No one said anything about "supposed to/not supposed to." There is absolutely nothing wrong with baptism. But it is not a must. End of story.
You might want to re-read the Acts 9 view. It is not that baptism was put away. It is that baptism isn't necessary.
I don't know. Hold on. I need to look up "abrogated."
See above.
Have you been paying attention to my above replies? I hope so, because I'm not repeating myself, here.
Well? What do you conclude?So which is it, is Paul a disobedient oaf or are you now an Acts 19 Dispensationalist?
Grace and Peace
You say that we are not allowed to celebrate any holidays, or practice baptism...and many other things.
No. Huh uh. Never.
Decrying unbiblical behavior doesn't make one a legalist. Jesus restricted behavior. So did Paul. Neither of them were legalists. So I ask again:
So, in other words, you're making up a definition just to take pot shots at me. If would read your Bible, it is quite clear what a legalist is. But I won't bore you with stuff you're obviously not interested in.
Originally posted by Nineveh
> > > OFF TOPIC POST
Congrats!
Whatta Christmas gift!
It is not a must? So, in your view, Paul was out practicing an unneccesary ordinance for 20 years of his ministry?
Perhaps I have misrepresented Acts 9 views but according to Bob Hill.
Now I don't know what set aside and suspended means to you, but I think it comes pretty close to put away.
Isn’t that an important questions to ask given the fact that Jesus commissioned his disciples to baptize and Peter claimed that we should all repent and be baptized? If you don’t know when God repealed baptism then how do you know He did?
Understood, but none of the examples we have been discussing are examples of individuals converted under the gospel of the circumcision. Furthermore, I think, though I am not sure, that the mid-acts dispensational view sees that gospel as set aside at the conversion of Paul. So even Cornelius, though converted under Peter, was still subject to the terms and conditions (so to speak) of Paul’s gospel.
Did God tell Paul that baptism was unnecessary? When did this happen?
Forgive me if I am a little slow, Lighthouse, but I don’t think you have given an answer to this quandary. I’m beginning to get the impression that you don’t know the answer and are covering with a hint of aggressiveness.
How do you resolve this: Jesus commanded the disciples AFTER His death, burial and resurrection to keep the Law of Moses, including the blood sacrifices and burnt offerings and circumcision. Paul commanded against doing these things.
There is no shift in what you've stated. The commission or responsibility necessarily includes a temporal economy that defines the commission or responsibility.
I agree with BDAG.
That is a false dispensationalism. The word itself says nothing of time. It's the application and context that brings in the concept of time. And since we see unambiguous data affirming the overlap of dispensations, to view the word in terms of abutted time periods is biblically unwarranted.
I would join you in criticism of that eisegetical fabrication.
I'm all ears, BCK. Much of what I read in Paul is in contrast to Peter's gospel. The entire epistle to the Galatians, in particular the verse and surrounding context of 2:7.
It appears that I am going to have to spend a lot of time disabusing you of whatever preconceived (and erroneous) notions you have concerning the mid-Acts view. Apparently you've been conversing with or reading the writings of those who don't know what they're talking about. If your understanding of the mid-Acts view comes from quasi-deists like Bob Hill or Bob Enyart, I have to reconsider whether or not I want to continue this discussion because of time constraints. You're welcome to visit my church's website where there are scads of detailed papers concerning biblical dispensationalism, and not the man-made Open-Theist-hyper-Arminian mumbo jumbo that gets half-heartedly lobbed around these fora.
I see, so "One Lord" must include other Lords, as well, right? How many Gods do you recognize, BCK? If you're going to logically consistent tell me what other Faiths besides the One Faith Paul might have in mind.
Yes, and this unity is based on the understanding that the Body of Christ has but one of each of these. The earthly Kingdom had many, respectively. Please see the following link for further detail: The Seven Ones.
Actually, more than two for Israel and the nations. See the above link. Also, notice that the writer of Hebrew acknowledged the many baptisms of Israel and the nations.
I don't know where you've gotten these ideas about the mid-Acts view, but they're way off. The Circumicision has multiple baptisms: that of the spirit, that of water, that of ceremonial washing in their Temple liturgy, etc.
