Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[Lighthouse]

But why? Why is it necessary to have two dispensations if Israel accepted Jesus as Lord?

It would not have ever been two dispensations at one time. It would have been a new one, all by itself, for all, where, as it is now, there would be no Jew or Gentile, in the body of Christ.

 

[Lighthouse]

Good question! If they are saying we had to have a different gospel and dispensation because Israel, in part rejected Jesus, then why is he saying that if they had accepted Jesus ,in whole, that the gentiles would still have required a different gospel.

He is undercutting his own reasoning?

It would not have been a different gospel for the Gentiles. I don't know why you assumed it would be, either.

 

[Sozo]

What exactly was it that Israel rejected that caused them to be set aside?

 

[Lighthouse]

What exactly was it that Israel rejected that caused them to be set aside?

That Jesus was Messiah.

 

[jeremiah]

It would not have been a different gospel for the Gentiles. I don't know why you assumed it would be, either.

I assumed you were a disciple of Bob Hill , or believed in two gospels as he stated in his posts.. He said there was a different gospel for the dispensation of grace, because the gospel for Israel was discontinued when he says that God set Israel aside.

Israel Gospel= Kingdom, repentance, Jesus as King- Saviour, water Baptism, circumcision, and endurance in the commands. All these are required to be "saved" in this gospel.

Part of Israel does not accept Jesus, as the Messiah. Therefore he sets all of Israel aside and starts the dispensation of grace to the Gentiles {mainly}.

The gospel for the Gentiles is this. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit and sealed by Him until the day of redemption-rapture. No kingdom, no repentance, no circumcision, no water baptism, and no endurance, in works.

Only faith, and that faith preserves you, in the "new" body of Christ, until the end of that gospel, and that dispensation, which ends at the rapture.

You seemed to agree with all this and then tagged on "if" all of Israel had accepted their Gospel, then the dispensation of Grace would still have occurred, in order to let the remaining Gentiles to come to faith.

Sozo and I were perplexed as to why it would be needed, and why they would need the other gospel, since the first gospel had worked, for all Israel and many Gentiles

You are now saying something different from Bob Hill. You are saying that there is only one gospel.

With that I would agree! Apparently you are saying that the one true gospel would have to be redispensed, in such a way as to draw all the remaining, "holdout" Gentiles into the Kingdom?

My question for Bob Hill was, if someone believes, works, and endures today, exactly as Peter did in His day. is He saved or lost. If he says he is lost, then there is a different gospel today, and that gospel excludes "Jews". Whereas the gospel that Peter preached did not exclude the "Gentiles".

Thus this dispensations gospel is far "easier" and more "secure" ..........but it is exclusive of men of faith who would be exactly like, Peter, Moses, David, and women like Rahab, and Ruth and even Father Abraham, if they were alive today.

That doesn't sound right, or like "good news" to me. Does it to You?

 

[Lighthouse]

I assumed you were a disciple of Bob Hill , or believed in two gospels as he stated in his posts.. He said there was a different gospel for the dispensation of grace, because the gospel for Israel was discontinued when he says that God set Israel aside.

:bang:

There were two gospels/dispensations, simultaneously. But if Israel had not rejected Christ, then there would not have needed to be.

Israel Gospel= Kingdom, repentance, Jesus as King- Saviour, water Baptism, circumcision, and endurance in the commands. All these are required to be "saved" in this gospel.

Yes.

Part of Israel does not accept Jesus, as the Messiah. Therefore he sets all of Israel aside and starts the dispensation of grace to the Gentiles {mainly}.

Yes.

The gospel for the Gentiles is this. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit and sealed by Him until the day of redemption-rapture. No kingdom, no repentance, no circumcision, no water baptism, and no endurance, in works.

Well, there is repentance. It's just an after effect of salvation.

Only faith, and that faith preserves you, in the "new" body of Christ, until the end of that gospel, and that dispensation, which ends at the rapture.

Yes.

You seemed to agree with all this and then tagged on "if" all of Israel had accepted their Gospel, then the dispensation of Grace would still have occurred, in order to let the remaining Gentiles to come to faith.

Not what I said. I did not say it would have happened in order to bring the remaining Gentiles. Gentiles would have been saved under the gospel of circumcision for a time. The Jews would have proselytized them.

Sozo and I were perplexed as to why it would be needed, and why they would need the other gospel, since the first gospel had worked, for all Israel and many Gentiles

The Bible is clear that the entire law cannot be kept. That is why it would be necessary, the same reason it is necessary today.

