The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[HopeofGlory]

Rapt,

You said:
I won't call you the acronym for Hope of Glory anymore. I will use an acronym for the term Jesus and John used to refer to the enemies of the gospel, because that is what you prove yourself to be.

Reply:
More of the same! A dog will always be a dog it seems.
You are in the same boat with all those who trust in their filthy rags for salvation.

You said:
Haven't you ever even taken the time to READ Acts 2, S/V?

Reply:
No mention of Christ die "for their sins". Maybe you should read it again!

You said:
Who but the blind cannot see in these scriptures the preaching of the DEATH, BURIAL, RESURRECTION, and LORDSHIP of Jesus Christ?

Reply:
They were told they had killed the Messiah and that He rose again but they did not accept His death for remission of sins.
Try as you may the fact Christ die "for their sins is not there.

You said:
WHAT? Did you add a "not" where you didn't mean to, S/V? Was the New Testament in effect at Pentacost or not?

Reply:
No it was not! I will tell you again the new testament is "HIS BLOOD WAS SHED FOR REMISSION OF SINS". Do you understand what that means? It is not that hard to comprehend is it? It is like this....Christ die for sinners and in order to receive eternal life you must believe it. Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.


You said:
HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?

Reply:
Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them.

You said:
You are obviously completely confused, so you should pack it up, go home, pray, and study hard before presenting any more foolishness, for you will be held accountable whenever you say the bible doesn't say something that it does INDEED say (or vise-versa).

Reply:
(((LOL))) Rapt or what ever you are, you need to listen more and learn to show respect to those who put up with you on these forums.

You said:
The Holy Ghost had Peter preach the gospel of Christ's grace, and yet you say they that heard it did not hear the New Testament gospel, nor did they receive eternal life EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE "SAVED". THAT'S DOUBLE TALK. Who gets saved outside of hearing the gospel?

Reply:
The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a blind idiot could not tell the difference.

You said:
You can't even seem to make up your mind if the New Testament was in effect at Pentacost or not! So tell us, did they hear the New Testament gospel, repent, be baptised, and therefore receive the Holy Ghost, remission of sins, salvation, and the promise of eternal life at Penatcost, or did Peter and Holy Ghost lie?

Reply:
Well let's see the new testament is....."For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" and Acts 2:38 is repent and be water baptized for remission of sins. Like I said before only a blind idiot can't tell the difference.
Let me make it clear to you...THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST...is there any part of that you don't understand?

You said:
You can't have it both ways, S/V; either Peter by the Holy Ghost did not preach the New Testament gospel, but lied instead, or those people DID hear the gospel and were indeed given the promise of eternal life when they were baptized, and YOU are who lied against the truth.

Reply:
I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?

You said:
If you would have READ Jn 6, and compared it with what Jesus said about His "sheep" in the 10th chapter, you would have understood that it was NOT the believing apostles that rejected Jesus' words:

Reply:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:27 (KJV)
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:28 (KJV)

What we must seek is eternal life! What is it that we must believe to receive eternal life?

Jesus said...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV) This was not to be taken naturally but was to be received Spiritually by faith. Jesus explains it with these words...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) The apostles did not receive theses words of Jesus but said....This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 (KJV) These words were not to be understood until Paul revealed this truth after Pentecost through revelations received from Jesus Christ. Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins.
Faith in his blood is the very essence of our salvation unto eternal life. We are saved the moment be believe. Those at Pentecost did not have this faith and thus did not receive eternal life. The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they did not believe. It is never even mentioned to them that Christ died for their sins. or that his shed blood washes away their sins. Where is the faith in what we believe in mentioned at Pentecost?

Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

The apostles did not believe in his shed blood and they had no understanding of it. Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke 22:20 (KJV)
But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Luke 22:21 (KJV)
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! Luke 22:22 (KJV)
And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. Luke 22:23 (KJV)
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. Luke 22:24 (KJV)

Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. Luke 22:28 (KJV)
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; Luke 22:29 (KJV)
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Luke 22:30 (KJV)
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: Luke 22:31 (KJV)
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Luke 22:32 (KJV)


The apostles argued among themselves as our Savior was telling them of the power of his shed blood and speaks of Peter being converted. Peter will later be converted with the Gospel of Christ.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60 (KJV)
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? John 6:61 (KJV)
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? John 6:62 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65 (KJV)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. John 6:66 (KJV)
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? John 6:67 (KJV)
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 (KJV)
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:69 (KJV)
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70 (KJV)

Jesus is telling them the way to eternal life is faith in his blood but it offends them. Peter says that Jesus has the words but he does not say he has faith in it. Peter does say that he believes Jesus is the Son of God. Remember in Luke 22:32 Jesus said that he would be converted later on. Jesus said he chose the twelve and one is a devil. His choosing them was not based on their faith in his death, burial , and resurrection which baptizes us into the body by the Spirit. His choice was based on their belief that he was the Son of God and they could be a witness to his death.
At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God.

We have to believe in the "blood of Christ" that washes away our sins and that Christ "died for our sins". At Pentecost they did not believe this but we see the apostles refused it. Not once will you find this message given at Pentecost and I will ask you "how could they be accepted into the body of Christ without it? Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and



You said:
Only disciples that failed to CONTINUE in Christ's Word fell away. There were many more than twelve, as the context shows. They did not endure sound doctrine. The twelve Apostles DID believe Jesus; they were the Sheep that heard his voice and FOLLOWED him (Jn 10). It may have been a "hard saying" to hear, and they may not have understood Christ's sacrifice completely then, but by Acts 2 they certainly did.

Reply:
Wrong Again! If the apostles had believed in the new testament they would have delivered it at Pentecost.

You said:
I have shown you Acts 2 to refute the assertion that they did not preach the New Testament gospel, which includes faith in Christ as the Messiah, the death, burial, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus Christ, and water baptism. To access the benefit of Christ's blood, and the remission of sins thereby, they were commanded to BE BAPTIZED IN WATER IN the name of Jesus Christ. Certainly only those that had faith in Christ would be obedient to the faith.

