PDA

View Full Version : What is Acts 9 Dispensationalism?



Nimrod
November 23rd, 2004, 11:01 PM
I did a google search, please tell me where it is wrong so I could better understand you better.

Ultra Dispensationalism A dispensationalism scheme with more than one dispensation between Pentecost and the Millennial Kingdom. Salvation in certain dispensations may require actions other than faith, such as baptism or circumcision.

OverviewUltradispensationalim's major difference from other dispensational schemes is the distinction of more than one dispensation from the time of Pentecost in Acts 2 until the millennial kingdom. The prefix "ultra" does not imply anything more significant than seeing a greater number of dispensations than a "classic" dispensational scheme. It is not meant to imply that the view is fanatical or even incorrect.

Different Flavors of Ultra-Dispensationalism
1. Acts 9 Dispensationalism. The church (the body of Christ) begins with Paul in Acts 9. The Gospels, 1 & 2 Peter, James, and the early Pauline epistles are inapplicable to the believer today.
2. Acts 9, 12 out Dispensationalism. The same as the previous example, but emphasizes that the original 12 disciples are not in the body of Christ.
3. Acts 28 Dispensationalism. The church (the body of Christ) does not begin until Acts 28. Almost the entirety of the New Testament is viewed as given to the Jews and inapplicable to the believer today.

Common Beliefs of Ultra-Dispensationalists
1. Peter's ministry is completely distinct from Paul's. Peter taught a different gospel , one that included being baptized in order to be saved. The believer today has no reason to be baptized, because it was in a previous dispensation and is no longer a requirement.
2. Salvation today, in the current dispensation, is by grace through faith, apart from baptism, circumcision, or any other work. But this has not always been so.
3. The body of Christ did not begin until Paul began his ministry to Gentiles.
4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church, not members of the body of Christ, and not equal to Paul's church.

csmuda
November 23rd, 2004, 11:55 PM
Think meat cleaver chopping a gideon bible to bits. THAT's dispensationalism. classical, hyper, ultra, progressive...chop chop chop chop chop chop chop (rwahtly dawviiidding the warrd of Gawd)

Nimrod
November 24th, 2004, 01:42 PM
I am getting no responses from the Hyper/Ultra/Mid-Acts dispensationalist, I must have hit a nerve.

Do a google search on "Acts 9 Dispensationalism", and you will find out that some of these groups that believe in this are actually cults!

See
http://www.afcministry.com/AFC_Mid%20Acts%20Concerns.mp3

Delmar
November 24th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

I am getting no responses from the Hyper/Ultra/Mid-Acts dispensationalist, I must have hit a nerve.

Do a google search on "Acts 9 Dispensationalism", and you will find out that some of these groups that believe in this are actually cults!

See
http://www.afcministry.com/AFC_Mid%20Acts%20Concerns.mp3 I've listened to part of it so far (got interupted) he claims that we are KJV only. not true.

Chileice
November 24th, 2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by csmuda

Think meat cleaver chopping a gideon bible to bits. THAT's dispensationalism. classical, hyper, ultra, progressive...chop chop chop chop chop chop chop (rwahtly dawviiidding the warrd of Gawd)

Very well painted picture, I must say. And pretty accurate, too!

Nimrod
November 24th, 2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar

I've listened to part of it so far (got interupted) he claims that we are KJV only. not true.

Oh, I agree that no one that I know of on this board are KJV Only.

Other than that, what about the other points, were they correct?

elohiym
November 24th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Common Beliefs of Ultra-Dispensationalists
.................................................. .......
3. The body of Christ did not begin until Paul began his ministry to Gentiles.
.................................................. .......The Body of Christ began with Paul's ministry? I thought the Body of Christ "began" with Christ.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10The people who believe that the Body of Christ began with Paul's ministry do not understand what the body of Christ is.

If any of those people are reading this, please read all three parts of my post What a BODY. You can read it by clicking
here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=586548#post586548). I hope it helps you.

Delmar
November 24th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by csmuda

Think meat cleaver chopping a gideon bible to bits. THAT's dispensationalism. classical, hyper, ultra, progressive...chop chop chop chop chop chop chop (rwahtly dawviiidding the warrd of Gawd) There is nothing in the Bible that I would chop !

Knight
November 24th, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by csmuda

Think meat cleaver chopping a gideon bible to bits. THAT's dispensationalism. classical, hyper, ultra, progressive...chop chop chop chop chop chop chop (rwahtly dawviiidding the warrd of Gawd) How does it feel to wake up every morning being such a doofus?

Knight
November 24th, 2004, 06:48 PM
Nimrod I recommend reading this short overview... Testing the Things that Differ. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums//showthread.php?postid=8492#post8492)

drbrumley
November 24th, 2004, 06:52 PM
Knight, Numnuts knows about this already and has made his mind up and seeks to ridicule and mock. Same ole same ole

Delmar
November 24th, 2004, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod


Common Beliefs of Ultra-Dispensationalists
1. Peter's ministry is completely distinct from Paul's. Peter taught a different gospel , one that included being baptized in order to be saved. The believer today has no reason to be baptized, because it was in a previous dispensation and is no longer a requirement.
2. Salvation today, in the current dispensation, is by grace through faith, apart from baptism, circumcision, or any other work. But this has not always been so.
3. The body of Christ did not begin until Paul began his ministry to Gentiles.
4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church, not members of the body of Christ, and not equal to Paul's church. I don't have a problem with any of this except for no. 4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church. The Body of Christ includes both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers.

Knight
November 24th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

Knight, Numnuts knows about this already and has made his mind up and seeks to ridicule and mock. Same ole same ole Ouch! :eek:

Lighthouse
November 24th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

I did a google search, please tell me where it is wrong so I could better understand you better.

Ultra Dispensationalism A dispensationalism scheme with more than one dispensation between Pentecost and the Millennial Kingdom. Salvation in certain dispensations may require actions other than faith, such as baptism or circumcision.
Actually, they are actions of faith. Not actions apart from faith. And they are only actions of following the law. Minus the sacraficesm, because Christ was the final sacrafice.


OverviewUltradispensationalim's major difference from other dispensational schemes is the distinction of more than one dispensation from the time of Pentecost in Acts 2 until the millennial kingdom. The prefix "ultra" does not imply anything more significant than seeing a greater number of dispensations than a "classic" dispensational scheme. It is not meant to imply that the view is fanatical or even incorrect.
Okay.


Different Flavors of Ultra-Dispensationalism
1. Acts 9 Dispensationalism. The church (the body of Christ) begins with Paul in Acts 9. The Gospels, 1 & 2 Peter, James, and the early Pauline epistles are inapplicable to the believer today.
I wouldn't call them inapplicable. I would say there are things that are not applicable to believers today. And there are also things that were not applicable to believers back then. Whoever things were written to are who they are applicable to. 1 John was written to unbelievers, offering the gospel.


2. Acts 9, 12 out Dispensationalism. The same as the previous example, but emphasizes that the original 12 disciples are not in the body of Christ.
I thought it was that the 12 tribes were out. Since Israel, as a whole, rejected Messiah. And salvation was brought to individuals, after that. Any other Acts 9/12 outer care to let me know?


3. Acts 28 Dispensationalism. The church (the body of Christ) does not begin until Acts 28. Almost the entirety of the New Testament is viewed as given to the Jews and inapplicable to the believer today.
Never heard of this. How do they differentiate? Do they believe Paul's letters are applicable?


Common Beliefs of Ultra-Dispensationalists
1. Peter's ministry is completely distinct from Paul's. Peter taught a different gospel , one that included being baptized in order to be saved. The believer today has no reason to be baptized, because it was in a previous dispensation and is no longer a requirement.
Okay.


2. Salvation today, in the current dispensation, is by grace through faith, apart from baptism, circumcision, or any other work. But this has not always been so.
Yeah. But faith has always been a part of it.


3. The body of Christ did not begin until Paul began his ministry to Gentiles.
Uh huh.


4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church, not members of the body of Christ, and not equal to Paul's church.
I'm goin' with delmar on this one.

csmuda
November 25th, 2004, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Knight

How does it feel to wake up every morning being such a doofus? Not very good. but he asked 'please tell him where it is wrong.' I apologize for being cruel and thoughtless. Dispensationalism (in all forms) is theologically shallow and misguided. All the enegy spent on this very young dogma, tsk. allow me to quote Robert E. Webber from his book "Common Roots"
...the biblical idea of the church as the new creation challenges the overemphasis on the church as "invisible" or "spiritual." Some of us have failed to come to grips with the biblical emphasis on the church as a visible entity within history. In our century, this failure, at least in part, may be attributed to the heavy concentration on the future through the influence of a misguided understanding of premillennialism. Because the new creation has been regarded as a future event, the church in the present is often viewed as unimportant as compared with the church in the future. Thus, the emphasis has fallen naturally on the church in the mind of God, the church which will be raised in the Rapture, the church which will return with Christ to reign in the millennium. Furthermore, among some, this view has propagated a conviction that the established church is an apostate instrument of Satan, a means by which even the elect will be led astray. This emphasis has created (especially among fundamentalist and dispensationalist evangelicals) an anti-institutional bias, and a schismatic remnant mentality. The most extreme result of this is a suspicious attitude toward any emphasis on the church as a visible and tangible society in the world. Christ is reigning now as King on the throne of David. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything. The time when God will "restore everything" refers to the second coming- not the "pretrib rapture"- the last judgment, and the removal of sin from the world. (Acts 3:21).

All the pivotal turns in history as recorded in canon are merely Christ's Kingdom spreading through His Holy Spirit in the visible church. I don't know, I guess I am a doofus, but; Church history is just the Lord Jesus Christ building His Church visibly. The visible Christian church on earth with the Holy Spirit residing in the body of believers is where and how He will destroy all dominion, authority and power for He must reign until He has put all His eneimies under His feet. He is building His church now, right now, everyday. Not in some future physical literal 1,000 years on earth but now.

Study historical theology, not dispensationalism. :Servent:

Lighthouse
November 26th, 2004, 12:13 AM
If that is Webber's idea of dispensationalism, then he has no idea what dispensationalism is. The church exists now. And is great, and should be great. And it is very visible, and very tangible. And should be, even moreso than it is. There are too many cowards in our congregations today. People, too afraid to speak out against the ungodly ways of life that we see. Even within our own fellowship. The church should rise up, and be the voice of God to this planet. Speaking against, not only immorality among the godless, or injustices and atrocities [whether in the name of God, or not], but also against the lies preached within the walls of "churches" everywhere. Now is as good a time as any to preach the truth of the freedom we have in Christ. Affirm what Paul wrote: Freedom in Christ! And silence the lies that keep people bound! We are dead to sin! How can we live in it any longer?!

Clete
November 26th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by csmuda
All the enegy spent on this very young dogma, tsk.
I wonder if anyone ever said such a thing to Luther or Calvin? :think:

Nimrod
November 26th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

The church exists now. And is great, and should be great. And it is very visible, and very tangible.

Tell that to Calvin and Luther. This would raise another question, What is the one true church that is visible?


Ooops, I forgot, dispensationalist don't like Church history, especially when it disagrees with them.:eek:

Lighthouse
November 26th, 2004, 08:29 PM
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know who the one true church is, Nimrod.

Delmar
November 27th, 2004, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Tell that to Calvin and Luther. This would raise another question, What is the one true church that is visible?


Ooops, I forgot, dispensationalist don't like Church history, especially when it disagrees with them.:eek: It's not that I don't like Church history, but that the history of the "Christian Church" is , indeed very very sad and has much to be blamed for!

csmuda
November 27th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Calvin and Luther were amillennialists, not dispensationalists. But I suppose they wasted some time on their arguments about the sacrament communion.

Nimrod
November 27th, 2004, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know who the one true church is, Nimrod.

I didn't ask "who", I ask "what".
Any theologian before 1800A.D. were not dispensationalists(they didn't exist ).

Clete
November 27th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

I didn't ask "who", I ask "what".
Any theologian before 1800A.D. were not dispensationalists(they didn't exist ).

This may be true as far as the formal title "dispensationalist" is concerned but I can assure you that Paul did believe and teach that quite a bit had changed since the time Jesus was present in His earthly ministry. He clearly taught that Israel had been cut off and joined, in effect, in unbelief with the gentiles; that there was no longer any distinction between the two with respect to having a relationship with God. He also taught that the Mosaic Law no longer played a part in the life of a believer, that we as believers are no longer under the law. And I could go on and on and on. The point being, that the date is irrelevant to the truth. The question is, "What is or is not true (Biblical) about Dispensationalism?", not "How long has Dispensationalism been a formalized system of theology?"

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sozo
November 27th, 2004, 05:54 PM
The word "dispensationalism" simply means a belief in the fact that at one time God has dispensed or removed something that was not previously dispensed or removed.

To claim that there is no such thing as a time when God did not dispense or remove something that had not previously been dispensed or removed is the height of ignorance.

Genesis 1

"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

Revelation 22

"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever."

Clete
November 27th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

The word "dispensationalism" simply means a belief in the fact that at one time God has dispensed or removed something that was not previously dispensed or removed.

To claim that there is no such thing as a time when God did not dispense or remove something that had not previously been dispensed or removed is the height of ignorance.

Genesis 1

"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light."

Revelation 22

"And there shall no longer be any night; and they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever."
Is this post brilliant or what?!
The "dispensation of light"! I love it! :BRAVO:

Resting in Him,
Clete

1PeaceMaker
November 27th, 2004, 06:19 PM
:cough:

Sozo.... ahem...

Wouldn't you also say that some of what Dispensationalists say goes against the Gospel?

Lighthouse
November 27th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

I didn't ask "who", I ask "what".
Any theologian before 1800A.D. were not dispensationalists(they didn't exist ).
the church is not a what, Nimrod. It is a who. It is us. We are the church.

1PeaceMaker-
What type of dispensationalist? Acts 2 dispensationalists contradict the gospel. But Acts 9 dispensationalists do not.

Sozo
November 27th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

:cough:

Sozo.... ahem...

Wouldn't you also say that some of what Dispensationalists say goes against the Gospel?
Perhaps... what did you have in mind?

billwald
November 27th, 2004, 11:47 PM
Ultradispensationalism - the theory that the Church began with Paul. Ultradispensationalists generally consider Paul to be the ultimate authority, not Jesus, because Jesus preached in the OT Dispensation.

Delmar
November 28th, 2004, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by billwald

Ultradispensationalism - the theory that the Church began with Paul. Ultradispensationalists generally consider Paul to be the ultimate authority, not Jesus, because Jesus preached in the OT Dispensation. Not quite accurate. The body known as the Body of Christ began when Isreal was cut off. Christ at or about the same time met Saul on the road to Damascus, changed his heart and sent him out to preach the Gospel of Grace among the gentiles. Paul had no authority that was not granted him by Jesus Christ.

Nimrod
November 29th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer I can assure you that Paul did believe and teach that quite a bit had changed since the time Jesus was present in His earthly ministry. He clearly taught that Israel had been cut off and joined, in effect, in unbelief with the gentiles;Clete

Jesus speaking to the Jews said in Matt 23 "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

Jesus said to the "Gentile" Samaritan woman in John 4:20-24 Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Summary Jesus did speak of the Jews being cut off(desolate) and that the gentiles are part of the true believers.



Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer that there was no longer any distinction between the two with respect to having a relationship with God. Clete

Both Jesus and Paul taught that.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He(Paul) also taught that the Mosaic Law no longer played a part in the life of a believer, that we as believers are no longer under the law.


Paul said in Romans chapter 6 to follow the law
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid

Summary , Paul did teach that the law is part of the believer.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

I could go on and on. The point being, dispensationalism is wrong.

philosophizer
November 29th, 2004, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Paul said in Romans chapter 6 to follow the law
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid



The operative part being "because we are not under the law, but under grace"

Paul affirmed that we were not under the Law. The "God forbid" part was meant to be applied to the "shall we sin" part, not the "we are not under the law" part. :doh:

Sozo
November 29th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

The operative part being "because we are not under the law, but under grace"

Paul affirmed that we were not under the Law. The "God forbid" part was meant to be applied to the "shall we sin" part, not the "we are not under the law" part. :doh:

Nimrod is such a doofus. :dunce:

Nimrod
November 29th, 2004, 03:46 PM
You guys are so confused.:confused:

Clete post stated
He(Paul) also taught that the Mosaic Law no longer played a part in the life of a believer,

That statement is false. Paul said "God forbid".

Then Clete stated
that we as believers are no longer under the law.

When were believers "under the law" by means of salvation? They never were. It was always saved by God's grace through faith.



Originally posted by philosophizer

The operative part being "because we are not under the law, but under grace"

Paul affirmed that we were not under the Law. The "God forbid" part was meant to be applied to the "shall we sin" part, not the "we are not under the law" part. :doh:

Question for philosopher. When were the believers "under the law".

Ok here we go again, dispensationalist are unable to grasp this, but I'll try again. As for SALVATION, being under the law saved no one. In that sense, believers were never "under the law". As for SANTIFICATION believers are to uphold the law. Both Paul and Jesus taught this.

philosophizer
November 29th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Question for philosopher. When were the believers "under the law".
Believers are not "under the law." They are in Christ who died to the law. We are no longer slaves, but free. Why should we want to go back under that yoke? Christ's yoke is lighter and his burden easier.




Ok here we go again, dispensationalist are unable to grasp this, but I'll try again. As for SALVATION, being under the law saved no one. In that sense, believers were never "under the law". As for SANTIFICATION believers are to uphold the law. Both Paul and Jesus taught this.
"SALVATION...... SANCTIFICATION......" or do you really mean SAVED and SAVED MORE?

Sozo
November 29th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Believers are not "under the law." They are in Christ who died to the law. We are no longer slaves, but free. Why should we want to go back under that yoke? Christ's yoke is lighter and his burden easier.




"SALVATION...... SANCTIFICATION......" or do you really mean SAVED and SAVED MORE?
phil...

Nimrod does not believe that Jesus is Savior, He is simply his probation officer. He only frees you til' you screw up again. :kookoo:

Nimrod
November 29th, 2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Believers are not "under the law." They are in Christ who died to the law. We are no longer slaves, but free. Why should we want to go back under that yoke? Christ's yoke is lighter and his burden easier.




"SALVATION...... SANCTIFICATION......" or do you really mean SAVED and SAVED MORE?

Okay so you didn't answer my question. I'll ask again, but I know dispensationalist have a real hard time with giving an answer.

QUESTION: When were believers "under the law"?

I know it is a tough question. :help:

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2004, 05:16 PM
Believers were under the law, before Christ's sacrifice.
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."
-Romans 10:4

If Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, then there must have been a beginning of the law for righteousness.

"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them."
-Romans 10:5

Before the dispensation of grace, believers were under the law. They were saved by grace, through faith...with the works of the law. Their adherence to the law were works of faith. They were to circumcise, we are not. Not for the sake of righteousness.

Nimrod
November 29th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Obviously Phil ran from answering that question. It was too comdemning for his theology.

But thank you Lighthouse for answering. You gave the reason why Dispensationalism is wrong. Works were never part of salvation!

Since you like Romans, you need to deal with Romans 4
4:3 for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'

How do you deal with Abraham being declared "righteous" apart from the law?

When anyone says "works" were required, they are really saying that one can lose their salvation. Dispensationalism teachs that the OT saints could lose their salvation, as if God's grace was not sufficient. They are really saying "God did 99%, now they have to do the other 1%".

Turbo
November 29th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

QUESTION: When were believers "under the law"?
See Battle Royale VIII

Lighthouse
November 29th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Obviously Phil ran from answering that question. It was too comdemning for his theology.

But thank you Lighthouse for answering. You gave the reason why Dispensationalism is wrong. Works were never part of salvation!

Since you like Romans, you need to deal with Romans 4
4:3 for what doth the writing say? `And Abraham did believe God, and it was reckoned to him -- to righteousness;'

How do you deal with Abraham being declared "righteous" apart from the law?

When anyone says "works" were required, they are really saying that one can lose their salvation. Dispensationalism teachs that the OT saints could lose their salvation, as if God's grace was not sufficient. They are really saying "God did 99%, now they have to do the other 1%".
Abraham was before Moses. And I never said that the chosen of Christ could lose their salvation. But if they failed in a work of the law, they had to make a sacrafice, for restitution. And they had to be circumcised to be counted among God's chosen people, as well.

philosophizer
November 30th, 2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Obviously Phil ran from answering that question.

Obviously. :rolleyes:

Nimrod
November 30th, 2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Abraham was before Moses. And I never said that the chosen of Christ could lose their salvation. But if they failed in a work of the law, they had to make a sacrafice, for restitution. And they had to be circumcised to be counted among God's chosen people, as well.

So what happened to the people during the 70 year exile who had no temple for sacrificing? Did they die and went to hell because there was no way for them to do a biblical sacrafice?

What about the Northen Kingdom? They had no temple. Are you saying they all went to hell?

philosophizer
November 30th, 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

So what happened to the people during the 70 year exile who had no temple for sacrificing? Did they die and went to hell because there was no way for them to do a biblical sacrafice?


Um... Tent of Meeting...

1PeaceMaker
November 30th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Perhaps... what did you have in mind? For starters, the slicing apart of "Paul's Gospel" vs. "Peter's Gospel".

There is only ONE Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the only Gospel that has EVER been. Even Abraham accepted it, via the seed in him, Christ. He was saved on an unsealed promise, yet to be secured by our Lord. Remember, God told Abraham to be perfect, and He really meant it.

1Co 1:12,13 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided?"

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1PeaceMaker
November 30th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by philosophizer

Um... Tent of Meeting... The yearly blood of Atonement had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat, requiring the ark of the covenant. Nimrod's point is still valid.

Hilston
November 30th, 2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

For starters, the slicing apart of "Paul's Gospel" vs. "Peter's Gospel".

There is only ONE Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the only Gospel that has EVER been. Even Abraham accepted it, via the seed in him, Christ. He was saved on an unsealed promise, yet to be secured by our Lord. Remember, God told Abraham to be perfect, and He really meant it.That's not true, 1PM. See the following link:

The Seven Ones (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm).

elohiym
November 30th, 2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

That's not true, 1PM. See the following link:

The Seven Ones (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm). From your paper:

"For the Body of Christ, there is one and only one baptism, namely, that of the Spirit without water."

I assume then, you have not been water baptized? Are you telling me that God was not talking to ALL his children when he stated:
Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. Eze 36:25:think:

Anyway, I don't think you'll do well advising people to reject the council of God, telling them they are not to baptize with water.

Hilston
November 30th, 2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by elohiym
From your paper:

"For the Body of Christ, there is one and only one baptism, namely, that of the Spirit without water."

I assume then, you have not been water baptized?I have. Twice. Once as an infant. And once as a misguided young believer. I renounce both of them and those sins are forgiven.


Originally posted by elohiym
Are you telling me that God was not talking to ALL his children when he stated: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. Eze 36:25"

:think:I find it fascinating that you chose to use Israel's scriptures about their future kingdom to prove water baptism for today. Notice where your logic leads. If Ezekiel's message affirms water baptism for today, then it affirms blood sacrifice and burnt offering as well. Consider the following:

Ezekiel 40:39
And in the porch of the gate [were] two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.

Ezekiel 40:42
And the four tables [were] of hewn stone for the burnt offering, of a cubit and an half long, and a cubit and an half broad, and one cubit high: whereupon also they laid the instruments wherewith they slew the burnt offering and the sacrifice.

Ezekiel 44:27
And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 45:19
And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

Ezekiel 45:22
And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock [for] a sin offering.

Those are a small sample of passages from Ezekiel's prophecy. There are tons more. By your logic, burnt offerings and blood sacrifice should be observed as well.


[i]Originally posted by elohiym
Anyway, I don't think you'll do well advising people to reject the council of God, telling them they are not to baptize with water. You presume to understand the counsel of God. It is scripture that prohibits water baptism; not me. Here's another passage from Ezekiel that you should compare with other scripture:

Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part [to give] burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Compare that to the following:
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

This is a prohibition. Do not let anyone regulate you, judge you, impose upon you anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature, including the very things found in Israel's scriptures.

BChristianK
November 30th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Hilston, Lighthouse, Et. All.

I have read “Testing Things That Differ. I have read Bob Hills book “The Big Difference, and I’ve read about 1/3 of the way through The Plot (a friend loaned it to me but I had to give it back before I was finished).

I can say that I have met Bob Hill and I think he is a kind, honest and humble man. I think that he believes what he believes because he is truly convinced that what he believes is true. I have also met (briefly) Bob Enyart and, from what little I know of him, I think I can say the same is true of him. I think they both make some salient points that need to be addressed in biblical exegesis, yet I can honestly say that were I to pick up the New Testament and read it straight through, I would never have come up with a dispensational model.

What that suggests to me is that individuals like Bob Hill and Bob Enyart have pointed out some interesting questions in biblical interpretation and have employed a theological framework that accounts for them. Where I begin to disagree with them, is not in the asking of those questions but that the framework does not appear to me to be biblically derived. Rather, it appears to be formed extra-biblically.

Now that may sound like somewhat of a harsh criticism but it really isn’t meant to be. Everyone employs some extra-biblical methodologies in exegeting scripture. In fact, I don’t know that there is a way to construct a systematic theology without some extra-biblical methodologies. The extra-biblical methodology of many non-dispensationalist covenantalists is to harmonize all passages that appear to be inconsistent. The dispensationalists claim that this methodology is a flawed method, and in some instances, I would agree. The dispensationalist starts with the assumption that there must be a better way to account for those apparent inconsistencies and begin employing the use of dispensations.

The one question that I have always had and that I don’t feel like I have ever received an answer that I can live with is, “why is importing dispensations into the text a better method of explaining apparent scriptural inconsistencies than the harmonization of scripture?

This particular question has been compounded by another nagging question.