You are now saying something different from Bob Hill. You are saying that there is only one gospel.

No, I'm not. I am saying they would have transitioned from one to the other in a different manner, and the two would not co-exist, as they did.

With that I would agree! Apparently you are saying that the one true gospel would have to be redispensed, in such a way as to draw all the remaining, "holdout" Gentiles into the Kingdom?

Nope.

My question for Bob Hill was, if someone believes, works, and endures today, exactly as Peter did in His day. is He saved or lost. If he says he is lost, then there is a different gospel today, and that gospel excludes "Jews". Whereas the gospel that Peter preached did not exclude the "Gentiles".

There is only one gospel today, and Bob Hill affirms that. And one who works is not lost, unless he believes he must work to be saved, and even then, he may still be saved, yet deceived.

Thus this dispensations gospel is far "easier" and more "secure" ..........but it is exclusive of men of faith who would be exactly like, Peter, Moses, David, and women like Rahab, and Ruth and even Father Abraham, if they were alive today.

No. Especially not Abraham, whose faith was accounted to him for righteousness.

That doesn't sound right, or like "good news" to me. Does it to You?

What you described? No. But you misinterpreted everything I said.

 

[jeremiah]

Lighthouse you are starting to make my head hurt. :hammer:

Reread your posts. Reread Bob Hill's posts. He clearly states there are two seperate gospels.

First You say there are not two different gospels, now you say, No. there are two simultaneous gospels. What does that mean???

Please define what you mean by two simultaneous gospels/ dispensations.

Secondly either state clearly that you agree with Bob Hill that there were two very differnt gospels faith- works- endurance and faith sealed -secured, or disagree with him. He spelled out the two different gospels and I thought, I concisely summed them up in my previous post!

You say I misunderstood you, gee I wonder why?

You also said that there would "never" have been two dispensations at one time. Now you say there needed to be because part of Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah?????? :hammer:

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse you are starting to make my head hurt. :hammer:

Reread your posts. Reread Bob Hill's posts. He clearly states there are two seperate gospels.

First You say there are not two different gospels, now you say, No. there are two simultaneous gospels. What does that mean???

There were, but there are not now. Are you too stupid to understand tense?

Please define what you mean by two simultaneous gospels/ dispensations.

They both existed concurrently.

Secondly either state clearly that you agree with Bob Hill that there were two very differnt gospels faith- works- endurance and faith sealed -secured, or disagree with him. He spelled out the two different gospels and I thought, I concisely summed them up in my previous post!

I agree with Bob Hill. There were two gospels. There are not two now.

You say I misunderstood you, gee I wonder why?

Because you don't know the difference between were and are.

You also said that there would "never" have been two dispensations at one time. Now you say there needed to be because part of Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah?????? :hammer:

There would not have been the need if Israle had not rejected Christ. Are you really so nescient that you cannot grasp the difference between the two scenarios?

 

[jeremiah]

So there WERE two different gospels, because some of the Jews rejected their Gospel. Simultaneously the Gentiles got a Much "simpler" gospel.

How are they doing, with the faith only gospel? Why don't we have a third gospel because some of the Gentiles have rejected Jesus as Messiah?

 

[Sozo]

Why don't we have a third gospel because some of the Gentiles have rejected Jesus as Messiah?

We do, it's called Calvinism. :chuckle:

 

[jeremiah]

There would not have been the need if Israle had not rejected Christ. Are you really so nescient that you cannot grasp the difference between the two scenarios?

I am sorry, I don't know what nescient means.
:dizzy: :rotfl:

 

[Lighthouse]

We do, it's called Calvinism. :chuckle:

:crackup:

 

[Lighthouse]

So there WERE two different gospels, because some of the Jews rejected their Gospel. Simultaneously the Gentiles got a Much "simpler" gospel.

It's not simpler. It just doesn't have the law.

How are they doing, with the faith only gospel? Why don't we have a third gospel because some of the Gentiles have rejected Jesus as Messiah?

:bang:

This gospel does not exist because the Jews rejected Christ. It came when it did, because of the rejection. But if they had not rejected it still would have come.

 

[Lighthouse]

I am sorry, I don't know what nescient means.
:dizzy: :rotfl:

Nescient:
1. lack of knowledge; ignorance.

 

[Bob Hill]

Lighthouse,

Thanks for your excellent posts. Great work!