Reply:
You have completely lost you mind!

You said:
You claim that they didn't recieve eternal life from Peter's gospel at Pentacost. But they were not obligated to be baptised again later into a new gospel under Paul! Only those believers in Christ that had not heard of the Holy Ghost were commanded to be baptized in water again (Acts 19:1-5)

Reply:
No one was commanded to be baptized in "water" again. If they were water baptized for remission of sins why would they need to do it again. It is all to stupid to believe!

You said:
Your argument is a lame one; one that suggests that anyone preaching the gospel had to quote Jesus word for word, and include EVERYTHING He ever said before they had preached "the gospel". Consider the fact that Jesus didn't quote every prophecy of the OT every time he preached, nor did He quote it word for word.

Reply:
Well if the Lord Jesus gaven the new testament to me I would have written it down in His exact words the first chance I got but I guess to YOU that would sound lame. (((((LOL)))))

You said:
He that is faithful in the least is faithful with much; he that is unjust with the least will be unjust also with much.

Reply:
I agree! ((((LOL)))))

You said:
Read Acts 2 again until you see that that is the very message Peter preached. Once Peter rehearsed to them what they had done, they BELIEVED that they had crucified Christ, the Messiah, and THAT'S WHY they were pricked in their hearts and said "What shall we do?" Peter didn't have to say "ye must believe"; all he did was tell them the truth and they BELIEVED IT, and repented!

Reply:
Peter did tell them the truth in that they had crucified their Messiah but that is a far cry from YOU MUST HAVE FAITH IN HIS SHED BLOOD FOR REMISSION OF SINS and that does not mean repent and get water baptized for remission of sins.

 

[HopeofGlory]

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt. 12:39 (KJV)


A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. Matt. 16:4 (KJV)


And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12 (KJV)


And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Luke 11:29 (KJV)

 

[Freak]

Please refer to my last post.

 

[Ian Day]

Hope,

Are you trying to prove that baptism was not & is not a sign ?????
And that no signs were in fact shown by the Lord ???????

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: Matt. 12:39 (KJV)

[Justa Christian]
"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" (1 Cor. 1:22-23, NKJV).

The is probably one of the most accepted verses on the subject of signs. There are many applications of the term both the New and the Old Testament. ....
I find that the Scriptures depict Baptism as a similarity with a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and a similarity with a washing (Acts 22:16), but nowhere do I find it to be a sign.

Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

It is no coincidence that Jesus later spoke of his death as a baptism, and that the sign of death & resurrection is one aspect of the significance of baptism.

 

[rapt]

Dispensationalism is another gospel that hacks up and denies the truth

Dispensationalism is another gospel that hacks up and denies the truth

[color=ff00ff]hope:

(((LOL))) Rapt or what ever you are, you need to listen more and learn to show respect to those who put up with you on these forums. [/color]

Amen. I apologize for my disrespect in refering to you as S/V. God convicted me that I have not been as gracious as He would have me to be.

[color=ff00ff]hope:

Try as you may the fact Christ die "for their sins is not there.[/color]

Peter was speaking to JEWS who knew Isaiah 53, which DOES manifest that the death of Messiah was FOR THEIR SINS.
Why do you keep saying "Christ die for sinners"? Did Christ DIE or not, hope? Did Jesus come in the flesh and die? You said "Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.", so I know that you can say "died" if that's what you mean.

I asked, concering your statement about what happened in Acts 2:

"HOW CAN ANYONE BE "SAVED", YET NOT RECEIVE the promise of ETERNAL LIFE?"

You replied:

[color=ff00ff]"Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them."[/color]

Amen He did! They were saved only AS LONG AS THEY OBEYED GOD. Eternal Security is a lie of Satan, who first taught it to Eve when he hissed "Ye shall not surely die" if you disobey God. He that endures the doctrine of God until the end of his life shall receive the promise of eternal life.

You said:

[color=ff00ff]"The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a blind idiot could not tell the difference."[/color]

Here lies the root of the problem: you believe in two seperate and disctinctly DIFFERENT GOSPELS even after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is where you are in great error. (Gal 1:6-9) Circumcision was NEVER part of the gospel of Christ. If you think it was, the burden of proof is upon you. "the circumcision" was merely speaking of those that had already been circumcised.

You said:

[color=ff00ff]"THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST"[/color]

So you should pray, study hard, and stop displaying such a contradiction to the truth.

You said:

[color=ff00ff]"I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?"[/color]

Oh my God! So you think that God just overlooked unbelief and rejection of the New Testament gospel, and saved unbelievers anyway, based on the fact that they were Jews! Yours is a completely dark view of the nature of God to begin with, so it's no wonder you believe there could have ever been two different gospels after Christ died! This is unbelief and heresy on your part (not Peters!), and such an one as that would strengthen the hands of evildoers so that they would not repent of unbelief, but that would offer them another way of salvation!

Yours is the same doctrine as the false prophets:

Ezekiel 13
22
... with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him... (remission of sins while yet in unbelief)

Jer 23:14
I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.
15
Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem (like Darby, Scofield, Pentacost, Walvoord, Hal Lindsay, David Jeremiah, John MacAurther, Oral Roberts, Tim LaHaye, Adrian Rogers, Dave Hunt, Vernon Magee, Robert Theime, and a host of others including those influenced by the MBI and the DTS; the wide way that leads to destruction) is profaneness gone forth into all the land.
16
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: (they make you worship God in vain Mat 15:6-9) they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.
17
They say still unto them (the unbelieving Jew) that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
18
For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and heard his word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? (This is the same as saying: "This is an hard saying, who can hear it?")

You said:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV) [color=ff00ff] The apostles did not receive theses words of Jesus but said....This is an hard saying; who can hear it? John 6:60"[/color]

I answered this and explained it already. The Apostles did not reject the truth like those who failed to continue in faith with Christ like you claim they did. I might say "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?" while I believe whatever I'm refering to, just as Jeremiah did, quoted above. I would merely be acknowledging the fact that most would not believe it.