One of the things that kept me from going buying an acts 9 interpretation was the noticeable lack of any clear retraction of baptism in any of the Pauline epistles or otherwise. In fact, every single book of the New Testament was written after the conversion of Paul, and not a single one ever says, “stop baptizing.” Paul makes a peripheral statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize (a clause that has a number of plausible non-dispensational interpretations) but not one scriptural command from Paul to discontinue baptism. And that is, to me at least, somewhat peculiar since we have Matthew concluding his gospel with a commission from Christ that not only includes baptism but gives careful instruction as to how it is to be carried out, with no comment by the biblical author that Christ’s words were inapplicable to anyone before the ink dried. Sure, a dispensational model allows for them to be relevant to the disciples to whom they were spoken, but by the time they were written an acts 9 dispensational model already has them as obsolete and replaced by an economy that no longer requires baptism. Furthermore, we have Luke-Acts written by a companion of Paul who most likely converted after Acts 9 but certainly wrote his narrative account after acts 9 (since he includes it in his narrative); Luke writes to a decidedly Greek recipient (Theophilus) and is careful to his tell his Greek audience about the repeated instances of water baptism (including baptisms performed by Paul) and was likewise careful to meticulously recount sermons that commanded baptism. The troubling thing is, there is not even one a parenthetical placed by the author in any of these books, all of them written well after the conversion of Paul, that tells us clearly that God’s plan for baptism has changed. And, it seams to me, that unless you import a dispensational model into the text, you have no means of arriving at the conclusion that God has, in fact, repealed baptism.

So the question that I have is, “how do Acts 9 Dispensationalists justify the putting away baptism when their appears to be no clear biblical mandate to do so?”

I hope that this post will not be taken as an attack, but rather an attempt to get some questions answered, and spark some good natured discussion on the topic amongst believers who all endeavor to seek the truth.

CariV kai Eirhnh

Knight
December 1st, 2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

That's not true, 1PM. See the following link:

The Seven Ones (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm). Excellent! :up:

Lighthouse
December 1st, 2004, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

The yearly blood of Atonement had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat, requiring the ark of the covenant. Nimrod's point is still valid.
The forty year exile.:think:

Wasn't that before the law?:doh:

Lighthouse
December 1st, 2004, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by elohiym

From your paper:

"For the Body of Christ, there is one and only one baptism, namely, that of the Spirit without water."

I assume then, you have not been water baptized? Are you telling me that God was not talking to ALL his children when he stated::think:

Anyway, I don't think you'll do well advising people to reject the council of God, telling them they are not to baptize with water.
More works salvation.:nono:

Lighthouse
December 1st, 2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Hilston, Lighthouse, Et. All.

I have read “Testing Things That Differ. I have read Bob Hills book “The Big Difference, and I’ve read about 1/3 of the way through The Plot (a friend loaned it to me but I had to give it back before I was finished).

I can say that I have met Bob Hill and I think he is a kind, honest and humble man. I think that he believes what he believes because he is truly convinced that what he believes is true. I have also met (briefly) Bob Enyart and, from what little I know of him, I think I can say the same is true of him. I think they both make some salient points that need to be addressed in biblical exegesis, yet I can honestly say that were I to pick up the New Testament and read it straight through, I would never have come up with a dispensational model.

What that suggests to me is that individuals like Bob Hill and Bob Enyart have pointed out some interesting questions in biblical interpretation and have employed a theological framework that accounts for them. Where I begin to disagree with them, is not in the asking of those questions but that the framework does not appear to me to be biblically derived. Rather, it appears to be formed extra-biblically.

Now that may sound like somewhat of a harsh criticism but it really isn’t meant to be. Everyone employs some extra-biblical methodologies in exegeting scripture. In fact, I don’t know that there is a way to construct a systematic theology without some extra-biblical methodologies. The extra-biblical methodology of many non-dispensationalist covenantalists is to harmonize all passages that appear to be inconsistent. The dispensationalists claim that this methodology is a flawed method, and in some instances, I would agree. The dispensationalist starts with the assumption that there must be a better way to account for those apparent inconsistencies and begin employing the use of dispensations.

The one question that I have always had and that I don’t feel like I have ever received an answer that I can live with is, “why is importing dispensations into the text a better method of explaining apparent scriptural inconsistencies than the harmonization of scripture?

This particular question has been compounded by another nagging question.

One of the things that kept me from going buying an acts 9 interpretation was the noticeable lack of any clear retraction of baptism in any of the Pauline epistles or otherwise. In fact, every single book of the New Testament was written after the conversion of Paul, and not a single one ever says, “stop baptizing.” Paul makes a peripheral statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize (a clause that has a number of plausible non-dispensational interpretations) but not one scriptural command from Paul to discontinue baptism. And that is, to me at least, somewhat peculiar since we have Matthew concluding his gospel with a commission from Christ that not only includes baptism but gives careful instruction as to how it is to be carried out, with no comment by the biblical author that Christ’s words were inapplicable to anyone before the ink dried. Sure, a dispensational model allows for them to be relevant to the disciples to whom they were spoken, but by the time they were written an acts 9 dispensational model already has them as obsolete and replaced by an economy that no longer requires baptism. Furthermore, we have Luke-Acts written by a companion of Paul who most likely converted after Acts 9 but certainly wrote his narrative account after acts 9 (since he includes it in his narrative); Luke writes to a decidedly Greek recipient (Theophilus) and is careful to his tell his Greek audience about the repeated instances of water baptism (including baptisms performed by Paul) and was likewise careful to meticulously recount sermons that commanded baptism. The troubling thing is, there is not even one a parenthetical placed by the author in any of these books, all of them written well after the conversion of Paul, that tells us clearly that God’s plan for baptism has changed. And, it seams to me, that unless you import a dispensational model into the text, you have no means of arriving at the conclusion that God has, in fact, repealed baptism.

So the question that I have is, “how do Acts 9 Dispensationalists justify the putting away baptism when their appears to be no clear biblical mandate to do so?”

I hope that this post will not be taken as an attack, but rather an attempt to get some questions answered, and spark some good natured discussion on the topic amongst believers who all endeavor to seek the truth.

CariV kai Eirhnh
"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me."
-1 Corinthians 9:17
"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on the earth; even in him:"
-Ephesians 1:10
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:"
-Ephesians 3:2
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God:"
-Colossians 1:25

Hilston
December 1st, 2004, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK
Hilston, Lighthouse, Et. All. ... I can say that I have met Bob Hill ... I have also met (briefly) Bob Enyart ...I am guessing that you made these statements on the assumption that I adhere to the doctrines espoused by these men. This is a false assumption, and while there may be a few similarities between their theology and mine, the differences are so vital and fundamental that I fully repudiate any connection to them whatsoever and I oppose being mentioned in connection with them in any way.


Originally posted by BChristianK
... yet I can honestly say that were I to pick up the New Testament and read it straight through, I would never have come up with a dispensational model.That's because you mistakenly assume harmony is the absence of distinctions. If you come to a verse in which Paul tells you that certain information had been held in silence, completely hidden from the Jewish prophets (Ro 11:25 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16), shouldn't that tell you that there is a difference between their message and Paul's? When you read the New Testament straight through, the differences between Peter's teachings and Paul's teachings are glaring, unless, of course, you're determined to mash everything together into an amalgamated lump of confusion and murkiness.


Originally posted by BChristianK
The one question that I have always had and that I don’t feel like I have ever received an answer that I can live with is, “why is importing dispensations into the text a better method of explaining apparent scriptural inconsistencies than the harmonization of scripture?First of all, it isn't an importation. The word and concept (oikonomia = household law, 1Co 9:17 Eph 1:10 3:2 Col 1:25) are patently taught in scripture. Paul said the grace given to him was to the intent that he make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph 3:9). How can you miss this? Furthermore, what you call harmonization, I call eisogetical shoehorning. The true harmonization of scripture is achieved by rightly dividing the Word of truth, making exegetically clear and logically sound distinctions between Israel's scriptures and the Body-of-Christ's.


Originally posted by BChristianK
One of the things that kept me from going buying an acts 9 interpretation was the noticeable lack of any clear retraction of baptism in any of the Pauline epistles or otherwise.One baptism. How much more clear can one be? The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be? The Body of Christ is seated above angels, and therefore above ritual ceremony (1Co 6:3 Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10). Taken alone, these facts are compelling. Taken together, the argument is inescapable.


Originally posted by BChristianK
In fact, every single book of the New Testament was written after the conversion of Paul, and not a single one ever says, “stop baptizing.”Did you read the aforementioned link? Not only does it make the case for eschewing water baptism, but for shunning all ceremonial rituals and practices as well. You have more than one "single verse" saying "stop baptizing." There's a whole host of biblical principles that apply. Furthermore, yours is an argument from silence. The purpose of the Greek scriptures outside of the Pauline corpus is to record the historical narratives of the Messiah's life, death, resurrection and ascension, the decline of the nation of Israel, and prescriptions for future Israel.


Originally posted by BChristianK
Paul makes a peripheral statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize (a clause that has a number of plausible non-dispensational interpretations) but not one scriptural command from Paul to discontinue baptism.Ask yourself this question: In light of Mt 28:19,20, could Peter have uttered those words?


Originally posted by BChristianK
And that is, to me at least, somewhat peculiar since we have Matthew concluding his gospel with a commission from Christ that not only includes baptism but gives careful instruction as to how it is to be carried out, with no comment by the biblical author that Christ’s words were inapplicable to anyone before the ink dried.It was not the place or role of the disciples of the Kingdom to say anything concerning the Body of Christ. They were not authorized, and chain of communication is especially important. That is the whole point of the first chapter of Galatians.


Originally posted by BChristianK
Sure, a dispensational model allows for them to be relevant to the disciples to whom they were spoken, but by the time they were written an acts 9 dispensational model already has them as obsolete and replaced by an economy that no longer requires baptism.Everything that was written by the non-Pauline writers of the Greek scriptures pertained either to historical narrative or future Israel. Their writings are no more obselete than the Old Testament.


Originally posted by BChristianK
Furthermore, we have Luke-Acts written by a companion of Paul who most likely converted after Acts 9 but certainly wrote his narrative account after acts 9 (since he includes it in his narrative); Luke writes to a decidedly Greek recipient (Theophilus) and is careful to his tell his Greek audience about the repeated instances of water baptism (including baptisms performed by Paul) and was likewise careful to meticulously recount sermons that commanded baptism.Theophilus and the Greek audience of Luke would have been water baptized. There is no reason for Luke to step beyond his prescribed role as the recorder of Israel's decline. Furthermore, Luke records the Jewish side of the dual nature of Paul's ministry. Paul not only was the Dispenser of the Mystery, he also ministered to the nation of Israel, confirming the promises of Jehovah to that nation. He celebrated Passover, offered blood sacrifices in the Temple, sponsored ritual circumcisions and vows. And he did all of this righteously and in obedience to the Lord, but for the sake of the nation of Israel. His own hope and calling was apart from that nation, as the charter member of the Body of Christ.


Originally posted by BChristianK
The troubling thing is, there is not even one a parenthetical placed by the author in any of these books, all of them written well after the conversion of Paul, that tells us clearly that God’s plan for baptism has changed.That's because it hadn't changed for elect Israel and gentile proselytes.


Originally posted by BChristianK
And, it seams to me, that unless you import a dispensational model into the text, you have no means of arriving at the conclusion that God has, in fact, repealed baptism.If you maintain this view, it isn't because of a rational assessment of the biblical data. It will be because you have an arbitrary preference.


Originally posted by BChristianK
I hope that this post will not be taken as an attack, but rather an attempt to get some questions answered, and spark some good natured discussion on the topic amongst believers who all endeavor to seek the truth.I appreciate the irenic tone of your post. Please let me know if you have further questions or require further elaboration.

Nimrod
December 1st, 2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

I find it fascinating that you chose to use Israel's scriptures about their future kingdom to prove water baptism for today. Notice where your logic leads. If Ezekiel's message affirms water baptism for today, then it affirms blood sacrifice and burnt offering as well. Consider the following:

Ezekiel 40:39, 40:42, 44:27, 45:19, 45:22


Hilston just admitted to all that in the future, Israel will have their sins forgiven by blood sacrafice. He rejects the idea that Christ's sacrafice was the end of all sacrafices.

This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all. :kookoo:

1PeaceMaker
December 1st, 2004, 11:50 AM
Lighthouse wrote;


The forty year exile.

Wasn't that before the law?

:confused:

What are you talking about????

1PeaceMaker
December 1st, 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

More works salvation.:nono:

By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for BY THE LAW is the knowledge of sin.

NOT by baptism is the knowledge of sin! :doh:

Baptism is akin to confession.

Hilston
December 1st, 2004, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Hilston just admitted to all that in the future, Israel will have their sins forgiven by blood sacrafice.If you understood the symbolism of blood sacrifices from Abel forward, you would not have made this error, Nimrod. OT blood sacrifices pointed forward to the final sacrifice of the Coming One. NT sacrifices look back in celebration of the final sacrifice of Christ. Ezekiel speaks of future blood sacrifices that celebrate, not replace, Christ's atoning work on Calvary.

What is Ezekiel referring to, according to your view, Nimrod?


Originally posted by Nimrod
He rejects the idea that Christ's sacrafice was the end of all sacrafices.Why should it be? It's the only one that counts for redemption. All other blood sacrifices symbolized and celebrated the one truly efficacious atonement.


Originally posted by Nimrod
This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all. :kookoo: So far, you haven't convinced me that you even understand my position, let alone making any coherent critique of it. Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved?

Nimrod
December 1st, 2004, 03:21 PM
You should go back and read your own post!

In Ezekiel 44:27
And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

If you are true to dispensationalism, which your are one. Then you take the literal approach to understanding Scriptures. This verse speaks about the future millennium temple( so you say above). Notice it does not say "memorial" offering, but sin offering


Ezekiel speaks of future blood sacrifices that celebrate, not replace
There is no word "celebrate" either. How did you come up to this conclusion, when the Bible specifically says sin offering? How do you get by what the Bible clearly and literaly says?

So here we have in the future millenium, Israel making sin offerings. That! contradicts Scripture.



Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved? Huh?
:confused: No.

Hilston
December 1st, 2004, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
You should go back and read your own post!

In Ezekiel 44:27
And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.

If you are true to dispensationalism, which your are one.Again, I'm not convinced you have a clue about what I believe. So far, it appears you're not in any position to critique my view. For example, you write:


Then you take the literal approach to understanding Scriptures.What's that mean? Do you know what a literal approach entails? If you're interested in my hermeneutic, read this link: The Normative Hermeneutic. (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/nherm.htm)


Originally posted by Nimrod
This verse speaks about the future millennium temple (so you say above). Notice it does not say "memorial" offering, but sin offeringExactly. All sin offerings were symbolic of the Messiah's efficacious sacrifice. What part are you not understanding about this?


Originally posted by Nimrod
There is no word "celebrate" either. How did you come up to this conclusion, when the Bible specifically says sin offering?Do you really think the blood of bulls, goats, rams and sheep was sufficient to save?


Originally posted by Nimrod
How do you get by what the Bible clearly and literaly says?Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?

Hilston asked: Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved?

And then, obviously not being able to follow the question or line of reasoning, Nimrod writes:

Originally posted by Nimrod
Huh?
:confused: No. Remember that you wrote this?:

This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all.If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only. Since you do not believe all without exception will be saved, then it is you whose view of the atonement is insufficient. If any single person goes to hell, then the atonement was not sufficient for them. Get it?

Nimrod
December 1st, 2004, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

What's that mean? Do you know what a literal approach entails? If you're interested in my hermeneutic, read this link: The Normative Hermeneutic. (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/nherm.htm)


From the website, Normative hereneutic
B. Phrases and Grammatical Constructions:
Rules: Unless something in the context dictates otherwise, a phrase or grammatical construction is assigned the interpretation that is consistent with its Biblical usage elsewhere in that type of context, its usage in parallel passages, its usage in the LXX, its secular usage, its root meaning, etc.

Ok now let me give you an example from Ezekiel. sin offering.
Go ahead Hilston, check every reference in the Bible for sin offering. For you to take Ezekiel and apply it to the future millennium temple and give it a meaning of a 'memorial sacrafice', would destroy YOUR OWN HERENEUTICS!!!

Stick to this topic, no rabbit trails please. Do you or do you not believe the Scriptures quoted in Eziekel (see previous post) apply to the future millenium? Do you or do you not see the phrase sin offering? How do you interpret from your own system of hereneutics, the Normative hereneutic, that it does not mean what it says?



Originally posted by Hilston
Exactly. All sin offerings were symbolic of the Messiah's efficacious sacrifice. What part are you not understanding about this?

Your belief that Ezekiel wrote sin offering in his description of the future millenium temple. Your normal interpretation says it is for sin and not for celebration/memorial.
You see, you are not following your own hereneutic. How do you interpret the phrase sin offering in Eziekiel?



Originally posted by Hilston
Do you really think the blood of bulls, goats, rams and sheep was sufficient to save?
No I do not, by the way How do you interpret sin offering in Ezekiel?


Originally posted by Hilston
Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?

Yes, it was fulfilled long ago. How did I come up with that conclusion? I used the Normal hereneutic. I use the same hereneutic for interpretating sin offering in Ezekiel.



Originally posted by Hilston
Nimrod, do you believe all without exception will be saved?

Remember that you wrote this?:If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only.

Sorry if I misspoke about that, or caused you confusion. Christ atonement was sufficient ONLY for those who are His/believers/elect.

elohiym
December 1st, 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I have. Twice. Once as an infant. And once as a misguided young believer. I renounce both of them and those sins are forgiven.You renounce both of your baptisms, and consider it sin to be water baptized? How strange, and unbiblical.
Originally posted by Hilston

I find it fascinating that you chose to use Israel's scriptures about their future kingdom to prove water baptism for today. Notice where your logic leads. If Ezekiel's message affirms water baptism for today, then it affirms blood sacrifice and burnt offering as well.Israel's scriptures? You mean those books Paul quoted all the time?

Let's look at what Paul said, Hilston.
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ... 19 Now therefore ye (GENTILES) are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.Better, "therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens, of the saints, and of the houshold of God." So, as Paul clearly states, without any ambiguity, Gentiles are now "fellowcitizens" of Israel.

So where are the "Body's scriptures", Hilston? Can you direct me to them?
Originally posted by Hilston

Those are a small sample of passages from Ezekiel's prophecy. There are tons more. By your logic, burnt offerings and blood sacrifice should be observed as well.No. That's your logic, not mine.

Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. The Jewish people will NEVER be asked by God to offer animal sacrifices for sin again. Let's look closely at what the LORD tells Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.The if in the statement makes it conditional. They never met the condition. You points about animal sacrifices, or any future temple worship, are mute.
Originally posted by Hilston

You presume to understand the counsel of God. It is scripture that prohibits water baptism; not me.I've never read that in my Bible. Perhaps you can point out specifically where that prohibition can be found?

Frankly, verses like...
Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead....don't make any sense, in light of you spirit-only-baptism. Care to explain how someone is buried in spirit, and then risen out of the spirit into newness of life?
Originally posted by Hilston

Here's another passage from Ezekiel that you should compare with other scripture:

Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part [to give] burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Compare that to the following:
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

This is a prohibition. Do not let anyone regulate you, judge you, impose upon you anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature, including the very things found in Israel's scriptures. As I already pointed out, Ezekiel 45:17 is a conditional command. The conditions were never met, thus the "rules" you quote will NEVER be implemented.

As for Colossians 2:16,17, it is not a prohibition against "anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature" as you claim. Note verse 17 which clearly calls holydays, new moons, and the sabbath as a shadow of things to come, which is the future. Therefore, as unfulfilled types, logically Paul is not claiming that holy days, new moons, and sabbaths have no place in the body of Christ.

Note Isaiah:
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.Since the LORD in the book of Isaiah is speaking of the new earth in that verse, we can see that Paul was correct in stating that new moons and the sabbath were a shadow of things to come.

So basically, Hilston, you haven't made any points yet; but you have confessed to renouncing both your water baptisms as sin. Interesting.

Hilston
December 1st, 2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod
Ok now let me give you an example from Ezekiel. sin offering.
Go ahead Hilston, check every reference in the Bible for sin offering. For you to take Ezekiel and apply it to the future millennium temple and give it a meaning of a 'memorial sacrafice', would destroy YOUR OWN HERENEUTICS!!!Since I haven't given it a meaning of "memorial sacrifice," or even "memorial sacrafice," whatever that means, your argument is junk. I haven't used the term; not even once. Save your exclamation points for when you actually have something that makes sense, Nimrod.


Originally posted by Nimrod
Stick to this topic, no rabbit trails please. Do you or do you not believe the Scriptures quoted in Eziekel (see previous post) apply to the future millenium?Duh, Nimrod. Of course I do.


Originally posted by Nimrod
Do you or do you not see the phrase sin offering?I do. Do you or do you not believe that sin offerings were symbolic?


Originally posted by Nimrod
How do you interpret from your own system of hereneutics, the Normative hereneutic, that it does not mean what it says?It does mean what it says. What planet are you from, Nimrod? Is English your second language?


Originally posted by Nimrod
Your belief that Ezekiel wrote sin offering in his description of the future millenium temple. Your normal interpretation says it is for sin and not for celebration/memorial.
You see, you are not following your own hereneutic. How do you interpret the phrase sin offering in Eziekiel?It is for sin, Nimrod. But it doesn't actually cleanse from sin. Christ's blood alone does that. It is symbolic of Christ's atoning work; it celebrates it; it is an outward expression of one's faith in Messiah's sacrifice. This is basic stuff, Nimrod. Why am I having to explain this to you?

Hilston asked: Do you agree with what Ezekiel wrote, or not?


Originally posted by Nimrod
Yes, it was fulfilled long ago. How did I come up with that conclusion? I used the Normal hereneutic. I use the same hereneutic for interpretating sin offering in Ezekiel.Do you believe in water baptism for today, Nimrod? If so, why do you continue to endorse water baptism since it, too, was fulfilled long ago?

Hilston wrote: Remember that you wrote this?: "If Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, then all will be saved. That's what your statement implies. I don't believe it was sufficient for all, but for the elect only."


Originally posted by Nimrod
Sorry if I misspoke about that, or caused you confusion. Christ atonement was sufficient ONLY for those who are His/believers/elect. At least we agree on particular redemption. Given that agreement, you need to re-think your charge that I somehow do not believe Christ's sacrifice was sufficient.

Hilston
December 1st, 2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by elohiym

You renounce both of your baptisms, and consider it sin to be water baptized? How strange, and unbiblical.Not at all. Very normative. Very biblical.


Originally posted by elohiym
Israel's scriptures? You mean those books Paul quoted all the time?Of course. Paul didn't write in a vacuum. Paul also quoted the pagan Greek poet Aratus in Acts 17. Big deal. The point is that Paul taught the Mystery in comparison and constrast to Israel's gospel. So naturally he would quote Israel's scriptures.


Originally posted by elohiym
Let's look at what Paul said, Hilston.

Better, "therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens, of the saints, and of the houshold of God." So, as Paul clearly states, without any ambiguity, Gentiles are now "fellowcitizens" of Israel.The point is, there is no longer Jew nor Gentile in the Body of Christ. Complete unity. No ethnic divisions. Paul's gospel is different from Peter's. Peter's gospel (that of the kingdom of Israel) required ethnic distinctions. The earthly Jesus taught this very thing, making distinctions between Jews and Gentiles in His kingdom (in Mt. 25, Jesus calls the Gentiles "dogs"). In the Body of Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile.


Originally posted by elohiym
So where are the "Body's scriptures", Hilston? Can you direct me to them?The writings of Paul contain a distinctly different message than the rest of the New Testament corpus. Paul's writings are the Body's scriptures. No other author of scripture talks about this group of God's elect. Search and see.

Hilston wrote: Those are a small sample of passages from Ezekiel's prophecy. There are tons more. By your logic, burnt offerings and blood sacrifice should be observed as well.


Originally posted by elohiym
No. That's your logic, not mine.What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?


Originally posted by elohiym
Jesus Christ was the final sacrifice. The Jewish people will NEVER be asked by God to offer animal sacrifices for sin again.Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.


Originally posted by elohiym
Let's look closely at what the LORD tells Ezekiel:The if in the statement makes it conditional. They never met the condition. You points about animal sacrifices, or any future temple worship, are mute.Oh, I see. Your view is that the last dozen chapters of Ezekiel are meaningless detail that have nothing to do with reality past, present or future?

Hilston writes: It is scripture that prohibits water baptism; not me.


Originally posted by elohiym
I've never read that in my Bible. Perhaps you can point out specifically where that prohibition can be found?Read this link and you'll see plenty of specifics regarding the prohibition of water baptism:

The Prohibition of Water Baptism (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm#ceremony).


Originally posted by elohiym
Frankly, verses like......

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead

... don't make any sense, in light of you spirit-only-baptism. Care to explain how someone is buried in spirit, and then risen out of the spirit into newness of life?Paul uses the Greek term "jointly buried," just as elsewhere he uses such terms as "jointly seated" "jointly risen" "jointly glorified" "jointly quickened" "jointly fitted". Each of these is rich with meaning without the requirement of some symbolic ritual.


Originally posted by elohiym
As I already pointed out, Ezekiel 45:17 is a conditional command. The conditions were never met, thus the "rules" you quote will NEVER be implemented.You have a strange and superfluous view of God's word. Are there any other parts you throw out as meaningless drivel based this fatuous logic? What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages? If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?


Originally posted by elohiym
As for Colossians 2:16,17, it is not a prohibition against "anything of a ceremonial, sacramental, or religious nature" as you claim. Note verse 17 which clearly calls holydays, new moons, and the sabbath as a shadow of things to come, which is the future. Therefore, as unfulfilled types, logically Paul is not claiming that holy days, new moons, and sabbaths have no place in the body of Christ.You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against, saying "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, ..." Such practices (religious holydays, new moon and sabbath observances, etc.) are tantamount to angel worship, and since the Body of Christ is above angels in administrative hierarchy (1Co 6:3 Eph 3:10), it is therefore wrong to observe such things.

