul's conversion. Early Acts did not record every detail of the transitional period between Old and New Covenant (not between a supposed transition from NT circ. for Jewish Christians to NT uncirc. for Gentile Christians...ethnic background is not the issue...the person and work of the risen Christ, preached by Peter and Paul is the issue). John Sanders, Open Theist, in 'The God who Risks', touches on the historical narratives during the transitional period in the early church. Like non-Open Theists, a credible explanation of what we read has always been accepted without Mid-Acts assumptions (that are deductive, not self-evident in my mind).


TICO: This has to be one of the more interesting things yet said. Who has been divisive? Listen to your anger and unsubstantiated claims that you have uttered through out this dicussion. I still accept you as a brother, but you are the one putting me out as heretic (without being able to substantiate it other than using conclusions to prove conclusions). I´m concerned not for your soul, but for the way that you treat Scripture: this or that isn´t important, that doesn´t mean what it says (because I have concluded differently). All relevant verses actually means no verses. You know the list.

RULZ: I do not think you are a heretic. I think Mid-Acts dispensationalism is a heresy (but not like a cultic heresy or denial of essential truth...heresy is half truth...I believe Mid-Acts is in error in its understanding of historical narratives and didactic passages in the NT...you probably feel the same way about my Pentecostal experiences and interpretations...nothing personal). I think your hermeneutic or interpretations may be flawed. I trust that does not make you a heretic or me an angry nut case. I love truth and hate error. Sorry if I came across harsh, but you should see how your Mid-Acts brothers here blast me.



TICO: Did Jesus (God the Son) write or say anymore after Mat. 28 through His own words or through His flawless inspiration? If there were only two baptisms, I would take you up on your offer. I really hope your concern for my ministry is sincere.

RULZ: Acts continues the teachings of Christ through the early church. Mid-Acts strikes me as dismissing or dispensationalizing away much of the NT that is directly applicable to the Church. This is not a minor error. Pauline thought is not the only NT truths for the Church Age. The more I study biblical theology relating to Christ, Johannine, Petrine, and Pauline thought, the more I see a unity from the Spirit in the NT. I think Mid-Acts is on a weak foundation and probably why it is an inconsequential view in Church history and NT theology (academic circles vs a few radio preachers who were not scholars/theologians). I swim against the grain in my acceptance of Open Theism, so I know traditional scholarship is not always right.

I think the division comes from novel views that attack well established credible views. It is not wrong to stand in the face of winds of doctrine that become hobby horses for some churches (hyper-grace/easy-believism is as much out of balance as legalistic understandings).

I trust you focus on the simplicity of the gospel of Christ that we agree on in your missions work. When I was a Pastor, I did not use it as a platform to cause division and confusion with my Open Theism views. I did not avoid my understanding, but I did not make it the focus of my ministry. If you spend your time teaching Mid-Acts dispensationalism and refuting traditional views, then perhaps the basics of the faith are more in order (though it is hard to divorce these things if you believe it is the proper understanding and framework for interpreting Scripture).

Regardless, we cannot expect to resolve all these issues with a shot gun approach in brief posts. It is a non-issue for me and most of the Christian world, since the traditional understanding seems self-evident to most of us. I would rather use my time or energy dealing with the Mormons, JWs, atheists, here. However, Open Theism is a pet interest. Like eschatology, we will not likely agree on all dispensational issues. I find Acts 2 to be self-evident. In all my exposure over the years, Mid-Acts was only on the radar when I came to TOL a couple of years ago. A reading of H.A. Ironside's refutation of ultradispensationalism (google) is enough for me to not want to get bogged down too much in the issue.

 

[bling]

Tico said:
All of this is refuted by Acts 10:44-48 when Cornelius first believed, second received the HS, then was baptized in water. This is the opposite of Acts 2:38. Both can´t be true. Furthermore, in a previous post, you said that Acts 10 was an exception. If the Acts record contains exceptions, it can´t be the rule.