Again you said:

[color=ff00ff]"Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins." [/color]

And again I say that that truth was revealed in the OT by Isaiah in the 53rd chapter, as well as many other places, even as the New Testament testifies to (Acts 10:43) so you are incorrect.

You said, manifesting the error of dispensationalism:

[color=ff00ff]"The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they [/color] (the Jews at Pentacost) [color=ff00ff]did not believe.[/color]

This statement proves that you subscribe to the dispy "great parenthesis" theory that is derived from the misinterpretation of Dan 9 that claims that the seventy weeks were somehow divided: the last week from the first successive sixty nine, and that it is yet to be fulfilled. Such an idea completely denies and destroys the time element of the prophecy, supposing that God meant to say 350+ weeks instead of that only 70 weeks were "determined" (Dan 9:24). (What God determines, He brings to pass when He says it will happen!) The "great parenthesis", i.e., "Kingdom put on hold" doctrine denies that Christ was who confirmed the New Covenant by signs and miracles (including his death and resurrection) with the believing Jews during the last week of that prophecy, it denies that Christ was cut off in the midst of that 70th week, and that His one and last sacrifice caused the efficacy of animal sacrifices to cease forever before God, and it denies that it was Christ who determined to pour His wrath out upon Jerusalem, to desolate it and destroy the temple for the overspreading of her abominations, which indeed He did by the use of the people of the prince that came (in 70AD), just as the prophecy specifically said He would. It denies the fulfillment of that prophecy, and thereby robs the Jewish people (and everyone else) of the truth of the only prophecy that specifically stated the exact time their messiah would be revealed on the scene of history.

God's time prophecy was no lie, and He certainly knows how to add. Had He have meant for the prophecy to stretch out over 2000 years beyond the 490 years (70X7) stated (from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [around 454 BC]), He would have said so. Daniel could not have "known" nor "understood" any such gap, but the angel told him to know and understand a specific time period, and what was to be fulfilled with it.

Such a wrenching of a fulfilled time prophecy by disps adds to, takes way, and destroys the Word of God, and has deceived you into supposing that God "put the Kingdom on hold". He did no such thing. (Rev 22:18,19) To accept such a falsehood can only result in the same fall from grace that Paul warned the Galatians happens to everyone who receives "another gospel" which includes circumcision (Gal 5:1-4), which you have apparantly accepted as legit.

If Jews today had heard Peter preach the very same sermon as he preached at Pentacost, would it not be clear to them (who know Isaiah 53 and BELIEVE the prophets) that it was the blood of Jesus that was shed for their transgressions?

Of course they would! Only unbelievers would deny it, or fail to hear Peter saying that very thing in that Acts 2 sermon. The veil is still on the heart of anyone who cannot discern that Peter preached the New Testament gospel at Pentacost.

You:

[color=ff00ff]The apostles did not believe in his shed blood and they had no understanding of it. Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.[/color]

So you appear to believe that the Apostles were not even part of Christ's body, just as you claim there were two ways to be saved. You deny the Spirit baptism of Acts 2 that the bible clearly shows, and deny the validity of the faith of the Apostles. By such glaring unbelief, you show that you do not believe the scriptures at all, but rather the doctrine of men that makes God's Word of none effect. Jesus (along with Jeremiah) said they that do so worship God in vain. (See my signature)

[color=ff00ff]Peter will later be converted with the Gospel of Christ. [/color]

You suppose it had not yet happened at Pentacost. When they were baptized by the Spirit, into what body were they baptized if not into Christ? God's Spirit is not divided. The Jews at Pentacost believed the same gospel that went later to the Gentiles. Any "other gospel" is accursed.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Luke 24
46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48
And ye are witnesses of these things.

Paul was not the first to bear witness of this; ALL the prophets did long before Paul:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

...but Peter bore witness to it after Christ's death FIRST AT JERUSALEM, just as Christ said it would happen. You deny that and say instead that Paul was the first to bear witness to it, but Paul wasn't even in Jerusalem when he first did. Paul had first preached in the synogogues in Damascus, not Jerusalem, so the New Testament was NOT first preached by Paul, or Jesus didn't know what He was talking about.

So then scriptures above reveal these truths:

1. Jesus said that remission of sins through faith in His name/blood would FIRST be preached in Jerusalem, then go into all the world.

2. Peter fulfilled this prophecy at Pentacost.

3. Paul gets converted after Pentacost, and preaches the New Testament to the Jews and Grecians at Damascus.


You quote the scripture, but then deny it:

Jn 6:66
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
67
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. John 6:68 (KJV)
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:69 (KJV)

[color=ff00ff]Jesus is telling them the way to eternal life is faith in his blood but it offends them. Peter says that Jesus has the words but he does not say he has faith in it. [/color]

If it had offended them, they would have departed with the other disciples that left. But rather than the Apostles being offended, as you suppose they were, they BELIEVED Him, and so they continued with Him! You accuse them of offense and unbelief while scripture shows their faith.

Peter was converted after Christ died from his offense that Christ had prophecied:

Matt 26:31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
32
But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
33
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
34
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

When he was, he strengthened the brethren by his testimony in Acts 2. He was then ready to die for the faith of the crucifixion of Christ and the remission of sins through the New Testament, whereas before he was not ready. His offense was not unbelief as you assert.

You:

[color=ff00ff]At Pentecost they did not believe Jesus died for their sins and we do not have any scripture to the contrary in the word of God. [/color]

You deny that they believed Jesus or the prophets then, for all the prophets bore witness to that fact (Acts 10:43). You deny that the Apostles were accepted into the body of Christ even though they were baptized by the Holy Ghost at Pentacost, and in spite of the many scriptures that clearly say that the body of Christ is not divided into Jew/gentiles. What utter darkness and unbelief of the bible! You accuse the faithful Apostles of unbelief, and exalt your own unbelief in place of the truth. This is the spirit of antichrist.

You:

[color=ff00ff]At Pentecost they did not believe (in the "blood of Christ" that washes away our sins and that Christ "died for our sins") but we see the apostles refused it. Not once will you find this message given at Pentecost and I will ask you "how could they be accepted into the body of Christ without it? Their remission of sins came through water baptism. They were not baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ through faith.

[/color]

If you expect any respect you must first have respect toward the Word of God. You deserve no more than what you give God's Word. By your unbeliving diatribe against the truth, you show no respect for it at all. What a shame.

Your only "hope of glory" will be in repentance and belief in the truth, which will require a denial of the folly of dispensational false teaching. I pray that you can see the falsehood of it soon, in Jesus' name.

Matt 3:7-12

 

[rapt]

Tell us Freak if you too accept the heresies of dispensationalism like "hope" does, or what variation of disp doctrine you embrace, if any.

I already know that you swallow the eternal security doctrine of Satan, which disps do also.

 

[Ian Day]

Thanks, Rapt !

Thanks, Rapt !

Hope,

Rapt has shown you the error of your system of belief. He's saved me the time I would have spent refuting your errors concerning the Goespel preached at Pentecost, etc.

You forget that the whole Jewish theological system was based on sacrifice for sin, right from Genesis 3. And they understood baptism as the sprinkled blood of the Covenant. (Ex. 24, Heb. 9) And that John's first testimony to Jesus was "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

Philip applied Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian.

Hope, you are greatly deceived. You are reading the Scriptures through dark dispensational glasses, and imposing a false hermeneutic on the Word of God.

 

[rapt]

You're welcome Ian. That post took me over three hours to complete.

It's a hard saying; what disp can hear it? But I pray hope will hear it.

You bring up an excellent point about the whole Jewish system being based on blood sacrifice. If Acts 2 was preached in unbelief in Christ's blood, then where was the sacrfice for sin? We don't read that they all sacrificed animals that day at all for the remission of sins; nay, they were baptised into the body of the Christ by faith in the crucified one for it. Hope claims they had faith in baptism rather than in the blood of Christ, but that is a gross error that denies that they understood the blood of Christ to have FULFILLED all animal sacrifices, even as Dan 9 said it would.

IF anyone puts faith in water baptism over and above the blood of Christ for forgiveness, then they don't understand the gospel. But that does not negate the requirement to be baptised in water or say that it is not part of the New Testament gospel.

 

[Ian Day]

Rapt,

Afghanistan needs true prophets, not false ones.

[Rapt]
Location: Florida, but relieved that the false prophet Benny Hinn has left, and wishing all the false prophets would make a pilgrimage to Afganistan today.

THe doctrine of eternal security of the believer, preservation & perseverance of God's elect, is soundly based on Scripture. But that's for another thread.

 

[rapt]

Concerning that I said about false prophets going to Afganistan, amen, Ian, I'm sorry. I should not have said that at all, and I thought I had already changed it. It was not a loving thing to say. I will change it now.

Concerning the false doctrine of eternal security, and it's origin being the first lie Satan ever told in the garden of Eden, yes, that is for another thread.

 

[Freak]

I do not embrace disp. theology I however do embrace Biblical theology. The Apostle Paul believed this: He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30).

 

[JustAChristian]

What is your definition of faith?

What is your definition of faith?

Just a Christian,

The burden proof lies with you to prove to me that baptism is somehow in Romans 5:1 for example or Ephesian 2:8-9. Perhaps you can find some hidden mystical meaning behind these verses that many do not see.

That fact remains: baptism is never mentioned as being a part of justification. Paul made it clear the "righteous shall live by faith" (Galatians 3:11) not by baptism. Yes, we should be baptized, it is commanded, as is the need to evangelize and to love one another. But in no way are these acts essential for salvation. These acts are the byproduct of salvation. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Did you ever read Jesus' words when He spoke in John 10:9 and said quite clealry He was the way to be saved. Jesus never mentioned baptism, did Jesus make a mistake? I think Not. I believe you have though.

You jump around making statements and inferring suppositions when in fact you should be defining your premise. What is faith? Give all your viewers a statement. We'd like to know what your think faith is. What does in contain and what is not contained? Making statements like you do make me believe you have no idea what you are talking about, but are only reading what others are saying and paraphraseing at that. Come on Freak, what is faith?

JustAChristian

 

[JustAChristian]

Re: The Baptism of Jesus

Re: The Baptism of Jesus

Why was Jesus baptised ?

In what way did he "fulfill all righteousness" ?
WHere is baptism commanded in the Old Covenant Scriptures, for if baptism is not therein commanded, why should the Lord have sought baptism ?

QUOTE]

John the baptized was sent to prepare a way for the coming of the Lord. His message was given to the Jewish economy. It was a message accompanied with baptism. It was a message sanctioned by God. (Luke 3:4; John 1:23). Jesus, as a man and Jew was of that economy. Since they were commanded to be baptized unto repentence for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), it would behoove Christ to give the perfect picture of obedience. His accepting the command of God deivered through the faithful prophet, within that economy constitutes a measure of the Law of God and a very part of it. The kingdom and authority of Christ did not begin until after the death and resurrection of Christ. Until that time, the Law of God to the Jews was sustained.

JustAChristian

 

[JustAChristian]

What Do You Know About Faith?

What Do You Know About Faith?

What do you know about “Faith?” It ranks prominent in the Christian religion. It’s a subject however, that is misunderstood by many and thus is vital that we give it a period of study.

A definition of faith is seen in the letter to the Hebrews. The Bible says, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Further we read, “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb.11:6) Faith is relying on our limited knowledge of a fact until we have actual knowledge of it. I know that San Francisco, California exist, but I have no personal knowledge of that fact. I must depend upon supporting evidence such a pictures and maps to help me accept it. If I ever go to San Francisco some day, I will see it and will have personal knowledge. That is my faith working today.

Jesus said and it is recorded in the Bible to “have faith in God” (Mk. 11:22) So to what we have seen before, we have at least two statements to believe in God. We must believe in God and that He is. It should not be hard for the average person to accept the existence of God based just on the factors around him. The heavens and the earth are God’s handy work and show His existence (Psalms 19:1-3). Who created all that we see and have if not a Supreme Being? You might want to accept “the big Bang” hypothesis, but remember, Matter can not come from Non-matter. There has to be a first cause designer, and that is God.