Furthermore, Paul warns against the ceremonialism of ritual symbolisms, such as we see in modern Eucharist observances. Note the similiarityies:

Colossians 2:20-23
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Touch and taste regulations, the very thing you see in Eucharistic observances, are prohibited by Paul. All ceremonialism is repudiated.


Originally posted by elohiym
Note Isaiah:

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Since the LORD in the book of Isaiah is speaking of the new earth in that verse, we can see that Paul was correct in stating that new moons and the sabbath were a shadow of things to come.Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.


Originally posted by elohiym
So basically, Hilston, you haven't made any points yet; but you have confessed to renouncing both your water baptisms as sin. Interesting. I've made plenty of points elohiym. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that points have been made. Everyone one of your protests has been answered with scripture, but I wouldn't be so foolish to say you haven't made any points. It reminds me of how little kids play guns. One kid rounds a corner and sprays the other kid with a full clip of imaginary bullets and the other kid just stands there and says, "Ha ha! You missed me!" The difference here is that the bullets are quite real, and your silly claim of "haven't made any points yet" is obviously inane and everybody sees it.

elohiym
December 2nd, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?My memory is fine, Hilston. You brought up Ezekiel's temple, not me.

God does not say "IF" you do such-and-such, "I will sprinkle clean water..." It's NOT conditional.

Regarding the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel's vision, the LORD made that conditional, as I have clearly shown.
Originally posted by Hilston

Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.I guess you'll have to ask Paul, Peter and John why they did what they did. We could speculate, I guess. As for Jesus, why do you think he would teach anyone to break the law? Before he died on the cross, what would you expect him to say, Hilston?
Originally posted by Hilston

Oh, I see. Your view is that the last dozen chapters of Ezekiel are meaningless detail that have nothing to do with reality past, present or future?Is that my view? Can you show me where I expressed that? Nice try, Hilston.

What I did notice is that you have ignored the conditional element of Ezekiel's vision I pointed out. Correct?

Look, Hilston, let's get this one thing sorted out first: Do you agree that the "IF" in the following scripture makes the sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple conditional?
Ezekiel 43:10 Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.That was conditional. What is promised by the LORD in Ezekiel 36 is NOT conditional. I hope you see the difference.
Originally posted by Hilston

You have a strange and superfluous view of God's word. Are there any other parts you throw out as meaningless drivel based this fatuous logic?Wow. I really must have nailed you with the conditional element of Ezekiel's vision. :chuckle:

If it is conditional, and the condition was not met, it isn't going to happen. Because I believe that simple concept, you claim I throw out scripture as "meaningless drivel based on fatuous logic"? Get real, Hilston.
Originally posted by Hilston

What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages?Jeremiah 31:31ff/Hebrews 8:8ff describe the new covenant, as does Ezekiel 36. They are describing the same new covenant, for all believers.
Originally posted by Hilston

If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?I never said they didn't. YOU seem to be the one implying that Ezekiel's prophecies don't apply to YOU.
Originally posted by Hilston

You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against...

Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.So why does Israel get snares for types, instead of a warning against them? You aren't making sense, Hilston.
Originally posted by Hilston

I've made plenty of points elohiym. You don't have to agree with them to acknowledge that points have been made.Can you summarize your points, Hilston?

I have shown that Ezekiel's vision has a conditional element that was never met, negating its use as a future prophecy. Have you refuted that point yet?

God_Is_Truth
December 2nd, 2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
Touch and taste regulations, the very thing you see in Eucharistic observances, are prohibited by Paul. All ceremonialism is repudiated.


how is the Eucharist a touch and taste regulation?

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

how is the Eucharist a touch and taste regulation? If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

elohiym
December 2nd, 2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22

Then I might say something like this...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Corinthians 11:27-31

God_Is_Truth
December 2nd, 2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

is it OK to be rude?

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by elohiym
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22How does that apply? Are you saying that Paul is making a "touch not, taste not" regulation here?


Originally posted by elohiym
Then I might say something like this ...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.How is someone "unworthy" if they take some extra Jesus crackers and an extra shotglass? As long as there is enough to go around, what's the big deal? Or are you putting a "touch not, taste not" regulation on the participant?


Originally posted by GIT
is it OK to be rude?How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later?

God_Is_Truth
December 2nd, 2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later?

the same reason talking loudly on your cellphone in a movie is rude.

edited to add:

as for grabbing extra, it would be the equivalent of eating dinner at a friends house and taking much of their food home to your house after you were done.

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 01:22 AM
Hilston wrote: What a short memory you have, elohiym. You are the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism for today. On that logic, blood sacrifices should be observed today as well. So now that you've proved your argument to be self-refuting and arbitrary, how will you explain yourself? Is water baptism for today or not? If so, then on what grounds do you reject blood sacrifice for today?


Elohiym writes:
My memory is fine, Hilston. You brought up Ezekiel's temple, not me.No, your memory is quite flawed. You're the one who wanted to use Ezekiel to prove water baptism is for today. Read this: Evidence of Elohiym's flawed memory (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=634912#post634912)


Elohiym writes:
God does not say "IF" you do such-and-such, "I will sprinkle clean water..." It's NOT conditional.

Regarding the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel's vision, the LORD made that conditional, as I have clearly shown.I see; so obedient Israel would have to do blood sacrifices in its future Kingdom, but disobedient Israel gets a pass?

Hilston wrote: Oh really? Then why did Paul honor Israel's program by offering animal sacrifices in the Temple in Acts 22:23-26 (cf 24:18)? Why did Peter and John go to Temple to offer their sacrifices at the hour of prayer in Acts 3? Why does Jesus command the disciples to do everything whatsoever He commanded them, including the offerings in the Temple (Mt. 28:19,20)? Why did Jesus command them to do what the pharisees say, including tithes and offerings (Mt. 23:1-3)? The earthly Jesus never repealed these commmands, yet the glorified Jesus, through Paul's writings, abrogates them completely.


Elohiym writes:
I guess you'll have to ask Paul, Peter and John why they did what they did. We could speculate, I guess.There you go. Good grief.


Elohiym writes:
As for Jesus, why do you think he would teach anyone to break the law? Before he died on the cross, what would you expect him to say, Hilston?After Jesus died on the cross, He commanded His disciples to observe and obey everything whatsoever He commanded them, which included offering sacrifices, paying spice tithes, observing food laws and dietary restrictions, and to keep the Sabbath. Paul teaches the Body of Christ to break every one of those laws. Jesus gave a different Law to Paul, and He commanded Paul and the Body of Christ to obey it and to disobey the Law of Moses wherever they conflicted.


Elohiym writes:
Look, Hilston, let's get this one thing sorted out first: Do you agree that the "IF" in the following scripture makes the sacrifices of Ezekiel's temple conditional?Of course, but you miss the point. Every conditional promise that God made to Israel for His Name's sake will come to pass because God is the one who sprinkles them with clean water, forgives their sins, and establishes them in their Land. It is conditional, but no less certain because of His Name's sake. Israel's future kingdom is secure and inevitable, as is the Millennial Temple baptisms and blood sacrifices.


Elohiym writes:
If it is conditional, and the condition was not met, it isn't going to happen.But the condition will be met. That is God's promise to Israel.

Hilston asked: What do you do with Jer 31:31ff/Heb 8:8ff? Do you believe the church is somehow the fulfillment of these passages?


Elohiym writes:
Jeremiah 31:31ff/Hebrews 8:8ff describe the new covenant, as does Ezekiel 36. They are describing the same new covenant, for all believers.Ooooo kay. Fine. Nice knowing ya, elohiym.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Hilston asked:
If so, then why don't Ezekiel's prophecies apply to us?


Elohiym writes:
I never said they didn't.I see. So if YOU meet the conditions of Ezekiel 40-48, YOU get to offer blood sacrifices in the future?


Elohiym writes:
YOU seem to be the one implying that Ezekiel's prophecies don't apply to YOU.Duh, elohiym! Of course they don't apply to me. I'm not a Jew of the Nation of Israel.

Hilston wrote: You're quite mistaken. Each of these is a snare which Paul explicitly warns them against ... Those are a shadow of things to come of Israel, not for the Body of Christ. Paul prohibits Sabbaths and New Moon observances because they are Israel's shadows, not the Body of Christ's. That's the point.


Elohiym writes:
So why does Israel get snares for types, instead of a warning against them? You aren't making sense, Hilston.They were not snares for Israel, but proper and necessary. Paul is warning the Body of Christ about adopting Israel's ceremonial practices. Judaizers were trying to entice Body saints to submit to Jewish ritual. Galatians 1 isn't about a true gospel versus a false gospel, but rather the Mystery gospel versus the Kingdom gospel.


Elohiym writes:
Can you summarize your points, Hilston?My points are summarized here: Points Summarized (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm)

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

the same reason talking loudly on your cellphone in a movie is rude.Please explain. Why would it be rude to take extra crackers or an extra shotglass, especially if there's plenty to go around?


Originally posted by God_Is_Truth
edited to add:

as for grabbing extra, it would be the equivalent of eating dinner at a friends house and taking much of their food home to your house after you were done. Where do you get this, GIT? If there's extra wafers, plenty to go around, what's the harm in grabbing a handful and munching on them later during the football game? Or maybe saving them for later to dip them in milk? Or maybe throwing them into a beef and barley Progresso for a mid-afternoon snack?

Please explain to me, as clearly as you can, what's wrong with doing this.

God_Is_Truth
December 2nd, 2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Hilston
Please explain. Why would it be rude to take extra crackers or an extra shotglass, especially if there's plenty to go around?

if you are the only one, it comes off as rude. when everyone else around you partakes together of the one, and you sit there guzzling down as you please, it shows disunity and is rude to everyone else.



Where do you get this, GIT? If there's extra wafers, plenty to go around, what's the harm in grabbing a handful and munching on them later during the football game? Or maybe saving them for later to dip them in milk? Or maybe throwing them into a beef and barley Progresso for a mid-afternoon snack?

Please explain to me, as clearly as you can, what's wrong with doing this.

it's contrary to the intention of the one providing it.

it's not that eating wafers during a football game or dipping them into milk is wrong. there is certainly nothing that prohibits it (unless you are lactose intolerant perhaps ;)). however, when the focus and idea of the practice is to show unity and remembrence, it seems odd to take that home with you where it won't be done in the same purpose.

elohiym
December 2nd, 2004, 02:17 AM
Hilston asked: "If I came to your church, GIT, would it be OK if I took a handful of wafers and ate them as a snack during the sermon? Would it be OK if I gargled the wine/juice before I swallowed it? Would I be allowed to take a couple of shotglasses if I were especially thirsty? What if I wanted to pocket a few extra wafers for later, would that be OK?

How would you answer these questions?

Elohiym answered: "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 1 Corinthians 11:22

Then I might say something like this...

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 1 Corinthians 11:27-31

To which Hilston now responds:
Originally posted by Hilston

How does that apply? Are you saying that Paul is making a "touch not, taste not" regulation here?Paul was dealing in those verses with problems very similar to your line of questioning. Read the context, Hilston.
Originally posted by Hilston

How is someone "unworthy" if they take some extra Jesus crackers and an extra shotglass? As long as there is enough to go around, what's the big deal? Or are you putting a "touch not, taste not" regulation on the participant?

How is what I've described "rude"? As long as there is enough to go around, what is rude about grabbing some extra to snack on later? Ask Paul.

elohiym
December 2nd, 2004, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Ooooo kay. Fine. Nice knowing ya, elohiym.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:If you're in Christ, that would be you. Is Christ not the house of Judah? In Christ are you not Abraham's seed?
Ga 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham‘s seed, and heirs according to the promise.Pretty clear to me.

Nice to be aware of you, Hilston. See ya around.

Lighthouse
December 2nd, 2004, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Hilston just admitted to all that in the future, Israel will have their sins forgiven by blood sacrafice. He rejects the idea that Christ's sacrafice was the end of all sacrafices.

This is what dispensationalism teaches. Christ's atonement work was not sufficient for all. :kookoo:
First of all, Calvinism is what teaches that Christ's work was not sufficient for all, and Hilston is just that. But dispensationalism does not teach such a thing. Well, I don't know that you can say it teaches either, because Hilston is also an Acts 9 dispensationalist. But I have not heard, ever, from any dispensationalist that Christ's sacrafice was not final.

Lighthouse
December 2nd, 2004, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

Lighthouse wrote;



:confused:

What are you talking about????
The 40 year exile was before the laws of sacrafice were set in place.

Lighthouse
December 2nd, 2004, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by 1PeaceMaker

By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for BY THE LAW is the knowledge of sin.

NOT by baptism is the knowledge of sin! :doh:

Baptism is akin to confession.
No it isn't. There is only one confession that saves, and that is the confession that Jesus is Lord. Baptism saves no one.

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by elohiym
... I guess you'll have to ask Paul, Peter and John why they did what they did. We could speculate, I guess.

... Read the context, Hilston.

... Ask Paul. Here is the sum of elohiym's theology: Force scripture to fit a preconceived set of doctrines; where scripture doesn't fit, defer to ignorance or ambiguity. In a debate it is customary to explain one's points, to defend one's claims, and to use reason. Elohiym has done little more than dodge all three. I can't say that I'm surprised; this is the typical reaction of those who have been nailed to wall at every turn of their argument.

Here is my guess: Elohiym got scared. He/she realized that her arguments were weak and/or arbitrary, violated the context of scripture, and had no rational footing. He/she couldn't even defend the simplest of practical claims regarding eucharistic observances ("Ask Paul" !?!?! :darwinsm:.) If everyone conducted debate the way Elohiym does, all we'd ever say to each other is "Ask Paul" or "Ask Moses" or "Ask Jesus," especially when the going gets tough :freak:

Since elohiym has chickened out, can anyone tell me what is wrong with grabbing some extra Jesus crackers for later to throw in my lobster bisque? Can I enjoy them with a Mountain Dew while I watch the Steelers? Can I grab an extra shotglass of wine/juice if I'm especially parched? What's wrong with these things?

elohiym
December 2nd, 2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Here is the sum of elohiym's theology: Force scripture to fit a preconceived set of doctrines; where scripture doesn't fit, defer to ignorance or ambiguity. In a debate it is customary to explain one's points, to defend one's claims, and to use reason. Elohiym has done little more than dodge all three. I can't say that I'm surprised; this is the typical reaction of those who have been nailed to wall at every turn of their argument.

Here is my guess: Elohiym got scared. He/she realized that her arguments were weak and/or arbitrary, violated the context of scripture, and had no rational footing. He/she couldn't even defend the simplest of practical claims regarding eucharistic observances ("Ask Paul" !?!?! :darwinsm:.) If everyone conducted debate the way Elohiym does, all we'd ever say to each other is "Ask Paul" or "Ask Moses" or "Ask Jesus," especially when the going gets tough :freak:

Since elohiym has chickened out, can anyone tell me what is wrong with grabbing some extra Jesus crackers for later to throw in my lobster bisque? Can I enjoy them with a Mountain Dew while I watch the Steelers? Can I grab an extra shotglass of wine/juice if I'm especially parched? What's wrong with these things? Nice try, Hilston; but frankly, I find you boring, even more boring than The Plot. I could have more fun debating a wall.

Just so people aren't deceived by your statements against me, I explained my beliefs and gave scripture to back it up. You responded with only more questions, and weak argument.

You also don't seem to understand what Paul was stating in relation to the Lord's Supper. If you did, you would know the answers to your questions are in the context of Paul's epistle. They were treating the Lord's Supper like a buffet, and Paul told them it was wrong. You are asking if it is wrong to treat the Lord's Supper like a buffet (read your questions s-l-o-w-l-y), and I answered you by pointing you to Paul's council, rather than giving human opinion, as you seem to be. I told you to ask Paul because I cannot answer your question about his intent for him, which is reasonable.

Anyway, like I said, YOU bore me, so don't bother trying to bait me again like a child, Hilton. Okay?

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by elohiym

Nice try, Hilston; but frankly, I find you boring, even more boring than The Plot.In that case, maybe you could bore yourself to death by reading my boring critique of The (boring) Plot. Click here: Elohiym's Death By Boredom (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/theplot.htm)


Originally posted by elohiym
Just so people aren't deceived by your statements against me, I explained my beliefs and gave scripture to back it up. You responded with only more questions, and weak argument.Of course, deny the statements against you by unsupported assertions, claiming to have provided proofs that don't exist on the hope that no one is really paying attention and won't check. That's exactly the kind of response I would expect from someone whose best answer to a challenge is "Why don't you ask Paul?" :freak:


Originally posted by elohiym
You also don't seem to understand what Paul was stating in relation to the Lord's Supper. If you did, you would know the answers to your questions are in the context of Paul's epistle. They were treating the Lord's Supper like a buffet, and Paul told them it was wrong.On the contrary, the agape feasts were indeed buffets, just as the Passover was. These are full multi-course, hunger satisfying meals. The modern Mithraic communion ritual is an early corruption that most of Christendom has erroneously and egregiously adopted without biblical warrant. Consider the following (if it's not too boring):

Rabbinical Passover, Communion, and Passover as Meal-in-Common (PDF, 212K) (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/2001/tgf2001ii.pdf)
The Last Passover of Christ and the Twelve/Eleven (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/2001/TGF2001iii.htm)
The Lord's Table/Supper in I Cor. 10/11 (PDF 236K) (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/2001/tgf2001iv.pdf)
Paul's Law and Traditional Communion (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/2001/TGF2001v.htm)


Originally posted by elohiym
You are asking if it is wrong to treat the Lord's Supper like a buffet (read your questions s-l-o-w-l-y), and I answered you by pointing you to Paul's council, rather than giving human opinion, as you seem to be. I told you to ask Paul because I cannot answer your question about his intent for him, which is reasonable.Sadly, you seem to miss the fact that the goal of one's study of the scriptures is to understand the intent of the author, rightly assuming that the author communicated his intention in the very words he chose, in the context in which he wrote. Let's grant for the moment that Paul is talking about the Mithraic communion ritual that most churches practice today, do you not see this as a contradiction of his own warning against submitting to "touch not, taste not" regulations in Col 2?


Originally posted by elohiym
Anyway, like I said, YOU bore me, so don't bother trying to bait me again like a child, Hilton. Okay? You give yourself too much credit, Elohiym. I'm looking for someone who can provide a more coherent argument than I got from you, and I've used you as an example of the kind of inane tripe that is unacceptable in an intelligent discussion. If I'm baiting anyone, it's not you, but perhaps someone else out there who won't tuck-tail-and-run and can give me a better answer than "I guess you'll have to ask Peter and John." So don't flatter yourself, Elohiym. One man's boredom is another man's raison d'être.

Lighthouse
December 2nd, 2004, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Since elohiym has chickened out, can anyone tell me what is wrong with grabbing some extra Jesus crackers for later to throw in my lobster bisque? Can I enjoy them with a Mountain Dew while I watch the Steelers? Can I grab an extra shotglass of wine/juice if I'm especially parched? What's wrong with these things?
Can you enjoy them? Not if they're the typical wafers you find in liturgical churches. Those things are nasty!:vomit:

Anyway, I don't see any problem with buying some to eat, at home, for no particular reason. But to take them from the plate is rude. That is the only thing worng with it. The bread, and wine, are nothing more than symbols. You can drink wine at home, and you can eat unleavened bread at home. But to do what you described is uncalled for. Of course, I gathered that you knew that, and were just trying to get someone else to state what they thought, but everyone jumped on your back as if you were saying you'd do those things.

God_Is_Truth
December 2nd, 2004, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Can you enjoy them? Not if they're the typical wafers you find in liturgical churches. Those things are nasty!:vomit:

Anyway, I don't see any problem with buying some to eat, at home, for no particular reason. But to take them from the plate is rude. That is the only thing worng with it. The bread, and wine, are nothing more than symbols. You can drink wine at home, and you can eat unleavened bread at home. But to do what you described is uncalled for. Of course, I gathered that you knew that, and were just trying to get someone else to state what they thought, but everyone jumped on your back as if you were saying you'd do those things.

that's what i was getting at.

Hilston
December 2nd, 2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
Anyway, I don't see any problem with buying some to eat, at home, for no particular reason. But to take them from the plate is rude.Why is it rude?


Originally posted by lighthouse
That is the only thing worng with it. The bread, and wine, are nothing more than symbols. You can drink wine at home, and you can eat unleavened bread at home. But to do what you described is uncalled for.Why? What if I have permission from the deacons and make an arrangement in advance: "I'll sit in the last pew so I'll be the last one to get the plate, and I'll just scoop up the extras and put them in a ziplock baggie. And if there is any leftover wine/juice shots, I'll quietly down them without distraction." Would that be OK? Why or why not?


Originally posted by lighthouse
Of course, I gathered that you knew that, and were just trying to get someone else to state what they thought, but everyone jumped on your back as if you were saying you'd do those things. I do do these things. When we have communion in our church, everyone goes for seconds. Sometimes thirds, if there's enough.

Sozo
December 2nd, 2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Hilston


Since elohiym has chickened out, can anyone tell me what is wrong with grabbing some extra Jesus crackers for later to throw in my lobster bisque? Can I enjoy them with a Mountain Dew while I watch the Steelers? Can I grab an extra shotglass of wine/juice if I'm especially parched? What's wrong with these things? As long as there is plenty to go around, then there is nothing wrong with it. I think that Paul tells us not to show up early and eat and drink everything before everyone else gets there, because you could get sick and fall asleep before others partake, and that would be a rude thing to do to the rest of the body.

Lighthouse
December 2nd, 2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

Why is it rude?

Why? What if I have permission from the deacons and make an arrangement in advance: "I'll sit in the last pew so I'll be the last one to get the plate, and I'll just scoop up the extras and put them in a ziplock baggie. And if there is any leftover wine/juice shots, I'll quietly down them without distraction." Would that be OK? Why or why not?

I do do these things. When we have communion in our church, everyone goes for seconds. Sometimes thirds, if there's enough.
Well, then it's not rude. Catholic priests eat and drink the leftovers.

Clete
December 3rd, 2004, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Hilston Why? What if I have permission from the deacons and make an arrangement in advance: "I'll sit in the last pew so I'll be the last one to get the plate, and I'll just scoop up the extras and put them in a ziplock baggie. And if there is any leftover wine/juice shots, I'll quietly down them without distraction." Would that be OK? Why or why not?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make Jim? This seems like a pretty silly thing to do at best. I can tell you that if you attempted to make such an arrangement at any church I've ever attended, you would get looked at side ways and told "Umm, no, if you do that we'll throw you out on your ear. If you would really like to have some, let's go back to the kitchen and we'll put some in a baggy for you to take home but just this once because while this stuff isn't expensive, it does cost money. If you like it so well, buy your own, thank you."
Now, I can tell that this is not something you would ever actually do, so what's the point of asking the question, what are you getting at?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
December 3rd, 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
What exactly is the point you are trying to make Jim?That modern communion practices violate Paul's gospel. They involve food regulations and "touch not/taste not" restrictions that go against the teachings of the Mystery.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
This seems like a pretty silly thing to do at best. I can tell you that if you attempted to make such an arrangement at any church I've ever attended, you would get looked at side ways and told "Umm, no, if you do that we'll throw you out on your ear. If you would really like to have some, let's go back to the kitchen and we'll put some in a baggy for you to take home but just this once because while this stuff isn't expensive, it does cost money. If you like it so well, buy your own, thank you."That's because it's a ritual, which Paul decries. If it weren't a ritual, if it were a meal, as the scriptures teach, then there wouldn't be these torturous procedural stipulations and concerns.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, I can tell that this is not something you would ever actually do, so what's the point of asking the question, what are you getting at?I do it all the time. Every communion, I, or someone is asking: "Can I finish this off?"

Sozo
December 3rd, 2004, 11:09 AM
Jim.. why do you dance around, instead of just telling them plainly?

Clete
December 3rd, 2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

That modern communion practices violate Paul's gospel. They involve food regulations and "touch not/taste not" restrictions that go against the teachings of the Mystery.
I see. You know, you could have just said so in the first place.

There are some Acts 9 Dispensationalists who don't think that communion should be practiced at all; that it is nothing more than an observance of the Passover Feist of Israel and therefore has no place in the Body of Christ in the first place.

What do you think of that?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hilston
December 3rd, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Sozo

Jim.. why do you dance around, instead of just telling them plainly? I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems you mistake your own inability to follow a discussion as "dancing around." Here's where it started, and I couldn't have been plainer.

"Telling them plainly" (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=635572#post635572)

Hilston
December 3rd, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I see. You know, you could have just said so in the first place.See my reply to Sozo above.


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
There are some Acts 9 Dispensationalists who don't think that communion should be practiced at all; that it is nothing more than an observance of the Passover Feist of Israel and therefore has no place in the Body of Christ in the first place.

What do you think of that?If they're referring to ritual communion, I agree completely. However, biblical communion (koinonia) as a non-ritual is vital to the church.

I'm curious: What do some Acts 9ers have against observing a feast of Israel?

Lighthouse
December 3rd, 2004, 04:41 PM
There are a lot of things that the modern church does that are not done properly.

Sozo
December 3rd, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems you mistake your own inability to follow a discussion as "dancing around." Here's where it started, and I couldn't have been plainer.

"Telling them plainly" (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=635572#post635572)

I had fully read each of your posts. I have seen your responses amount to nothing more than childish wit whacking. Even though I believe that I agree with your answer.

Did you see this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=636121#post636121)?

Timothy
December 3rd, 2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod I did a google search, please tell me where it is wrong so I could better understand you better.

Nimrod: You will also find that "mid Acts" is probably a more common reference, description or term, than that of "Acts 9."

Probably the most comprehensive introductory explanation of the "mid Acts" dispensational viewpoint would be the book "Things that Differ - The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism" by Cornelius R. Stam. It can be read online in at least two places:

http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ.htm
http://midacts.net/books/things_that_differ.html

Probably the most descriptive chart explaining the "mid Acts" dispensational viewpoint is this one:

http://midacts.net/charts/rightly_dividing.jpg

BChristianK
December 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me."
-1 Corinthians 9:17
"That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on the earth; even in him:"
-Ephesians 1:10
"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:"
-Ephesians 3:2
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God:"
-Colossians 1:25

Lighthouse,

I don't deny that these passages exist, I do question that they mean what many mid-acts dispensationalists claim they mean.

