Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[godrulz]

This suggests that you can repent without believing and you can believe without repenting. I don’t think so

Why? I am blurring the words together (repentance-faith; repentant faith; repentance/faith) because I am NOT separating the concepts. For salvation, they are intertwined. You must turn from something to turn to something/someone (read my post again). The two wings of a bird are necessary for flight. A coin has two sides that make up the one coin. Just as we cannot divide the Trinity (yet recognize the distinctions in the Godhead) or divide man (spirit, soul, body), so repentance and faith are essentially the nature of saving faith, the explicit condition of salvation (not works...faith and repentance are not works, but responses to the conviction and convincing of the Holy Spirit).

In theory, one could repent of sins and embrace a false religion without true faith in Christ. One could believe in Jesus and cling to their old ways and refuse to repent of the gods or sins in their lives. These possibilities fall short of the biblical gospel, so I think we are in agreement, are we not?

 

[bling]

Godrulz said:

If a person calls on the name of the Lord before they die of cancer or the plane crashes, will they go to heaven even though they were not able to be baptized in water? Does the mode of baptism matter? Does the formula said at baptism matter?

Legalists, the lot of you.

There may be some legalist here, but you should not be so broad in your statement.
I do not here anyone saying, “God can not save you unless you are immersed in water.”
Do you see being baptized similar to confessing Jesus is Lord to non believers. Given the opportunity it is something we should not refuse to do especially if it will help others in their believe?

 

[godrulz]

There may be some legalist here, but you should not be so broad in your statement.
I do not here anyone saying, “God can not save you unless you are immersed in water.”
Do you see being baptized similar to confessing Jesus is Lord to non believers. Given the opportunity it is something we should not refuse to do especially if it will help others in their believe?

In some cultures, it is not until the believer is baptized that they are persecuted, disowned, and shunned. It is an important step of discipleship, but it is not salvific (some of my family have been water baptized and some have not, yet we have a common faith in and love for Jesus Christ..born again of the Spirit, not simply a dry sinner becoming a wet sinner).

 

[bling]

Tico said:
Excellent points and questions. Actually, there was a considerable Jewish contingency in Corinth. We read in Acts 18:

You did not answer my question: When did Paul and others stop baptizing Jews? Should Jewish Christians be baptized today? Should we baptize for the sac of Jewish potential believers?

Paul did not as far as he remembered baptize any more then Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Crispus was head of the synagogue in Corinth and obviously a Jew. The Household of Stephanas moved from Achaia, which was very much a Greek city and may not have had any Jews, but that is speculation. Gaius and Stephanas may have been Greek names givento them by Paul after being baptized so we can not tell anything from the names.

We read in Acts 18: 7Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. From the fact we know Paul personnel baptized Crispus, so even though he did not personally baptize the many (Jews and Gentiles) that heard Paul preach believed and were baptized. We know after Paul left synagogue he went to the Gentiles: Acts 18: 6…From now on I will go to the Gentiles." So it fully suggests gentiles were baptized, just Paul was not doing the baptizing.

Tico said: Paul may very well have caused division by the issue of baptism (just as he did with his treatment of the Law). I think that evidence of this is seen in 1 Cor. 1:

I do not see Paul causing any division 1 Cor 1: 10… that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Paul is calling for complete unity between those that follow Cephas (Peter) and those that follow the gentile teaching if you believe there was a difference. Paul is the one who made some Jewish conversions and baptized some of the Jews at least, then was thrown out of the synagogue. There is nothing to suggest when Peter came later he converted Jews only. The division does not suggest anything about following and not following the law. The same lesson of Paul is both to the Jewish and gentile Christians. They are to believe the same doctrine and be united and we know baptism was part of that doctrine, for Paul had baptized some.

Tico said: “Paul continued baptizing from time to time, for the sake of the Jews.”

Paul said he had Timothy circumcised for the sac of the Jews, but does not say he baptized or had people baptized for the sac of the Jews. According to your understanding did Jews have to be baptized after Paul got this “different message”?

Tico said: Nope. Great question. However, I wouldn't expect such a statement. It would be like making the statement each time a believer after Acts 15 was saved that he was not circumcised.

We are certain some Christians were not circumcised, so I do not need to know every time they were not circumcised. We do not know any first century Christian was not baptized and we do know many were.