Jesus goes on to say, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me” (Jn. 14:1). If we do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah and sent from God to redeem us of our sins, then we will die in ours sins ( Jn 8:24). The Bible abounds in information to show that ;Jesus is and that He is God’s only begotten Son. There is no reason not to accept Him for what He is and promises to do for the faithful. Yes in deed, Jesus is!!

Someone might be asking, “Why should I accept the Bible? Isn’t it some book of stories written by a lot of people with many contradictions in it?” Well, the Bible is a book written by about 40 different people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It has been accused of having many contradictions, but if you know of one would you point it out to me?

The Bible tells us that we must believe in the writings of Moses saying, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings , how shall ye believe my words” (Jn 5:46-47). We are called to accept Jesus by faith, but this is not possible unless we are willing to accept what Moses wrote of Him.

The Bible continues by telling us to believe in the writings of the Prophets. The apostle Paul tell in one of his sermons recorded in the Book of Acts, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). The writings of the prophets greatly told of God, Jesus and all that is sufficient to believe in them. We can not ignore their knowledge. We are called upon to believe the Gospel for salvation (Mk 1:15 ; 16:15-16) This is the message of the life and work of Christ on earth. It is the means by which man will be saved ( Rom 1:16).Unless we believe the gospel, we cannot be save from our sins.

For today, let me conclude by saying that as the apostle Paul believed in the promises of God, we to must come to accept them in fullest of faith, for such is essential to benefit from God’ s promises. Continue to seek the Lord, and have a great day.

JustAChristian

 

[HopeofGlory]

To all,

Dispensationalism has many flaws but not as many as covenant theology. Covenant theology is far better than Rapt's doctrine of works will ever be. Freak's faith alone in the blood of Christ for remission of sins of which I agree will never be proven wrong because it does not contain doctrine of men. I agree that there are dispensations as to different requirements to please God but do not consider myself a dispensationalist but I see the word of God revealed progressively to us. As freak said the best method is biblical theology when a man seeks to know God his Saviour, through the word of God and has no doctrine to prove for this man is not offended but receives the word of God freely. Salvation is not in knowledge of biblical doctrine but it is received by sinners who are without hope and understand that there is nothing they can do of themselves to be saved. This hopeless sinner needs only the simplicity of the gospel which is Christ died for his sins and if he truly believes he is accepted by a loving God. I can testify this is true for I was once without hope but this simple truth was all I needed. I do not need biblical proof of my relationship with my Saviour because He has proven Himself to me personally without any doctrine. A hopeless sinner will never have to be hopeless again when he has faith in Christ and Him only. When we stand before God we must be spotless without one speck of sin to be accepted and this can only be found in the finished work of Christ when He offered Himself as a spotless sacrifice for us. What is sad when we think about it is when we concern ourselves with proving our doctrines while the lost are without hope and all they need is the simplicity of the Gospel without the confusion of doctrine. My doctrinal beliefs may not be perfect but the simple fact of it is I don't need them because my hope is in Christ Jesus.

 

[agape]

BAPTISM: OUT WITH THE OLD - IN WITH THE NEW

Water baptism is not essential to salvation as so many Christians today believe and teach. How do we know? We know because the Bible tells us so. The Word of God makes it very clear that we are to be baptized; HOWEVER, God purposely informs us that we, since the day of Pentecost, are to be baptized with holy spirit.

Acts 1:4-5:
And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me.
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

We need to remember that John did not minister the Gospel of the Grace of God. He was a prophet of God under the old covenant and was appointed to "prepare the way of the Lord." John baptized in order that Christ should be made manifest to Israel.

John 1:31:
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

The promise of the Father according Acts 1:4, is equaled to "be baptized with the Holy Ghost," which is to "receive power from on high." In other words, with the coming of the greater (holy spirit), the lesser (water) came to an end. It was not available then to be baptized with holy spirit because Jesus Christ had not yet died for the sins of the world. The replacement of material water with holy spirit was initiated on Pentecost, after Jesus Christ fulfilled all the law and paid the full price and penalty for our sins.

Galatians 3:27:
For as many of you as have been baptized (by holy spirit) into Christ have put on Christ.

I Corinthians 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. Being baptized into the "body of Christ" does not mean baptized with the old physical element of water, but with the new spiritual element of holy spirit. I Corinthians 12:13 makes it clear that we are all "baptized" by one Spirit...not by water, into the one body of Christ.

I John 1:7:
But if we walk in the light as he is the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Christ has done the cleansing for us. Our only work is to accept Him. He then washes away our sins.

If we are to rightly divide the Word of God, we must allow the Bible to speak for itself and not read into it the theologies and doctrines of men. Today, whenever the word "baptize" is mentioned, water is immediately associated with it because of the influence of religious doctrines, but we have just seen from the few above scriptures that water is never mentioned. It is in the "name" of Jesus Christ. It is in what He accomplished for us on the cross. Water baptism was an exemplification of the greater to come, which is to be baptized or born again of God's Spirit. The outward cleansing of the flesh by washing or baptism was to "symbolize" spiritual cleanliness. However, water does not cleanse one on the inside. Only holy spirit can cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

There are many scriptural accounts which clearly show that water was no longer necessary after the day of Pentecost; however, there are other verses of scripture which indicate the use of water in baptism and which must be understood.

Acts 10:47:
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

This is the same Peter who spoke in Acts 2:38. Why did he include water in Acts 10 when earlier he did not? In Acts 2:38, after the day of Pentecost, Peter was preaching in the synagogue and was still influenced by water baptism. He simply reverted to his previous doctrine and added water. However, please note that Peter himself clarifies this same account later in Acts 11.

Acts 11:16:
Then remembered I [after I had ordered water baptism] the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

This record signifies that he did not baptize the Cornelius household of believers with water.

In Acts 19 Paul asked certain disciples at Ephesus regarding what Apollos did.

Acts 19:2-3:
...Have ye received the Holy Ghost since [when] ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism [water].