I question that we can go from Paul saying that God has given him a responsibility to proclaim the gospel to claiming that his conversion inaugurated a change in God's economy. I think that it is a stretch to say that the dispensation of grace is a parenthesis of time that originated at the conversion of Paul and will culminate at a rapture that precedes a tribulation period of exactly 7 years, during which, a salvation by works economy will return.


I have a hard time getting from Paul being given a dispensation (responsibility) to carry out a particular ministry to the conclusions I described above.

And I have come to these conclusion based on a number of things. Here are some things that trouble me about mid-acts dispensationalism.

1. The arbitrariness of the rapture.
There is literally only one mention of such an event that is described in 1 Th 4:17 and the similarities to Matthew 24:30-31 are too hard to explain away. I found myself saying, “had I not come to the text assuming these two events were different, I would probably have concluded that they were the same.
In fact, I can’t find any scriptural reason to conclude that the event in 1 Th 4:17 and Matthew 24:30-31 aren’t the same.
2. Too much of dispensational theology hangs on a singular interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. There are many interpretations of this passage, and to assume that there is somehow some mysterious break in the sequence where a church age can be inserted is a textbook case of eisegesis. But this is a lynchpin for dispensationalists because unless you can pull a 7 year tribulation out of Daniel you can’t get it anywhere else in scripture. My problem with a dispensational reading of the 70 weeks of Daniel is that the church age is arbitrarily inserted, why not just assume that the 70th week follows the 69th week, as weeks tend to do. Were this not enough, not even John, who was told not to seal up his prophecy (Rev 22:10), mentions in revelation that the tribulation is 7 years. Not even once.

Just a few things to ponder…

Grace and Peace

Hilston
December 5th, 2004, 08:25 PM
BChristianK,

"Dispensation" refers to a household law. Paul was given a different law from that of Israel and the Nations. Paul's law, the Gospel of the Mystery, the Body of Christ, was held is utter silence from the foundation of the world. Not one syllable of this facet of God's elect had been revealed prior to Paul's conversion.

Paul identifies his gospel as that which was unknown to the prophets of old. He calls it a Mystery, and when he gives the content of it, it is completely different from Israel's Law.

See this link HERE (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm) for more detail.

BChristianK
December 5th, 2004, 11:56 PM
Hilston,

Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to be a bit more direct in this post for clarity sake. I hope you will continue to ascribe a friendly tone as that is what I intend.

You said:


Originally posted by Hilston


That's because you mistakenly assume harmony is the absence of distinctions. If you come to a verse in which Paul tells you that certain information had been held in silence, completely hidden from the Jewish prophets (Ro 11:25 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16), shouldn't that tell you that there is a difference between their message and Paul's?

Absolutely. But you assume that the differences constitute a discontinuity from the Jewish prophets, I do not.


When you read the New Testament straight through, the differences between Peter's teachings and Paul's teachings are glaring, unless, of course, you're determined to mash everything together into an amalgamated lump of confusion and murkiness.

I disagree, but then the same could be said that unless you’re determined to see differences, those differences don’t seam so glaring.


First of all, it isn't an importation. The word and concept (oikonomia = household law, 1Co 9:17 Eph 1:10 3:2 Col 1:25) are patently taught in scripture.

The concept of dispensation is patently taught in scripture. However, shifting from an understanding that a dispensation is a commission or a responsibility to an understanding of the term that assumes it is a temporal economy of God is not patently taught in scripture.

I’ve had many conversations with some very sharp dispensationalists on TOL and I have not yet been given reason enough to conclude that oikonomia means anything other than BDAG suggests it means.
1. A responsibility of management
2. A Plan.
3. Program of instruction or training.

In order to accept a dispensational theology, one must apply a temporal dimension to the word that I don’t think can be substantiated. In fact, if one looks at dispensational charts, one will see that dispensations are primarily seen as era’s of time.

Furthermore, of the 7 or 9 or 12 dispensations that many dispensationalists claim exist, only one of those is even hinted at in scripture as being called a “dispensation”, and that is if you stretch the meaning of the word oikonomia.


Paul said the grace given to him was to the intent that he make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph 3:9). How can you miss this?

You can’t miss these verses. What you can miss, and should notice is not there, is the conclusion that Paul was given a divergent gospel than Peter to preach among the gentiles.


Furthermore, what you call harmonization, I call eisogetical shoehorning. The true harmonization of scripture is achieved by rightly dividing the Word of truth, making exegetically clear and logically sound distinctions between Israel's scriptures and the Body-of-Christ's.

I think this particular interpretation of “rightly dividing the word of truth” is eisogetical shoehorning, considering the fact that orqotomew means “to cut a path in a straight direction.” (See LXX proverbs 3:6 and 11:5 where it cannot mean what you want it to mean)
So one can certainly rightly divide the word of truth but orqotomew doesn’t mean sectioning off parts of scripture as inapplicable given a current era of time.


One baptism. How much more clear can one be?

One baptism, and of course that means that there cannot be both a baptism of the Holy Spirit and a water baptism ‘cause that would be 2 baptisms, right? Except for the fact that such wrangling of scripture can only be done when one ignores the context of the passage.

Paul is speaking of the unity of the body. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith and one Baptism, and one God. Incidentally, mid-acts dispensationalism violates the context of the passage in my opinion, claiming that there are two faiths (one faith in one gospel and one faith in another gospel). Two baptisms (one of water for the circumcised and one of spirit for the uncircumcised). But beyond that, if we accept the methodology by which you interpret this passage, we cannot conclude that anyone to whom Paul wrote in Ephesians could ever die physically by way of persecution, since Jesus made clear that the persecutorial death that He suffered was a type of baptism (Mark 10:38). So if they are ever persecuted unto death, then they would have had two baptisms, one of the Spirit and the other a baptism of death, which clearly can’t happen and there be one baptism.

Now if you will claim that such logic is ridiculous and we are now comparing apples to oranges, I would agree. And the same ridiculous comparison of apples to oranges must be done to say that one cannot be both baptized of the Spirit and also be water baptized.


The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?

Was the body of Christ instructed to shun the Lord’s Supper?

Isn’t that a “religious ceremony?”

Are all Christians supposed to get married by a justice of the peace or by Elvis in a chapel in Vegas since getting married in a church with a pastor would constitute a “religious ceremony?”


The Body of Christ is seated above angels, and therefore above ritual ceremony (1Co 6:3 Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10).

Where in 1 Cor 6:3 does it talk about ritual ceremony? Where in Eph 1:20? You must have a different version than I do since my bible doesn’t mention religious ceremony in Ephesians 1 whatsoever. ;)

And again, if you can please show me where I can find that we are above ceremony in 2:6 or 3:10 I’d appreciate you posting them since my bible doesn’t mention our being above ceremony in any of these passages.
;)


Did you read the aforementioned link?

Yes, it is an argument from a chiasm and it is only one interpretation of the apex of the chiasm. Personally, I don’t even think it is the best interpretation of the apex of the chiasm.


Not only does it make the case for eschewing water baptism, but for shunning all ceremonial rituals and practices as well. You have more than one "single verse" saying "stop baptizing."

How about we start with that one verse that explicitly and literally says, “stop baptizing” and then work our way toward chiastic arguments that have more than one viable interpretation.


There's a whole host of biblical principles that apply. Furthermore, yours is an argument from silence.

It is an argument that says that if scripture doesn’t say it, I am not going to believe it.


The purpose of the Greek scriptures outside of the Pauline corpus is to record the historical narratives of the Messiah's life, death, resurrection and ascension, the decline of the nation of Israel, and prescriptions for future Israel.

Unfortunately, that is not why John told us he wrote his gospel.


John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

What about that is untrue? Given that John telegraphs his purpose, how much of John’s gospel can I say is not applicable to me?

Now concerning 1 Cor 1:17, you asked:


Ask yourself this question: In light of Mt 28:19,20, could Peter have uttered those words?


We must first take into consideration the fact that Paul was not dismissing the Corinthian’s practice of baptism but rather that he was dismissing the identification they held with the person who was doing the baptizing. There was an inordinate loyalty to the one who presided over the baptismal ceremony. Nowhere in the passage does Paul rebuke them for practicing baptism, only for their lack of understanding of what baptism symbolized…

[color=red]
1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Clearly they were not baptized in the name of Paul, or of Apollos or of Cephas, but rather had been baptized in the name of Christ.

Interestingly, the context of the passage raises more of an argument against the mid-acts dispensationalists position than it does for it. Why do we see that even up to the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians that baptism was practiced? And among gentiles! Paul established the church in Corinth during his second missionary journey. During that time, Paul baptized Crispus, the synagogue official (Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:14). Gaius and Stephanus. But what is an important detail and one that is quite telling is that many of the Corinthians who heard Paul.


Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.


. If we are to take Paul at his word that he did not baptize anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14) To the best of Paul’s recollection, then we must assume that the many who were baptized in Corinth were baptized by someone other than Paul. It would seam a bit strange to characterize Crispus, Gaius and Stephanus’ household as many. Especially for a commercial center of the Roman empire.

This historical contexualization tells us first, that Paul probably meant that he was not sent to personally baptize but to preach the gospel ( 1 Cor 1:17). In other words, Paul’s primary commission was not to get into the river and dunk ‘em personally, it was his commission to preach the gospel. This does not preclude the fact that many people were baptized under the ministry of Paul, but probably not dunked by Paul himself.

Second, and more importantly, this brings up a huge historical problem for the mid-acts dispensationalist. As you have cited above, you argue that Galatians is one book from which we can gather the scriptural principle that baptism was made obsolete.

Remember this?

The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?

Well if it cannot be any more clear then why is it that Paul, writing to Galatia circa 48 A.D., is certain that religious ceremony should be shunned (including and especially baptism according to you), but that Paul, during his second missionary journey (A.D. 52) personally baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14-16), and witnessed the many baptisms of Corinthians who heard his message (Acts 18:8), and didn’t say one single word to stop them???

Did Paul just forget that 4 years earlier he had argued that baptism was put away as a result of all religious ceremonies being shunned?

And then, while in Emphasis when he penned 1 Corinthians (A.D. 55), why didn’t Paul straighten the whole mess out, and tell the Corinthians to stop doing all that crazy water baptizing? Are we to believe that 3 years after Paul flubs up and allows all those Corinthians to be baptized he wouldn’t clearly tell them to stop all that baptizing nonsense?

Instead, Paul takes a different tack. He refocuses them on Who they have been baptized into and because of and in the Name of, and takes their focus off who has done the dunking.

He doesn’t rebuke Appolos for baptizing or Peter (Cephas) for baptizing or even apologize for baptizing anyone when he did so 3 years ealier. Rather, he points out that their baptisms weren’t done in his name or anyone else’s name other than Christ (1 Cor 1:13).

Mid-acts dispensationalism is riddled with historical problems, this is just one of many, but this one is far from insignificant. Mid-acts dispensationalism is simply at a loss to explain why Paul would repudiate baptism in 48 A.D., turn around and personally baptize 2 folks and a household 4 years later in Corinth in 52 A.D. (and allow the baptisms of many other Corinthians during that same visit), and then turn around again in 55 A.D. and make a statement that you interpret as repudiation of water baptism in 55 A.D. Do you really think Paul was that schizophrenic?


I appreciate the irenic tone of your post. Please let me know if you have further questions or require further elaboration.


And I appreciate your irenic tone in your response. I hope that my directness has not deterred you from thinking that I intent our conversation to remain irenic. I would appreciate it if you would address the historical problem posed by your interpretation as I have outlined it above. I do that that warrants further elaboration


CariV kai Eirhnh

Lighthouse
December 6th, 2004, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Lighthouse,

I don't deny that these passages exist, I do question that they mean what many mid-acts dispensationalists claim they mean.
My intention was not to support any specific dispensationalism. Although I am an Acts 9er, myself. I merely wanted to show you that it may be possible for you to come to the conclusion that there is a dispensational model, in the Bible. That was all.


I question that we can go from Paul saying that God has given him a responsibility to proclaim the gospel to claiming that his conversion inaugurated a change in God's economy. I think that it is a stretch to say that the dispensation of grace is a parenthesis of time that originated at the conversion of Paul and will culminate at a rapture that precedes a tribulation period of exactly 7 years, during which, a salvation by works economy will return.
I have yet to see an Acts 9er claim that salvation will come by works, in the future.


I have a hard time getting from Paul being given a dispensation (responsibility) to carry out a particular ministry to the conclusions I described above.
I agree that the final conclusion you stated is not one that one would come to. But the others are pretty easy.


And I have come to these conclusion based on a number of things. Here are some things that trouble me about mid-acts dispensationalism.

1. The arbitrariness of the rapture.
There is literally only one mention of such an event that is described in 1 Th 4:17 and the similarities to Matthew 24:30-31 are too hard to explain away. I found myself saying, “had I not come to the text assuming these two events were different, I would probably have concluded that they were the same.
In fact, I can’t find any scriptural reason to conclude that the event in 1 Th 4:17 and Matthew 24:30-31 aren’t the same.
If I understand correctly the Mid-Acts dispensational belief is that the event described in 1 Thess. is pre-tribulational [the Body of Christ departs] and the event described in Matthew is post-tribulational [the Bride of Christ departs]. I may be wrong about this, ecause this seems very unlikely.

There are also other verses, which I'm sure someone can provide, because I can't even remember the words that I need to look them up in my concordance.


2. Too much of dispensational theology hangs on a singular interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. There are many interpretations of this passage, and to assume that there is somehow some mysterious break in the sequence where a church age can be inserted is a textbook case of eisegesis. But this is a lynchpin for dispensationalists because unless you can pull a 7 year tribulation out of Daniel you can’t get it anywhere else in scripture. My problem with a dispensational reading of the 70 weeks of Daniel is that the church age is arbitrarily inserted, why not just assume that the 70th week follows the 69th week, as weeks tend to do. Were this not enough, not even John, who was told not to seal up his prophecy (Rev 22:10), mentions in revelation that the tribulation is 7 years. Not even once.

Just a few things to ponder…

Grace and Peace
The idea of a 7 year tribulation is not just a Mid-Acts belief. I believed it before I even knew of Acts 9 dispensationalism.

I'm sure someone can address this.

BChristianK
December 6th, 2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

My intention was not to support any specific dispensationalism. Although I am an Acts 9er, myself. I merely wanted to show you that it may be possible for you to come to the conclusion that there is a dispensational model, in the Bible. That was all.

I understand, and I appreciate your referring me to those verses. Having previously held an acts 2 dispensational position, I have used those verses myself to justify a dispensational mode. I have since come to understand that oikonomia does not contain the meaning that I had ascribed to it.


I have yet to see an Acts 9er claim that salvation will come by works, in the future.

I don’t know if Bob Hill and Bob Enyart agree on this, but if memory serves me correct, Bob Hill claims that during the tribulation, salvation will come by faith+works, under the terms of the circumcision gospel.

I will stand corrected if anyone is willing to inform me otherwise.


If I understand correctly the Mid-Acts dispensational belief is that the event described in 1 Thess. is pre-tribulational [the Body of Christ departs] and the event described in Matthew is post-tribulational [the Bride of Christ departs]. I may be wrong about this, because this seems very unlikely.

That is the mid-acts dispensational view. The church is raptured in the order of a dispensational interpretation of 1 Thess 4:7, which is proceeded by a 7 year tribulation, and then Christ returns which Matthew 24:30-31 is descriptive of.

The problem that I have with this interpretation is that it appears to be a very artificial distinction. Unless one came to 1 Thess with a theology that assumes a pretribulation rapture, one would come to the conclusion that these two descriptions (1 Thess and Matthew 24) are of the same event, not different events, one a rapture, and the other a return of the Lord seven years later.


There are also other verses, which I'm sure someone can provide, because I can't even remember the words that I need to look them up in my concordance.

Other verses describing a rapture? Not to my knowledge, but then again perhaps you are right and someone will be able to point them out for us.


The idea of a 7 year tribulation is not just a Mid-Acts belief. I believed it before I even knew of Acts 9 dispensationalism.

Right, it is also a belief held by acts 2 dispensationalists (which tends to be more widely held to.) Incidentally, that is why I am no longer an acts 2 dispensationalist either. I think that extrapolating a 7 year tribulation that follows a parenthesis in the 70 weeks of Daniel is still somewhat tenuous, be it an acts 2 interpretation or an acts 9 interpretation. Rather, it makes more sense, to me at least, to allow for the fact that the 70th week of Daniel follows directly from the 69th week of Daniel, as weeks are in the habit of doing, rather than following some unspoken parenthesis wherein the current dispensation can be found.

Finally, I would commend to you the historical problem of Paul baptizing and allowing baptisms to occur well after his gospel was revealed to him. Scholars date the book of Galatians as being written sometime in 48 A.D., Paul allowed baptisms and even practiced baptism himself during his second missionary journey which began no earlier than 52 A.D.

Finally, were I looking to embrace an acts 9 dispensational model that renounces water baptism as a practice of the contemporary church, I would look for a verse in scripture that clearly tells us that God has set that aside.

Scripture is very good about telling us when things have been set aside, and it is very good about telling us in clear and certain terms.

One can see clearly where the Old Covenant was set aside. One can see clearly where the dietary restrictions have been set aside. One can see clearly where circumcision is no longer needed, but I can't find one verse where Paul (or anyone for that matter) declares water baptism as antiquated, tells folks not to be baptized, and explains to us that baptism doesn't matter, or even tells us that he has stopped doing it himself.

Granted, he does tell the Corinthians that he was not sent to them for the primary purpose of getting in the water and baptizing them, but, as I have pointed out to Hilston, Paul still baptized in Corinth during his second missionary journey. He allowed others to be baptized that he himself did not personally baptize during that same visit, and he did this after he would have known better than to do so.

So why is Paul preaching one gospel but practicing another?

Just some things to think about.

Grace and Peace

Clete
December 6th, 2004, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK
I don’t know if Bob Hill and Bob Enyart agree on this, but if memory serves me correct, Bob Hill claims that during the tribulation, salvation will come by faith+works, under the terms of the circumcision gospel.

I will stand corrected if anyone is willing to inform me otherwise.
Well it all depends on what you mean. If you asked 10 Christians today whether or not works are required today to be saved you'd probably get 10 different answers to that "yes or no" question.

If I understand Enyart's and Hill's theology (which are virtually identical) then the epistles of Paul apply directly to the Body of Christ in this dispensation. The "gospel" according to Jesus, Peter, James and John applied directly prior to Paul and even overlapped Paul ministry in that their Gospel continued to apply to their converts until they died. And that same Gospel will apply directly again once this dispensation is over. It will apply for the final 7 year period that God has allotted to Israel, the last of it's so called 40 weeks of years.
So if you think that James' statement that "faith without works is dead" applies today as a nondispensationalist, then we as dispensationalists do not beleive that the future gospel will be any more of a works based salvation than you beleive todays gospel to be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

BChristianK
December 6th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Well it all depends on what you mean. If you asked 10 Christians today whether or not works are required today to be saved you'd probably get 10 different answers to that "yes or no" question.

You probably would.


If I understand Enyart's and Hill's theology (which are virtually identical) then the epistles of Paul apply directly to the Body of Christ in this dispensation. The "gospel" according to Jesus, Peter, James and John applied directly prior to Paul and even overlapped Paul ministry in that their Gospel continued to apply to their converts until they died.

That was my understanding of both Bob Enyart and Bob Hills theology.


And that same Gospel will apply directly again once this dispensation is over. It will apply for the final 7 year period that God has allotted to Israel, the last of it's so called 40 weeks of years.

Again, that is what I understood them to have believed.


So if you think that James' statement that "faith without works is dead" applies today as a nondispensationalist, then we as dispensationalists do not believe that the future gospel will be any more of a works based salvation than you believe today’s gospel to be.

I thought that Bob Hill and Bob Enyart believed that, in the 7 years following the conclusion of this dispensation, one will need to be circumcised, keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws in order to maintain their salvation, but again, I could be wrong. If that is the case, then the works salvation of the tribulation will be very much different than the nondispensationalist believes today’s gospel to be.


Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
December 7th, 2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

I understand, and I appreciate your referring me to those verses. Having previously held an acts 2 dispensational position, I have used those verses myself to justify a dispensational mode. I have since come to understand that oikonomia does not contain the meaning that I had ascribed to it.
Dispensation means nothing other than 'set of rules.'

I am not responding to some of your points, because I kind of agree with you.


Finally, I would commend to you the historical problem of Paul baptizing and allowing baptisms to occur well after his gospel was revealed to him. Scholars date the book of Galatians as being written sometime in 48 A.D., Paul allowed baptisms and even practiced baptism himself during his second missionary journey which began no earlier than 52 A.D.

Finally, were I looking to embrace an acts 9 dispensational model that renounces water baptism as a practice of the contemporary church, I would look for a verse in scripture that clearly tells us that God has set that aside.

Scripture is very good about telling us when things have been set aside, and it is very good about telling us in clear and certain terms.

One can see clearly where the Old Covenant was set aside. One can see clearly where the dietary restrictions have been set aside. One can see clearly where circumcision is no longer needed, but I can't find one verse where Paul (or anyone for that matter) declares water baptism as antiquated, tells folks not to be baptized, and explains to us that baptism doesn't matter, or even tells us that he has stopped doing it himself.

Granted, he does tell the Corinthians that he was not sent to them for the primary purpose of getting in the water and baptizing them, but, as I have pointed out to Hilston, Paul still baptized in Corinth during his second missionary journey. He allowed others to be baptized that he himself did not personally baptize during that same visit, and he did this after he would have known better than to do so.
Baptism isn't for salvation. That doesn't mean it is forbidden as a confession of faith. Hilston is a legalist.


So why is Paul preaching one gospel but practicing another?

Just some things to think about.

Grace and Peace
He's not.

BChristianK
December 11th, 2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Dispensation means nothing other than 'set of rules.'

I agree that if you combine oikoV with nomoV you get oikonomia which is the word translated dispensation. However, one of the improvements that BDAG has made to the field of lexiconography is to look at the contemporary usage of the word in addition to its etymology. We have words that use all the time that have slightly different nuances of meaning that boil down to the usage of common parlance and not to the strict etymology of the words. BDAG takes that into consideration as well.

That being said, I don't see how oikonomia legitimates the dispensational charts I used to use as visual aids when I taught acts 2 dispensationalism, nor do I see it legitimating the mid-acts dispensational charts I have seen as well.



Baptism isn't for salvation. That doesn't mean it is forbidden as a confession of faith. Hilston is a legalist.

I am pretty sure that both Bob Hill and Bob Enyart both teach that Jesus' ministry was one that required baptism for salvation and the same requirement will be true during the tribulation.


Now I said that it didn't make sense for Paul to have taught two different gospels, one at Corinth and another Galatia. You said:



He's not.

I agree. I agree that he certainly isn't. But what troubles me is that it appears as if mid-acts dispensationalism comes to this conclusion. Historically, Paul founded the Corinthian church during his second missionary journey, and wrote 1 Corinthians during his third missionary journey from Ephesus (where, interestingly, he continue to practice water baptism according to Acts 19).

Now what does Paul claim in Galatians?
[color=red]

Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Now, there is good reason to assume that Paul founded the church in Galatia during his first missionary journey. Some would claim that it was founded during the second missionary journey, but that is of no consequences to the argument in any event. What we know for certain is that Paul founded the Galatian church before he founded the church in Corinth and we know that Paul himself baptized in Corinth (as well as Philippi).

Now the mid-acts dispensationalist must have you believe that Paul, having received his gospel directly from Jesus, got it wrong in Corinth and baptized by mistake. And continued in this errant practice (despite receiving his gospel directly from Jesus) until his third missionary journey after having founded nearly all of the churches that he would start in his apostolic missionary, when he wrote back to the Corinthians that he is glad he only baptized a few of them.


He had already written 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Galatians, probably, at this point already, being totally confused as to the role and place of baptism in the church. And when he gets the chance to correct the huge mess he made by baptizing all those folks on his first and second missionary journeys, Paul doesn't. Neither first nor second Corinthians has a clear abrogation of baptism.

Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit suspect to you?

Does it sound right that Christ Himself would impart to Paul a gospel and then Paul would go about his work evangelizing among the gentiles, baptizing all the while, and then unfortuitously finding at the end of his traveling apostolic ministry that he goofed the whole time? We must conclude that Paul:

1. didn't listen very well to the clear instructions of Christ when Christ imparted to Paul the message he was sent out with,

or

2. that Jesus was unclear as to the role of baptism to Paul (where he had not been the slightest bit unclear to the 12),

or

3. that Paul was absolutely clear as to the place of baptism in his ministry to the gentiles but chose to ignore Jesus anyway,

or

4. (and this the option I go with) conclude that Paul was correct in baptizing in Corinth, in Philippi and in Ephesus and that the mid-acts dispensational interpretation of 1 Cor 1:17 is in error, the consequence is that baptism is an ordinance for the church today.

If you see other options, I'm open to hearing them :)

CariV kai Eirhnh

God_Is_Truth
December 11th, 2004, 11:54 PM
BChristianK, you may find this of interest:

http://midacts.net/studies/progressive_revelation.html

Lighthouse
December 12th, 2004, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

I agree that if you combine oikoV with nomoV you get oikonomia which is the word translated dispensation. However, one of the improvements that BDAG has made to the field of lexiconography is to look at the contemporary usage of the word in addition to its etymology. We have words that use all the time that have slightly different nuances of meaning that boil down to the usage of common parlance and not to the strict etymology of the words. BDAG takes that into consideration as well.

That being said, I don't see how oikonomia legitimates the dispensational charts I used to use as visual aids when I taught acts 2 dispensationalism, nor do I see it legitimating the mid-acts dispensational charts I have seen as well.


I am pretty sure that both Bob Hill and Bob Enyart both teach that Jesus' ministry was one that required baptism for salvation and the same requirement will be true during the tribulation.