 

[bling]

In some cultures, it is not until the believer is baptized that they are persecuted, disowned, and shunned. It is an important step of discipleship, but it is not salvific (some of my family have been water baptized and some have not, yet we have a common faith in and love for Jesus Christ..born again of the Spirit, not simply a dry sinner becoming a wet sinner).

I am not suggesting any of your relatives are not saved or are not Christians. I think we need to teach people about baptism and let them make up their own mines. When, I teach people professing to be Christians, I do not doubt them, and just study with them as a fellow Christian. If they at some point feel they should be baptize, I baptize them, but that is their conclusion. Most I have studied with one on one for any length of time have been baptized, because the subject does come up and it’s hard to show not to do it.

 

[godrulz]

I am not suggesting any of your relatives are not saved or are not Christians. I think we need to teach people about baptism and let them make up their own mines. When, I teach people professing to be Christians, I do not doubt them, and just study with them as a fellow Christian. If they at some point feel they should be baptize, I baptize them, but that is their conclusion. Most I have studied with one on one for any length of time have been baptized, because the subject does come up and it’s hard to show not to do it.

Discipleship involves obedience to the Lord. I would also urge all believers to be baptized by immersion subsequent to salvation (I was baptized the same day I became a Christian. Others who professed Christ that day with me were just as saved as I was despite not getting baptized later that day).

 

[thelaqachisnext]

If a person is born again and continues to dwell in their Adam flesh on earth, then they are commanded to submit that Adam flesh to water baptism.

If a person is born again and dies, then they aren't in the Adam flesh and so of course they cannot submit that Adam flesh to water baptims -and the point is moot.

Water baptism is a command of Jesus Christ to all who repent and call on His name for salvation who continue to walk in the Adam flesh, a sign in the flesh we wear of our obedience and faith in His promise of the death with Him, burial with Him, and resurrection in Him of our flesh of this creation -regenerated.

 

[Cracked]

Salvation is not dependent upon the physical act of baptism, or any sacrament. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change and an act of obedience. That being said, I would urge every one professing Christ to be baptized as commanded in The Great Commission.

 

[Bob Hill]

Since we in this Dispensation of Grace do not have to be water baptized to be saved, I have never been water baptized. I put my trust in Christ back in 1951, and I'm getting closer to heaven.

Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

Since we in this Dispensation of Grace do not have to be water baptized to be saved, I have never been water baptized. I put my trust in Christ back in 1951, and I'm getting closer to heaven.

Bob Hill

You are saved, but you are missing a blessing of discipleship and witness. Baptism was not essential for salvation just because one happened to be a Jewish believer after the finished work of Christ ('circumcision' gospel?). Faith, not ritual, is the condition of salvation (Jn. 3:16; 1:12; I Jn. 5:11-13; Rom. 1:16).

 

[Tico]

You did not answer my question: When did Paul and others stop baptizing Jews? Should Jewish Christians be baptized today? Should we baptize for the sac of Jewish potential believers?

Sorry if I wasn't responsive. I was answering the question as to when baptism was no longer necessary. However, to answer this question you pose, the answer is the same as the answer to the questions: When did Paul stop circumcising for the sake of the Jew, or submitting to the Law for the sake of the Jews though he told the Body of Christ not to do those things? We don't know. The Bible is historically silent to this fact.

To answer the second part, no. When I said for the sake of the Jews, I was talking about the Jewish believers who were saved before the dispensation of grace began--those to whom Peter, James and John ministered the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9). Those saved under the gospel of circumcision were not free to change their position:

1: Cor. 7:17But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Obviously, this is talking about spiritual circumcision since it would have been awfully difficult to become physically uncircumcised after the fact. They were to follow and to remain in their calling. Thus we have two groups, those under the gospel of the circumcision (the covenant of law and work) and those under the gospel of uncircumcision (grace).

Thus, if Paul did these things for the sake of the believing Jews under the gospel of the circumcision, then the practice of baptizing for the sake of the Jews would have been purposeless after the last of those folks under that covenant died out in the 1st century. This would provide a maximum date.

By the way, if you wanted to get baptized or baptize someone for the sake of encouraging an unbelieving Jew to accept Jesus as his saviour. Go for it! Just understand that you are doing so following the example of Paul to become all things to all men, not to follow a biblical mandate.