These verses indicate that water baptism did occur; however, it was due to the fact that Apollos had not yet been fully instructed even though something much greater had come to replace the water.

Acts 21:20:
...Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.

These people believed and therefore were saved; but the revelation had not yet been given explaining the magnitude of the coming of the holy spirit on Pentecost so the believers were still zealous for the law. One of the requirements of that law was to be water baptized. People are still zealous for the law and, to this day, do not accept that which is addressed to them from Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. Water baptism is never stipulated in these Church Epistles. We need to believe God's Word and act accordingly. Those who give the religious traditions of men first place and cleave to the law of water baptism as an essential to salvation, will never grasp the completeness of who they are and what they have in Christ Jesus.

Since the day of Pentecost, we are indeed free from the law; and again, part of that law was water baptism. According to Galatians 5:1, we are to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty [boldly with a fearless mind] wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled [no longer held in] again with the yoke of bondage."

According to Romans 10:9,10, there is no mention of water baptism as a necessary means for salvation.

Romans 10:9-10:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The above scriptures tells us exactly what to do in order to be saved and makes no mention of water baptism. To say that water baptism is required in order to achieve salvation is to say that Jesus Christ did not fulfill all the law. It also makes the statement that the blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for the remission of sins, his death and resurrection was not adequate enough for one's salvation and therefore water baptism is necessary. Is this logical? Certainly not.

Water baptism came before Pentecost. Baptism by holy spirit or the "new birth" came on the day of Pentecost and is absolutely necessary for salvation. To be baptized into Christ is to be born again of God's Spirit. When we do Romans 10:9 and 10, we receive Christ in us, the hope of glory. We then live and walk "in" Christ. This can never be accomplished with water...an earthly or physical element. We are born again (Greek word for "again" is anothen and means "from above or from a higher place") which is a spiritual element.

Ephesians 2:7-9:
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast

According to Ephesians 2:9, it is NOT of works. Jesus Christ did the work and He alone paid the price for our redemption. We are saved through "faith," which is according to what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross.

There are many arguments or different viewpoints concerning "water baptism;" however, the Word of God makes it plain and simple.

Acts 1:5: "For John truly baptized with water; BUT [sets the contrast] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost [holy spirit] not many days hence [the day of Pentecost]."

Can God's Word make it more plain? John truly baptized with "water," BUT ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

God bless you,
In His Righteousness,
Agape

 

[HopeofGlory]

Rapt,

You said:
I apologize for my disrespect in refering to you as S/V. God convicted me that I have not been as gracious as He would have me to be.

Reply:
Thank you Rapt!

You said:
Peter was speaking to JEWS who knew Isaiah 53, which DOES manifest that the death of Messiah was FOR THEIR SINS.
Why do you keep saying "Christ die for sinners"? Did Christ DIE or not, hope? Did Jesus come in the flesh and die? You said "Devils believe Christ died and that He was the son of God.", so I know that you can say "died" if that's what you mean.

Reply:
How can you possibly believe this when Peter can against the Lord when He spoke of His death...

From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Matt. 16:21 (KJV)
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. Matt. 16:22 (KJV)
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matt. 16:23 (KJV)
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Matt. 16:24 (KJV)

If Peter was against His death it simply does not make sense for him to have understood Isaiah 53.


You said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well it is like this....Jews were "saved" out of Egypt but then God destroyed most of them."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were saved only AS LONG AS THEY OBEYED GOD. Eternal Security is a lie of Satan, who first taught it to Eve when he hissed "Ye shall not surely die" if you disobey God. He that endures the doctrine of God until the end of his life shall receive the promise of eternal life.


Reply:
Rapt we are not debating eternal security, are you trying to kill us both, we are dealing with enough as it is don't you think? For the sake of rebuttal though it only proves they did not have eternal life because the new testament was not effectual in that dispensation.


I said:
"The gospel of the circumcision is not the gospel of the uncircumcision. In other words get water baptized for remission of sins (ACTS 2:38) is not the same as faith in His blood for remission of sins (Roms 3:25). Only a beep beep could not tell the difference."

You said:
Here lies the root of the problem: you believe in two seperate and disctinctly DIFFERENT GOSPELS even after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is where you are in great error. (Gal 1:6-9) Circumcision was NEVER part of the gospel of Christ. If you think it was, the burden of proof is upon you. "the circumcision" was merely speaking of those that had already been circumcised.

Reply:
I simply believe what the bible says.....
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Gal. 2:7 (KJV)
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles Gal. 2:8 (KJV)

Rapt, I never said circumcision was part of the gospel!
I consider the circumcision to mean the Jews as compared to the Gentiles. Take a deep breath you'll be ok.

I said:
"THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REVEALED AT PENTECOST"

You said:
So you should pray, study hard, and stop displaying such a contradiction to the truth.

I said:
"I will explain it for you. The death of Christ for remission of sins was in effect at Pentecost BUT the apostles refused it so their sins were remitted by obedience to water baptism. What part of that do you not understand?"

You said:
Oh my God! So you think that God just overlooked unbelief and rejection of the New Testament gospel, and saved unbelievers anyway, based on the fact that they were Jews! Yours is a completely dark view of the nature of God to begin with, so it's no wonder you believe there could have ever been two different gospels after Christ died! This is unbelief and heresy on your part (not Peters!), and such an one as that would strengthen the hands of evildoers so that they would not repent of unbelief, but that would offer them another way of salvation!

Reply:
God never overlooks unbelief but He is long suffering to those He loves and that includes you and me. To believe that God is loving and long suffering is not a dark view. The only way of salvation I would offer is the same that was offered to me and that is Christ die for your sins. God makes that offer and I know it works and can testify with assurance.

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43 (KJV)

The above happen to the Jews.

You said:
Yours is the same doctrine as the false prophets:


Reply:
Watch out rapt, you don't want to be an accuser of the brethren.


You said:
The Apostles did not reject the truth like those who failed to continue in faith with Christ like you claim they did. I might say "this is a hard saying, who can hear it?" while I believe whatever I'm refering to, just as Jeremiah did, quoted above. I would merely be acknowledging the fact that most would not believe it.

Reply:
I am not sure what you mean by that. Hear in that verse is to be interpreted as....Of uncertain affinity; to be able or possible:—be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power.


I said:
"Paul was the first to teach that the blood of Christ was shed for our sins."

You said:
And again I say that that truth was revealed in the OT by Isaiah in the 53rd chapter, as well as many other places, even as the New Testament testifies to (Acts 10:43) so you are incorrect.

Reply:
Refer to the top of this post. Peter did not believe Isaiah 53.

You said:
You said, manifesting the error of dispensationalism:

"The kingdom was put on hold and it was offered to the Gentiles because they (the Jews at Pentacost) did not believe.


Reply:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. 21:43 (KJV)

You said:
This statement proves that you subscribe to the dispy "great parenthesis" theory that is derived from the misinterpretation of Dan 9 that claims that the seventy weeks were somehow divided: the last week from the first successive sixty nine, and that it is yet to be fulfilled. Such an idea completely denies and destroys the time element of the prophecy, supposing that God meant to say 350+ weeks instead of that only 70 weeks were "determined" (Dan 9:24). (What God determines, He brings to pass when He says it will happen!) The "great parenthesis", i.e., "Kingdom put on hold" doctrine denies that Christ was who confirmed the New Covenant by signs and miracles (including his death and resurrection) with the believing Jews during the last week of that prophecy, it denies that Christ was cut off in the midst of that 70th week, and that His one and last sacrifice caused the efficacy of animal sacrifices to cease forever before God, and it denies that it was Christ who determined to pour His wrath out upon Jerusalem, to desolate it and destroy the temple for the overspreading of her abominations, which indeed He did by the use of the people of the prince that came (in 70AD), just as the prophecy specifically said He would. It denies the fulfillment of that prophecy, and thereby robs the Jewish people (and everyone else) of the truth of the only prophecy that specifically stated the exact time their messiah would be revealed on the scene of history.

God's time prophecy was no lie, and He certainly knows how to add. Had He have meant for the prophecy to stretch out over 2000 years beyond the 490 years (70X7) stated (from the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [around 454 BC]), He would have said so. Daniel could not have "known" nor "understood" any such gap, but the angel told him to know and understand a specific time period, and what was to be fulfilled with it.

Such a wrenching of a fulfilled time prophecy by disps adds to, takes way, and destroys the Word of God, and has deceived you into supposing that God "put the Kingdom on hold". He did no such thing. (Rev 22:18,19) To accept such a falsehood can only result in the same fall from grace that Paul warned the Galatians happens to everyone who receives "another gospel" which includes circumcision (Gal 5:1-4), which you have apparantly accepted as legit.

If Jews today had heard Peter preach the very same sermon as he preached at Pentacost, would it not be clear to them (who know Isaiah 53 and BELIEVE the prophets) that it was the blood of Jesus that was shed for their transgressions?

Of course they would! Only unbelievers would deny it, or fail to hear Peter saying that very thing in that Acts 2 sermon. The veil is still on the heart of anyone who cannot discern that Peter preached the New Testament gospel at Pentacost.


Reply:
Rapt, the "new" testament is not complicated and is easy to understand to all who have ears to hear....
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
.... and it is was not manifested at Pentecost.

To be continued.....

 

[agape]

To Those Who Honestly Want To Know:

Many of today's religious groups were founded upon various beliefs regarding baptism. It is so easily explained in the Bible and those who do not or will not accept the truth that we need only Jesus Christ and what He did for us through his death and resurrection for our salvation have not honestly studied the scriptures. The Word of God tells us to "diligently" study the Word of Truth to show ourselves approved before God. We need to study God's Word without the interpretational and doctrinal inconsistencies brought to the subject by man.

To discover the true meaning of "baptism" we must search the Scriptures and observe its varied usages. Of course, "baptism" now an English word: the Greek "baptisma" is directly transliteratd into English.

The root form of the word "baptisma" is "bapto," which means "to dip"." Bapto is also part of the word translated "dippeth," embapto. From this root "bapto" arise four words:

1. Baptiso - to make things bapto, dipped.

2. Baptismos - the act of dipping or washing which is the act of baptizing: this does not occur in any Church epistle: the four occurrences of this word are in Mark 7:4, 7:8, Hebrews 6:2; 9:10.

3. Baptisma - the RESULT of "baptismos:" it is used twenty-two times in the Bible: thirteen refer to John's baptism, five to the Lord's baptism, three are found in Paul's epistles, and last is in Peter.

4. Baptistes - the one who does the baptizing.

There are only a few instances where these words are not "directly" transliterated into English as "baptize," but are instead translated as follows:

1. Bapto is translated "dip" in the only three places where it is used.

Luke 16:24:
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip [bapto] the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26:
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [bapto] it...

Revelation 19:13:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped [bapto] in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

2. Embapto is translated as follows in its only usages.

Matthew 26:23:
And he answered and said, He that dippeth [embapto] his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.

Mark 14:20:
And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth [embapto] with me in the dish.

John 13:26:
Jesus answered. He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped [bapto] it, And when he had dipped [embapto] the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon [Bapto is used in both instances in John 13:26 in several critical Greek texts.]

3. Baptizo is consistently transliterated "baptize" except in three usages.

Mark 6:14:
And King Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroard and he said, That John the Baptist [baptizo] was risen from the dead and therefore mighty works do shew forth themseves in him.

(The form of this word "baptizo" is the participle with the article. It is accurately translated "the one who baptizes.")

Mark 7:4:
And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptizo], they eat not...

Luke 11:38:
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed [baptizo] before dinner.

In these two last usages the action is self-evident; when a Pharisee returned from the market, he wakhed himself before eating.

4. Of the four uses of "baptismos" it is only once translated "baptism" -- Hebrews 6:2. In the other occurrences both the Authorized and Revised Versions are correct in rendering the baptismos as "washing." The references are quite clear because they refer to the ordinances of divine service which were carried on in the tabernacle.