Now I said that it didn't make sense for Paul to have taught two different gospels, one at Corinth and another Galatia. You said:



I agree. I agree that he certainly isn't. But what troubles me is that it appears as if mid-acts dispensationalism comes to this conclusion. Historically, Paul founded the Corinthian church during his second missionary journey, and wrote 1 Corinthians during his third missionary journey from Ephesus (where, interestingly, he continue to practice water baptism according to Acts 19).

Now what does Paul claim in Galatians?
[color=red]
Now, there is good reason to assume that Paul founded the church in Galatia during his first missionary journey. Some would claim that it was founded during the second missionary journey, but that is of no consequences to the argument in any event. What we know for certain is that Paul founded the Galatian church before he founded the church in Corinth and we know that Paul himself baptized in Corinth (as well as Philippi).

Now the mid-acts dispensationalist must have you believe that Paul, having received his gospel directly from Jesus, got it wrong in Corinth and baptized by mistake. And continued in this errant practice (despite receiving his gospel directly from Jesus) until his third missionary journey after having founded nearly all of the churches that he would start in his apostolic missionary, when he wrote back to the Corinthians that he is glad he only baptized a few of them.


He had already written 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Galatians, probably, at this point already, being totally confused as to the role and place of baptism in the church. And when he gets the chance to correct the huge mess he made by baptizing all those folks on his first and second missionary journeys, Paul doesn't. Neither first nor second Corinthians has a clear abrogation of baptism.

Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit suspect to you?

Does it sound right that Christ Himself would impart to Paul a gospel and then Paul would go about his work evangelizing among the gentiles, baptizing all the while, and then unfortuitously finding at the end of his traveling apostolic ministry that he goofed the whole time? We must conclude that Paul:

1. didn't listen very well to the clear instructions of Christ when Christ imparted to Paul the message he was sent out with,

or

2. that Jesus was unclear as to the role of baptism to Paul (where he had not been the slightest bit unclear to the 12),

or

3. that Paul was absolutely clear as to the place of baptism in his ministry to the gentiles but chose to ignore Jesus anyway,

or

4. (and this the option I go with) conclude that Paul was correct in baptizing in Corinth, in Philippi and in Ephesus and that the mid-acts dispensational interpretation of 1 Cor 1:17 is in error, the consequence is that baptism is an ordinance for the church today.

If you see other options, I'm open to hearing them :)

CariV kai Eirhnh
First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.

Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

God_Is_Truth
December 12th, 2004, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.

Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

1 Corinthians 1
14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

clear scripture that Paul baptized.

Lighthouse
December 12th, 2004, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

1 Corinthians 1
14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

clear scripture that Paul baptized.
Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

Now, can anyone provide evidence that Paul preached it as a must? Can anyone prove that it profits us anything?

God_Is_Truth
December 12th, 2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Thank you. That's all I was looking for.

Now, can anyone provide evidence that Paul preached it as a must? Can anyone prove that it profits us anything?

that i cannot.

BChristianK
December 12th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

First, please provide scripture that shows that Paul baptized.


In Phillipi during his second missionary journey.



Acts 16:14-15 A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us; she was from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. 15 When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home." And she prevailed upon us.



Acts 16:29-33 The jailer called for lights, and rushing in, he fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them outside and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They answered, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay.


In Corinth when the church was founded:


Acts 18:7-8 Then he left the synagogue and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God; his house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.

In Ephesus:


Acts 19:4-5 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


And, of course, as God is Truth pointed out, I Cor 1:13-17 makes it pretty clear that Paul baptized...



Secondly, do you believe that baptism is a must?

I think that Baptism is the biblically prescribed method of making a public confession of Christ. So yes, I think it is a must. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist, so I don't think that those who aren't baptized are necessarily unsaved

Grace and Peace

OMEGA
December 12th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Why would PAUL admit that he baptised the house of Stephanas

and a few others if it was Not a Necessity for a Christian to be

Baptised.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
----------------------------------------

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

-----------------1Co 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.
---------------------------------------------------------

1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
-------

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
-------
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
-------
1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
-------
Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.:think:

Lighthouse
December 12th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

I think that Baptism is the biblically prescribed method of making a public confession of Christ. So yes, I think it is a must. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist, so I don't think that those who aren't baptized are necessarily unsaved

Grace and Peace
Wow!:noway:

What a contradiction!

BChristianK
December 12th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

BChristianK, you may find this of interest:

http://midacts.net/studies/progressive_revelation.html

GIT, Thanks for the info. I read it and I do think that this may alleviate some of the tension that is presented by a mid-acts dispensational rendering of Acts. However, I still have some issues with it. Among these are :
1.The fact that Paul may have been the recipient of progressive revelation, but we still don't have the results of that progressive revelation anywhere in a clear biblical abrogation of baptism. The linchpin passage of the mid-acts dispensational position on baptism is 1 Cor 1:17. Unfortunately, I see other, more probably interpretations for this passage than an abrogation of baptism.

If that is the only passage that can be pointed to, then in my opinion, it isn't clear enough to start hanging theological hats on.

2. The concept of progressive revelation is somewhat contradictory to dispensationalism anyway. If God didn't reveal to Paul that baptism was done away with until sometime after he baptized in Ephesus and before his writing of 1 Corinthians, then can we really say that the folks who came to Christ under the ministry of Paul before Act 19 were saved by the same gospel that we are saved under today? Is there, even another gospel, perhaps called the gospel of uncircumscision without baptism that is different from the gospel preached by Paul during his first missionary journey which is a gospel of uncircumscision with baptism?

When did baptism stop being an ordinance to be practiced by the church if not when it was supposedly revealed to us by Paul in 1 Cor 1:17? Can something be considered part of the “good news” that Paul preached if it isn’t even “news” yet? So shouldn't all the acts 9rs start calling themselves 1 Cor 1:17'rs? Or Acts 19-20'rs? Paul came to Christ in A.D. 33, He didn't write 1 Corinthians until A.D. 53 at the earliest. Can we really say, even if we assume 1 Cor 1:17 is a retraction of baptism, that those who were saved in the 20 years between A.D. 33 and A.D. 53 were saved under the same "good news message" that we are?

Isn't a "gospel" defined by the information that is presented in it and the expectation of those under it? Wasn't the expectation of those in that 20 year period between Paul's conversion and his writing of 1 Cor 1:17 that they would be baptized? Weren’t they expected to do what they knew to do?

Is it really true for them...


Ephesians 4:4-5 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism...?

Couldn't be by Hilston's logic. The Corinthians had two baptisms. So now, let’s test things that differ.

Did Paul practice baptism before Acts 19?
Did he, according to the mid-acts dispensationalists, after acts 19?

OK, so why does everyone pin the date of the new gospel at 33 A.D. at the conversion of Paul?


Don’t get me wrong, I agree that revelation is indeed progressive. Incidentally that is what led me completely away from dispensationalism in the first place. A dispensation included all those people who heard a message and what made that dispensation different from others was the content of the message and the expectations of the message. If the content of the message of Paul before Acts 19 included baptism, and it very clearly did, and those who received Paul’s message were expected to follow that message, and they very clearly did, then isn’t that grounds for another dispensation? The gospel of the uncircumscision plus baptism, dispensation?

Grace and Peace

P.S. If anyone else would like to answer the questions I posed to GIT, i'm open to hearing those answers.

BChristianK
December 12th, 2004, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Wow!:noway:

What a contradiction!

Ok, you tell me, was it necessary for the disciples in Acts 19 to be baptized? Was it a must for them?

If no, how would they have known that?

Last few questions for you, or God is Truth or Hilston or Turbo or Knight or any of the mid-acts dispensationalists...

When does a dispensation begin?

Is it the moment in time that God decides to start it?
Is it the moment in time when God communicates the new message to a person whose responsibility it is to communicate that new message to others?
Is it when that persons begins to communicate that new message, when the first person is told?
Is it when the first person responds and obeys the new message?

When is it, when does a dispensation change?

Lighthouse
December 13th, 2004, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Ok, you tell me, was it necessary for the disciples in Acts 19 to be baptized? Was it a must for them?
No.


If no, how would they have known that?
Did they think they were saved by it? I didn't think so.


Last few questions for you, or God is Truth or Hilston or Turbo or Knight or any of the mid-acts dispensationalists...

When does a dispensation begin?

Is it the moment in time that God decides to start it?
Is it the moment in time when God communicates the new message to a person whose responsibility it is to communicate that new message to others?
Is it when that persons begins to communicate that new message, when the first person is told?
Is it when the first person responds and obeys the new message?

When is it, when does a dispensation change?
I'd think it begins when God communicates the new message. But, I would also venture to say that it might begin when it is first communicated by the one responsible to preach it.

BChristianK
December 13th, 2004, 10:04 AM
Lighthouse,

I asked of the folks in Acts 19 needed to be baptized, you said:


No.

Then I asked how they would have known that, you replied:


Did they think they were saved by it? I didn't think so.

I never claimed that they thought they were saved by it. What I hoped to get an answer to was how anyone was supposed to know that they weren’t supposed to be baptized. I don't claim that anyone is saved by baptism in any dispensation (or covenant). Nonetheless, they were baptized, the Phillipian jailer was baptized and these guys were baptized in addition to the many Corinthians.

All of this happened during a time when the mid-acts dispensationalists say baptism was put away.

Now my next questions becomes very pertinent. I asked when a dispensation starts, you said:



I'd think it begins when God communicates the new message. But, I would also venture to say that it might begin when it is first communicated by the one responsible to preach it.

Ok, since a dispensation begins either when God communicates the new message or when the person responsible starts preaching it. Lets work with the first since it gives you the most latitude. When did God communicate to Paul that baptism was abrogated?


If you say before Acts 19, you make Paul both stupid and disobedient. Stupid for knowing full well that baptism was set aside and disobedient for baptizing for 20 years anyway.

If you say that God didn’t reveal that baptism was put away until approx Act 19 (A.D. 52+) then you can’t very well say that the dispensation wherein baptism is set aside was inaugurated in acts 9 now can you? Because a dispensation doesn’t start until God communicates the new message to the person responsible to preach it, at the earliest, according to your own admission.

So which is it, is Paul a disobedient oaf or are you now an Acts 19 Dispensationalist?

:D

Grace and Peace

Hilston
December 13th, 2004, 11:14 AM
BChristianK,

Your last post to me slipped through the cracks! I'm very sorry for the delay. Your post was rather long, so it may take a little while to compose my reply. I may offer my response in parts, so you won't have to wait as long. Your post was obviously well thought and carefully written, and deserves an appropriate reply.

Thanks for the discussion; I'll be in touch.

Hilston
December 13th, 2004, 11:39 AM
Lighthouse,

So I know what I'm being accused of, please define "legalist."

Also, I'm curious. Have you ever read the Bible?

BChristianK
December 13th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

BChristianK,

Your last post to me slipped through the cracks! I'm very sorry for the delay. Your post was rather long, so it may take a little while to compose my reply. I may offer my response in parts, so you won't have to wait as long. Your post was obviously well thought and carefully written, and deserves an appropriate reply.

Thanks for the discussion; I'll be in touch.

Take your time. Life is about to get exceptionally busy for me so if you respond and I don't get back to you right away, it's not because I don't want to continue the conversation.

My wife and I are expecting our first in the next couple of weeks and somethin' tells me that will inaugurate the "dispensation of busyness" :chuckle:



Grace and Peace

Nineveh
December 13th, 2004, 06:14 PM
> > > OFF TOPIC POST :)



Originally posted by BChristianK
My wife and I are expecting our first in the next couple of weeks and somethin' tells me that will inaugurate the "dispensation of busyness"

Congrats!

Whatta Christmas gift! :)

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Lighthouse,

I asked of the folks in Acts 19 needed to be baptized, you said:

Then I asked how they would have known that, you replied:

I never claimed that they thought they were saved by it. What I hoped to get an answer to was how anyone was supposed to know that they weren’t supposed to be baptized. I don't claim that anyone is saved by baptism in any dispensation (or covenant). Nonetheless, they were baptized, the Phillipian jailer was baptized and these guys were baptized in addition to the many Corinthians.
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.


All of this happened during a time when the mid-acts dispensationalists say baptism was put away.
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.


Now my next questions becomes very pertinent. I asked when a dispensation starts, you said:



Ok, since a dispensation begins either when God communicates the new message or when the person responsible starts preaching it. Lets work with the first since it gives you the most latitude. When did God communicate to Paul that baptism was abrogated?
I don't know. Hold on. I need to look up "abrogated."

Okay. I still don't know when that happened. And I don't stand to reason that it was repealed. And, if you re-read the view, you will see that the 12 still practiced baptism, and it was not repealed for them, and theri converts.


If you say before Acts 19, you make Paul both stupid and disobedient. Stupid for knowing full well that baptism was set aside and disobedient for baptizing for 20 years anyway.
See above.

I do not believe that God ever told Paul that He could not baptize.


If you say that God didn’t reveal that baptism was put away until approx Act 19 (A.D. 52+) then you can’t very well say that the dispensation wherein baptism is set aside was inaugurated in acts 9 now can you? Because a dispensation doesn’t start until God communicates the new message to the person responsible to preach it, at the earliest, according to your own admission.
Have you been paying attention to my above replies? I hope so, because I'm not repeating myself, here.


So which is it, is Paul a disobedient oaf or are you now an Acts 19 Dispensationalist?

:D

Grace and Peace
Well? What do you conclude?

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Hilston

Lighthouse,

So I know what I'm being accused of, please define "legalist."
You say that we are not allowed to celebrate any holidays, or practice baptism...and many other things.


Also, I'm curious. Have you ever read the Bible?
No. Huh uh. Never.:rolleyes:

Hilston
December 14th, 2004, 02:54 AM
Hilston asked: So I know what I'm being accused of, please define "legalist."


Lighthouse writes: You say that we are not allowed to celebrate any holidays, or practice baptism...and many other things.Decrying unbiblical behavior doesn't make one a legalist. Jesus restricted behavior. So did Paul. Neither of them were legalists. So I ask again:

Please define "legalist." That means, offer a definition. Like this:

"legalist" means _______________definition here_______________.

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 03:37 AM
"legalist" means one who makes additions to the rules of their dispensation. In this case, it means one who says there are laws, even though the Bible says we are not under a law. And since that is straight from Paul's letters it is obviously for this dispensation. So, to say we are forbidden from observing holidays, when we know they have nothing to do with our salvation, is legalistic. The same goes for baptism.:doh:

Hilston
December 14th, 2004, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

"legalist" means one who makes additions to the rules of their dispensation. In this case, it means one who says there are laws, even though the Bible says we are not under a law. And since that is straight from Paul's letters it is obviously for this dispensation. So, to say we are forbidden from observing holidays, when we know they have nothing to do with our salvation, is legalistic. The same goes for baptism.:doh: 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.

Lighthouse, does your mommy or daddy know that get on the internet and try to act like a grown-up? They should be telling you how dangerous that is, because when children get on the internet and try to act like adults, bad things are bound to happen. In your case, you've ended up looking like a pathetic schlub who doesn't have a real life, doesn't have real friends, and is reduced to role-playing in a venue where people can't see what a pathetic schlub you really are.

I've seen this sort of thing time and again. It's clear from your posting pattern that you're simply a flaneur that doesn't have a life. Pathetic doesn't really begin to describe what it must be like to be so unimportant, so abjectly incidental, that you have to come to places like TOL just to make pseudo-friends and to convince yourself someone actually cares to hear the malodorous sludge that spews forth from your peurile and idiotic mind.

Thank you for being such an amusing little troll.

BChristianK
December 14th, 2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Nineveh

> > > OFF TOPIC POST :)




Congrats!

Whatta Christmas gift! :)

Thanks Nineveh!

It is certainly quite a Christmas gift.

BChristianK
December 14th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

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.

It is not a must? So, in your view, Paul was out practicing an unneccesary ordinance for 20 years of his ministry?


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.

Perhaps I have misrepresented Acts 9 views but according to Bob Hill.


After Israel had been set aside, part of Paul’s ministry was to show Israel this fact. God pronounced for the final time, through Paul, that Israel had been set aside (Acts 28:28). This happened when Paul made his inspired judicial decree quoting Isaiah 6:9,10. The baptisms imposed on Israel were set aside until God would be dealing with Israel again in the tribulation. For instance, water baptism will be necessary for salvation again when Peter’s epistles will be in God’s program for the tribulation period (1 Pet. 3:20,21).

Now there is one baptism. After his Acts 28:28 decree, Paul was inspired to write Ephesians. In it he wrote Eph 4:4,5, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” One baptism? If there is only one baptism, which one is it? Is it water or Holy Spirit? It is Holy Spirit! Why? Because God has suspended the use of water baptism. It has been done away with because God is through with Israel for the time being.
(Bob Hill, Two Bible Studies on Baptism, Salvation and Baptism, The Mystery and Baptism, Located at www.biblicalanswers.com)

Now I don't know what set aside and suspended means to you, but I think it comes pretty close to put away.

BTW, I would invite Knight or anyone more closely identified with Bob Hills teaching to keep me honest, but I don't think that Bob Hill teaches that baptism is prohibited, as if being baptized is a sinful act, but I do know that he thinks it is unneccesary, and that, in light of the current dispensation shouldn't be practiced.

Now regarding the time when God repealed baptism you said:


Okay. I still don't know when that happened.

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?

And if God didn’t, then shouldn’t we obey Christ’s commission in Matthew 28:19 and Peter’s advice is Acts 2:38?

All of this is pertinent to your next comment;


And I don't stand to reason that it was repealed.


That’s fine, and it sounds like you are still testing the waters of mid-acts dispensationalism. But, that is an answer that is inconsistent with an acts 9 dispensational view.


And, if you re-read the view, you will see that the 12 still practiced baptism, and it was not repealed for them, and their converts.

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.


You further say:


I do not believe that God ever told Paul that He could not baptize.

Did God tell Paul that baptism was unnecessary? When did this happen?



Have you been paying attention to my above replies? I hope so, because I'm not repeating myself, here.

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.

Your discussing a friend Lighthouse, if you don’t know, I won’t rub your nose in it. Ther are plenty of questions I can’t answer so I know the feeling. If you do know, and have answered me, then I would simply ask for your patient indulgence in either pointing me to the post and the paragraph of the answer or imposing on you to cut and paste the answer in your next post.



Finally regarding the issue of whether Paul was disobedient or whether the current dispensation started in Acts 19 you said:


Well? What do you conclude?

I conclude neither. Such an unacceptable quandary leads me to abandon a dispensational system altogether and conclude that the current age started at the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. I conclude that we are in a New Covenant age with a gospel message that both Peter and Paul share, each making that core message relevant to their respecting audiences, but the requirements for both are the same.


Grace and Peace

Hilston
December 14th, 2004, 11:22 AM
BChristianK,

Here is a partial reply to about half of your post. Please let me know if anything is unclear or if any references don't seem to line up.

Hilston wrote: That's because you mistakenly assume harmony is the absence of distinctions. If you come to a verse in which Paul tells you that certain information had been held in silence, completely hidden from the Jewish prophets (Ro 11:25 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16), shouldn't that tell you that there is a difference between their message and Paul's?


BChristianK writes:
Absolutely. But you assume that the differences constitute a discontinuity from the Jewish prophets, I do not.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.

Hilston wrote:
First of all, it isn't an importation. The word and concept (oikonomia = household law, 1Co 9:17 Eph 1:10 3:2 Col 1:25) are patently taught in scripture.


BChristianK writes:
The concept of dispensation is patently taught in scripture. However, shifting from an understanding that a dispensation is a commission or a responsibility to an understanding of the term that assumes it is a temporal economy of God is not patently taught in scripture.There is no shift in what you've stated. The commission or responsibility necessarily includes a temporal economy that defines the commission or responsibility.


BChristianK writes:
I’ve had many conversations with some very sharp dispensationalists on TOL and I have not yet been given reason enough to conclude that oikonomia means anything other than BDAG suggests it means.
1. A responsibility of management
2. A Plan.
3. Program of instruction or training.I agree with BDAG.


BChristianK writes:
In order to accept a dispensational theology, one must apply a temporal dimension to the word that I don’t think can be substantiated. In fact, if one looks at dispensational charts, one will see that dispensations are primarily seen as era’s of time.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.


BChristianK writes:
Furthermore, of the 7 or 9 or 12 dispensations that many dispensationalists claim exist, only one of those is even hinted at in scripture as being called a “dispensation”, and that is if you stretch the meaning of the word oikonomia.I would join you in criticism of that eisegetical fabrication.

Hilston wrote: Paul said the grace given to him was to the intent that he make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph 3:9). How can you miss this?


BChristianK writes:
You can’t miss these verses. What you can miss, and should notice is not there, is the conclusion that Paul was given a divergent gospel than Peter to preach among the gentiles.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.

Hilston wrote:
Furthermore, what you call harmonization, I call eisogetical shoehorning. The true harmonization of scripture is achieved by rightly dividing the Word of truth, making exegetically clear and logically sound distinctions between Israel's scriptures and the Body-of-Christ's.


BChristianK writes:
So one can certainly rightly divide the word of truth but orqotomew doesn’t mean sectioning off parts of scripture as inapplicable given a current era of time.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 (http://www.tgfonline.org) 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.

Hilston wrote: One baptism. How much more clear can one be?


BChristianK writes:
One baptism, and of course that means that there cannot be both a baptism of the Holy Spirit and a water baptism ‘cause that would be 2 baptisms, right? Except for the fact that such wrangling of scripture can only be done when one ignores the context of the passage.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.


BChristianK writes:
Paul is speaking of the unity of the body. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith and one Baptism, and one God.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. (http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/sevenones.htm)


BChristianK writes:
Incidentally, mid-acts dispensationalism violates the context of the passage in my opinion, claiming that there are two faiths (one faith in one gospel and one faith in another gospel).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.

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


BChristianK writes:
Two baptisms (one of water for the circumcised and one of spirit for the uncircumcised).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.


BChristianK writes:
But beyond that, if we accept the methodology by which you interpret this passage, we cannot conclude that anyone to whom Paul wrote in Ephesians could ever die physically by way of persecution, since Jesus made clear that the persecutorial death that He suffered was a type of baptism (Mark 10:38). So if they are ever persecuted unto death, then they would have had two baptisms, one of the Spirit and the other a baptism of death, which clearly can’t happen and there be one baptism.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.

Hilston wrote: The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?


BChristianK writes:
Was the body of Christ instructed to shun the Lord’s Supper? Isn’t that a “religious ceremony?”Yes. The Passover meal was a ceremonial, symbolic, religious rite of Israel. Paul prohibits this behavior for the Body of Christ.


BChristianK writes:
Are all Christians supposed to get married by a justice of the peace or by Elvis in a chapel in Vegas since getting married in a church with a pastor would constitute a “religious ceremony?”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.

Hilston wrote:
The Body of Christ is seated above angels, and therefore above ritual ceremony (1Co 6:3 Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10).


BChristianK writes:
Where in 1 Cor 6:3 does it talk about ritual ceremony?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.


BChristianK writes:
Where in Eph 1:20?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.


BChristianK writes:
And again, if you can please show me where I can find that we are above ceremony in 2:6 or 3:10 I’d appreciate you posting them since my bible doesn’t mention our being above ceremony in any of these passages.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.

Hilston asked: Did you read the aforementioned link?


BChristianK writes:
Yes, it is an argument from a chiasm and it is only one interpretation of the apex of the chiasm. Personally, I don’t even think it is the best interpretation of the apex of the chiasm. What is your interpretation?

I'll stop here for now. This is about the halfway point of your post. More later.

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Hilston

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.
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.


Lighthouse, does your mommy or daddy know that get on the internet and try to act like a grown-up?
I'm 24, and I don't live with either of my parents.


They should be telling you how dangerous that is, because when children get on the internet and try to act like adults, bad things are bound to happen. In your case, you've ended up looking like a pathetic schlub who doesn't have a real life, doesn't have real friends, and is reduced to role-playing in a venue where people can't see what a pathetic schlub you really are.
:blabla:


I've seen this sort of thing time and again. It's clear from your posting pattern that you're simply a flaneur that doesn't have a life. Pathetic doesn't really begin to describe what it must be like to be so unimportant, so abjectly incidental, that you have to come to places like TOL just to make pseudo-friends and to convince yourself someone actually cares to hear the malodorous sludge that spews forth from your peurile and idiotic mind.
You're a trip, Mr. Inmate.


Thank you for being such an amusing little troll.
:shut:

Lighthouse
December 14th, 2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

It is not a must? So, in your view, Paul was out practicing an unneccesary ordinance for 20 years of his ministry?
Yeah. So? I was baptised. It wasn't necessary, for any reason, but it was a public confession of faith. Get over it.


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.
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.


BTW, I would invite Knight or anyone more closely identified with Bob Hills teaching to keep me honest, but I don't think that Bob Hill teaches that baptism is prohibited, as if being baptized is a sinful act, but I do know that he thinks it is unneccesary, and that, in light of the current dispensation shouldn't be practiced.
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.


Now regarding the time when God repealed baptism you said:

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?
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.


And if God didn’t, then shouldn’t we obey Christ’s commission in Matthew 28:19 and Peter’s advice is Acts 2:38?
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.


All of this is pertinent to your next comment;


That’s fine, and it sounds like you are still testing the waters of mid-acts dispensationalism. But, that is an answer that is inconsistent with an acts 9 dispensational view.
Like I've said, I'm new to the doctrine.


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.
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.


You further say:

Did God tell Paul that baptism was unnecessary? When did this happen?
Does Paul say that baptism is necessary for salvation?


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.
If Paul says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, would it not stand to reason that God told him such?


Your discussing a friend Lighthouse, if you don’t know, I won’t rub your nose in it. Ther are plenty of questions I can’t answer so I know the feeling. If you do know, and have answered me, then I would simply ask for your patient indulgence in either pointing me to the post and the paragraph of the answer or imposing on you to cut and paste the answer in your next post.
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.



Finally regarding the issue of whether Paul was disobedient or whether the current dispensation started in Acts 19 you said:


I conclude neither. Such an unacceptable quandary leads me to abandon a dispensational system altogether and conclude that the current age started at the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. I conclude that we are in a New Covenant age with a gospel message that both Peter and Paul share, each making that core message relevant to their respecting audiences, but the requirements for both are the same.


Grace and Peace
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.

BChristianK
December 21st, 2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Yeah. So? I was baptized. It wasn't necessary, for any reason, but it was a public confession of faith. Get over it.

Should you have been baptized?


The Acts 9 view is that it is not necessary for salvation.

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 put away in that it is no necessary for salvation. Nothing more.

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.

That's one of my big objections to acts 9. It seems to gerrymander dispensational boundaries to try to resolve apparent inconsistencies. but the gerrymandering creates inconsistencies that cause greater problem in my opinion.

Now I asked of Cornelius was incorrectly baptized, to which you replied.




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.

So everyone that received the preaching of the 12 (Peter included) was under the gospel of the circumcision?

If so, then explain to me which Gospel the region of Galatia was under. The gospel of the circumcision (1 and 2 Peter were written to churches in Galatia) or uncircumscision (Galatians was written to very much the same audience).

BTW, I am pretty sure that Bob Hill disagree’s with you on Cornelius’s household. Cornelius, though preached to by Peter, was saved under a different Gospel than the one given the 12 (according to Bob Hill).

You asked:


Does Paul say that baptism is necessary for salvation?

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.

And I would argue, it still is.


If Paul says that baptism is not necessary for salvation, would it not stand to reason that God told him such?

That assumes that God told someone else that it was. An assumption I would not agree with.

What’s more, there is no, clear, abrogation of baptism anywhere in scripture. I’m of the opinion that we continue doing what God told us to do until we have a clear message to stop doing it.


The acts 9 argument to this is usually that the gospel of grace was progressively revealed to Paul and therefore from Paul to us. I have no problem with progressive revelation, as long as we eventually get to the revelation part. From my perspective, I just don't see that God revealed an abrogation of baptism anywhere in the scriptures.

I don’t buy the Acts 9 interpretation of 1 Cor chapter 1 and there is no other scripture to hang our hats on for the abrogation of baptism.


Now you say:


And Peter says baptism saves.

Peter says that getting wet saves or the pledge of clear conscience toward God?

Do you think that Paul taught an inconsistent message? That one can have an unclear conscience toward God and do ok?


Paul says faith alone saves.

Paul does.


Even James says we are justified by works, while Paul said we are justified by faith alone.

Perhaps the acts 9'ers have made too much of an apparent contradiction here.

Paul also said that we should "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling..." Should we consider that statement as one from even another dispensation?


So the question is, why do they contradict?


Why does being saved by faith alone and working out your salvation with fear and trembling contradict? Unless…. They don’t…


I Personally don't think they do. Nor do I think that Paul and James contradict. I think Paul was debunking the notion that one is justified in the sight of God by obedience to the law while the reprobate Gentiles are doomed and James was talking about being shown to be justified by practicing generosity, charity and equanimity.

So unless you don't think that generosity has any place in the dispensation of grace, I don't think the two contradict.

Finally you said:


But, if you believe that it all changed at the death, burial and resurrection then you are of an Acts 2 dispensational system.

I'm pretty sure I am ok diagnosing my own theological system, but thanks for the suggestion :D

I actually subscribe more closely with New Covenant theology. Acts 2 dispy's, like Charles Ryrie and Scoffield, still believe(d) in a preturbulation rapture (there are some post-trib and mid-trib folks however).

Most dispensationalists of any stripe think that the church age is a parenthesis in the plan of God. That God's plan for Israel was plan A and the church ended up being Plan B until God picks up with Plan A again after the rapture.

I don't.

In fact, I think that the church age has been the Plan A of God from the beginning and the New Covenant (inaugurated by Christ) is the fullness of God's revelation and the final program of God before His return to initiate eternity.

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
December 22nd, 2004, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Should you have been baptized?
It isn't a should or should not. It doesn't matter, if we are or we aren't.


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.
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.


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.
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:


That's one of my big objections to acts 9. It seems to gerrymander dispensational boundaries to try to resolve apparent inconsistencies. but the gerrymandering creates inconsistencies that cause greater problem in my opinion.
I think that depends on how you view it. I know at least one person who said it cleared up their confusion.


Now I asked of Cornelius was incorrectly baptized, to which you replied.



So everyone that received the preaching of the 12 (Peter included) was under the gospel of the circumcision?
Yes.


If so, then explain to me which Gospel the region of Galatia was under. The gospel of the circumcision (1 and 2 Peter were written to churches in Galatia) or uncircumscision (Galatians was written to very much the same audience).
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.


BTW, I am pretty sure that Bob Hill disagree’s with you on Cornelius’s household. Cornelius, though preached to by Peter, was saved under a different Gospel than the one given the 12 (according to Bob Hill).
How so?


You asked:

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.

And I would argue, it still is.
I believe that baptism is a means, but vocally proclaiming can be just as effective.

Now, does Peter ever say that baptism saves?


That assumes that God told someone else that it was. An assumption I would not agree with.
Mark 16:16
1 Peter 3:21
Acts 2:38


What’s more, there is no, clear, abrogation of baptism anywhere in scripture. I’m of the opinion that we continue doing what God told us to do until we have a clear message to stop doing it.
Quit arguing with me as if I believe that baptism should stop.


The acts 9 argument to this is usually that the gospel of grace was progressively revealed to Paul and therefore from Paul to us. I have no problem with progressive revelation, as long as we eventually get to the revelation part. From my perspective, I just don't see that God revealed an abrogation of baptism anywhere in the scriptures.
Neither do I. And I never said I did.


I don’t buy the Acts 9 interpretation of 1 Cor chapter 1 and there is no other scripture to hang our hats on for the abrogation of baptism.
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?


Now you say:

Peter says that getting wet saves or the pledge of clear conscience toward God?
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."
I know what you're getting at, but it still seems that you are saying baptism is a must. And many people argue that baptism does save us, i.e. baptismal regeneration, based on this verse.


Do you think that Paul taught an inconsistent message? That one can have an unclear conscience toward God and do ok?
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?


Paul does.
Okay...


Perhaps the acts 9'ers have made too much of an apparent contradiction here.

Paul also said that we should "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling..." Should we consider that statement as one from even another dispensation?
Paul didn't mean works.


Why does being saved by faith alone and working out your salvation with fear and trembling contradict? Unless…. They don’t…
I never said they did. Where in the world did you come up with this?


I Personally don't think they do. Nor do I think that Paul and James contradict. I think Paul was debunking the notion that one is justified in the sight of God by obedience to the law while the reprobate Gentiles are doomed and James was talking about being shown to be justified by practicing generosity, charity and equanimity.
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?


So unless you don't think that generosity has any place in the dispensation of grace, I don't think the two contradict.
:yawn:

Stop arguing with me as if I believe such drivel.


Finally you said:

I'm pretty sure I am ok diagnosing my own theological system, but thanks for the suggestion :D
Well, Acts 2 is the first chapter after the ascension. That's what I mean.


I actually subscribe more closely with New Covenant theology. Acts 2 dispy's, like Charles Ryrie and Scoffield, still believe(d) in a preturbulation rapture (there are some post-trib and mid-trib folks however).
So, you don't beleive in pre-trib? What do you believe in?


Most dispensationalists of any stripe think that the church age is a parenthesis in the plan of God. That God's plan for Israel was plan A and the church ended up being Plan B until God picks up with Plan A again after the rapture.
Well, I guess I wasn't technicall Acts 2, before, then. Except that I have always believed in pre-trib.


I don't.

In fact, I think that the church age has been the Plan A of God from the beginning and the New Covenant (inaugurated by Christ) is the fullness of God's revelation and the final program of God before His return to initiate eternity.

Grace and Peace
So, you're a closed theist?

Hilston
December 22nd, 2004, 11:23 AM
BChristianK,

This is part two of an earlier response:

Hilston wrote:
Not only does it make the case for eschewing water baptism, but for shunning all ceremonial rituals and practices as well. You have more than one "single verse" saying "stop baptizing."


BChristianK writes:
How about we start with that one verse that explicitly and literally says, “stop baptizing” ...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.


BChristianK writes:
... and then work our way toward chiastic arguments that have more than one viable interpretation.Do you really believe that? That God intended His Word to have multiple viable interpretations?

Hilston wrote:
There's a whole host of biblical principles that apply. Furthermore, yours is an argument from silence.


BChristianK writes:
It is an argument that says that if scripture doesn’t say it, I am not going to believe it.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?

Hilston writes:
The purpose of the Greek scriptures outside of the Pauline corpus is to record the historical narratives of the Messiah's life, death, resurrection and ascension, the decline of the nation of Israel, and prescriptions for future Israel.


BChristianK writes:
Unfortunately, that is not why John told us he wrote his gospel.

John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.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?


BChristianK writes:
What about that is untrue? Given that John telegraphs his purpose, how much of John’s gospel can I say is not applicable to me?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.


BChristianK writes:
Now concerning 1 Cor 1:17, you asked:

Ask yourself this question: In light of Mt 28:19,20, could Peter have uttered those words?

We must first take into consideration the fact that Paul was not dismissing the Corinthian’s practice of baptism but rather that he was dismissing the identification they held with the person who was doing the baptizing. There was an inordinate loyalty to the one who presided over the baptismal ceremony. Nowhere in the passage does Paul rebuke them for practicing baptism, only for their lack of understanding of what baptism symbolized …I fully grant that. My question still stands. Could Peter have said those same words? Yes or no?


BChristianK writes:
Interestingly, the context of the passage raises more of an argument against the mid-acts dispensationalists position than it does for it. Why do we see that even up to the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians that baptism was practiced? And among gentiles!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)


BChristianK writes:
Paul established the church in Corinth during his second missionary journey. During that time, Paul baptized Crispus, the synagogue official (Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:14). Gaius and Stephanus. But what is an important detail and one that is quite telling is that many of the Corinthians who heard Paul.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.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.


BChristianK writes:
If we are to take Paul at his word that he did not baptize anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14) To the best of Paul’s recollection, then we must assume that the many who were baptized in Corinth were baptized by someone other than Paul. It would seam a bit strange to characterize Crispus, Gaius and Stephanus’ household as many. Especially for a commercial center of the Roman empire. I agree.


BChristianK writes:
This historical contexualization tells us first, that Paul probably meant that he was not sent to personally baptize but to preach the gospel ( 1 Cor 1:17). In other words, Paul’s primary commission was not to get into the river and dunk ‘em personally, it was his commission to preach the gospel. This does not preclude the fact that many people were baptized under the ministry of Paul, but probably not dunked by Paul himself.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.


BChristianK writes:
Second, and more importantly, this brings up a huge historical problem for the mid-acts dispensationalist. As you have cited above, you argue that Galatians is one book from which we can gather the scriptural principle that baptism was made obsolete.

Remember this?

Hilston wrote:
The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?

Well if it cannot be any more clear then why is it that Paul, writing to Galatia circa 48 A.D., is certain that religious ceremony should be shunned (including and especially baptism according to you), but that Paul, during his second missionary journey (A.D. 52) personally baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14-16), and witnessed the many baptisms of Corinthians who heard his message (Acts 18:8), and didn’t say one single word to stop them???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.

Ga 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.


BChristianK writes:
Did Paul just forget that 4 years earlier he had argued that baptism was put away as a result of all religious ceremonies being shunned?It was put away for the Body of Christ, but not for Israel or the elect of the nations.


BChristianK writes:
And then, while in E[phesu]s when he penned 1 Corinthians (A.D. 55), why didn’t Paul straighten the whole mess out, and tell the Corinthians to stop doing all that crazy water baptizing?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.


BChristianK writes:
Are we to believe that 3 years after Paul flubs up and allows all those Corinthians to be baptized he wouldn’t clearly tell them to stop all that baptizing nonsense?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.


BChristianK writes:
Mid-acts dispensationalism is riddled with historical problems, this is just one of many, but this one is far from insignificant.It's not a problem in the least, BCK. It's a feature. And it makes perfect sense on the Mid-Acts view.


BChristianK writes:
Mid-acts dispensationalism is simply at a loss to explain why Paul would repudiate baptism in 48 A.D., turn around and personally baptize 2 folks and a household 4 years later in Corinth in 52 A.D. (and allow the baptisms of many other Corinthians during that same visit), and then turn around again in 55 A.D. and make a statement that you interpret as repudiation of water baptism in 55 A.D. Do you really think Paul was that schizophrenic?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.


BChristianK writes:
And I appreciate your irenic tone in your response. I hope that my directness has not deterred you from thinking that I intent our conversation to remain irenic. I would appreciate it if you would address the historical problem posed by your interpretation as I have outlined it above. I do that that warrants further elaborationI took no offense. I hope my response is clear. I will be happy elaborate further if needed.

By the way, for the record, I reject the standard Open Theist tripe of God scrapping Plan A and trying Plan B and scrapping that for Plan C. The Body of Christ was chosen from before the foundation of the world. Israel was chosen from the foundation of the world. In logical order, God's decree to choose the Body of Christ preceded His decree to create, whereas His decree to choose Israel followed the decree to create.

BChristianK
December 27th, 2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It isn't a should or should not. It doesn't matter, if we are or we aren't.

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?

Did it matter to Jesus when He spoke to the disciples in Matthew 28:19- 20?

If so, when did it stop mattering?

Can you tell us precisely when?

If not, then how do you know that it stopped mattering?

These are questions that I personally think should be asked and satisfactorily answered before one changes a theology that embraces an abrogation of baptism, don't ya think?



But some of the verses seem to say that it did save. A lot of people take it to mean that, anyway.

A lot of people have taken a lot of the bible in a lot of different ways.


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:


Dunno, since I am not one of those people.


I think that depends on how you view it. I know at least one person who said it cleared up their confusion.

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.

Now I asked if everyone who was converted under Peter's ministry was bound by the terms of the gospel of the circumcision. To which you replied.


Yes.


For the record, you included Cornelius (Acts 10) into that mix.

So lets review. I don't have a copy of The Plot in front of me but I am pretty sure that Bob Enyart (by virtue of Bob Hill's influence) sees baptism as a prerequisite necessity for salvation in the circumscision gospel.



Since Peter’s message was a Jewish gospel (Acts 2:,22,36) water baptism preceded Holy Spirit Baptism (Acts 2:38) {Bob Hill, The Big Difference, Page 54}

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.


You said:


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.

That is the stance. That stance assumes that someone was preaching to the wrong crowd…


2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

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.

I’ll let you decide which of these three conclusions forced by Mid-Acts dispensationalism you want to choose

:chuckle:

Now I said:



I am pretty sure that Bob Hill disagree’s with you on Cornelius’s household. Cornelius, though preached to by Peter, was saved under a different Gospel than the one given the 12 (according to Bob Hill).[/b]


You replied:



How so?


Here’s Bob Hill on the subject… Speaking about the conversion of Cornelius and his household, Bob says:


The most significant event happened when Peter went to the Gentiles (Cornelius in Acts 10). When they believed, the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter’s message before he could tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. In fact, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles while Peter was still preaching. The Jews who accompanied Peter were amazed. This, indeed, was a dispensational sign from God that something had changed.

What had changed? God had started a new program when He saved Paul.
(Bob Hill, The Big Difference, Page 50)


Since Cornelius and his house were saved after the conversion of Paul, Cornelius was saved in the dispensation of Grace even though Peter preached it.

Now how is it that a person is saved by a gospel that wasn’t preached?

Good question, and one that doesn’t have a good mid-acts dispensational answer in my opinion. But suffice it to say, your previous answer regarding the gospel Cornelius was under is inconsistent with Bob Hill’s, and probably Bob Enyart’s view.

Just an FYI…

You said:


Now, does Peter ever say that baptism saves?


Mark 16:16
1 Peter 3:21
Acts 2:38

1. Mark 16:16 was Jesus speaking, not Peter, and there are textual issues that question the reliability of the long ending of Mark.
2. 1 Peter 3:21 we have already discussed and Peter qualifies his remarks by saying that it is not the ritual of baptism that saves but the clear conscience toward God that it is associated with.
3. Acts 2:38 is an interesting passage to exegete to say the least. But if you are going to maintain that Cornelius was saved by the same message preached by Peter in Acts 2:38 then I’ll let you explain how it is that baptism saved in Acts 2:38 but didn’t in acts 10…




Quit arguing with me as if I believe that baptism should stop.

You don’t? Sounds like you don’t know what you believe about this at this point.
That’s ok, but it does make for a difficult conversation, especially considering you said you were acts 9.


What about the verse where Paul says there is one baptism? Which baptism is he speaking of?

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.



"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us..."


Finishing the verse helps a lot.


1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.





I know what you're getting at, but it still seems that you are saying baptism is a must.


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.


And many people argue that baptism does save us, i.e. baptismal regeneration, based on this verse.

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.


Now you said:



Paul preached that we have a clear conscience, because of Christ. Does that mean that everyone will be baptized?

The question isn’t will everyone, the question is should everyone.


Is anyone saved apart from baptism?

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!


Why does everyone want to play pin the exact moment of salvation?

What did you do to choose Christ at 3? Did you pray a prayer? Were you saved when you decided to pray that prayer? Sometime in the middle when you said the magic words? Were you only saved when you were finished saying the prayer?

If, for some reason, you were killed in a freak accident where a meteorite crashed through the window and killed you on impact while you just kneeling down to pray would you go straight to hell?

You were saved when you believed. Baptism was a proclamation of that belief. You are being saved and you will be saved. There are past, present and future dimensions of salvation.


Now, just a few miscellaneous details. I said:
[quote][i]
Paul also said that we should "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling..."

You replied:


Paul didn't mean works.

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?


Where does James say that we are shown to be justified by works? Or does he just say that we are justified by works?

Read the passage contextually. James is talking about showing his faith by what he does.

[i]

James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.


I suppose all sorts of contradictions can be assumed if one refuses to read contextually.



So, you don't believe in pre-trib? What do you believe in?


No, I am an amillenialist.



So, you're a closed theist?
No.

CariV kai Eirhnh

Lighthouse
December 27th, 2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

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?

Did it matter to Jesus when He spoke to the disciples in Matthew 28:19- 20?

If so, when did it stop mattering?

Can you tell us precisely when?

If not, then how do you know that it stopped mattering?
Did it matter for the thief on the cross? Was it a must for him?


These are questions that I personally think should be asked and satisfactorily answered before one changes a theology that embraces an abrogation of baptism, don't ya think?
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.



A lot of people have taken a lot of the bible in a lot of different ways.
This doesn't seem to be a disagreement between us, so it's moot.


Dunno, since I am not one of those people.
It was a rhetorical question.


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.
Do you believe the law has anything to do with salvation? Or do you believe the cross changed everything?


Now I asked if everyone who was converted under Peter's ministry was bound by the terms of the gospel of the circumcision. To which you replied.


For the record, you included Cornelius (Acts 10) into that mix.

So lets review. I don't have a copy of The Plot in front of me but I am pretty sure that Bob Enyart (by virtue of Bob Hill's influence) sees baptism as a prerequisite necessity for salvation in the circumscision gospel.


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.
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.


You said:

That is the stance. That stance assumes that someone was preaching to the wrong crowd…
No, it doesn't.


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.
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.


I’ll let you decide which of these three conclusions forced by Mid-Acts dispensationalism you want to choose
None. See above.

Apparently you didn't think that one through.


Now I said:



You replied:


Here’s Bob Hill on the subject… Speaking about the conversion of Cornelius and his household, Bob says:


Since Cornelius and his house were saved after the conversion of Paul, Cornelius was saved in the dispensation of Grace even though Peter preached it.
As you can see, I came to that conclusion before I even got to this point in your post.


Now how is it that a person is saved by a gospel that wasn’t preached?
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.


Good question, and one that doesn’t have a good mid-acts dispensational answer in my opinion. But suffice it to say, your previous answer regarding the gospel Cornelius was under is inconsistent with Bob Hill’s, and probably Bob Enyart’s view.
Well, I've figured it out in this discourse. I was wrong. Thanks for the help.


You said:

1. Mark 16:16 was Jesus speaking, not Peter, and there are textual issues that question the reliability of the long ending of Mark.
I know. I meant to mention Jesus. I was rushing.


2. 1 Peter 3:21 we have already discussed and Peter qualifies his remarks by saying that it is not the ritual of baptism that saves but the clear conscience toward God that it is associated with.
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?


3. Acts 2:38 is an interesting passage to exegete to say the least. But if you are going to maintain that Cornelius was saved by the same message preached by Peter in Acts 2:38 then I’ll let you explain how it is that baptism saved in Acts 2:38 but didn’t in acts 10…
Well, as you see above, I've been over what happened in Acts 10.



You don’t? Sounds like you don’t know what you believe about this at this point.
That’s ok, but it does make for a difficult conversation, especially considering you said you were acts 9.
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’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 hope so. What about where John the Baptist says, "I baptize with water, but He [Jesus] will baptize with the Spirit, and with fire."?



Finishing the verse helps a lot.
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?



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.
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?

[qutoe]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.[/quote]
Okay. But I would like to know your argument against those who believe baptism saves. Not what you believe, you've already been over that, but how you convince someone who believes it saves that you are right...


Now you said:


The question isn’t will everyone, the question is should everyone.
Okay. Answer that question then.

[qutoe]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![/quote]
Nope. It was never said that baptism saves until after Christ's resurrection.


Why does everyone want to play pin the exact moment of salvation?
Because it is vital to this discussion. If I had died between my confession of faith, and my baptism, where would I have gone?


What did you do to choose Christ at 3? Did you pray a prayer? Were you saved when you decided to pray that prayer? Sometime in the middle when you said the magic words? Were you only saved when you were finished saying the prayer?
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.


If, for some reason, you were killed in a freak accident where a meteorite crashed through the window and killed you on impact while you just kneeling down to pray would you go straight to hell?
Nope.


You were saved when you believed. Baptism was a proclamation of that belief. You are being saved and you will be saved. There are past, present and future dimensions of salvation.
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.


Now, just a few miscellaneous details. I said:

You replied:

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?
Are we saved by works, or by grace?


Read the passage contextually. James is talking about showing his faith by what he does.
[/i]
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?


I suppose all sorts of contradictions can be assumed if one refuses to read contextually.
Definitely. Where do you think Atheists come from?:chuckle:



No, I am an amillenialist.
Okay, I haven't really kept track of all the terms, and what they mean. So, what exactly do you believe about the rapture?


No.
Do you think God ever has a Plan B? Do you think God knows the future, exhaustively?

BChristianK
December 28th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Did it matter for the thief on the cross? Was it a must for him?

Yes. Were the thief on the cross able to be baptized, he would have been expected to have been.

God doesn’t need baptism to save us, but He has set that aside as an ordinance to be practiced.

The thief on the cross didn’t have time to partake of the Lord’s Supper either. He wasn’t doomed to hell because of it. God didn’t say, “Gosh, I’d really like to have you with me today in paradise, but you didn’t take the Lord’s Supper, that’s the breaks kid.”

God saved the thief on the cross by grace through faith (just like the rest of us) which does not negate the fact that we are still asked to engage in ordinances. BTW, the thief on the cross is a HUGE exception to the faith plus works paradigm presented by mid-acts dispensationalists like Enyart. Enyart argues that baptism was absolutely essential and a prerequisite for salvation in the gospel to the circumcision.

So you may be inclined to ask the same question of acts 9 theology, “was baptism a must for the thief on the cross?

Acts 9’rs claim that the dispensation he was saved under required water baptism for salvation.



I already know what I believe.

That’s great. Do you then believe the mid acts dispensational theology as described in The Plot?


I have never believed baptism was a must, or necessary.

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?



Do you believe the law has anything to do with salvation? Or do you believe the cross changed everything?

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.

So the short answer is, the cross changed everything.


Okay. I looked it over. Jews who were converted under Peter were under the gospel of circumcision.

Okay.


But Gentiles were not, because they were Gentiles.

OK


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.

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?

Perhaps you can solve some of my confusion over this…

Now I had said that either Peter or Paul was preaching to the wrong crowd in Galatia. I claimed that Acts 9 theology must conclude as much to which you replied.


No, it doesn't.

Ok, lets take a look at the situation to test and see if your unexplained rejection of my claim is warranted.

Here are the facts:
1. Paul and Peter both preached in the region of Galatia.
2. Peter wrote to a group in Galatia.
3. In that letter, Peter said that Paul had written to them. So whatever group Peter had written to, Paul had written to the same group

2 Peter 3:15-16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
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?
5. If the “you” in 2 Peter 3:15 are Jewish coverts of Peter who are bound to the gospel of the circumcision, then where does Paul get off writing Galatians to them and instructing them contrary to Peter’s gospel? And why in the world would Peter affirm Paul’s message when it is a totally foreign gospel to the audience that Peter is writing to?

Perhaps you can clear this up for me…


If they were writing to two different audiences, then neither of them were preaching to the wrong crowd.

If they were writing to two different audiences why does Peter say that Paul wrote to the same audience that Peter is writing to in 2 Peter?




, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (2 Peter 3:15)





Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles. The right audience for each.


Ah so Peter was totally mistaken in 2 Peter in telling his audience that that “Paul wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.” Apparently, Paul didn’t write them at all, he wrote some other group in Galatia.


Apparently you didn't think that one through.

:chuckle:



The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So there was only one gospel from the time of Christ until now?

Not very acts 9 of you…
:chuckle:






And Peter had only preached the basis of the gospel. He hadn't gotten to the stipulations of the circumcision.

Huh?
So Peter wasn’t preaching the gospel of the circumcision in Acts 2? Acts 2 is before Acts 10 Lighthouse. Did Peter forget?



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.

So why did Peter have him baptized?


He was a Gentile. Peter knew that.

And according to acts 9 theology, baptism wasn’t for him, why didn’t Peter know that?


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?

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.
“do this in remembrance of me” (1 CO 11:24)


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 understand, now let me ask you, do you think that the Lord’s Supper is “necessary?”