Yes, they can both be true if they are different baptisms. Baptism with water is the way Christians receive the indwelling Spirit Acts2:38. Holy Spirit baptism was done to everyone in a group, included the speaking in tongues and was done to show an external visible Holy Spirit’s presence to all.
I may not have used the best word in explaining Acts 10 as an exception. These were exceptional times. The exception has to do with HS baptism happening outside the group in Jerusalem. Have you ever seen an entire group all of a sudden start speaking in tongues or tongues of fire?
For you does Holy Spirit Baptism always include immediate speaking in tongues?
Do you see the different measures of the Spirit like: difference between Christ’s, the apostles, all Christians, those that the apostles have laded hands on and those Holy Spirit baptized? (we can review each measure if you need to.)






.

Tico asked:
Where is the support in the Bible for this last statement?

They were water baptized and that is the way you receive the indwelling Spirit Acts 2:38.
You have to look at the entire passage of Acts 19: 1…There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
Paul relates “Did you receive the Holy Spirit” first with “when you believed” and then with “what baptism did you receive”. John’s baptism was “of repentance” and not “of or for” the Spirit. They were then “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” which is the same words Peter used for the water baptism of Cornelius Acts 10: 48 or water baptism in Acts 8:16. Then as in Acts 8: 16 the apostle(s) lade hands on them to receive the miraculous power of the Spirit (speaking in tongues being one gift.)
“baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” we would agree is water baptism in Acts 8:16 and Acts 10: 48 and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit come with the laying on of the Apostle’s hands or Holy Spirit baptism, so how could Paul use the same words to not be water baptism?

Tico said:
The Bible describes the filling of the Holy Spirit in Eph. 5:18-20 and this has nothing to do with water baptism. Where is the justification for receiving different portions of the Holy Spirit through water baptism? "It seems" doesn´t speak with biblical authority.

1 Thess. 5: 19Do not put out the Spirit's fire… says we can quench the Spirit and Eph. 5; 18-20 says we can be full of the Spirit, but they are talking to Christians that have the Spirit and are not addressing how to start with the Spirit.

Tico asked:
Are you agreeing, then that these passages state that John´s baptism was for the remission of sins? If not, are you stating that you don´t understand what is meant by "of" and "for"?

No, It is like 1 Cor. 10 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. “Into Moses” and “of repentance” are being used in similar ways. The baptism is symbolic of their commitment to Moses’ teaching and in JB case the doctrine of forgiveness.

Tico asked:
So, what comes first, receiving the HS or water baptism? Are you saying they first were baptized in water, then received the Spirit through faith? Christ is not water. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Thus, using baptism in this sense to mean water baptism is contrary to the verse.

Holy Spirit baptism happens when God wants it to happen, it is has always been a pleasant surprise. They are water baptized and then receive the indwelling Holy Spirit measure. It is one thing to say to a group that has experienced only one type of baptism Eph. 4: 5 and to say to another group learning the meat of the message there are “baptisms” Hebrews 6: 2. The Spirit is Christ’s Spirit, Rm. 8:9, Phil. 1:19 and1 Peter 1:11.

Tico asked:
Not really too confusing. Paul or some other human did the baptizing in 1 Cor 1 and the HS is doing the baptizing in 1 Cor 12. Does your interpretation mean that one cannot belong to the Body of Christ until he is baptized in water? Baptismal regeneration?

Literally 1 Cor. 12: 13for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, or in the ASV 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body… The whole emphasis of Paul’s message here is oneness and being parts in the same body. The more likeness Paul can show the better. This group was saying 1Cor. 1: 12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. From 1 Cor. 13-16 we can see that the group was divided by the different teachers that had done the actual Baptizing and for those “of Christ” may have understood baptism better. The point in 1 Cor. 12 is these so called Baptisms by different leaders are all divine driven by the same Spirit.
Those being addressed in Corinth at this time all needed to be water baptized to be part of the body. This group knew to be baptized and had the opportunity, so if they would have had to refuse to be baptized not to be baptized.

Tico said:
No, I´m sorry if I was confusing, but once the last of the Jews under the gospel of the circumcision died out in the 1st century, there was no need to baptize or submit to the Law for the sake of the Jews. There is only one for today. If you want to deny a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ which is that by the Spirit into His body, then you can maintain that there is only one baptism and that is in water.