You're assuming that Jesus intended to extend His statement to others beyond the Twelve (or even the Two in the passage). The text doesn't support that. If I were to die for my faith, it wouldn't be that baptism Jesus spoke of. When the sons of Zebedee died for their faith, it was.
Yes. The Passover meal was a ceremonial, symbolic, religious rite of Israel. Paul prohibits this behavior for the Body of Christ.
Yes, exactly. In fact, our church does not perform weddings. Everyone in our church who has gotten married since its genesis has been married by a mayor or justice of the peace. To have a religious wedding ceremony would be a violation of the Mystery.
You have to connect the dots, BCK. The Body of Christ will judge angels. That means we are adminstratively superior to them, not under them, as were Israel and the nations.
Again, connect the dots. If the Body of Christ is seated with Christ above the angelic realm, we are not subject to them as were Israel and the nations. The very idea of men being in heaven is unprecedented in all of the Jewish scriptures. Israel's hope was ever to dwell in her Land and to righteously govern and bless the elect nations under the auspices of the angelic realm. But the Body of Christ will judge angels. That is unprecedented. The Body of Christ will dwell in heaven. That is unprecedented.
The same rationale applies. Eph 3:10 describes the angelic realm as learning of God's grace via the Body of Christ. This is unprecedented, because throughout Israel's scriptures, the angels were tutors to them. Angels were never before instructed by men, but now that has changed, because the Body of Christ is seated with it Head above them.
What is your interpretation?
I didn't make anything up. The Pharisees said there were rules that didn't exist, and Christ called them on it. You are doing what they did.
I'm 24, and I don't live with either of my parents.
:blabla:
You're a trip, Mr. Inmate.
:shut:
Yeah. So? I was baptised. It wasn't necessary, for any reason, but it was a public confession of faith. Get over it.
The Acts 9 view is that it is not necessary for salvation. So, it was put away in that it is no necessary for salvation. Nothing more.
Well, that's partially my stance. But I'm not going to tell anyone who gets baptized that it was wrong, unless they think it was necessary for the purpose of salvation or for the remission of sin.
I don't know that He did. But I know that it isn't necessary for salvation, and that is the only thing that matters.
It doesn't matter either way. We are not bound to a law of any ordinances. It is not a must, and we are not condemned for not practicing baptism.
Like I've said, I'm new to the doctrine.
You are mistaken in this. The two of them overlapped, because the 12 were still preaching their dispensation when Paul started preaching his. But when the disciples and their converts passed, then their dispensation came to a complete end.
Does Paul say that baptism is necessary for salvation?
If Paul says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, would it not stand to reason that God told him such?
I was referring to how I answered the question in in the same reply where I asked if you had been paying attention to them. I was not trying to be mean. I was kidding around, because I figured you would have read my answers by the time you got to that point in my reply. And I hope I have answered you, by now. It is the best answer I can gather, based on scripture.
I was asking you what you concluded of my stance. I was asking if you had gotten the answer you sought. That was all. And Peter says baptism saves. Paul says faith alone saves. Even James says we are justified by works, while Paul said we are justified by faith alone. So the question is, why do they contradict? And I can only conclude that it is because they are preaching to different sets of people. The 12 were preaching to the Jews, who were used to works, and Paul was preaching mostly to the Gentiles, who were never required to do any works of the law. But, if you believe that it all changed at the death, burial and resurrection then you are of an Acts 2 dispensational system. Because that is the first chapter after Christ's ascension...which happens right after He gives the great commission.
Should you have been baptized?
That is only part of the acts 9 view, the other half of the story is that, according to mid-acts dispensational theology, you shouldn’t have been baptized at all. Furthermore, believing that baptism is not a work unto salvation is not unique to the acts 9 view. Acts 2 dispy's, Covenant theologians of the Calvinist and Lutheran stripe and New Covenant theology folks all think that salvation is a "must" but is not a sacrament that bestows salvation.
So it was necessary for salvation before acts 9, and not after, although God never bothered to tell anyone as much until after acts 19.
So everyone that received the preaching of the 12 (Peter included) was under the gospel of the circumcision?