Regarding 1 Peter 3:21 you said:


I know what the rest of the verse says. But it still seems that either way Peter is saying that baptism 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.

Now you said that there are many who perceive this verse as teaching baptismal regeneration. My response is, “so?”
There are many people who misinterpret many different verses. I would not give any more credence to this misinterpretation than I would any other misinterpretation.

Now you asked:


How do you show them they are wrong?

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 confess with our mouth, without water baptism?

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.

Now you said:


But I would like to know your argument against those who believe baptism saves. Not what you believe, you've already been over that, but how you convince someone who believes it saves that you are right...

For starters, the thief on the cross.
The sufficiency of belief in John helps (references above).

Regarding Baptism, I said:


The question isn’t will everyone but should everyone
You said:


Okay. Answer that question then.

They answer is yes, everyone should.
Now you said:


Nope. It was never said that baptism saves until after Christ's resurrection.
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).

So it was just unnecessary before the resurrection, it became mandatory afterward and was mandatory for about 9 years until the conversion of Paul. So what dispensation was that 9 year period a part of?

Incidentally, you diverge from Enyart and Hill here since they claim that the gospel Peter preached in acts 2 was the same gospel Jesus proclaimed during His ministry. In fact, you may be the only acts 9’r that believes what you have just explained to me.


If I had died between my confession of faith, and my baptism, where would I have gone?

To heaven, just like the thief on the cross.


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.

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.

He had internally believed in your heart that Jesus raised from the dead, but he wasn’t able to confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, is he out of luck? Does he get a one way ticket to hell?

BTW, Please answer this if you please, I’m interested to hear your answer.


Does a person go to hell because they were unfortunate enough not to be able to “proclaim with their mouth?”



Are we saved by works, or by grace?

We are saved by grace through faith unto good works. (See Ephesians 2:10)



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?

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 doubt that the Greek invalidates this rendering. The nuance in interpretation comes into play when one reads the passage contextually. James is writing to a group of Jewish believers who were treating poor people unfavorably and treating wealthy people preferably.

The “works” that James is speaking of is therefore, most likely, works of generosity. Furthermore, James is not proclaiming a gospel of faith+works, he is advocating that works justified faith.
“I will show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:19).

Paul, in Ephesians, does not claim that works are irrelevant or unnecessary he claims that works come out of our faith. So however we interpret Romans 4:6 we cannot do it in a way that puts Paul in conflict with Paul.

My final comment about the acts 9 interpretation of James 2:20ff, is that it creates irreconcilable histories of Abraham’s justification with that of Paul.


James says:


21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24)

Now, if we assume that a person is not justified until they have works then we must claim that Paul’s statement is wrong.

Paul said, about Abraham:



1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)


So was Abraham not justified the moment he believed God (Genesis 15:6 is the first time you see “Abraham believed God and it credited to him as rightousness)?

Do you think that James is saying that Abraham was not justified until he does the “works” that James describes and places Isaac on the Alter (Genesis 22)? Or is James showing us by this example that Abraham was justified when he believed (Gen 15:6) and showed this justification through his offer of Isaac in Genesis 22?


Regarding Amillenialism you asked:


Okay, I haven't really kept track of all the terms, and what they mean. So, what exactly do you believe about the rapture?

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.

You asked:


Do you think God ever has a Plan B?

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.

I believe that God, by virtue of his omnipotence, is able to make all things work toward His ultimate purposes regardless free will.


Do you think God knows the future, exhaustively?
Yes.

God knows every possible future that could arise out of the free will choices of free will agents. God is never surprised.
I also believe that God had determined some things to be true regardless of our free will. As such, I believe that God’s purpose has always been to institute the Law for the purpose of pointing to Christ, and that God’s purpose has always been to institute a New Covenant that He extended beyond the bounds of Israel to include the whole world.

Now, do I think that God knows the entire future pre-determinately?
No.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
December 28th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Hilston Wrote:


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 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.

I will endeavor to respond to your last two posts, but won't until I have a better understanding of the theological framework that contextualize your responses.

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
December 29th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Yes. Were the thief on the cross able to be baptized, he would have been expected to have been.

God doesn’t need baptism to save us, but He has set that aside as an ordinance to be practiced.

The thief on the cross didn’t have time to partake of the Lord’s Supper either. He wasn’t doomed to hell because of it. God didn’t say, “Gosh, I’d really like to have you with me today in paradise, but you didn’t take the Lord’s Supper, that’s the breaks kid.”

God saved the thief on the cross by grace through faith (just like the rest of us) which does not negate the fact that we are still asked to engage in ordinances. BTW, the thief on the cross is a HUGE exception to the faith plus works paradigm presented by mid-acts dispensationalists like Enyart. Enyart argues that baptism was absolutely essential and a prerequisite for salvation in the gospel to the circumcision.
If anyone can be saved apart from baptism it isn't a must.

The gospel to the circumcision began after Christ's ascension. So the thief doesn't actually negate anything in a dispensational system.


So you may be inclined to ask the same question of acts 9 theology, “was baptism a must for the thief on the cross?
See above.


Acts 9’rs claim that the dispensation he was saved under required water baptism for salvation.
Do they?

[/quote]That’s great. Do you then believe the mid acts dispensational theology as described in The Plot?[/quote]
For the most part. I do disagree with some of the terminology.


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?
It seems so. But it wasn't a must before Christ's ascension.


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.
I wouldn't use the term "reinstated." They would have had to have been removed to be reinstated.


So the short answer is, the cross changed everything.
Agreed.


Okay.


OK
:thumb:


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?
Dude, please pay attention.

1] Paul did not confront Peter for preaching to Gentiles. He confronted him for preaching the circumcision gospel to those it did not apply.
2] Peter did not preach the gospel of circumcision to Cornelius.
3] The interaction between Peter and Cornelius took place right after Paul's conversion, so Paul was very new on the scene.


Perhaps you can solve some of my confusion over this…

Now I had said that either Peter or Paul was preaching to the wrong crowd in Galatia. I claimed that Acts 9 theology must conclude as much to which you replied.

Ok, lets take a look at the situation to test and see if your unexplained rejection of my claim is warranted.

Here are the facts:
1. Paul and Peter both preached in the region of Galatia.
2. Peter wrote to a group in Galatia.
3. In that letter, Peter said that Paul had written to them. So whatever group Peter had written to, Paul had written to the same group

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?
5. If the “you” in 2 Peter 3:15 are Jewish coverts of Peter who are bound to the gospel of the circumcision, then where does Paul get off writing Galatians to them and instructing them contrary to Peter’s gospel? And why in the world would Peter affirm Paul’s message when it is a totally foreign gospel to the audience that Peter is writing to?
I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter. Do you?


Perhaps you can clear this up for me…


If they were writing to two different audiences why does Peter say that Paul wrote to the same audience that Peter is writing to in 2 Peter?
See above.





Ah so Peter was totally mistaken in 2 Peter in telling his audience that that “Paul wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.” Apparently, Paul didn’t write them at all, he wrote some other group in Galatia.
See above.


Apparently you didn't think that one through.

:chuckle:
See above.


So there was only one gospel from the time of Christ until now?

Not very acts 9 of you…
:chuckle:
Not what I said.





Huh?
So Peter wasn’t preaching the gospel of the circumcision in Acts 2? Acts 2 is before Acts 10 Lighthouse. Did Peter forget?
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?


So why did Peter have him baptized?
Same reason Paul baptized.:doh:


And according to acts 9 theology, baptism wasn’t for him, why didn’t Peter know that?
:sozo:Quit areguing with me like I believe baptism shouldn't happen!


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.
“do this in remembrance of me” (1 CO 11:24)
:sozo2:

Can someone publicly proclaim their allegiance to Christ without baptism?!


I understand, now let me ask you, do you think that the Lord’s Supper is “necessary?”
No. If it was, then we'd all be going to hell for doing it wrong.


Regarding 1 Peter 3:21 you said:

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.

Now you said that there are many who perceive this verse as teaching baptismal regeneration. My response is, “so?”
There are many people who misinterpret many different verses. I would not give any more credence to this misinterpretation than I would any other misinterpretation.
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?


Now you asked:

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.
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.


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.
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.


Now you said:

For starters, the thief on the cross.
The sufficiency of belief in John helps (references above).
Okay.:thumb:

[qutoe]Regarding Baptism, I said:

You said:

They answer is yes, everyone should.[/quote]
Why? For what reason?


Now you said:

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).
Jesus was baptized by John. Did Jesus need to be "saved?" Of course not. So..?


So it was just unnecessary before the resurrection, it became mandatory afterward and was mandatory for about 9 years until the conversion of Paul. So what dispensation was that 9 year period a part of?
The gospel of circumcision. The law was preached, but Christ is the one who made people righteous.


Incidentally, you diverge from Enyart and Hill here since they claim that the gospel Peter preached in acts 2 was the same gospel Jesus proclaimed during His ministry. In fact, you may be the only acts 9’r that believes what you have just explained to me.
I might very well be.


To heaven, just like the thief on the cross.
So, it isn't necessary for salvation. We agree. What is it necessary for?


Glad we are on the same page. But you probably prayed the prayer anyway right?
Yeah. But I thought I had to, at the time.

[qutoe]So was proclaiming with your mouth unnecessary?[/quote]
In essence, yes.


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.

He had internally believed in *his* heart that Jesus raised from the dead, but he wasn’t able to confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, is he out of luck? Does he get a one way ticket to hell?
No. He would go to heaven.


BTW, Please answer this if you please, I’m interested to hear your answer.


Does a person go to hell because they were unfortunate enough not to be able to “proclaim with their mouth?”
No.


We are saved by grace through faith unto good works. (See Ephesians 2:10)
Right. Works are produced, but they don't save, or make anyone righteous, right?


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 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?


I doubt that the Greek invalidates this rendering. The nuance in interpretation comes into play when one reads the passage contextually. James is writing to a group of Jewish believers who were treating poor people unfavorably and treating wealthy people preferably.
James was preaching to Jewish believers. You said it.


The “works” that James is speaking of is therefore, most likely, works of generosity. Furthermore, James is not proclaiming a gospel of faith+works, he is advocating that works justified faith.
“I will show you my faith by what I do” (James 2:19).
So James wan't saying that we are justified by works? He was saying our faith is justified by works?:liberals:


Paul, in Ephesians, does not claim that works are irrelevant or unnecessary he claims that works come out of our faith. So however we interpret Romans 4:6 we cannot do it in a way that puts Paul in conflict with Paul.
Agreed. I never said that Paul said works were irrelevant. Just that works do not save us, or justify us or make us righteous.

[qutoe]My final comment about the acts 9 interpretation of James 2:20ff, is that it creates irreconcilable histories of Abraham’s justification with that of Paul.


James says:
[/i]
Now, if we assume that a person is not justified until they have works then we must claim that Paul’s statement is wrong.

Paul said, about Abraham:
[/i]

So was Abraham not justified the moment he believed God (Genesis 15:6 is the first time you see “Abraham believed God and it credited to him as rightousness)?

Do you think that James is saying that Abraham was not justified until he does the “works” that James describes and places Isaac on the Alter (Genesis 22)? Or is James showing us by this example that Abraham was justified when he believed (Gen 15:6) and showed this justification through his offer of Isaac in Genesis 22?[/quote]
I know what James was saying. And I know that he and Paul were in agreement on Abraham. Abraham was before the law.


Regarding Amillenialism you asked:

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.
And why do you believe this?


You asked:

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.

I believe that God, by virtue of his omnipotence, is able to make all things work toward His ultimate purposes regardless free will.

Yes.
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.

Can you explain to me how God knows something that hasn't happened?


God knows every possible future that could arise out of the free will choices of free will agents. God is never surprised.
:shocked:


I also believe that God had determined some things to be true regardless of our free will. As such, I believe that God’s purpose has always been to institute the Law for the purpose of pointing to Christ, and that God’s purpose has always been to institute a New Covenant that He extended beyond the bounds of Israel to include the whole world.
So, you believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to eat of the tree?


Now, do I think that God knows the entire future pre-determinately?
No.
Then you don't believe God knows the future exhaustively.

God_Is_Truth
December 29th, 2004, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK
Yes.

God knows every possible future that could arise out of the free will choices of free will agents. God is never surprised.
I also believe that God had determined some things to be true regardless of our free will. As such, I believe that God’s purpose has always been to institute the Law for the purpose of pointing to Christ, and that God’s purpose has always been to institute a New Covenant that He extended beyond the bounds of Israel to include the whole world.

Now, do I think that God knows the entire future pre-determinately?
No.

Grace and Peace

so as to be clear, can God be suprised that something occurs without being surprised at what occurs?

for example, the possibility of me cheating on a test exists. but since it's against my character to do so, God would be suprised when i actually do cheat on a test even though he foreknew it as a possibility from eternity past. so he was not suprised at what came to pass, only that it in fact did come to pass.

is that close to your position? that seems to be mine for the current time.

BChristianK
December 29th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

If anyone can be saved apart from baptism it isn't a must.

Ah, so the entirety of the Christian life consists of the absolute bare necessities of getting one’s rump into heaven?? Everything else is considered, optional, unnecessary and unimportant?
:nono:


The gospel to the circumcision began after Christ's ascension.

Ok, I hope you will further enlighten me by answering a few things for me.
1. If the gospel of the circumcision began after Christ’s ascension, then what gospel was preached during Christ’s ministry?
2. How does the gospel preached during Christ’s ministry differ from the gospel of the circumcision? Meaning, what are the requirements (baptism, endurance, circumcision, etc…) and how are these requirements different from the gospel of circumcision?
3. Since you disagree with both Bob Enyart and Bob Hill on the interpretation of John 3:5, can you please tell us what Jesus meant by being born of water?
4. Since you disagree with Enyart and Hill as to when the gospel of the circumcision was preached, please tell me the first time it was proclaimed, when did it start?



So the thief doesn't actually negate anything in a dispensational system.

And, since you don’t agree with Bob Hill or Bob Enyart that baptism was necessary for salvation during the dispensation that preceded the ascension of Jesus, John’s baptism was unnecessary and optional and all of the people who were baptized by Jesus or by the 12 prior to the ascension engaged in an unnecessary ritual as well, right?

One question does arise from this, did everyone who was baptized as a result of Christ’s ministry need to be re-baptized after the ascension since their baptism was during a time when it was unnecessary?


I asked:

That’s great. Do you then believe the mid acts dispensational theology as described in The Plot?
You said:


For the most part. I do disagree with some of the terminology.

For the most part? Which part?
:doh:


I only got to read half of it, but the half I read doesn’t look anything like anything consistent with what you have posted to me in this thread.

I think you may need to re-read The Plot. Actually, I would start with “testing things that differ” from Bob Hill. Enyart’s theology is totally contradictory to yours on the role of baptism during the time of Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, the argument that baptism is not for the Body of Christ is one of the more notable distinctions of Enyart’s and Hill’s theology.

Both of them says baptism was necessary for salvation during the time of Christ, you claim it wasn’t. Both of them say that baptism isn’t for this dispensation, you say you aren’t against it, go ahead and get baptized, it doesn’t matter.

I’d call these inconsistencies more than disagreements of “terminology” wouldn’t you?

Now you said:


1] Paul did not confront Peter for preaching to Gentiles. He confronted him for preaching the circumcision gospel to those it did not apply.


What’s the difference? Who are those to whom the circumcision gospel did not apply if not Gentiles?

Second, are you are now rescinding your agreement with Delmar in post 12 of this thread?

‘member this?
:D

Nimrod said:



The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church, not members of the body of Christ, and not equal to Paul's church.


DearDelmar Said:


I don't have a problem with any of this except for no. 4. The church under Peter was a distinctly Jewish church. The Body of Christ includes both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers.


YOU said:


I'm goin' with delmar on this one.


So have you now changed your mind? Have you parted ways from DearDelmar’s viewpoint on this one?
You seem to now think that Peter is ok preaching to gentiles, so you don’t think the church under Peter was “distinctly Jewish” do you?



2] Peter did not preach the gospel of circumcision to Cornelius.

What gospel did Peter preach to Cornelius?

I’ll make it easy for you, just choose one:
1. The gospel of the circumcision
2. The gospel of the uncircumcision (you know, the one given to Paul)
3. Some other gospel (please explain)


The interaction between Peter and Cornelius took place right after Paul's conversion, so Paul was very new on the scene.

So? What gospel was preached to Cornelius?
In case you haven’t picked up on it, I’d really love to hear your answer to this question.

BTW, you previous evasion of this question saying it was the “Gospel of Jesus” is lame. According to acts 9 theology, both gospels, the one given to Peter and the one given to Paul, were gospels of Jesus. The question is, did Peter preach the gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision to Cornelius?


I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

No, I don’t, but then I do not claim to be an acts 9 dispensationalist either. I am not a mid-acts dispensationalist of any stripe and apparently, despite your claim earlier in this thread, neither are you !

With this question you demonstrate that you have either have a fundamental lack of understanding of The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or a fundamental disagreement with The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill and Bob Enyart, or both.

Both Enyart and Hill teach that 2 Peter contains theology that is clearly distinct from Pauline theology and foreign to the gospel given to Paul.

Here’s what Bob Hill says on the subject.



They could lose their state of salvation if they are entangled in their sins again. 2 Pet 2:20 (Bob Hill, the “Two Gospel Teaching?” Thread in the “Dispensationalism” section of the forums on Biblicalanswers.com)

Cleary, Bob Hill believes that 2 Peter 2:20 teaches the loss of salvation, and that such doctrine is inconsistent with Paul’s gospel. And I’d be willing to put money on the fact that Bob Enyart agrees with Bob Hill on this.
The reason I’d be willing to put money on it is because I've read the first half of The Plot.


So far you have three very glaring inconsistencies with Hill’s and Enyart’s acts 9 theology.
1. You think baptism was unnecessary before the ascension of Christ. Both Hill and Enyart say that it was more than necessary, you couldn’t be saved without it.
2. You don’t think the church Peter ministered to was exclusively Jewish (being required to follow the law, circumcision, etc). Both Hill and Enyart claim that the only way to be a part of the Church Peter was over was to either be Jewish by birth or become a full proselyte.
3. You don’t seem to see anything that conflicts with the gospel Paul preached and the theology of 2 Peter. Both Hill and Enyart see 2 Peter as a book that was written employing the theological assumptions of the gospel of the circumcision which they claim differ significantly from Pauline doctrine.

I don’t know what kind of acts 9 dispensationalist you think are, but you have demonstrated that you either don’t understand The Plot to any significant degree, or you disagree with Enyart's theology far beyond what could be considered differences of “terminology."

Finally, I would go so far as to say that you think you are an acts 9 dispensationalist that agrees with The Plot but you don’t hold views consistent with this position at all.

Attempting to be cleaver, perhaps in order to mitigate your novice to the doctrine, you said:



:sozo:Quit arguing with me like I believe baptism shouldn't happen!

One problem with this. If don't believe baptism shouldn't happen, it is because you...


:sozo:aren’t an acts 9 dispensationalist!!!!!!!!

From “The Basics of Mid Acts Dispensationalism” {Linked from this site to “Bearean Dispensationalism”}



It is therefore the mid-Acts Dispensational view that because Old Testament prophecies have temporarily ceased (1 Cor. 13:8), water baptism is no longer necessary (see 1 Cor.1:17; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 4:5); although it was absolutely required at one time for believers in the house of Israel (Mk.16:16; Acts 2:38). While some churches actually recognize the fact that believers in the previous dispensation were required to be baptized, many of them still fail to understand the "mystery" that Paul speaks of. Consequently, they still allow (or maybe even require) their members to be baptized today.

Lighthouse, if you aren’t arguing that baptism shouldn’t be practiced today, then you aren’t arguing from a commitment to mid-acts dispensational theology.

And if you are an acts 9’r you're theologically apathetic about baptism.

Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, Knight, Turbo, 1Way, Clete, Hilston, etc… will all tell you.
:sozo: Water baptism isn’t for this dispensation!

Lighthouse if you want to be an acts 9 dispensationalist in the order of Bob Enyart or Bob Hill then I hope you will realize that You can’t take the answers you have given me on this thread and even get through the first chapter of iThe Plot without seeing some glaring inconsistencies on some fundamental aspects of mid acts theology.

For example, you said:


I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

:shocked:

Enyart clearly interprets 2 Peter 2:20-22 as teaching that the loss of salvation is possible for those under the gospel of the circumcision. Enyart contrasts this with Pauline eternal security to get one of the justifications for his theme in The Plot.

In fact, the percieved inconsistency of Pauline letters to 1 and 2 Peter with Pauline theology…
:sozo: is a fundamental justification that Enyart and Hill use for mid-acts dispensationalism.

Look at “Testing Things that Differ” from Bob Hill, you will see that Bob Hill contrasts 2 Peter 1:10 with other Pauline scriptures. He does so in order to substantiate the claim that there are two gospels, and those two gospels differ on the matter of the security of the believer.

So when you say:


I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

I say, me niether.
But I don't see Peter preaching a gospel of circumcision that differs from Paul's gospel. I am not an acts 9 dispensationalists and I don’t agree with The Plot. And if you really believe what you have just posted, then neither do you!

The Plot considers the evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter, and the inconsistency with Paul’s theology in 2 Peter as a reason to accept the premise of The Plot!


Enyart says:


A typical doctrinal argument emphasizes certain biblical passages (its proof texts) while de-emphasizing other passages (its problem texts). This very approach makes many students uncomfortable because they want to embrace the whole word of God. Ignoring or diminishing certain texts that appear to contradict a conclusion unsettles them and rightly so.
Any number of arguments can be presented for or against the ten doctrinal disputes listed above. [b]These arguments traditionally pit one set of Bible verses against another. Someone trying to prove that a believer cannot lose his salvation will cite certain proof texts (i.e., Eph. 4:30; Phil. 1:6) {Paul’s theology} and dispute other problem texts (i.e., Heb. 6:4 6; 2 Pet. 2:20 22). Those who argue that a believer can lose his salvation swap the passages, so that they heartily endorse their proof texts (i.e., Heb. 6:4 6; Pet. 2:20 22), while contending with their problem texts (i.e., Eph. 4:30; Phil. 1:6). {Bob Enyart, The Plot First chapter, online edition at www.kgov.com/docs/ThePlot }

And yet you say:


I don't see any evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter.

Exactly what gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?

It is at this point, Lighthouse, I will make a request on your behalf.


:help: Can someone, Clete, Turbo, Knight, someone… who understands mid-acts dispensationalism and The Plot please take Lighthouse aside and help him to understand this theology? Lighthouse is under the impression he is an act 9 dispensationalist and that he agrees with The Plot but has demonstrated in his replies to me that he really just doesn’t understand either yet.

Grace and Peace

Lighthouse
December 30th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Ah, so the entirety of the Christian life consists of the absolute bare necessities of getting one’s rump into heaven?? Everything else is considered, optional, unnecessary and unimportant?
:nono:
Not what I said. Yes, baptism is optional, but that doesn't mean it's not of importance.


Ok, I hope you will further enlighten me by answering a few things for me.
1. If the gospel of the circumcision began after Christ’s ascension, then what gospel was preached during Christ’s ministry?
Well, it didn't involve Christ's death and resurrection.:think:


2. How does the gospel preached during Christ’s ministry differ from the gospel of the circumcision? Meaning, what are the requirements (baptism, endurance, circumcision, etc…) and how are these requirements different from the gospel of circumcision?
The difference is that Christ's death and resurrection were not included.


3. Since you disagree with both Bob Enyart and Bob Hill on the interpretation of John 3:5, can you please tell us what Jesus meant by being born of water?
I'm not sure. He may have meant water baptism, He may have meant born of the flesh. But I think it was the former. So I guess I don't disagree with them. I'm actually taking things they have said to their logical conclusions.


4. Since you disagree with Enyart and Hill as to when the gospel of the circumcision was preached, please tell me the first time it was proclaimed, when did it start?
Well, I would venture to say that there are technically two versions fo the gospel of circumcision. The one without Christ's death and resurrection and the one with it.

[qutoe]And, since you don’t agree with Bob Hill or Bob Enyart that baptism was necessary for salvation during the dispensation that preceded the ascension of Jesus, John’s baptism was unnecessary and optional and all of the people who were baptized by Jesus or by the 12 prior to the ascension engaged in an unnecessary ritual as well, right?[/quote]
Maybe not unecessary. But the thief makes for some good questions in that area. If the thief was a Jew, then he may have been baptized, at some point in his life. But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for salvation. That much we know for certain. Yet, He was baptized, by John.


One question does arise from this, did everyone who was baptized as a result of Christ’s ministry need to be re-baptized after the ascension since their baptism was during a time when it was unnecessary?
No. It's a very good question. And one that needs some answers, I guess. But I think the best is that the thief was either a Jew who had been baptized, or a Gentile for whom it was never required.


I asked:

You said:

For the most part? Which part?
:doh:
I disagree with the idea that when a Christian does something wrong it is still considered a sin. If it does not seperate us from God, and it does not lead us to death, and we are not condemned for it, then it isn't sin, by defenition. There is still right and wrong, though. And I agree that Christians are no longer sinners, even though they do things that are still immoral, sometimes.


I only got to read half of it, but the half I read doesn’t look anything like anything consistent with what you have posted to me in this thread.
Well, I don't know that it was as fleshed out as I have gone. I am curious to see what Bob would think of what I have said here. But you should read the rest of it. It is definitely some good reading, even if you don't agree.


I think you may need to re-read The Plot. Actually, I would start with “testing things that differ” from Bob Hill. Enyart’s theology is totally contradictory to yours on the role of baptism during the time of Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, the argument that baptism is not for the Body of Christ is one of the more notable distinctions of Enyart’s and Hill’s theology.
Actually it's not. I don't need to re-read The Plot. I just have some ideas that I would like to go over Bob E. with.


Both of them says baptism was necessary for salvation during the time of Christ, you claim it wasn’t. Both of them say that baptism isn’t for this dispensation, you say you aren’t against it, go ahead and get baptized, it doesn’t matter.
Actually, I'm not saying it wasn't necessary during the ministry of Christ. Just that the thief may have already been baptized, or that he was a Gentile [most likely Roman].