I believe there is only one baptism for us today and there was only one that any Ephesians at that time had experienced. That was water baptism.
You are the one that has to say there are at least two at the time and in Ephesis at the time of letter to the Ephesians (water and Spirit).

Tico said:
Definitely, we must confess we are sinners (or else ther eis nothing to be saved from) and repent (or change one´s mind) about who Christ is. This is for salvation. However, as Christians, it´s always a wonderful idea to repent and to confess.

Is forgiveness/salvation from God, then a free unwarranted gift or is it contingent on us doing something like forgiving and repenting?
How is the completed transaction of forgiveness expressed by us? Is repentance and confession part of that?

Tico asked:
What Scripture do you have to suggest that water baptism replaced circumcision? How were they then taking place at the same time? What does Mat 5:17-20 and Mat. 23:1-3 say Jesus says about keeping the Law?

I use the similarities between circumcision and water baptism to show how neither has ever saved anyone. It is just taking the descriptions of each.

Matt. 5 said, …until everything is accomplished.
Everything of the Old Testament has been accomplished.
Matt. 5 said: …unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The only way anyone’s righteous would surpass the Pharisees is not by trying to follow the letter of the Law, but the Spirit of the Law.
Matt 23: 1-3 Jesus is addressing Jews under the Law at that time. Do you think that is the same lesson Jesus gave to the Samaritans during His three days of preaching?

Jesus preached the Kingdom and Paul preached the Kingdom and Christ crucified, so do you think those Kingdom messages were different?



A few questions:
How can you be sure Paul’s desire not to baptize more people was not for the same reason Christ did not baptize anyone?

Paul speaks out firmly against anyone circumcising Gentiles, but all I hear Paul saying is “He, Paul should not be baptizing Jew or gentiles” and does not say others can not Baptize or Jews can not be circumcised. Why was it not good for Paul to baptize Jews, if it was not wrong to baptize Jews at this time?

 

[Tico]

RULZ: The Jewish disciples did have some baggage relating to the gospel of grace during the transitional period leading up to Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. The Council in Acts 15 clarified issues, not supplanted a supposed legit. circumcision gospel (faith + works?) with another new gospel of uncirc/grace. The historical background relates to Judaizers, a false gospel of faith and works (even in the OT, grace/faith, not works was the foundation). The false Judaizers were dogging Paul's ministry (he once worked with Jews to persecute Christians; he now preached Christ vs Jewish law...he was not popular not trusted even by Jewish Christians whom he once persecuted to death). The false Judaizers were also causing division in the early and Jerusalem church. Paul and the Jerusalem leaders came together to stand against the common enemy of the cross, the false Judaizers (Gal. 1 a false gospel, not a legit. circ. gospel). They also brought correction to Jewish Christians who still retained elements of their former background. They clarified a few issues out of wisdom and necessity. It goes beyond the historical background to see two NT gospels (Gal. 2 proof text used by Mid-Acts...circ/uncirc. which is actually one gospel to two target audiences by two ministries, not two true NT gospels for a limited time).

Acts 15 would support this claim had the council decided to make its ruling applicable to the Jews, not just the gentiles.

Regarding Acts 2:38

RULZ: Given the fact that I follow 800 threads and get engaged with dozens of brilliant people such as yourself, I simply do not answer every long post sentence by sentence. I just hit and miss highlights of interest. I do not have an opinion on everything, nor the time to get bogged down in things that merit far more research and detailed answer. Will not is not cannot in some cases.

First, my wife would kill me, though I wish I had the time. Second, the reason I hammered away at this verse is that it seems to be one of the three or four central passages.

God was still dealing with Israel after the resurrection. Even Paul continued to reach out to his fellow Jews with the gospel of grace. Because of his track record of killing Jewish Christians and rejecting the Jewish faith, God wisely led him to shift to the Gentiles. This does not mean it was a different gospel than Peter or John preached after the resurrection. At some point, Israel rejected the Messiah and God focused on Gentiles (Rom. 9-11). This did not happen at Pentecost, but it does not mean Paul's conversion was a new gospel supplanting Peter's gospel. There is only one gospel after the resurrection of Christ.

Agreed. Paul´s gospel did not supplant Peter´s. They existed at the same time. Some of the elements of your transition between the Old and New Covenants may flesh out hints of this.

Acts is SELECTIVE history. It is an argument from silence to assume that individual Gentiles were not coming into the Church earlier than Paul's conversion. The barrier between Jew and Gentile came down at the cross (It is Finished), not at Paul's conversion. Early Acts did not record every detail of the transitional period between Old and New Covenant (not between a supposed transition from NT circ. for Jewish Christians to NT uncirc. for Gentile Christians...ethnic background is not the issue...the person and work of the risen Christ, preached by Peter and Paul is the issue). John Sanders, Open Theist, in 'The God who Risks', touches on the historical narratives during the transitional period in the early church. Like non-Open Theists, a credible explanation of what we read has always been accepted without Mid-Acts assumptions (that are deductive, not self-evident in my mind).

This would be my point: It´s not silent. Peter tells us when the first gentiles were converted when he spoke at the Acts 15 council.

By the way, I lived in the same town as John Sanders for years and attended the college he taught at in Indiana (however, about 5 years before he arrived). I never made an opportunity to meet him. Though I wouldn´t call myself an open-Theist nor would I accuse God of molesting children for His glory (still working through it), I got accused by my church of being his "friend" by suggesting the obvious, that God repents because of His righteousness.

RULZ: I do not think you are a heretic. I think Mid-Acts dispensationalism is a heresy (but not like a cultic heresy or denial of essential truth...heresy is half truth...I believe Mid-Acts is in error in its understanding of historical narratives and didactic passages in the NT...you probably feel the same way about my Pentecostal experiences and interpretations...nothing personal). I think your hermeneutic or interpretations may be flawed. I trust that does not make you a heretic or me an angry nut case. I love truth and hate error. Sorry if I came across harsh, but you should see how your Mid-Acts brothers here blast me.

This raises a point that I wouldn´t mind addressing on a new thread: What is a heretic? What does one have to believe or disbelieve about the Bible? The only pentecostal that I have considered a nut case to date is a guy in language school who prayed to God on our behalf when my wife was pregnant (reminding us, I think) that God has promised to give healthy children to those who love Him. There are probably other nut cases out there, I just haven´t met them.

Yes, I´ve seen seen the unjustified anger, and it´s embarrassing.

RULZ: Acts continues the teachings of Christ through the early church. Mid-Acts strikes me as dismissing or dispensationalizing away much of the NT that is directly applicable to the Church. This is not a minor error. Pauline thought is not the only NT truths for the Church Age. The more I study biblical theology relating to Christ, Johannine, Petrine, and Pauline thought, the more I see a unity from the Spirit in the NT. I think Mid-Acts is on a weak foundation and probably why it is an inconsequential view in Church history and NT theology (academic circles vs a few radio preachers who were not scholars/theologians). I swim against the grain in my acceptance of Open Theism, so I know traditional scholarship is not always right.

I would point out that Paul lost his battle against the judaizers during his lifetime. He was in a minority when he died. Thus, it doesn´t surprise me that the truth given him was lost to the majority.

I think the division comes from novel views that attack well established credible views. It is not wrong to stand in the face of winds of doctrine that become hobby horses for some churches (hyper-grace/easy-believism is as much out of balance as legalistic understandings).

Perhaps, but consider your own open-Theistic views as you say this. This is why I prefer to find common ground if it exists--even in forums where debate is the norm. Nonetheless, you can find these types of churches spanning the spectrum even among well-established views.

I trust you focus on the simplicity of the gospel of Christ that we agree on in your missions work. When I was a Pastor, I did not use it as a platform to cause division and confusion with my Open Theism views. I did not avoid my understanding, but I did not make it the focus of my ministry. If you spend your time teaching Mid-Acts dispensationalism and refuting traditional views, then perhaps the basics of the faith are more in order (though it is hard to divorce these things if you believe it is the proper understanding and framework for interpreting Scripture).

I don´t need to be negative to assert, positively, what I believe. Sure, my dispensationalism permeates my teachings. Among other things (history, Christian life, Greek,) I teach a class specifically about dispensationalism. It´s great because it tells us who we are, where we are at, what we should be doing, and where we are going. It´s very positive.

