quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Only baptized (1 Cor. 12:13) and circumcised (Col. 2:10-12) believers will appear before the Judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). Neither the circumcision or the baptism are at man's hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Dear Grumlin-

Water baptism is an Old Testament practice (see Heb. 9:10) it is part of the types and shadows that the writer of Hebrews says were part of that Old Covenant, just as circumcision was done away. Water baptism today has all the significance for the members of the Body of Christ, that circumcision in a hospital has. Nothing is accomplished to get us out of Adam's condemnation until we are in Christ. What the Bible does clearly say about baptism is summarized at Romans 6 where we read the following: do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (vss. 3&4) There is no water here for baptism, just the "death" baptism of Christ (Lk. 12:50). (There are over half a dozen non-water baptisms in Scripture, if you'd like some information on them I'd be glad to furnish it to you.)

As to the baptism of Noah and his family as described at 1 Pet. 3 you may want to look again at the passage and Gen. 7&8. Noah and his family were "in" the ark. They were "dry" and they remained "above" the waters. Whereas, the sinful world outside of the ark were immersed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Dear Grumlin-

Hebrews 9:10 states that the Mosaic covenant with its ordinances of divine service and its earthly sanctuary had its standing only in meats and drinks and divers washings, or baptisms, all being carnal ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. Thus the word, baptismos, is used to describe all of the purification ceremonies of the Levitical law. None of these was an immersion, but rather washings and sprinklings. Exodus 30:17-21 tells of the laver and its foot for the daily washing of the hands and feet of the priests as they ministered in the tabernacle. There are over twenty references in Leviticus to the divers washings or baptisms. Beleivers such as you suppose that baptism is a New Testament innovation, since the word is not found in the English Old Testament, but the word baptism is a Greek word and the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The Jews practiced many different baptisms for 1500 years before the New Testament began. They were not puzzled by John's baptism, as though he had invented a new ceremony, but rather asked:

Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (John 1:25).

I'm not wresting anything from its rightful place.

You base a good deal of your doctrine in the Book of Acts. Do you also practice having all things in common with your fellow believers as in chapter 2:44-46 and the Temple worship that Peter and the Eleven practiced? I can see that you really have an emotional attachment to the watery grave that seems unshakeable. Below are the baptism of Scripture that have NOTHING to do with water. The Bible says the following about your so-called New Testament practice:

1. The first reference historically to baptism is the typical baptism which Noah's Ark underwent in the flood. The antitype of this was Christ's baptism of death which He underwent upon the Cross when all the billows of God's wrath flowed over Him. It is through this death baptism of Christ that we are saved (I Pet. 3:18-22).

2. Before ceremonial baptism was instituted, the children of Israel were figuratively baptized in the cloud and in the sea unto the headship of Moses (I Cor. 10: 1-2). Baptism here has the sense of identification or union with Moses.

3. Ritual baptism was first instituted at Sinai under the Law of Moses. Judaism had its standing "in meats and drinks and divers baptisms" (Heb. 9:10). The priests were washed or baptized when they were inducted into office (Ex. 29:4). Since God chose Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6; I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6). John and the apostles demanded baptism for the whole nation of Israel. Under the Law ceremonial washing was also required for all who were unclean for any reason, both Jew and Gentile, as for example in Leviticus 17:15. Since the Gentiles were to be included in the messianic Kingdom (see Isaiah 56:6&7) baptism was also required of them under the so-called Great Commission.

4. The Jews added many of their own baptismal practices to their God-given religion, which the Lord Jesus called "traditions of the elders" and which in effect made void the commandment of God (Mk. 7:8).

5. John the Baptist came baptizing with water for at least a two-fold
purpose:

To restore God 's covenant people, Israel, and thus prepare them for the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of the Kingdom. His baptism was for the forgiveness of sins (Lk. 3:3). Those who refused John's baptism rejected the counsel of God and remained unforgiven (Lk. 7:30).

To introduce Jesus Christ as the Messiah to Israel (Jn. 1:31). This probably has a typical connection with the baptism of Aaron (Ex. 29:4).