Paul did not as far as he remembered baptize any more then Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Crispus was head of the synagogue in Corinth and obviously a Jew. The Household of Stephanas moved from Achaia, which was very much a Greek city and may not have had any Jews, but that is speculation. Gaius and Stephanas may have been Greek names givento them by Paul after being baptized so we can not tell anything from the names.

You're right. What I said was that baptism was performed in Jewish contexts, not only to Jews.

I do not see Paul causing any division 1 Cor 1: 10… that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[a]"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Paul is calling for complete unity between those that follow Cephas (Peter) and those that follow the gentile teaching if you believe there was a difference. Paul is the one who made some Jewish conversions and baptized some of the Jews at least, then was thrown out of the synagogue. There is nothing to suggest when Peter came later he converted Jews only. The division does not suggest anything about following and not following the law. The same lesson of Paul is both to the Jewish and gentile Christians. They are to believe the same doctrine and be united and we know baptism was part of that doctrine, for Paul had baptized some.

I agree, that Paul wanted unity between different groups. Even though we are dealing with two covenants in the NT given by the same Lord, there was no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't get along. In fact, much of 1 Corinthians deals with how the gentiles should not cause their Jewish believing brothers not to stumble though they themselves had freedom.

Paul said he had Timothy circumcised for the sac of the Jews, but does not say he baptized or had people baptized for the sac of the Jews. According to your understanding did Jews have to be baptized after Paul got this “different message”?
We are certain some Christians were not circumcised, so I do not need to know every time they were not circumcised. We do not know any first century Christian was not baptized and we do know many were.

An argument from silence isn't very convincing (whether I propose it or you propose it). Likewise, we don't know how many 1st century Christians weren't baptized. Why? Apparently, we don't need to know.

Here are a few questions:

Which is the one baptism referenced in Eph 4:5? Is it of water or of identification into Christ's death and resurrection making us part of the Body of Christ?

What is the significance of baptism for the believer today? Please don't just state your opinion, but give Scripture to back it up.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Which is the one baptism referenced in Eph 4:5? Is it of water or of identification into Christ's death and resurrection making us part of the Body of Christ?

It is the "water" baptism which identifies us with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, for our old man, the Adam; to wear as a sign of our being in His Name, by faith, and shows our faith that the old man body of death will also rise from the dust in His image.
.It is water baptism which is the casting away, the remitting, of our sins by sending them away from us, with Jesus', to hell, represented as the "Deep".

Eph 4:5 says there is "one Lord"; but the Father is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord, and claiming only that Jesus is the one Lord, as they deny the water is the one baptism of the faith, the MAD doctrine then teaches hear-say by denying the Holy Spirit baptism of regeneration of Spirit [second birth, born again from above], and the Holy Spirit baptism of the Glory/Fire, which is the measure of that which is to come, sent by Jesus from the Father when He received it without measure, on Pentecost, as the Temple of God not made with hands, seated above, as Firstborn of earth;
and denies the Holy Spirit baptism of Enduement with power from on High, sent to regenerated in Spirit adopted sons of God to serve Him, in His name with.

The MAD doctrine followers make the claim of one Lord to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, just as they make the claim of one Baptism to the exclusion of the claim that the Father is not Lord, that the Holy Spirit is not Lord, and that the Son only is Lord.

By this reasoning they deny the Trinity in the work of salvation for every person who calls on the Name of the LORD -come in flesh,

The Father is LORD, and He is not come in human being flesh.
the Holy Spirit is LORD, and He is not come in human being flesh.
The Son is LORD, and He is come in human being flesh, and the Church is built on His New Man body as the Last Temple for the Father's glory to indwell in His Glory.

It is His Church, which He will present to the Father for the Glory to indwell in the regeneration.
It is Faith in His Name which causes us to be joined to His Church, and it is water Baptism in His name which is the One baptism for the One Church which is the One Faith of the One LORD's Name.

 

[thelaqachisnext]

Has the Father passed away, in the MAD dispensation?
Is the Father not LORD, in the MAD dispensation?

Is Jesus the Father, in the MAD dispensation?

Is the Holy Spirit, third Person in YHWH passed away, in this MAD dispensation?
Is Jesus the Holy Spirit, in this MAD dispensation?

Is the Father LORD?
Is the Son LORD?
Is the Holy Spirit LORD?

Are there Three Persons called LORD?
Are all three Persons just one Person, in MAD?
Is MAD unitarian?

How can you deny the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being Three Persons called LORD, which you are doing in your water baptism denial as being the "one baptism, of the One LORD of the One Faith?

You are denying the Trinity.

 

[Lighthouse]

Cornelius and his family receiving the Holy Spirit before water baptism shows that it is not necessary for salvation.

 

[Tico]

It is the "water" baptism which identifies us with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, for our old man, the Adam; to wear as a sign of our being in His Name, by faith, and shows our faith that the old man body of death will also rise from the dust in His image.
.It is water baptism which is the casting away, the remitting, of our sins by sending them away from us, with Jesus', to hell, represented as the "Deep".

Eph 4:5 says there is "one Lord"; but the Father is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord, and claiming only that Jesus is the one Lord, as they deny the water is the one baptism of the faith, the MAD doctrine then teaches hear-say by denying the Holy Spirit baptism of regeneration of Spirit [second birth, born again from above], and the Holy Spirit baptism of the Glory/Fire, which is the measure of that which is to come, sent by Jesus from the Father when He received it without measure, on Pentecost, as the Temple of God not made with hands, seated above, as Firstborn of earth;
and denies the Holy Spirit baptism of Enduement with power from on High, sent to regenerated in Spirit adopted sons of God to serve Him, in His name with.

The MAD doctrine followers make the claim of one Lord to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, just as they make the claim of one Baptism to the exclusion of the claim that the Father is not Lord, that the Holy Spirit is not Lord, and that the Son only is Lord.

By this reasoning they deny the Trinity in the work of salvation for every person who calls on the Name of the LORD -come in flesh,

The Father is LORD, and He is not come in human being flesh.
the Holy Spirit is LORD, and He is not come in human being flesh.
The Son is LORD, and He is come in human being flesh, and the Church is built on His New Man body as the Last Temple for the Father's glory to indwell in His Glory.

It is His Church, which He will present to the Father for the Glory to indwell in the regeneration.
It is Faith in His Name which causes us to be joined to His Church, and it is water Baptism in His name which is the One baptism for the One Church which is the One Faith of the One LORD's Name.

Where to begin? I just call 'em as I see 'em. Eph. 4:5 is what it is and says what it says. It's interesting that you (I think implicitly or maybe explicitly) deny one baptism (asserting a plurality) by saying that there is more than one Lord by analogy, but then affirm the one baptism as that in water in your opening line.

What exactly is "hear-say"? Is that when I quote another "poster"...

 

[godrulz]

Cornelius and his family receiving the Holy Spirit before water baptism shows that it is not necessary for salvation.

Baptism was never necessary for salvation!

There is also a difference between receiving the Holy Spirit at conversion (baptized into the Body of Christ by the Spirit) and the Pentecostal experience subsequent to conversion (Christ baptizes with the Spirit for power and witness) evidenced by speaking in tongues. All Pentecostals receive the Spirit at conversion, just like Baptists. Water baptism can take place the same day (my personal case), years later, or not at all (Bob Hill). The tongues/Spirit experience can occur the same day as conversion, before or after baptism, or not at all (I received the gift months after I was converted and water baptized).

The historical narrative about Cornelius relates to the Pentecostal experience, not a gospel experience. It is sheer eisegesis to think it proves your Mid-Acts assumptions.

 

[Bob Hill]

After Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit poured out His gifts on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38, God still demanded water baptism for the remission of sins. “Then Peter said to them, ‘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’”.

Later, after Paul was seized in the temple by the Jewish mob and taken into custody by the Roman commander, he was allowed to speak to the violent mob on the way into the barracks. He used the opportunity to recount his conversion. He spoke of “a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there.” He related how Ananias had told him about his apostolic commission from God.

What method of salvation did Ananias present to Paul? Since Ananias knew only the message of circumcision, he commanded Paul, “Now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Ananias told Paul the message of Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38, the circumcision gospel with its condition of baptism. One of the most important facts of all should be highlighted. Water baptism would be imposed on Israel until the time of reformation (Heb 9:10-13) when Christ would establish the kingdom for Israel.

Therefore, from the beginning of John’s ministry, through the time of Christ’s death and Ascension, to the time that Israel was temporarily set aside in Acts 7, we find that water baptism was essential for salvation.

I believe water baptism is a dispensational key, here, to understand the cessation of one dispensation and the beginning of another one.

In regards to baptism, the first dramatic change took place on Pentecost in Acts 2.
There, after he submitted to water baptism, a believer would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “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.

There had been no baptism by the Holy Spirit before this. So, for the first time, there were two baptisms, John the Baptist’s water baptism was continued and Holy Spirit baptism was added by God.

As the nation began rejecting Christ, the persecution of the circumcision church which had started on Pentecost increased.

When Stephen was stoned, Christ stood in judgment upon the nation of Israel, and they were temporarily set aside.

After Israel was judged and set aside, the church which is His Body, the church of our present dispensation, started with the conversion of Paul in Acts 9. A comparison of Acts 22:13 and 26:18 indicates that Paul was saved when he received his sight, just as the Gentiles to whom he was sent would be saved upon receiving spiritual sight. Paul received his sight before he was baptized at Ananias’ command.

When God had separated Israel from the nations as His chosen people, He imposed upon them a designation between clean and unclean animals (Lev 20:23-26). God started the church by saving Paul, in a vision to Peter, He made the first dramatic change. God annulled the distinction between clean and unclean animals in order to show that He had demoted Israel from their chosen people status (Acts 10:9-16). However, God did not reveal to Peter the unity and equality of Jew and Gentile in the new man, the new church, the body of Christ. In fact, He didn’t show him any of the aspects of the great secret He would reveal to Paul.

Most important of all, He did not show Peter the new method of salvation by faith alone apart from works. Peter simply adapted the gospel of the circumcision to his Gentile audience when he went to do what God had commanded him: “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35). He was preaching the same gospel of faith plus works and endurance for salvation which Christ taught (Acts 10:34-42; John 15:1-8). It conformed to the circumcision covenant gospel.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Tico]

Has the Father passed away, in the MAD dispensation?
Is the Father not LORD, in the MAD dispensation?

Is Jesus the Father, in the MAD dispensation?

Is the Holy Spirit, third Person in YHWH passed away, in this MAD dispensation?
Is Jesus the Holy Spirit, in this MAD dispensation?

Is the Father LORD?
Is the Son LORD?
Is the Holy Spirit LORD?

Are there Three Persons called LORD?
Are all three Persons just one Person, in MAD?
Is MAD unitarian?

How can you deny the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as being Three Persons called LORD, which you are doing in your water baptism denial as being the "one baptism, of the One LORD of the One Faith?

You are denying the Trinity.

Just another thought. If the one baptism is really two and the one Lord is really three, then how many Gods are there? Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are referred to as God, then does that mean there are three Gods? If I'm a unitarian, does your exegesis make you a polytheist? :think:

 

[Tico]

I will obey the Lord's final commandment/commission (Great) and go into all the world and preach the gospel. I will also encourage people to follow the Lord in the waters of baptism as a public expression of private faith and a step of obedience/discipleship. Baptism has never been a condition of salvation since baptismal regeneration is heretical.

John 3:16 should not be dispensationalized away. It is a universal truth, the gospel in a nutshell. It was not just for Israel or those of Jewish background.

I wanted to go back to a few comments posted at the beginning of this thread. First, I'm glad that you want to share our Lord with the rest of the world. We can certainly agree on that! I do have a couple of questions. When you say that baptism is a public expression of a private faith, where is that found in Scripture? I've heard that a lot, but haven't found it. By the way, if someone wanted to be baptized for this reason, but not call it a scriptural mandate, then go for it!

The following is part of the commission mentioned in Matthew 28:

20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

Do you believe this part as well? Do you teach obedience to the whole Law (Matt 5:17-20) as Jesus taught His disciples? Not to wear clothing of mixed cloth, to be circumcised, etc. according to the Law? Or that people do what the Pharisees say, but not what they do (23:1-3)? Do you teach Sabbath including the need to put folks to death who profane it? If not then, why not?

It's also good that you don't believe in baptismal regeneration for us today. Can anyone have salvation without the remission of sins? Was baptism ever for the remission of sins?

What is the one baptism of Eph. 4:5? Is it of water a public expression of our private faith/obedience/discipleship or our indentification into the Body of Christ through His death and resurrection (Romans 6, 1 Cor. 12:13)?

 

[godrulz]

Baptism was never regenerational. This is heresy if ritual supplants the blood of Christ.