Bob

 

[Bob Hill]

John the Baptist was sent to whom?
It says in John 1:31 that John was sent to Israel. “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

John came to Israel to show them that that Jesus was the Messiah. It was at a time when God was only dealing with the Jews. The method of salvation was: Repent and be baptized for your sins.

This was the message of the kingdom gospel. Luke 16:16 shows when the kingdom gospel started: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”

Christ and the Apostles preached the same gospel that John preached! It says that they did in Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 1:14,15.
Matthew 10:5-10 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, 10 nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.
Mark 1:14,15 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

For awhile, two gospels were being presented. Peter, James, and John were teaching their gospel given to them by Christ when He was with them. Paul taught the gospel that the ascended Lord Jesus gave to him.

Baptism was strongly linked with the message of the kingdom. This was the good news of the circumcision, the circumcision gospel: Gal 2:7-9 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of [Genitive] the uncircumcision had been committed to me, as the gospel of [Genitive] the circumcision was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

We must ask, how many different kinds of baptism were there when John started his ministry?

There was only one. Was it necessary for salvation? Yes!
We even find Jesus saying to Nicodemus in John 3:5 that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

This requirement of water (baptism) fits right into the message John began and the apostles continued after the resurrection and the day of Pentecost. Christ commanded the Eleven in Mark 16:15,16 [Majority Text], “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Peter insisted on the same requirement ten days later in Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

So, we see that water baptism, at that time, was necessary before Holy Spirit baptism would take place.
For the first time, we have two baptisms. Water baptism was necessary for salvation. Then, Holy Spirit baptism took place.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Next, something very important happened. God saved the Apostle Paul, who was on his way to get those who believed in Christ.

I will not go into the differences in Paul’s salvation, although it appears that Paul was saved under the same message Peter preached in Acts 2. Acts 22:16 says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Because God had started a new dispensation with Paul (Gal 1:11-2:9; Eph 3:1-9), all kinds of different things began to happen.

1. Peter got a vision in Acts 10 which showed that Israel had been set aside. They were, temporarily, no longer God’s special people. This was shown by the vision given to Peter when the law of clean and unclean animals was set aside (Lev 20:24-26).
2. Peter was sent to a Gentile and told by the Holy Spirit to doubt nothing (Acts 10:20).
3. The most significant event happened when Peter went to the Gentiles.
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 before Peter finished preaching the same gospel he preached to the Jews. 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.

However, since God would only reveal the new message for this new dispensation to the Apostle Paul, Peter was still preaching the same Jewish message he had always preached (Acts 10:34-43).
Therefore:
1. At first there was only one baptism, John’s. It was necessary for salvation.
2. Then things started changing when Paul was saved.
3. The Holy Spirit fell on Gentiles before they were water baptized.

Remember, water baptism was a sign to Jews to show Christ to them.

Sometime during his second missionary journey the Apostle Paul told the body of Christ about the baptisms which they knew of, in this manner: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius . . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”

In the same epistle, he wrote, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks” (1 Co 12:13). Therefore, water baptism had changed from being the only baptism, and necessary for salvation, to a ritual which had faded away.

Another very important incident happened. God finished showing Israel that they had been set aside.
He had done this in a progressive manner which reached its conclusion in Acts 28:28. It started in Acts 13:46, continued in Acts 18:6, and was concluded in Acts 28:28.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Acts 18:6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
Acts 28:28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!”

Bob Hill

 

[jeremiah]

So according to your theory, the Body of Christ is raptured, and that ends the dispensation of Grace?

Just in time to miss the Tribulation. God then returns to dealing with His people Israel, by starting with the Tribulation and the anti- Messiah, the abomination of desolation and the time of Jacob's trouble!

Although there was an overlap of the two dispensations and the two different gospels, for the Gentiles and the Body of Christ: When the real "bad times" come there is a complete break, leaving the "Jews" by themselves! Correct? Without the Holy Spirit ? as well.

What gospel is now preached to the Jews and to the Gentiles, during the Tribulation. Jesus's gospel, or Paul's, or both? Or are you proposing a third, or none at all?

 

[ParsonJefferson]

The statement is true. Just because I did not support it this time with a doctoral thesis does not mean it is begging the question. Repentant faith is a condition of salvation. Baptism is an outward testimony of our identification with Christ in His burial and resurrection. Water cannot save or regenerate anyone. It is a work of the Spirit, not water.

Apples are a fruit. Is that also an 'incredibly circular statement'?

I'm sure you have a VERY "interesting" explanation for 1 Peter 3:21. :juggle: