Posted on 09/27/2010 6:17:08 PM PDT by bibletruth
Let's start by observing the Scriptures in John
If dipping, in your opinion, is not completely immersed, then ask a sheep farmer if a partial immersion is going to treat his critters.
“Buried with him”. Jesus was not partially in the tomb.
LOL
**But after Acts 9: a new gospel of grace ‘commission’ was given to the Apostle Paul to preach to both Jew and Gentile; and to break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile.**
Peter, who was given the ‘keys’, had to be present for the three main groups of people to receive the Holy Ghost. He opened the ‘doors’ to the Jews in Acts 2, to the Samaritans in Acts 8, and to the Gentiles in Acts 10. Paul hadn’t preached to any Gentiles until sometime later. While Peter still struggled with some of the Law, he did believe the Gentiles were included, after seeing them receive the Holy Ghost as he testified to the brethern in Acts 11.
**Does that mean a person is going to hell if they haven’t been baptized?**
If I were to sit back and try to figure out who has heard and obeyed the whole gospel, I would be inserting myself into a place (judging) that is not mine. You or I are not to judge the souls of men (and women). He is telling us how to believe on him. For example, He called Able and Cain to serve him, but Cain tried the easy way (the disobedient way), when he no doubt knew from his father Adam what a proper sacrifice was. Noah, Abraham, etc. were given a call that physically had to be acted upon.
The Lord’s terms of being faithful changed at times, and he still expects a physical response (even going to hear a preacher for the first time is a physical act).
Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die! ;)
Peter...given the “keys”...oh God help them see that the glorified Christ Jesus after Acts 9 and 14 years later, utilized Paul, not Peter, who was commissioned by Almighty God to preach the Word of God in the Grace of God to the Gentiles, kings, Jews, and nations for this past 2000 years in this dispensation of grace, not of works of the law which no man could perform in order to be made righteous. The keys Peter had were for, at most, the preaching of the gospel message of the kingdom of God, not the dispensation of fulness of the times, in which the middle wall partitian was broken down for us, Jew and Gentile, together, one new creature In Christ. Peter correctly preached the great commission, starting with Israel, and later began to preach to Gentiles. But Peter was never commissioned by the glorified Christ Jesus to preach the mystery of the grace of God: that was Paul. That is biblical and doctrinally correct.
Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do or die! ;)
Agree.
Thanks for the reply. It is good and useful information.
As I pointed out, Paul rebaptized believers in Ephesus, in the NAME of Jesus, and then they received the Holy Ghost. The Word is not clear as to whether these ‘certain disciples’ were Jew or Gentile, just that they were baptized unto John’s baptism.
The epistles were written to souls that had already been born again. Note the phrases ‘called to be saints’ or ‘to the saints’ in the first chapters in many of those letters.
The epistles are to be read in that context.
WAAAY past my bedtime! I’ll be back tomorrow if need be.
Lord bless
But the Biblical direction that I was primarily trying to make is that sometime later, after A.D. 56, Paul began preaching:
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Now in and around A.D. 56 (approx.) Paul begin preaching that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel - of grace, in this dispensation of God's grace.
So it is evident from Scripture that Paul, after A.D. 56, did not spend his time baptizing people after they come to a saving knowledge of Christ. For Paul knew by then that water baptism was not a baptism of salvation. Then the remaining years of Paul's ministry, Paul did not baptize [1 Cor 1:17].
Peter, contrariwise, would never, never, think of preventing water baptism for someone saved. Peter would never do such a thing: why: because this was Peter's kingdom commission by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry, and instructions after He rose from the dead.
Water baptism for today's grace believer has been replaced with Spirit baptism as we see in Romans 6:3-5. The book of Romans was written after Corinthians; therefore, when Paul wrote in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He wrote this before he wrote Romans. Therefore, by the time Paul reaches Romans 6, Paul knows that he was not sent to baptize, therefore, Romans 6 is not water baptism; it is Spirit baptism by the Holy Spirit at the precise moment a person believes with faith in the resurrected Jesus Christ. Water baptism, today, does not save. Holy Spirit baptism, is the sign of salvation today:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation:in whom also after that ye believed, YE WERE SEALED with THAT HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE, Which is the EARNEST or our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
People who fail to see this, fail to give up their presuppositions; or the church doctrines which they learned which did not follow precisely what God was doing with the Apostle Paul.
Peter and Paul were on equal ground. Peter did not supersede Paul, neither back then 2000 years ago, nor even today, 2000 years later. God greatly used Peter. God greatly used Paul; but today's usage was separate from Peter and not UNDER Peter's authority today, but under Christ's authority today and forever. Christ's authority is as the head of the Body of Christ - all true believers. And Christ is the head of the church - all true believers. This is Biblical as seen in Colossians:
Colossians 1:18 And he [Christ] is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Paul did not learn his doctrines from Peter. Paul learned his doctrines from the glorified Christ Jesus for 14 years. Peter had a different training: which was the lessons he learned from the earthly "kingdom of God" ministry of Jesus Christ, before his resurrection. And yes, Peter did learn some new doctrines after Christ's resurrection. Peter did fulfill his ministry to Jesus; and did it accurately. Peter did not write a majority of the letters in the New Testament. Paul wrote Romans through Philemon: 13 in total. Letters in which Peter acknowledged.
In 2 Peter 3:15, Peter even acknowledged Paul:
Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
When churches follow Peter as everything in all doctrine and instruction in the law, protocol, baptism, kingdom living way of life for today; Peter even then warns them: they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ah yes, dispensationalism. Assume that 'a priori' and then require evidence consistent with that assumed paradigm.
Did you ever think that assuming the paradigm was the problem in the first place?
I'll guess that you haven't.
Here is where knowledge of the Greek language is critical for doctrinal formation. Your believe that Peter and John had some kind of apostolic authority to give the Holy Spirit is off base. Often times in Greek (especially questions) statements are made in such a way that answers or refinement is implied. This is such a case.
The statement "For as yet he was fallen upon none of them ..." is constructed in the Greek in such a way as to imply that additional idea that "BUT HE SHOULD HAVE." The HS had not as of yet fallen (but He should have) ...
Very similar to Pauls "Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound?" The implied answer is "No" and the Greek construct confirms this.
The Holy Spirit had not fallen on the people of Samaria when they believed ... but He should have. The critical question here is "why?" I believe you will find the answer if you continue in Acts ... The apostles themselves needed to witness the same falling of the HS on the Samarians so they would be convinced their conversion was real. This is in keeping with the gospel speading out from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, whole world. You can see the conclusion of the entire episode when Peter went back to the other apostles in Jerusalem and told them "the spirit fell on them like us in the beginning" Acts 11.15 ...
The other factor that explains the delay in the baptism of the HS to the Samarians is historical ... the Samarians were despised by Jews ... recall the disciples were dismayed that Jesus was talking to the Samarian woman at the well. This episode was was essential to the growth of the early church.
Hence Philip told those whom he had baptized to go see Peter and John, who were authorized to give the converts the Holy Ghost.
The text does not say that at all, you are reading your belief into it ... it says the apostles HEARD that Samaria had received the Word, and they sent John and Peter to check it out for themselves.
It is apparent to me that the conversion of the Samarians was a unique event in Acts like no other ... and that was for a specific purpose ... to confirm to the apostles that Samarians (and Gentiles) were to be included in the body of Christ.
You shouldn't. But as my Greek professor taught me long ago ... knowledge puffs up, but using knowledge correctly will cause clarification.
With a hammer, a screwdriver, and a pair of pliers you could fix alot of things wrong with your car. But you wouldn't want to attempt to change out a piston with only these tools.
Greek is a tool ... it is a tool in your toolbox of Biblical interpretation ... nothing more. Do not despise the original languages because you despise the compilers of some modern Greek text.
Greek is a highly inflected language, English is not. There are plenty of places where the specific tense in the Greek is used to highlight something that is not possible in a rigid literal word-for-word translation. That is why we have commentaries ... and the better ones all include a translation and explanation of the Greek nuances. Are there some bad ones? Absolutelty, but it is much easier to decide which are good and which are bad if we can read the original languages.
All right, let’s see your cross-referencing between water baptism and priesthood anywhere in the entire Bible.
Ceremonial-washing and the ritual purity of priests before approaching God is particularly noted in the Old Testament.
Let's see your cross-referencing for dispensationalism.
The bracketed words in red in my post are not in my edition of the KJV at all.
bookmark
Peter says hi! I Peter 3:21
How does this statement reconcile with John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Either He cares or He does not care if we reject His word. Is it "petty" for Him to demand we keep His word?
The prime question one should ask himself is, Who is Lord? Because, how can we say Jesus is Lord and we decide what is important and what is petty?
Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Jesus did not speak about petty things when he was on this earth. Most petty things that are attributed to God are really constructs of man.
Like Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
So the "petty" things being discussed here most certainly can't be baptism.
“If you are really interested in what the New Testament says learn Koine Greek and read the original document.”
I do read NT Greek. No one reads the “original document” - you reveal your lack of knowledge by writing that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.