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.