No, Paul never says that one is saved by baptism. The same gospel preached by the 12. Baptism was the means by which one expresses and proclaims their faith.
That assumes that God told someone else that it was. An assumption I would not agree with.
Peter says that getting wet saves or the pledge of clear conscience toward God?
Paul does.
Perhaps the acts 9'ers have made too much of an apparent contradiction here.
I'm pretty sure I am ok diagnosing my own theological system, but thanks for the suggestion
It isn't a should or should not. It doesn't matter, if we are or we aren't.
I assume you meant baptism is a must. And I know Acts 9 is not the only view that holds baptism doesn't save. I used to be an Acts 2. Well, looking back on it it seems that's what I was.
I never said that. But some of the verses seem to say that it did save. A lot of people take it to mean that, anyway. There are a few here. And those people believe that it is necessary for salvation. I wonder how they reconcile hydrophobic people being saved without it.:think:
I think that depends on how you view it. I know at least one person who said it cleared up their confusion.
Yes.
Galatians was written to the Greeks, and the writings of Peter were written to the Jews in Galatia. That seems to be the stance of Acts 9.
How so?
I believe that baptism is a means, but vocally proclaiming can be just as effective.
Mark 16:16
Quit arguing with me as if I believe that baptism should stop.
Neither do I. And I never said I did.
1 Cor. 1:? Verse 17? The one where Paul says he wasn't sent to baptize? What about the verse where Paul says there is one baptism? Which baptism is he speaking of?
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."
No. Paul preached that we have a clear conscience, because of Christ. Does that mean that everyone will be baptized? Is anyone saved apart from baptism? I chose Christ when I was 3. I wa baptised three years later. When was I saved?
Okay...
Paul didn't mean works.
I never said they did. Where in the world did you come up with this?
How so? Where does James say that we are shown to be justified by works? Or does he just say that we are justified by works?
:yawn:
Well, Acts 2 is the first chapter after the ascension. That's what I mean.Finally you said:
I'm pretty sure I am ok diagnosing my own theological system, but thanks for the suggestion
So, you don't beleive in pre-trib? What do you believe in?
Well, I guess I wasn't technicall Acts 2, before, then. Except that I have always believed in pre-trib.
So, you're a closed theist?
Have you now changed the rules? It has to be "explicit" and "literal"? Why can't it be emphatically inferred? "One baptism" is hugely emphatic.
Do you really believe that? That God intended His Word to have multiple viable interpretations?
What does "one baptism" in Eph 4 mean to you? One of several? Or one and only one? What does "one Lord" mean to you? One of several Lords? Or one and only one?
Check it again, BCK. John says the same thing I said. If the gospels did not record the historical narrative of Messiah's life and work, what documents would there be to affirm the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures?
Most of it is not applicable to you. It is historical truth that you need to know, but there are no direct prescriptions for Body life to be found in Jewish scripture. They were not writing to the Body of Christ; they didn't even know about the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ, the subject of the Mystery, had been held in silence from the foundation of the world.
I fully grant that. My question still stands. Could Peter have said those same words? Yes or no?
It was practiced long after as well. The Corinthian synagogue had a mixture of elect Jews, elect proselytes of the Gate, and the Body of Christ. Three dispensations co-existing. That is why 1Corinthian 8 was written. That is why the end of 1Corinthians 10 was written. That is why Paul says, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews (elect Israelites), nor to the Gentiles (proselytes of the Gate, subject of Acts 15), nor to the church of God: (the Body of Christ)." (1Co 10:32)
Those who were baptized were either Jews who had not yet been baptized into Messiah (e.g. Acts 19:1-7), or Gentile proselytes of the Gate. They were not members of the Body of Christ.
I agree.
That would be the standard escape hatch for the homogenized gospel view. Here's the difference: The homogeneous gospel view must jump through these kinds of hoops to explain the verse in light of that theology. The mid-Acts view comes to this passage and sees that it makes perfect sense without hoop-jumping.
Paul no doubt continued to baptize kingdom saints well after that, BCK. It is what I would expect in the settings Paul found himself. Galatians was written to the Body of Christ, about matters concerning Body law. Paul acknowledges the elect Jews among them in that epistle, even though he was not writing to the elect Jews among them.
It was put away for the Body of Christ, but not for Israel or the elect of the nations.
For the same reason he didn't tell them to stop abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols in chapters 8 and 10. He urged them to respect the Jews and Gentiles among them.
Paul never made an error in his public ministry and he was perfectly clear in his instruction. Paul baptized (and commanded baptism) of those of the kingdom gospels; Paul prohibited baptism for the Body of Christ.
It's not a problem in the least, BCK. It's a feature. And it makes perfect sense on the Mid-Acts view.
See, this is what happens when you jump to conclusions before giving your opponent a chance to answer your charges. While kudos to you are in order for having done your homework, what you've presented does no damage to my view, but in fact buttresses it and the distinctions delineated between the various gospels we find in scripture.
I took no offense. I hope my response is clear. I will be happy elaborate further if needed.
According to whom? According to you maybe but isn't that really what we are discussing? Whether one should consider baptism as a "must" or whether, as you say, it just doesn't matter?
A lot of people have taken a lot of the bible in a lot of different ways.
Well, now you know 2. I initially embraced a mid-acts dispensational position because I, like them, thought it cleared up some confusion. However, in the end, it generated more than it solved for me. Ergo, my departure from dispensationalism altogether.
Unfortunately, your previous answer causes an inconsistency with these mid-acts dispensational teachings. It's clear that Cornelius was not water baptized until after he and his household had received the Holy Spirit.
That is the stance. That stance assumes that someone was preaching to the wrong crowd…
So either Peter was mistaken and Paul wasn’t really writing to them, or Paul was mistaken and started preaching the wrong gospel to Jews, or you are wrong and both Paul’s correspondence and Peter’s correspondence were addressed to the same audience.
1. Mark 16:16 was Jesus speaking, not Peter, and there are textual issues that question the reliability of the long ending of Mark.
You don’t? Sounds like you don’t know what you believe about this at this point.
I’ll answer Hilston’s press on this very point tomorrow probably. It’ll be a more in depth answer but will probably answer your question.
I think it is a must inasmuch as I think that it is an ordinance for today. I also think the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance for today. I don’t think it saves, but I think it is a “must” nonetheless. Furthermore, the act of getting wet doesn’t save us, it represents the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It is the method God has chosen for us to publicly proclaim our faith in Christ.
Some do… But again, some claim all sorts of things based on all sorts of verses. I’m not interested in what some people think, I’m in a conversation with you to compare what you and I think and dialog about the differences and similarities.
The question isn’t will everyone, the question is should everyone.
Yes, clearly the thief on the cross was saved apart from baptism. And that was in a dispensation (according to Enyart and Hill mind you) that required it for salvation!
Well he used the Greek word kataergazomai which means to “work out.” It incorporates a derivative of the root ergon which means “works.” Perhaps you can tell me what results from the outworking of salvation if not good works?
Read the passage contextually. James is talking about showing his faith by what he does.
No.
Did it matter for the thief on the cross? Was it a must for him?
I already know what I believe. I have never believed baptism was a must, or necessary. But I have never thought it was wrong. And the reason is above.
This doesn't seem to be a disagreement between us, so it's moot.
It was a rhetorical question.
Do you believe the law has anything to do with salvation? Or do you believe the cross changed everything?
Okay. I looked it over. Jews who were converted under Peter were under the gospel of circumcision. But Gentiles were not, because they were Gentiles. And the conflict between Peter and Paul, in Gal. 2 was over Peter preaching the gospel of circumcision to those it did not apply to. Cornelius was a Gentile.
No, it doesn't.
If they were writing to two different audiences, then neither of them were preaching to the wrong crowd. Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. The right audience for each.
None. See above.
As you can see, I came to that conclusion before I even got to this point in your post.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ. And Peter had only preached the basis of the gospel. He hadn't gotten to the stipulations of the circumcision. And, it seems I disagree with Bob here, I don't believe Peter was ever going to preach the gospel of circumcision to Cornelius, because Cornelius wasn't a Jew. He was a Gentile. Peter knew that.
Well, I've figured it out in this discourse. I was wrong. Thanks for the help.
I know. I meant to mention Jesus. I was rushing.
So you're saying that Peter doesn't say that baptism saves, and therefore you don't believe it saves, so why do you believe it's necessary?
Well, as you see above, I've been over what happened in Acts 10.
I told you I didn't. I told you that I believe that it isn't necessary, but I don't believe it was stopped, or that it is a sin [as Hilston believes].
I hope so. What about where John the Baptist says, "I baptize with water, but He [Jesus] will baptize with the Spirit, and with fire."?
I know what the rest of the verse says. But it still seems that either way Peter is saying that baptism is necessary. And there are many people who perceive this verse as such. How do you show them they are wrong?
What if we confess with our mouth, without water baptism? And do you think what passes for communion [the Lord's supper] in most churches is what communion [the Lord's supper] should be?
Okay. Answer that question then.
Because it is vital to this discussion. If I had died between my confession of faith, and my baptism, where would I have gone?
When I decided that I wanted Christ. Before I prayed the actual prayer. Yes, I prayed a prayer, but the prayer was not necessary. I placed my faith in Christ. That's when I was saved.
Nope.
Okay, ignore my question from earlier. You seem to beleive that I was saved when I first beleived, and that I would have gone to heaven if I had died beofer my baptism. If I am wrong, let me know.
Are we saved by works, or by grace?
That's how I've always taken it. But some people are confused by the wording. And it also seems that James might have meant exactly what he said. But, since you know the Greek, what did he say?
Definitely. Where do you think Atheists come from?:chuckle:
Okay, I haven't really kept track of all the terms, and what they mean. So, what exactly do you believe about the rapture?
Do you think God ever has a Plan B? Do you think God knows the future, exhaustively?
Yes. Were the thief on the cross able to be baptized, he would have been expected to have been.
That’s great. Do you then believe the mid acts dispensational theology as described in The Plot?
One of the fundamentals of the theology of The Plot is that baptism was more than a must in the dispensation preceding this one, one could not be saved without it! So was it a must during the circumcision gospel in your opinion?
I believe the Mosaic Covenant played a historical role in redemption, being a tutor that pointed toward Christ. Currently, I believe that it has been replaced by a New Covenant. Some parts of the Old Covenant have been completely fulfilled and set aside, some have been reinstated in the New Covenant.
Okay.
OK
Alright, so if Peter had overstepped his authority by preaching to the gentiles (which you assume is the reason Paul confronted Peter in Gal 2). Why did GOD send an angel to Cornelius to expect a visit from Peter? Furthermore, why did the Holy Spirit send the wrong person (Peter) to preach the wrong gospel to Cornelius who was a gentile?
Ok, lets take a look at the situation to test and see if your unexplained rejection of my claim is warranted.
4. If the “you” in 2 Peter 3:15 are gentiles converted under the Paul’s gospel why did the Holy Spirit inspire Peter to continue to preach the wrong gospel to the wrong people group? If the “you” in 2 Peter 3:15 are gentile converts of Paul, then why is Peter writing to them and instructing them according to the gospel of the circumcision?
So there was only one gospel from the time of Christ until now?
Huh?
So why did Peter have him baptized?
And according to acts 9 theology, baptism wasn’t for him, why didn’t Peter know that?
Yes, that is what I am saying. I am saying that Peter preached that faith in Christ saved, an that baptism was the ritual that was prescribed in which one proclaims publicly their allegiance to Christ. I also don’t think that the Lord’s Supper saves, yet Christ requested that it be done as well.
I understand, now let me ask you, do you think that the Lord’s Supper is “necessary?”
It is necessary. It’s not necessary in the sense that one cannot be saved without it, but it is necessary in the sense that it is closely tied to the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It is necessary in that it is the biblically prescribed way of demonstrating one’s allegiance to Christ.
By allowing scripture to interpret scripture. The thief on the cross was saved (without being baptized). The gospel of John advocates the sufficiency of belief for salvation (Jn 3:18 and 21:31 for example). Incidentally the gospel of John is one the acts 9’rs assign to the gospel of the circumcision, a gospel they claim requires baptism for salvation.
What if we continue to confess with our mouths and continue to believe in our hearts? Then as Paul suggests, we will be saved. Incidentally, Paul wrote Romans 10 to a group of believers that every historical evidence suggests had been baptized. Their confessing with their mouth was not in lieu of their baptism.
For starters, the thief on the cross.
You said:
They answer is yes, everyone should.
OK, so John’s baptism wasn’t for salvation and neither was Jesus’ baptism or the baptisms associated with the ministry of the 12. Jn 3:26, John 4:1 (incidentally this verse tells us that the ministry of Jesus and the twelve saw more water baptisms than the ministry of John).
To heaven, just like the thief on the cross.
Glad we are on the same page. But you probably prayed the prayer anyway right? So was proclaiming with your mouth unnecessary? What if a person made the decision to place his faith in Christ right after they were involved in a horrific car accident. His jaw was wired shut and he were unable to write due to this hands being severely fractured. After hours of being on the operating table, that person died.
We are saved by grace through faith unto good works. (See Ephesians 2:10)
I don’t have my Greek NT in front of me, I’ll look it up when I get home, but I doubt that there is any secret that is cleared up by the Greek. The NIV says, “You see that people are justified by what they do and not by faith alone.”
I think the rapture happens right before the second coming. We are caught up with Him in the air while He is returning. There is no 7 year intermediary period between the rapture and the second coming.
I think that we have genuine free will. I believe that God knows every possible choice that I could, of my own free will, make, in every situation that I could ever be in.
Yes.
I do admit that my exposure to mid-acts dispensationalism has been almost exclusively colored by Bob Hill and Bob Enyart. So as not to misrepresent your particular theological stance, I will spend some time on your website to get an idea as to where you are coming from that is destinct from the Enyart and Hill perspective.
If anyone can be saved apart from baptism it isn't a must.
See above.
Do they?
It seems so. But it wasn't a must before Christ's ascension.
I wouldn't use the term "reinstated." They would have had to have been removed to be reinstated.
Agreed.
:thumb:
Dude, please pay attention.
I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter. Do you?
See above.
See above.
See above.
Not what I said.
You already said that Peter hadn't gotten to the baptism and circumcision points befoer the Spirit fell on Cornelius' family. So, obviously, Peter didn't preach the gospel of circumcision to Cornelius. But Cornelius being a Gentile may have something to do with that, don't you think?
Same reason Paul baptized.:doh:
:sozo:Quit areguing with me like I believe baptism shouldn't happen!
:sozo2:
No. If it was, then we'd all be going to hell for doing it wrong.
It's either necessary or it isn't. If we can agree that it is not a must for salvation, then why are we debating? Aren't we to avoid foolish controversies?
Well, the thief on the cross may have been a Jew. And if he was, then he was already circumcised. And if he was a Gentile, then circumcision wouldn't have applied to him, anyway.
I never said it was. That's not what this is about. This is about whether baptism is or isn't necessary to be saved.
Okay.:thumb:
Jesus was baptized by John. Did Jesus need to be "saved?" Of course not. So..?
The gospel of circumcision. The law was preached, but Christ is the one who made people righteous.
I might very well be.
So, it isn't necessary for salvation. We agree. What is it necessary for?
Yeah. But I thought I had to, at the time.
No. He would go to heaven.
No.
Right. Works are produced, but they don't save, or make anyone righteous, right?
I had someone tell me that the Greek actually said that people are showed to be justified by works, not that they are justified by the works themsleves. But Paul wrote that people are justified by faith, apart from works. So, which is it?
James was preaching to Jewish believers. You said it.
So James wan't saying that we are justified by works? He was saying our faith is justified by works?:liberals:
Agreed. I never said that Paul said works were irrelevant. Just that works do not save us, or justify us or make us righteous.
And why do you believe this?
So, you believe we have genuine free will, and you beleive God knows all the possibilities, but you also believe that God knows exactly what's going to happen, and therefore we can not do anything outside of what God knows is goiong to happen. This means that you beleive that the future is closed. You are a closed theist.
:shocked:
So, you believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the tree?
Then you don't believe God knows the future exhaustively.