Regardless, we cannot expect to resolve all these issues with a shot gun approach in brief posts. It is a non-issue for me and most of the Christian world, since the traditional understanding seems self-evident to most of us. I would rather use my time or energy dealing with the Mormons, JWs, atheists, here. However, Open Theism is a pet interest. Like eschatology, we will not likely agree on all dispensational issues. I find Acts 2 to be self-evident. In all my exposure over the years, Mid-Acts was only on the radar when I came to TOL a couple of years ago. A reading of H.A. Ironside's refutation of ultradispensationalism (google) is enough for me to not want to get bogged down too much in the issue.

However, I´ve noticed that you´ve spent some time on those dispensationalist threads... I really wanted to test my MAD views using baptism as a test issue. I´m glad I did.

 

[godrulz]

Bling: water baptism is not necessary for Spirit baptism with speaking in tongues...a historical narrative example is not didactic by itself (you said baptism with water is the way Christians receive the Spirit...nope).

 

[Tico]

Brother Bling (sounds like a deacon in a church south of the Mason-Dixon line),

Yes, they can both be true if they are different baptisms. Baptism with water is the way Christians receive the indwelling Spirit Acts2:38. Holy Spirit baptism was done to everyone in a group, included the speaking in tongues and was done to show an external visible Holy Spirit’s presence to all.

If that were the case, then Cornelius and company wouldn't have received the HS until after baptism in water, not before.

I may not have used the best word in explaining Acts 10 as an exception. These were exceptional times. The exception has to do with HS baptism happening outside the group in Jerusalem. Have you ever seen an entire group all of a sudden start speaking in tongues or tongues of fire?

Acts tells a story, but doesn't set forth a normative set of rules for baptism. It tells the story of a change in the rules or receiving the Spirit after baptism or before--the difference between Acts 2 and 10.

For you does Holy Spirit Baptism always include immediate speaking in tongues?

No.

Do you see the different measures of the Spirit like: difference between Christ’s, the apostles, all Christians, those that the apostles have laded hands on and those Holy Spirit baptized? (we can review each measure if you need to.)

Yes, but it is per Romans 12--depending on the measure of our faith.
.

They were water baptized and that is the way you receive the indwelling Spirit Acts 2:38.
You have to look at the entire passage of Acts 19: 1…There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
Paul relates “Did you receive the Holy Spirit” first with “when you believed” and then with “what baptism did you receive”. John’s baptism was “of repentance” and not “of or for” the Spirit. They were then “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” which is the same words Peter used for the water baptism of Cornelius Acts 10: 48 or water baptism in Acts 8:16. Then as in Acts 8: 16 the apostle(s) lade hands on them to receive the miraculous power of the Spirit (speaking in tongues being one gift.)
“baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” we would agree is water baptism in Acts 8:16 and Acts 10: 48 and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit come with the laying on of the Apostle’s hands or Holy Spirit baptism, so how could Paul use the same words to not be water baptism?

If you take the Acts 19 passage as normal, then you have to conclude that water baptism may be a prerequisite for receiving the HS, but so is the laying on of hands. This wouldn't fit with either Acts 2 or 10. Again, Acts is telling a story--the story of God's people rejecting Him.

1 Thess. 5: 19Do not put out the Spirit's fire… says we can quench the Spirit and Eph. 5; 18-20 says we can be full of the Spirit, but they are talking to Christians that have the Spirit and are not addressing how to start with the Spirit.

In order to start with the Spirit, one must believe (Eph. 1:13-14, Gal. 3.) and receive Him by faith.

No, It is like 1 Cor. 10 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. “Into Moses” and “of repentance” are being used in similar ways. The baptism is symbolic of their commitment to Moses’ teaching and in JB case the doctrine of forgiveness.

Yes, at times, baptism was figurative like with baptism into Christ or into Moses. The baptism of John into water was not symbolic. There was no figure (something impossible to accomplish in reality).

Holy Spirit baptism happens when God wants it to happen, it is has always been a pleasant surprise. They are water baptized and then receive the indwelling Holy Spirit measure. It is one thing to say to a group that has experienced only one type of baptism Eph. 4: 5 and to say to another group learning the meat of the message there are “baptisms” Hebrews 6: 2. The Spirit is Christ’s Spirit, Rm. 8:9, Phil. 1:19 and1 Peter 1:11.

Was Eph. 4 referring to a type of Lord Jesus Christ or a type of God the Father?

Literally 1 Cor. 12: 13for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, or in the ASV 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body… The whole emphasis of Paul’s message here is oneness and being parts in the same body. The more likeness Paul can show the better. This group was saying 1Cor. 1: 12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. From 1 Cor. 13-16 we can see that the group was divided by the different teachers that had done the actual Baptizing and for those “of Christ” may have understood baptism better. The point in 1 Cor. 12 is these so called Baptisms by different leaders are all divine driven by the same Spirit.
Those being addressed in Corinth at this time all needed to be water baptized to be part of the body. This group knew to be baptized and had the opportunity, so if they would have had to refuse to be baptized not to be baptized.

I believe that 1 Cor. 12:13 cannot be any clearer that they were baptized by one Spirit. This fact happened and they were part of the Body of Christ.

I believe there is only one baptism for us today and there was only one that any Ephesians at that time had experienced. That was water baptism.
You are the one that has to say there are at least two at the time and in Ephesis at the time of letter to the Ephesians (water and Spirit).

No, that's not my argument. Understand that Ephesians was written well after the baptisms at Corinth. If you say that the only baptism that existed was that of water, then you have to deny that of the Spirit since one can only mean one.

Is forgiveness/salvation from God, then a free unwarranted gift or is it contingent on us doing something like forgiving and repenting?

No, it's not dependent on foregiveness. This was taught by Jesus under the law as a conditional part of receiving salvation. Yes, we must repent (2 Cor. 7:10). It means to change our mind, to change our mind about Christ and who He is.

How is the completed transaction of forgiveness expressed by us? Is repentance and confession part of that?

Repentance--a changed mind about Christ. Confession--can't be saved from sin if you don't acknowledge that you have any.

I use the similarities between circumcision and water baptism to show how neither has ever saved anyone. It is just taking the descriptions of each.

On their own without faith, true. However, read Gen. 17 and read Acts 2:38-39.

Matt. 5 said, …until everything is accomplished.
Everything of the Old Testament has been accomplished.
Matt. 5 said: …unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The only way anyone’s righteous would surpass the Pharisees is not by trying to follow the letter of the Law, but the Spirit of the Law.
Matt 23: 1-3 Jesus is addressing Jews under the Law at that time. Do you think that is the same lesson Jesus gave to the Samaritans during His three days of preaching?

When did He do the preaching for 3 days? I don't remember the reference.

Jesus preached the Kingdom and Paul preached the Kingdom and Christ crucified, so do you think those Kingdom messages were different?

Yes.

A few questions:
How can you be sure Paul’s desire not to baptize more people was not for the same reason Christ did not baptize anyone?

Jesus did baptize--John 3:26.

Paul speaks out firmly against anyone circumcising Gentiles, but all I hear Paul saying is “He, Paul should not be baptizing Jew or gentiles” and does not say others can not Baptize or Jews can not be circumcised. Why was it not good for Paul to baptize Jews, if it was not wrong to baptize Jews at this time?

Be imitators of Paul as he imitates Christ--1 Cor. 11:1. Sorry, I don't think I understand the last question real well. Sorry about that.

 

[godrulz]

There is a difference between John's baptism, the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ at conversion, Jesus baptizing us with the Spirit after conversion (Pentecostal experience with tongues), and NT believer's (water) baptism. Watch the context carefully lest wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

 

[Bob Hill]

Tico,

It has been a joy reading your posts. Keep up the great work!!

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Tico,

It's nice to see what you believe from the Bible in regards to baptism and other Mid-Acts beliefs.

Many havee asked if it was necessary for salvation.

You and I believe the Bible shows us that the answer is: Yes!

We seem to agree that Jesus told Nicodemus, in John 3:5, that if he wanted to enter into the kingdom of God, he must be born of water and of the Spirit. This was the same message John began and the 11 apostles continued after the Christ’s resurrection.

Christ commanded the Eleven in Mark 16:15-16, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Peter insisted on the same requirement on the Jewish Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So, we see that water baptism was necessary before the Holy Spirit would baptize anyone. These two baptisms happened for the first time, on Pentecost. Water baptism was necessary for salvation. Then, Holy Spirit baptism took place.

From verses 2:14,22,36,38, and 39 we see that this happened while God was still dealing with Israel.

Acts 2:14,22,36,38,39 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 22 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Peter was only speaking to Israel in 22, and he was referring to the promise to Israel in 39.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Origin of Tico name?

 

[Tico]

Tico,

It has been a joy reading your posts. Keep up the great work!!

In Christ,
Bob Hill

Thanks for all your work and research in the past regarding Pauline dispensationalism. It hasn't fallen on deaf ears (at least in my case) these past 6-7 years of studying the Bible.

 

[Tico]

Origin of Tico name?

It sure as heck doesn't come from one of Dora the Explorer's friends (though it's my daughter's favorite show). It's what the nationals call themselves here in Costa Rica.

I trust the meaning of godrulz is as obvious and straightforward as it sounds.

 

[bling]

Tico said:
If that were the case, then Cornelius and company wouldn't have received the HS until after baptism in water, not before.

No. Lots of people received measures of the Spirit that were not Christian baptized: all the O.T. Prophets, the twelve Luke 9 , the 72 Luke 10, and John 20:22 (not sure who all).

Tico said
Yes, but it is per Romans 12--depending on the measure of our faith.

That is interesting, so if you have a faith like those of the first century you can raise the dead?
To what extent have you seen the measure lately?
I have seen some individuals I consider extremely Spiritual or Spirit filled but they are not healing people with their shadow. Do we or can we have apostles today?
From Acts 8: 18 said Simon saw the miraculous level of the Holy Spirit coming with the laying on of the Apostles hands.
.

Tico said:
If you take the Acts 19 passage as normal, then you have to conclude that water baptism may be a prerequisite for receiving the HS, but so is the laying on of hands. This wouldn't fit with either Acts 2 or 10. Again, Acts is telling a story--the story of God's people rejecting Him.

We both can not take this at face value, my interpretation is that the visual outward sign of the Holy Spirit (a different measure) came with the laying on of the Apostle hands Acts 8 and Acts 19 or by the Spirit breathing on them. The reason it would be referred to as just “receiving the Spirit” is the fact it was visual and outward. The laying on of the Apostles hands to receive the Spirit is not called Baptism. These two situations sound just alike with laying on to receive the miraculous power of the Spirit coming after they were baptized. What scripture words are you using to show they are totally different steps?

Tico said:
Yes, at times, baptism was figurative like with baptism into Christ or into Moses. The baptism of John into water was not symbolic. There was no figure (something impossible to accomplish in reality).

I do not understand what you are saying here?

Tico asked:
Was Eph. 4 referring to a type of Lord Jesus Christ or a type of God the Father?

One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.

Do you believe any of the Ephesians at the time of Paul’s letter had been water baptized?

Tico said:
I believe that 1 Cor. 12:13 cannot be any clearer that they were baptized by one Spirit. This fact happened and they were part of the Body of Christ.

I do not interpret it that way, so we might be both prejudice in our interpretations.

Tico said;
No, that's not my argument. Understand that Ephesians was written well after the baptisms at Corinth. If you say that the only baptism that existed was that of water, then you have to deny that of the Spirit since one can only mean one.

I am just talking about those in Ephesus at the time of the letter. How would they have understood “one baptism”. If some there had experienced two baptisms then it would be confusing. Hebrew’s talks about meatier matter being lessons on Baptisms plural, so what might that be?

Tico asked:
When did He do the preaching for 3 days? I don't remember the reference.

You are right I was going from memory it was two days and not three: John 4: 39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.
Does two day instead of three make a difference in the message?


Are there two kingdoms or is it the message that is divided?

Tico said:
Jesus did baptize--John 3:26.
That is exactly what John’s disciples said and the Pharisees heard, but John who was right there with Jesus said: John 4:1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

Tico asked:
Be imitators of Paul as he imitates Christ--1 Cor. 11:1. Sorry, I don't think I understand the last question real well. Sorry about that.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 1: 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—
You use that as your support for not Baptizing, but he is not making any distinction between baptizing Jews or gentiles. Paul was thankful he did not baptize more people 1 Cor 1: 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, ( and later Stephanas and Household and many be some others). That says He could have but was glade he did not. You are telling me, there was a righteous and good reason to baptize Jewish Christians at this time, so why did Paul feel it was good not to baptize more Jew Christians?

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Mat 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel....

...
In John 4 we have the beautiful story of the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan! She understood according the Scriptures that the Messiah was coming (and was there). Whether you believe that Samaritans were Jews or gentiles, it didn´t matter.

All relevant verses are proof texts.

Tico,
Why do you isolate Mattew 10:12 from the context and why do you use the isolated verse as a doctrine which is not supported by all other relevant passages?

Jesus calls His Apostles and sends them out on a mission trip and gives a command:
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

You use that command to make up a doctrine which is not in the Word of God.
Jesus did not tell the Apostles to not go to the Gentiles: He said "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:"
To go into the Way of the Gentiles one has to pass through Samaria.-John 4.

Jesus had already begun His ministry in "The Way of the Gentiles"; "By the Way of the Sea, in Galilee of the Gentiles, the people saw a Great Light and on them the Light shined".
Jesus did not command His Apostles to never go there nor did He command them to never go into any city of the Samaritans, but He did give a command for that first evangelism trip.

After they returned from that trip, Jesus took them through the cities of Samaritans, by the Way of the Gentiles, to minister, and on the way, He "sought out" a Gentile woman of the Samaritans and offered her Living water. He stayed in the city of the Samaritans with His Apostles fior two days ministering the Living Water and many believed on His name.
Samaritans are Gentiles. They were Gentiles at the time Jesus Christ offered them Living Water, they called themselves Gentiles; the Septuagint called them Gentiles; and they call themselves Gentiles today; which you can find by googling their homepage; and Jesus called them "Strangers" -aliens, not of the tribes of Israel, in Luke, when the healed Samaritan leper turned back to give Him thanks.
17:18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger [allogenes 1) sprung from another tribe, a foreigner, alien].

So why are you isolating a verse and using it to make a false doctrine which is not supported by the context nor the rest of Scripture?

Alos, why do you isolate the passage where Jesus referred to the Canaanite woman as a "dog" and use that isolated passage of his personal dealing with one woman, to make a whole false doctrine which is not supported by Scripture?

After healing the Canaanite woman's daughter because of her faith, Jesus goes into the Way of the Gentiles again, and the multitudes He ministers to are not Jews, for they "glorify the God of Israel", showing that He was not their God.

Mat 15:30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them [those that were] lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

Jesus sent His Apostles through Israel and Judea first, then He took them into the Way of the Gentiles and through Samaria.

Then, in Luke 8:22, Jesus took His Apostles on a missionary trip into the Gentile Decapolis, the Gentile "ten cities" area on the other side of Galilee, and He took them to preach His Gospel of the Kingdom of God [which is still
At Hand" and will be until the Rapture of the Church, when it will arrive]; when they arrived in the Gentiles area, a demoniac met Him so bound with demons he was not in his right mind, but Jesus had compassion on Him and delivered the poor Gentile man, who wanted to follow Him. Jesus tells Him to go home and tell what great things God had done for Him.
That Gaderene Gentile was sent personally as the first Gentile Evangelist bearing Witness to the Name of Jesus.
The Gentiles feared Him after He sent the demons into the swine and asked Jesus to leave, but He had come to their shores to minister Living Water, as Messiah whose kingdom is upon us, and who calls all to come into the kingdom -Jews first, Genitiles last.

Jesus did not call all Gentiles dogs, who sought His aid.
In fact, in Psalms He calls those who crucified Him dogs.

So your isolation of a verse and using it to make doctrine which is contradicted by all Scripture is not good, so why do you do it?

 

[Tico]

Laq...,

Did or did not Jesus state (more than once) that He came for the lost sheep of Israel?