I’d call these inconsistencies more than disagreements of “terminology” wouldn’t you?
Yes. But that wasn't what i was referring to, when I mentioned terminology.


Now you said:


What’s the difference? Who are those to whom the circumcision gospel did not apply if not Gentiles?
It wasn't who Peter was preaching to, as much as what he was preaching. If Peter had preached what Paul preched, then there would not have been the confrontation.


Second, are you are now rescinding your agreement with Delmar in post 12 of this thread?

‘member this?
:D

Nimrod said:


DearDelmar Said:


YOU said:


So have you now changed your mind? Have you parted ways from DearDelmar’s viewpoint on this one?
You seem to now think that Peter is ok preaching to gentiles, so you don’t think the church under Peter was “distinctly Jewish” do you?
Te curch under Peter was distrinctly Jewish. But that doesn't preclude Peter from preaching to Gentiles, as long as he was preaching the same thing Paul preached.


What gospel did Peter preach to Cornelius?
Christ's death and resurrection.


I’ll make it easy for you, just choose one:
1. The gospel of the circumcision
2. The gospel of the uncircumcision (you know, the one given to Paul)
3. Some other gospel (please explain)
#3. see above.

Although, it seems Peter may have set out to preach the gospel of circumcision.


So? What gospel was preached to Cornelius?
In case you haven’t picked up on it, I’d really love to hear your answer to this question.

BTW, you previous evasion of this question saying it was the “Gospel of Jesus” is lame. According to acts 9 theology, both gospels, the one given to Peter and the one given to Paul, were gospels of Jesus. The question is, did Peter preach the gospel of the circumcision or the gospel of the uncircumcision to Cornelius?
See above for my answer.


No, I don’t, but then I do not claim to be an acts 9 dispensationalist either. I am not a mid-acts dispensationalist of any stripe and apparently, despite your claim earlier in this thread, neither are you !
Well, I'm very new to the theology. So I'm searching it. But it makes sense, at least at the beginning. But it may need some more explanantion, as time goes on. I still believe that Paul preached differently than Peter and the rest of the disciples.


With this question you demonstrate that you have either have a fundamental lack of understanding of The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill or Bob Enyart or a fundamental disagreement with The Plot and the mid acts dispensational theology of Bob Hill and Bob Enyart, or both.
I understand The Plot. But I don't know that much about Mid-Acts, as I just learned of it earlier this year.


Both Enyart and Hill teach that 2 Peter contains theology that is clearly distinct from Pauline theology and foreign to the gospel given to Paul.
They do?


Here’s what Bob Hill says on the subject.

Cleary, Bob Hill believes that 2 Peter 2:20 teaches the loss of salvation, and that such doctrine is inconsistent with Paul’s gospel. And I’d be willing to put money on the fact that Bob Enyart agrees with Bob Hill on this.
The reason I’d be willing to put money on it is because I've read the first half of The Plot.
Okay. I concede. They are wrong. 2 Peter 2:20 is not about the people Peter was writing to. It was about people who were never saived, to begin with.


So far you have three very glaring inconsistencies with Hill’s and Enyart’s acts 9 theology.
1. You think baptism was unnecessary before the ascension of Christ. Both Hill and Enyart say that it was more than necessary, you couldn’t be saved without it.
Not too sure I disagree with them on that. The thief is the focal point. More study is required.


2. You don’t think the church Peter ministered to was exclusively Jewish (being required to follow the law, circumcision, etc). Both Hill and Enyart claim that the only way to be a part of the Church Peter was over was to either be Jewish by birth or become a full proselyte.
Peter preaching to the Gentiles does not mean he was over them.


3. You don’t seem to see anything that conflicts with the gospel Paul preached and the theology of 2 Peter. Both Hill and Enyart see 2 Peter as a book that was written employing the theological assumptions of the gospel of the circumcision which they claim differ significantly from Pauline doctrine.
Yes, I disagree with them on that.


I don’t know what kind of acts 9 dispensationalist you think are, but you have demonstrated that you either don’t understand The Plot to any significant degree, or you disagree with Enyart's theology far beyond what could be considered differences of “terminology."
Hopefully you have come to a clearer understanding of what you have perceived in our discourse.


Finally, I would go so far as to say that you think you are an acts 9 dispensationalist that agrees with The Plot but you don’t hold views consistent with this position at all.
I hold quite a few views consistent witht hat position. I differ on maybe a few things, but not many. But I agree witht eh basic premise that Paul preached a different version of the gospel than Peter did.


Attempting to be cleaver, perhaps in order to mitigate your novice to the doctrine, you said:



One problem with this. If don't believe baptism shouldn't happen, it is because you...


:sozo:aren’t an acts 9 dispensationalist!!!!!!!!
I believe it isn't necessary, or a must, but I don't believe it's wrong, or a sin. And neither does Enyart.


From “The Basics of Mid Acts Dispensationalism” {Linked from this site to “Bearean Dispensationalism”}

Lighthouse, if you aren’t arguing that baptism shouldn’t be practiced today, then you aren’t arguing from a commitment to mid-acts dispensational theology.

And if you are an acts 9’r you're theologically apathetic about baptism.

Bob Hill, Bob Enyart, Knight, Turbo, 1Way, Clete, Hilston, etc… will all tell you.
:sozo: Water baptism isn’t for this dispensation!
And all of them, except Hislton, will say it isn't wrong to be baptized. And we would all agree that it does not save in this dispensation.


Lighthouse if you want to be an acts 9 dispensationalist in the order of Bob Enyart or Bob Hill then I hope you will realize that You can’t take the answers you have given me on this thread and even get through the first chapter of iThe Plot without seeing some glaring inconsistencies on some fundamental aspects of mid acts theology.
You're going nowhere.


For example, you said:

:shocked:

Enyart clearly interprets 2 Peter 2:20-22 as teaching that the loss of salvation is possible for those under the gospel of the circumcision. Enyart contrasts this with Pauline eternal security to get one of the justifications for his theme in The Plot.
Yes, I disagree with him on this.


In fact, the percieved inconsistency of Pauline letters to 1 and 2 Peter with Pauline theology…
:sozo: is a fundamental justification that Enyart and Hill use for mid-acts dispensationalism.
I do see disagreements between Paul's epistles and 1 Peter.


Look at “Testing Things that Differ” from Bob Hill, you will see that Bob Hill contrasts 2 Peter 1:10 with other Pauline scriptures. He does so in order to substantiate the claim that there are two gospels, and those two gospels differ on the matter of the security of the believer.
And I say that he misinterprets it.

[qutoe]So when you say:

I say, me niether.
But I don't see Peter preaching a gospel of circumcision that differs from Paul's gospel. I am not an acts 9 dispensationalists and I don’t agree with The Plot. And if you really believe what you have just posted, then neither do you!

The Plot considers the evidence that Peter was preaching the gospel of circumcision in 2 Peter, and the inconsistency with Paul’s theology in 2 Peter as a reason to accept the premise of The Plot![/quote]
I would like a chance to discuss this with Bob.

[qutoe]Enyart says:

And yet you say:

Exactly what gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?[/quote]
The same thing Paul preached.

BChristianK
December 31st, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse
Yes, baptism is optional, but that doesn't mean it's not of importance.

You're tough to pin down. I feel like I am having a conversation with a different person every time you respond.

In Post #132 of this thread you quoted me and responded:



I said:
BTW, I would invite Knight or anyone more closely identified with Bob Hills teaching to keep me honest, but I don't think that Bob Hill teaches that baptism is prohibited, as if being baptized is a sinful act, but I do know that he thinks it is unnecessary, and that, in light of the current dispensation shouldn't be practiced.



[i]you replied
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.

So what part of that stance do you agree with? Do you think that baptism should or should not be practiced? Bob Hill and Bob Enyart aren't wemblesome on this question; they both say that one shouldn't.

Above, you have said that baptism is optional, but important. That just isn't consistent with saying that it shouldn't be practiced.
If you agree with Bob, then it's neither important nor optional. In fact, a mid-acts dispensational position is that it isn't an option for this dispensation at all, and is important that one isn't baptized.

Now I asked what the difference was between the gospel preached during Christ's ministry and after his ascension and you said:


Well, it didn't involve Christ's death and resurrection.:think:


And



The difference is that Christ's death and resurrection were not included.

You're probably right, they weren't included.

Now, is this the only difference between the gospel preached by Christ and gospel preached by the 12 after His ascension?

What else, if anything, was different?

Think in terms of: works, the Law, baptism, circumcision, eternal security/loss of salvation.

An answer of "I don't know" will earn you more respect than an evasion of the question lighthouse.


Regarding John 3:5 and "born of water, you said:


I'm not sure.

:thumb:

An honest man is a wise man, lighthouse. My respect for you has just increased a measure.

Now you say:


He may have meant water baptism,...

And if He did, then do you conclude that baptism is necessary or unnecessary based on this passage?


He may have meant born of the flesh.

He may, though I have come to doubt that this phrase is a hendiadys.


But I think it was the former.

So do I.


So I guess I don't disagree with them.

So you are now convinced that during the time of Christ's ministry, baptism was important and necessary, right?

Now, I’ll explain how my position differs from Enyart’s and Hill’s., I do not view baptism legalistically. I don’t think it is necessary such that the thief on the cross couldn't be saved without it. I think that God has set aside baptism as an ordinance to be obeyed, but one who cannot be baptized is not penalized for their inability. It is not a part of a magic formula such that it becomes a work unto salvation, and, in my opinion, it never was.

At the same time, if someone understands that God has instituted as an ordinance for the church, and refuses to publicly acknowledge Christ in this way, there is something wrong.

Perhaps the something wrong is that they have not become convinced as to the importance of baptism.

Perhaps they are not willing to be so identified with Christ. If it is the latter, I think there is cause to question their faith.

You bring up a relevant point when looking at the thief on the cross.


Maybe not unnecessary. But the thief makes for some good questions in that area. If the thief was a Jew, then he may have been baptized, at some point in his life.

Perhaps, but scripture doesn't say that he was so we would just be guessing...

You said:



No. It's a very good question. And one that needs some answers, I guess. But I think the best is that the thief was either a Jew who had been baptized, or a Gentile for whom it was never required.


Ah, but according to Hill and Enyart, no gospel was sent to the gentiles until after Paul's conversion, so if the thief was a gentile, he got in a bit earlier than mid-acts dispensationalists are comfortable allowing.

If he was a jew, we can dream that he may have been baptized, but we have no biblical reason to conclude that he was. And if we are to believe that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins during this time (as Enyart and Hill do) then we have a very important acceptation that falls through the cracks of their theology.

Remember when I said that I had, at one time, embraced mid-acts dispensationalism only to realize that it generated more unanswered questions than it solved?

This is one of those questions.


Perhaps it is just better to realize that salvation isn't a contract that both God and we are bound to if we satisfy all the requirements. Perhaps God was not looking for a loophole to throw the thief on the cross into hell.

Perhaps the thief on the cross was justified by his faith (just as we are), and were he able to do so, would have been expected to undergo baptism, but his given circumstances prevented it.



But Jesus didn't need to be baptized for salvation.

I think we have miscommunicated here. When I spoke of Jesus' baptism, I wasn't speaking of Jesus being baptized, I was speaking of Jesus baptizing.

Now regarding 2 Peter you said:


It wasn't who Peter was preaching to, as much as what he was preaching. If Peter had preached what Paul preached, then there would not have been the confrontation.

Right, and if there is no evidence that Peter wasn't preaching what Paul preached, then there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there are 2 separate and incompatible gospels.


Te curch under Peter was distinctly Jewish. But that doesn't preclude Peter from preaching to Gentiles, as long as he was preaching the same thing Paul preached.

Oh, and do you think that Peter preached what Paul preached to Cornelius?

You sort of answer this question..


Although, it seems Peter may have set out to preach the gospel of circumcision.

Or Peter may have set out to preach the gospel, and the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached aren't incompatible or substantively different such that they can be considered two different gospels.



Well, I'm very new to the theology. So I'm searching it. But it makes sense, at least at the beginning. But it may need some more explanation, as time goes on. I still believe that Paul preached differently than Peter and the rest of the disciples.

You mean with 2 Peter and Acts 10 being notable exceptions, right? ;)
Remember when I asked:



What gospel do you think Peter was preaching in 2 Peter?

You said:


The same thing Paul preached.

Do you think that is the case for 1 Peter as well?

You have conceded that Peter (in 2 Peter) was preaching the same gospel Paul preached. 2 Peter is, incidentally, the second letter to the same region (Galatia) and it doesn't make a great deal of sense for Peter to have preached a gospel of circumcision in 1 Peter and then the gospel of the uncircumcision in 2 Peter does it?

Now concerning baptism for this dispensation, you say:


And all of them, except Hislton, will say it isn't wrong to be baptized. And we would all agree that it does not save in this dispensation.

No, you are wrong here. Bob Hill has clearly said, in his opinion water baptism is "wrong."

He says as much in a question he answered on his website: biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered
The question was...


Is it implied anywhere in the Bible that it is "necessary" to be water baptized?...
Bob's Answer was...

Dear Dave,
Not only do I believe that water baptism is not necessary, I believe it is confusing and wrong... (emphasis added)

Bob Hill goes on to explain why he thinks baptism is wrong for this dispensation.

I am pretty sure, Bob Enyart (who studied with Bob Hill) agrees with Hill's conclusion. So I am afraid you are incorrect; Hillston, Enyart and Hill all agree that baptism is, in fact, wrong.

I think if you IM Knight and ask him if he thinks water baptism is wrong for this dispensation, he will tell you in no uncertain terms that he thinks it is.

Their theology leads them to their conclusion and if you agree with then or not, I think you can give them the benefit of saying that they are not theologically apathetic.

Lighthouse, I appreciate that you are exploring theology and that you are seeking knowledge. I think you have some very important misconceptions about what Bob Enyart's flavor of mid-acts dispensationalism is thought you claim to agree with it.

And at the end of the day, that ends up being a bit unfair for a number of folks.
1. It is unfair to Bob Enyart and Bob Hill and Knight for you to claim to subscribe to their tenants of mid-acts dispensationalism, and even go so far as try to explain that theological stance to folks like Nimrod, while not really understanding that which you are defending.

2. It is unfair to people who are trying to dialog with you about this theology. Most people don't want to debate a misrepresentation of a theology, that's really just a waste of time.

3. It is unfair to you, because you may want to agree Enyart and Hill, but really, you don't. And that will end up causing you confusion later on when you really do start understanding their theology.

I can understand how you may have felt like the rug has been ripped out from under you in this discussion. I think you make some excellent posts on matters that you understand. I just don't think this happens to be one of them right now. And that is in no way an indictment to your knowledge or to your character.

we are all still learning.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
December 31st, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

so as to be clear, can God be surprised that something occurs without being surprised at what occurs?

I think that God can be disappointed. I feel more comfortable using those terms though I think that we may be describing the same thing. So though I think that God knows all possible futures exhaustively, I don't think He has chosen to predetermine all of our choices. And if God knows not only that I could lie, but that I will lie, then, in my mind, there is no freedom for me not to lie, and therefore I am predestined to lie.

I don't agree with that, so I argue that God knows that I could, but he has chosen not to know that I will.

You give your own example.


for example, the possibility of me cheating on a test exists. but since it's against my character to do so, God would be surprised when I actually do cheat on a test even though he foreknew it as a possibility from eternity past. so he was not surprised at what came to pass, only that it in fact did come to pass.

Yeah, sort of. I wouldn't go so far as to say that God was surprised (that, to me, assumes that something unanticipated happened).

Rather, I think that God anticipates all possibilities and is prepared for all of them as well, but does not lock us into things like cheating on tests and being deceptive by virtue of exclusively foreknowing them. If God knows what I will do before I do it, even before I was born, then I am locked into doing it by virtue of the foreknowledge.

You see, I have some friends who will say that God knows both, what could happen and what [/b]will[/b] happen.

My argument is "what is the point of creating more than one possible scenario of what could happen, if there is only one scenario of what will happen?"

To me, Calvinism and simple foreknowledge arguments end up splitting hairs. The only difference is whether God decree’s the behavior or whether He just chose to know it in advance. Either way, I’m locked in.

So, contrary to lighthouses assertion, I am not a closed theist.

I am somewhat of a neo-molinist who follows Greg Boyd to a large degree.

I am somewhat more closed of a theist than some here on TOL as I believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all possible futures. And I believe that God has chosen to limit the number of futures that are possible.

I think the number is near, infinite, but not infinite.

I think there was, from the moment of creation, God determined that all possible futures would have Christ as the Messiah. There are no futures in which He is not. Furthermore, there was no possible future in which Christ’s was born, and was gored by a bull before his 10th birthday, thus rendering the world without a Savior.

I hope I have explained this to your satisfaction.

Grace and Peace

God_Is_Truth
December 31st, 2004, 05:38 PM
BChristianK,

:thumb:

i like Boyd's stuff too, although up till about a week ago all i'd read was from his web site. i just started reading "seeing is believing" by him and hope to get some of his other books in the future.

Lighthouse
January 1st, 2005, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK

You're tough to pin down. I feel like I am having a conversation with a different person every time you respond.

In Post #132 of this thread you quoted me and responded:



So what part of that stance do you agree with? Do you think that baptism should or should not be practiced? Bob Hill and Bob Enyart aren't wemblesome on this question; they both say that one shouldn't.
I don't think that either is how it should be. It doesn't matter, either way.


Above, you have said that baptism is optional, but important. That just isn't consistent with saying that it shouldn't be practiced.
It's important to some people. But I don't think it's important to God.


If you agree with Bob, then it's neither important nor optional. In fact, a mid-acts dispensational position is that it isn't an option for this dispensation at all, and is important that one isn't baptized.
It's optional. Also, I really think you should finish The Plot, so you know more about Bob's stance on baptism.


Now I asked what the difference was between the gospel preached during Christ's ministry and after his ascension and you said:


And


You're probably right, they weren't included.
Exactly.


Now, is this the only difference between the gospel preached by Christ and gospel preached by the 12 after His ascension?
It seems that way. As far as I currently know.


What else, if anything, was different?
I don't know. I'm not exactly sure there was anything different. Not what was preached to Israel, anyway.


Think in terms of: works, the Law, baptism, circumcision, eternal security/loss of salvation.
I'm not completely sure that anyone was ever able to lose their salvation. Other than that, I think all the other ones were in effect.


An answer of "I don't know" will earn you more respect than an evasion of the question lighthouse.
I don't mean to evade questions.


Regarding John 3:5 and "born of water, you said:

:thumb:

An honest man is a wise man, lighthouse. My respect for you has just increased a measure.
Okay.


Now you say:

And if He did, then do you conclude that baptism is necessary or unnecessary based on this passage?
If He did, then it was necessary, for the Jews.


He may, though I have come to doubt that this phrase is a hendiadys.

So do I.
Okay.


So you are now convinced that during the time of Christ's ministry, baptism was important and necessary, right?
Yes. At least for the Jews.


Now, I’ll explain how my position differs from Enyart’s and Hill’s., I do not view baptism legalistically. I don’t think it is necessary such that the thief on the cross couldn't be saved without it. I think that God has set aside baptism as an ordinance to be obeyed, but one who cannot be baptized is not penalized for their inability. It is not a part of a magic formula such that it becomes a work unto salvation, and, in my opinion, it never was.
Okay. I disagree with the last thing. I think it was a work unto salvation, at one point in time.


At the same time, if someone understands that God has instituted as an ordinance for the church, and refuses to publicly acknowledge Christ in this way, there is something wrong.
Well, if they just plain refuse, it may be there beliefs. I don't think anyone would refuse to do it if they thought they should. But there are also people who may believe it isn't necessary, and they won't look for it.


Perhaps the something wrong is that they have not become convinced as to the importance of baptism.
I don't think it is important.


Perhaps they are not willing to be so identified with Christ. If it is the latter, I think there is cause to question their faith.
There's more than cause to question their faith.


You bring up a relevant point when looking at the thief on the cross.
Yeah, but a lot of it seems to be an argument from silence.


Perhaps, but scripture doesn't say that he was so we would just be guessing...
Agreed.


You said:


Ah, but according to Hill and Enyart, no gospel was sent to the gentiles until after Paul's conversion, so if the thief was a gentile, he got in a bit earlier than mid-acts dispensationalists are comfortable allowing.
Possibly. But his faith in Christ would allow for that. There were Gentiles who became proselyte Jews, before that. So, a Gentile who came directly to Christ would be let in.


If he was a jew, we can dream that he may have been baptized, but we have no biblical reason to conclude that he was. And if we are to believe that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins during this time (as Enyart and Hill do) then we have a very important acceptation that falls through the cracks of their theology.
Quite. But either one is an argument from silence.


Remember when I said that I had, at one time, embraced mid-acts dispensationalism only to realize that it generated more unanswered questions than it solved?

This is one of those questions.
I underrstand.


Perhaps it is just better to realize that salvation isn't a contract that both God and we are bound to if we satisfy all the requirements. Perhaps God was not looking for a loophole to throw the thief on the cross into hell.
No, He wasn't. God is always looking for a way to bring us to Him, and keep us from hell.


Perhaps the thief on the cross was justified by his faith (just as we are), and were he able to do so, would have been expected to undergo baptism, but his given circumstances prevented it.
I agree that he was justified by faith alone, but I don't know that he would have been expected to undergo baptism.


I think we have miscommunicated here. When I spoke of Jesus' baptism, I wasn't speaking of Jesus being baptized, I was speaking of Jesus baptizing.
I know. I wasn't making a reference to what you had said.


Now regarding 2 Peter you said:

Right, and if there is no evidence that Peter wasn't preaching what Paul preached, then there isn't enough evidence to conclude that there are 2 separate and incompatible gospels.
2 Peter not including evidence of Peter preaching a different version of the gospel [without being a different gospel] does not exclude that he may have elsewhere. I think the verses in Acts where the leadership of the Messianic Jewish church discussed what Paul should preach as requirements for the Gentiles to whom he preached is evidence that there were differences in what was to be preached to the two dfferent groups.


Oh, and do you think that Peter preached what Paul preached to Cornelius?
No. I think Peter only got out some of what he was prepared to preach when Cornelius' family was indwelt with the Spirit.


You sort of answer this question..

Or Peter may have set out to preach the gospel, and the gospel Peter preached and the gospel Paul preached aren't incompatible or substantively different such that they can be considered two different gospels.
They are different. Acts 15, especially verse 5.


You mean with 2 Peter and Acts 10 being notable exceptions, right? ;)
Yeah.


Remember when I asked:



You said:

Do you think that is the case for 1 Peter as well?
No. In 1 Peter, Peter wrote that baptism saves us. I know he said thet he wasn't taling about water, but baptism is not the only answer of a good conscience towards God.


You have conceded that Peter (in 2 Peter) was preaching the same gospel Paul preached. 2 Peter is, incidentally, the second letter to the same region (Galatia) and it doesn't make a great deal of sense for Peter to have preached a gospel of circumcision in 1 Peter and then the gospel of the uncircumcision in 2 Peter does it?
No. You're right. But it seems wierd that he would preach certain things, after what he said in Acts 15, about Paul's preaching, when he was talking to people Paul preached to. However, Galatians 2 is obviously a point in which he did that exact thing. But I am curiious as to how it would end up in the canon, if he was. It's a curious question.


Now concerning baptism for this dispensation, you say:

No, you are wrong here. Bob Hill has clearly said, in his opinion water baptism is "wrong."

He says as much in a question he answered on his website: biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered
The question was...

Bob Hill goes on to explain why he thinks baptism is wrong for this dispensation.

I am pretty sure, Bob Enyart (who studied with Bob Hill) agrees with Hill's conclusion. So I am afraid you are incorrect; Hillston, Enyart and Hill all agree that baptism is, in fact, wrong.
Hilston believes it to be a sin. I don't know that either of the Bob's feel that way.


I think if you IM Knight and ask him if he thinks water baptism is wrong for this dispensation, he will tell you in no uncertain terms that he thinks it is.
Alright. I did that. I will let you know when he answers me.


Their theology leads them to their conclusion and if you agree with then or not, I think you can give them the benefit of saying that they are not theologically apathetic.
I don't believe it's wrong. I think that the Bible would have made it abundantly clear if it was.


Lighthouse, I appreciate that you are exploring theology and that you are seeking knowledge. I think you have some very important misconceptions about what Bob Enyart's flavor of mid-acts dispensationalism is thought you claim to agree with it.
Well, I haven't found much to disagree with, in The Plot.


And at the end of the day, that ends up being a bit unfair for a number of folks.
1. It is unfair to Bob Enyart and Bob Hill and Knight for you to claim to subscribe to their tenants of mid-acts dispensationalism, and even go so far as try to explain that theological stance to folks like Nimrod, while not really understanding that which you are defending.
I've told Nimrod that I was new to it. But he keeps asking me questions I don't yet have the answers to. But I still think I can say I beleive in Mid-Acts. Just a different version than the one the Bobs preach. But I would like to discuss these things with them.


2. It is unfair to people who are trying to dialog with you about this theology. Most people don't want to debate a misrepresentation of a theology, that's really just a waste of time.
I know. But Nimrod likes to waste time.


3. It is unfair to you, because you may want to agree Enyart and Hill, but really, you don't. And that will end up causing you confusion later on when you really do start understanding their theology.
I don't care if I agree with them. I care if I agree with the Bible. I used to despise Bob Enyart, so I obviously don't care if I agree with him on the whole theology of Mid-Acts.


I can understand how you may have felt like the rug has been ripped out from under you in this discussion. I think you make some excellent posts on matters that you understand. I just don't think this happens to be one of them right now. And that is in no way an indictment to your knowledge or to your character.
Actually, I don't feel that any rug has been ripped out from under me. I don't remember any mention that baptism was wrong, in The Plot. So I had no reason to question that issue. And I already agreed that it wasn't necessary unto salvation. But I do believe it may heve been, at one time.


we are all still learning.
Yes we are.