Mark 7:4:
And when they came from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the wahing [baptimos] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Mark 7:8:
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing [baptismos] of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Hebrews 9:10:
Which stood [serving] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings [baptismos], and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation [rectification].

From ever Biblical usage of the word "baptism," we can only conclude that the root meaning and the basic thought in baptism is washing. Therefore, we should note three other words in the Greek which also mean "to wash."

1. Nipto - to wash a portion of one's body.

Matthew 15:2:
Why do thy disciples transgress the traditon of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

2 Louo - to bathe or wash the entire body; from which we also get our word "absolution."

Hebrew 10:22:
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

3. Pluno - to wash or rinse inanimate things; ordinarily this word is used in speaking of washing clothes.

Revelation 7:14:
And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest, And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

These three Greek words fully cover the subject of washing. The word "wash" is used in the definition of each one of the above words. Therefore, we must logically conclude that the verb "baptizo" has a meaning common with all of these three aforementioned Greek words, yet must be distinct from each. A close study of each usage of baptizo reveals that "baptizo" does not denote the removal of bodily uncleaness or filth, but rather the removal of ceremonial uncleanness and is symbolic washing.

The outward cleansing of the flesh by washing or baptism was to symbolize spiritual cleanliness. Entrance into the tabernacle was conditioned by baptism which meant the cleansing of the flesh at the laver by merely dipping to indicate ceremonial washing or cleansing. (See Exodus 30:18-24.)

The ceremonial cleansing, called washing and baptism, applies specifically to Israel. The laver of the tabernacle, the sea and the ten lavers of Solomon's temple, and the river of Ezekiel are all applicable to Israel - the first two under the Old Testament and the latter in the future when paradise is reestablished on earth. These two times which apply only to Israel are together Biblically called the kingdom period. The question thus becomes: What about baptism in the period of time between the law and the new paradise, between the time of Solomon's temple and the river of Ezekiel?

The day of Pentecost founded a new period or administration. At that time another change came in relation to baptism regarding the Church.

Acts 1:4-5:
And being assembled together with them [the apostles], [Jesus Christ] commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saidth he, ye have heard of me.

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

John truly baptized with water...BUT, BUT, BUT ye shall be BAPTIZED WITH HOLY GHOST "without water" not many days hence.

God bless you,
In His Love,
Agape

 

[rapt]

If it feels good, it MUST be right?

If it feels good, it MUST be right?

Dispensationalism has many flaws

What are a few of them, in your estimation?

Rapt's doctrine of works

I refuse to take the credit for having originated any works; that was Christ's and His Apostle's doing. Credit them. It is God's doctrine, and they are God's works, not any of my own imagination or commanding.

Salvation is not in knowledge of biblical doctrine

Where did you get that idea? Is it taught amongst disps? It is not scriptural.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

sinners who are without hope ... understand that there is nothing they can do of themselves to be saved.

Not without faith, of course, but with faith they can OBEY THE GOSPEL. We are all commanded to do that if we are to be saved.

I do not need biblical proof of my relationship with my Saviour because He has proven Himself to me personally without any doctrine.

That is a very shakey way to think, for if you stop and consider, that's the same attitude of those who go from meeting to emotional meeting seeking to be entertained with such nonsense as being "slain in the spirit", or to "learn how" to speak in tongues, isn't it?

Can you really afford to ignore the scripture, and let your feelings be how you judge yourself?

If they speak not according to this word, it because they have no light in them, said the prophet Isaiah, but that's not the method of judging things according to a modern emotionalist. He refuses to judge anything by scripture, for in his mind he knows best, and that's good enough for him. Let us forsake such darkness and let scripture be our supreme guide.

What is sad when we think about it is when we concern ourselves with proving our doctrines while the lost are without hope and all they need is the simplicity of the Gospel without the confusion of doctrine. My doctrinal beliefs may not be perfect but the simple fact of it is I don't need them because my hope is in Christ Jesus.

Sound doctrine saves; false doctrine damns. No one teaches anything without giving "doctrine", for all doctrine IS a teaching.

John 17
17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Isaiah 8
20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[agape]

To be baptized in someone's name sets a person apart from the masses. When the children of Israel were baptized "in the cloud and in the sea" (I Corinthians 10:2), there were (1) sanctified, separated out from the Egyptians and (2) were identified in that baptism with Moses. The same pattern can be found today. When you are baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," you are (1) sancified (I Corinthian 1:2, Acts 26:18), separated out from the unbelievers who are not saved, making you a member of the Church, and you are (2) identified with Christ (Romans 8:17) and all the authority His Name represents, just as Israel was indentified with Moses. So it can be seen that water baptism was indeed instituted by God, but only for Israel and the kingdom, and then for only a limited period of time.

I Corinthians 6:11:
And such were some of you: but ye are washed (cleaned), but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

We are washed, literally cleansed in the "name of the Lord Jesus, (our Lord and Savior) and by the "Spirit" (holy spirit, new birth, new nature) of our God.

Paul is saying "Now that you are clean, why do you want to go by their [the unbelievers] unethical standards?"

Since the day of Pentecost every person who desires to be born again by God's Spirit must believe on Jesus Christ (this is the "name"...all that He accomplished for us on the cross...his death, his resurrection...in that name alone is their salvation...not in "water.") At that moment he is given something far greater than the benefits of water baptism: righteousness, justification, sanctification and redemption. To be born again is to have Christ within; He is the hope of glory; He cleanses us from all sin. It's a spiritual baptism.

To understand "in the name of Jesus Christ" I suggest you read all that He did for us in that name. And, it is in that name alone that we are cleansed from all unrighteousness and given the nature of God in Christ in us...the hope of glory. Water baptism could not and will never be able to accomplish what we freely received through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If people still desire to stay under the law of the old covernant and be water baptized, then so be it. The truth still remains.

Romans 10:9-10:
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If water baptism was essential to salvation after the day of Pentecost, I'm sure God would have included it in the verses above. Let us also remember that water never cleanses one on the inside. This can only be accomplished by being baptized (by holy spirit) "in the name (the accomplished and finished works) of Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son."

God bless you,
In His Grace,
Agape