7. Baptism, like animal sacrifices, was in itself not able to effect the forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9:10-14; 10:4), but it was an expression of faith, apart from which no one could please God, and it was therefore a necessary act at the time it was practiced. Just so, circumcision was at one time absolutely essential (Gen. 17:10-14). To demand it now for any spiritual reason would be to frustrate the grace of God (Gal. 5:2).

8. John predicted that the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire (Matt. 3:11). This baptism with the Holy Ghost took place on the day of Pentecost. It was called by Christ, "the promise of my Father" (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,5). There is no reference or inference that this baptism formed the Body of Christ. Christ stated that as a result of this baptism they would "be endued with power from on high." This enduement was seen in the miraculous signs and gifts manifested at Pentecost (Acts 2:3, 16-20,43, etc). The baptism of fire, the burning up of the chaff with unquenchable fire, is yet future and will take place when Christ returns as King (Matt. 25:41; 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

9. Christ was baptized twice: first by John with water to fulfill all righteousness, thus identifying Himself with sinful humanity(Matt. 3:15), and second with death (Luke 12:50), to complete that work of identification with sinful humanity by bearing all of humanity's sins in His own body on the tree.

10. The Twelve Apostles, who had been baptized by John, were not rebaptized at Pentecost, as John's baptism and that which they had been commissioned to practice were of the same character. Thus if the baptism commanded by Christ in the so-called Great Commission was Christian baptism in contrast to John's baptism, as many contend, then the Twelve Apostles never received Christian baptism. The fact is that both baptisms were the same (compare Luke 3:3 with Acts 2:38) and neither was any more Christian than the other. People received the Holy Spirit after being baptized by the apostles, not because the baptism was different, but because Christ had died and had ascended.

11. Water baptism is stated as a prerequisite to salvation in the so-called Great Commission (Mark 16:16). Ritualistic churches insist upon the basis of this that baptism is both necessary and introductory to salvation. Most evangelical churches insist that this is our commission, but try to change the sense of Christ's words to mean, He that believeth and is saved should be baptized; whereas Christ said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Other evangelicals believe this entire commission was given with a view to the establishment of the messianic Kingdom, that it was set aside with the postponement of the Kingdom, and that the Church through Paul was given another commission which does not even include ritual baptism.

12. The Church of this present dispensation is separate and distinct from Israel and the messianic Kingdom. The Church which is called Christ's Body was not made known until it was revealed to and through Paul. In Paul's epistles it is revealed that all who now believe the Gospel that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).

13. Paul states that there is one baptism for the Church today (Eph. 4:5). This could not be both Water and Spirit baptism; for that would be two baptisms. It could not be water, because Paul makes it plain that it is by means of Spirit baptism that we are made members of His Body. To make it water would be to rule out the only means of becoming a member of that Body. Hence the one baptism for the Body of Christ is Spirit baptism.

14. This one baptism of the Spirit identifies the believer with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension (Rom. 6:3-6). Paul refers to this truth in this passage to show the inconsistency of one who had been baptized into Christ continuing to live in sin. To be baptized into Christ, (and only the Spirit can do that) means to be baptized into His death, and one who has died is freed from sin.

15. Thus the word baptism has as a basic meaning to become identified with. The original root (bapto) means to dip or to stain with dye, i.e., a material becomes permanently identified with the dye by taking on its color or character. The children of Israel became identified with Moses as their leader when they came through the Red Sea. Christ identified Himself with humanity when He was baptized by John. He completely identified Himself with man and his sin when He was baptized in death on the Cross. We become identified with Him when we are baptized by the Holy Spirit into His Body.

16. The word baptism does not mean immersion, although an immersion could be a baptism. An object could be immersed without being baptized, and it could be baptized without being immersed. Neither is baptism a burial. We are buried with Christ through baptism into death (Rom. 6:4). It is through the agency of the Spirit' s baptism into Christ' s death that we are buried with Christ.

17. There is no record of infant baptism in the Bible. Household baptism (Acts 16:15,33) does not necessarily include infants, for it is altogether possible that neither of these households had any infants. New Testament baptism is always associated with repentance, which would be impossible for an infant. Infant baptizers base their practice largely upon the false premise that baptism took the place of circumcision, a ceremony performed when the child was eight days old.

18. Although Paul did practice some water baptism in his early ministry, there is no indication that he ever baptized for the remission of sins as did the Twelve at Pentecost. If his baptizing had such significance he would never have said that Christ sent him not to baptize, and that he thanked God he had baptized so few. Before Paul was separated unto his ministry, Peter preached to Cornelius, who received the Holy Spirit upon believing, and afterward Peter baptized him with water (Acts 10:47). This, then, was not a baptism for the remission of sins, (although the baptism of the so-called Great Commission was for the forgiveness of sins). There is no record that any Gentile under either Peter's or Paul's preaching was baptized for the remission of sins. It is evident from Paul's epistles that the Holy Spirit was imparted and salvation was received wholly apart from baptism. Paul's practice of baptism was somewhat akin to his doing many other things during the Acts period which were associated with the dispensation of things under which he was saved and from which he emerged, but which were not a part of his definite commission.

19. It is essential to a proper understanding of the subject of baptism to see the unique character of the revelation vouchsafed to the apostle Paul. The Church at large for many centuries has confused the ministries of Paul and the Twelve, and the resultant confusion and division should be sufficient to show that there has been something basically wrong with our handling of the Scripture. The Word sets forth the one baptism as a basis for Christian unity and water baptism has been the cause of great disunity. Once the fact is seen that a hitherto unprophesied dispensation was committed to the apostle Paul, one not only unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets but not even made known by Christ while He was on earth, nor revealed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the many seemingly contradictory practices and principles become reconciled. All Christian denominations have a certain amount of Scripture upon which they base their practices, and it all depends upon whether their emphasis is on Petrine or Pauline truth as to whether they are to be classed as ritualistic or evangelical branches of the church. By way of illustration, the Roman Catholic Church (which begins by making Peter the first pope), the high church Episcopalian, the Lutheran, and a number of lesser denominations hold to a literal interpretation of such passages as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; 22:16 and therefore teach the necessity of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. On the other hand, there are a number of the more evangelical denominations which lean more toward Pauline truth and salvation by grace apart from works of righteousness. These rightly assume that Paul's teachings cannot be harmonized with a literal interpretation of the above passages, so they spiritualize or de emphasize them, instead of seeing the difference of dispensation between them. Thus they continue to practice the ceremony, but not with its scriptural significance, much as the Seventh Day Adventists tries to keep the Sabbath day without its penalties. One thing is certain, the Church will never know what it is to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace until its leaders know what the one baptism is. Nineteen centuries of trying to make the one baptism to be water baptism, or of denying the one baptism and contending for two have created much disunity. There is no hope of Christians ever getting together in scriptural unity as long as they hold to water baptism. They will never agree on its significance or its mode. They can never reconcile the scriptural statements about water baptism with the Pauline doctrine of grace. Under such circumstances unity can only be attained by compromise of convictions, and that is worse than disunity. Rather than submit to the truth and enjoy the Spirit's unity, many will continue to brand this truth of the one baptism as controversial and divisive and will go on following the traditions of the elders and trying to effect a man-made unity. Many, on the other hand, thank God, will not permit prejudice and tradition to blind their eyes, but will go back to search the Scriptures again to see whether these things be true. And once they are convinced this is God's truth for today, it is hoped that they will courageously stand for their convictions, not in contentiousness, but in true grace. God wants us to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, but we cannot do this without holding to the sevenfold unity of the Spirit with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love.

If God's truth of the secret of the gospel as revealed through Paul's
epistles is once recognized, and the one baptism of that distinctive body of truth is embraced, Christians will then know what it is that gives them a real basis for unity. It is nothing less than the real baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Dear Grumlin

I will not put as much time into this response as the last and yet I might, since you disregarded most of it in your response. I wish to make a few observations and comments about what you found to be important in my post:

1) I do believe that the Book of Acts is part of the counsel of God for the church of today. I think that 2 Tim. 3:16 is applicable to it as well. Many believers today pick what parts of Acts they like and they disregard the rest because they can't consistently operate according to it. For instance I asked you whether you practice the communism of 2:44-47 or the Temple worship as it was practiced. It is not unusual to have today's Christian ignore that and others. Further every recorded water baptism was followed by a miraculous manifestation are those part of your water ceremony? It would appear that most Christians are undecided on "what" God intended for us to learn and "what" God intended for us to apply to our lives during this dispensation?

2) In 1 Cor. 1:10-17 we find the formation of denominations by water baptism. That's not good for the Body of Christ to be divided over a work of righteousness (Titus 3:5) such as baptism or sign gifts. Paul's contrast in the passage is not about the joy of water baptism, but that water baptism is NOT the gospel and that water baptism is what he was NOT sent to deliver. The contrast is exactly that; baptism is unimportant and the gospel is important and they're not the same.

3) The baptism by the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:13 and Gal. 3:27 is not the same as the "promise" of the Holy Spirit as foretold in the prophets of Ezekial (36:26&27) or Joel (2:28&29) or Jeremiah (31:31-33). In the prophecies referred to here it is Christ who is the baptizer, but in Paul's epistles it is the Spirit that baptizes into the Body of Christ. We are not promised the prophetic blessings of heaven on earth, but we are promised a place at the Father's Right Hand "in Christ". Therefore, I would not do those signs, which you asked me about. Because they are meant to counter Israel's unbelief. Israel has been temporarily set aside as the nation of God's blessing per Romans 11:11&12,15,25 and we are allowed to enjoy the blessings of God for a season of 2,000+ years 11:30-32.

4) Lastly from personal experience. I was "sprinkled" as an infant and pronounced savable and baptized because of that act by an ordained clergyman, yet I was still a helpless sinner. It was not water that seperated me to God -- it was His grace. It was not water that died, was buried and rose again for my justification. I did not believe in that water that sprinkled me for my justification. I have not been kept in the household of God by that water, but by the blood of Christ. When I stand at the Judgment (bema) of Christ in 2 Cor. 5:10; it will not be the water that put me there, but the God of all grace and none of my doing per Eph. 4:4-6.

5) As to Peter's reminder of Noah and his family's deliverance from The Flood. Once again may I remind you that Noah and his family went into the ark "dry" were kept in the ark until the earth was dry. According to the record Noah was never sprinkled, poured upon or immersed and so we must conclude after reading the record of Scripture that Peter is referring to a "dry" baptism in this passage for Noah and his family. More accurately as stated in my prior post "baptism" is an act of "identification" NOT ever immersion. Immersion is a supposition without adequate validation. Remeber your reference to Philip and the Ethiopian? If they both went down into the water and that means immersion "why" was only one of them baptized? Similarly, the children of Israel were identified by a dry baptism, since they went across the Red Sea on "dry" ground. It was the Egyptian army who was immersed.

Thanks for reminding me about honoring the context and keeping me honest. I'm going to cling to a real baptism performed the moment I believed and not a ritual act for identification performed by a fellow sinner, which is unnecessary in this Dispensation of Grace. (Eph. 2:8-10)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Dear Grumlin-

I attempted to show you from Scripture that water baptism is essential to salavation as you said that you thought it was. You refuse to see another viewpoint as I have laboriously sought to set forth. In the end it is obvious to me that you see efficacy in water baptism and refuse to consider that baptism does not always mean immersion under water. I see it as a Jewish practice which is out of place in the Dispensation of Grace by the words of the Apostle to the Gentiles. It seems clear to me now that your defense of it is because you consider it part of the saving work of Christ. Perhaps on a level similar to His death, burial and resurrection, I can't determine from your responses.

You claim that the Book of Acts is a book that everyone can build their doctrine on, yet you explain away the early part of Acts which absoultely teaches "godly" communism (Acts 2:44) as something that you are exempt from. Are you just another Bible student who takes what he wants from Scripture and leaves what he doesn't?

By the way there are Protestant denominations that sprinkle. For goodness sake the "like figure" on Noah means that staying dry and safe and delivered to a new earth (in Noah's case) IS the figure! Besides we don't deal in figures today. The Dispensation of Grace is the reality not the shadows and figures of Judaism and Peter was a minister unto the circumcision (Gal. 2:2-9).

We may as well agree to disagree. As to the furnishing of Scripture for you to re-interpret to your religious dogma is pointless. I've done enough and you've ignored most of what I've furnished. Perhaps another time we'll get to "discuss" the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Whoops - I have to proof my posts more accurately. No water baptism is NOT essential for salvation today. Neither is circumcision.

Paul also worked miracles - so what? When that sign gift passed off of the scene, he couldn't heal Timothy, Epaphroditus or even himself. Do you you bless handkerchiefs in order to heal the sick (Acts 19:12)?

One more time:

THE TWELVE BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE

1 Israel’s National Baptism into Moses - 1 Cor. 10:1-4 - This was a “dry” baptism. Israel went through the sea on dry ground (Ex. 14:22). The Egyptians were immersed and died (Ex. 15:19)

2 Divers Baptisms of Israel’s Religion - Heb. 6:2 & 9:10 - These are the Levitical washings of purification (Lev. 6:28; 15:11 & 12; Ezek. 13:11-14)

3 Traditional Baptismal Ceremonies of the Jews - Mk. 7:1-7 - This was the act of purifying the house with water, just as burning or a baptism of fire purged leaven.

4 John’s Mass Baptism of Repentance - Lk. 3:3 & Jn. 1:31 - This had for its purpose the introduction of Jesus to Israel as messiah. Those who received this baptism could not be members of the Body of Christ until they understood that the blessings of the new covenant were removed from Israel’s custody and administered to the world through Paul’s gospel (Acts 18:25 & 26).

5 Christ’s Water - Matt. 3:13-15 - This baptism was to complete all divine rightness. For He had no need to be right before man or to have sins remitted. The God-man only traveled this path of rightness and human attempts to replicate it are considered works of rightness (Titus 3:5-7).

6 Christ’s Death - Lk 12:50 & Mk. 10:38 & 39 - This happened over three years after the 5th baptism above. The God-man only traveled this path of rightness and human attempts to replicate it are considered works of rightness (Titus 3:5-7). The benefit of Christ’s death baptism freely allows sinners to be regenerated and numbered in the church (Rom. 6:3&4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12)

7 Noah’s Ark - 1 Pet. 3:20 & 21 - Noah and his family were saved above the waters and just as the army of Egypt the world that was not right or were not the redeemed of God were immersed and destroyed. This has a strong similarity to baptism no. 6 above in that the Hebrew word for ark is the same word as coffin (awrone – Heb.).

8 The Holy Spirit’s Power - Lk. 24:49 & Acts 1:4 & 5 - This was promised to Israel in Joel 2: 28 & 29 and delivered to the same in Acts 2:14-21. The presence and power of the Holy Spirit had already been delivered after the resurrection at Jn. 20:22.

9 Blood of the Martyrs - 1 Cor. 15:29

10 Holy Spirit Baptism of Fire - Matt. 3:11 - This is judgment and it remains future

11 In the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins [Pentecost] - Acts 2:38 - This is commanded in Mk. 16:15-18 and was accomplished; unlike Matt: 28:19 & 20, which was never accomplished.

12 The Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ - 1 Cor. 12:13 - This is the work of God that identifies believers of the Dispensation of the Grace of God into the death, burial, resurrection, present session at the Father’s Right Hand and the pre-tribulational and pre-millennial return of Christ. As all truths regarding the unity of the Body of Christ in Eph. 4:4-6 it is NOT physical, BUT spiritual and can be appropriated continually.

Observe: Numbers 1,6,7,8,9,10 and 12 above are baptisms accomplished without water. Only five of the twelve baptisms of the Scripture are water ceremonies and in the purpose connected with these five, none of them can have any possible application to today’s believer.

A Rule To Learn Well

How can we tell what things ended at the close of the Acts period and what things continue on through the Prison Epistles to the end of this age? There is a simple rule. Let us write it down and learn it well. It is this:

Everything that came in by Paul's revelations from the Lord, these things continue on to the rapture; but certain things that were already here when Paul arrived on the scene, things that were Jewish and pertained to the Kingdom program, these were discontinued at the close of the Acts period.

For instance, there is the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul says, as clear as words can make it. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you (1 Cor. 11:23). It is true that Paul quotes the direct words of the Lord Jesus in verses 24 and 25, words that He spoke before His crucifixion, but then, from verse 26 on, we have Paul's words; found nowhere else in the Bible and received directly by him alone and from our risen Lord. So this is Pauline and continues on proclaiming the Lord's death until He returns.

But signs, miracles, healings, tongues and even water baptism, were already here when Paul arrived on the scene. They had to do with the earthly program for the nation of Israel and the above passed off of the scene and gave way to the complete revelation of God's heavenly program for the Church (the Body of Christ) in the Prison Epistles. Let us value just as highly the pre-Prison Epistles though for from one of these epistles we have the stirring call of victory:

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1 Cor. 15:58)"

By Dee L McCroskey, Editor
Last Day Messenger
November-December 1969, pg 16

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

II. THE CONVERSION OF CORNELIUS, 10: 1-48.

Up to this point the scattered Jews had preached the word to none but the Jews only (Acts 11:19). We know that this preaching did include Gentiles by birth who had become proselytes to Judaism. A true proselyte, called a "proselyte of righteousness," or a "proselyte of the covenant," was a Gentile who had become circumcised and lived according to the customs and commands of the Mosaic Law. There was another type of proselyte who was known as a "proselyte of the gate." This was a Gentile who attended the synagogue services and worshipped the God of Israel, but did not submit to circumcision and did not therefore enjoy the full privileges of the Jewish religion. It seems evident that Cornelius must have been a proselyte of the gate. We know he was uncircumcised. We know that he feared the God of the Bible with all of his family. We know that he gave alms to the Jewish people and that he prayed to God always. And we further know that he observed the Jewish hour of prayer, for he prayed at the ninth hour (3:00 P.M.), which was the Jewish hour of prayer according to Acts 3:1. It appears from Peter's words that Cornelius was somewhat familiar with the Old Testament prophets, as well as with the story of Jesus, for he says to Cornelius: "That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." No doubt some of the Jews who had been scattered from Jerusalem had testified in the synagogue at Caesarea where Cornelius lived. There is nothing new about an uncircumcised Gentile attending synagogue service: what seems to be new is that a Jewish believer is sent into the home of an uncircumcised Gentile to have fellowship and to eat Gentile food, all of which was considered unclean and unlawful by the Jews. At least, this was the objection raised by the Jerusalem believers in Acts 11:3. This appears to be the first time an apostle was sent to an uncircumcised Gentile. This long delay of eight to ten years in going to the Gentiles since the commission was given was not due to Jewish bigotry, as some commentators contend. It was simply not God's time until now. The fact that the Jewish disciples rejoiced and glorified God when they learned of Gentile salvation is proof they were not prejudiced against Gentiles.

A. Cornelius' Vision, 10:1-8. Cornelius is one of two Roman centurions mentioned in the New Testament who were godly men. The first, strangely enough, loved the Jewish nation and had built a synagogue for the Jews (Lk. 7:1-10). Jesus said of this Gentile: "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." The centurion in our present story is described as "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people (of Israel), and prayed to God always." Surely Cornelius was an exceptional man, especially when we think of Roman soldiers as ruthless and brutal. According to human standards, he was a saved man, if anyone was. But as yet, he was not, for we are told in 11:14 that Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he and his family would be saved. Good works have never in any dispensation produced spiritual salvation.

Cornelius is exceptional in another way. God did take account of his good deeds and for that reason sent an angel to tell him that his prayers and alms had been remembered by God, and that he should send messengers to Joppa to find a certain man by the name of Simon Peter who would tell him what he ought to do. This is the only recorded case in the New Testament where God took account of an unsaved man's good deeds and as a result sent an angel to tell him to send for a certain evangelist who would tell him how to be saved. How shall we explain this exceptional case? This Gentile was far different from the Gentiles described by Paul in Rom. 1:21-32, among whom not even one was to be found who did good.

It is the writer's personal opinion that Cornelius stands as an example of Gentile salvation in the coming Tribulation period. According to the Abrahamic Covenant, God had promised to bless those who blessed the descendants of Abraham (Gen. 12: 1,2). At the judgment of the nations at the end of the Great Tribulation, the Gentiles are going to be judged on the basis of their treatment of the Lord's brethren, the Jewish people (Matt. 25:40). Those who had treated Israel well would be allowed to enter the Kingdom: the others would be destroyed. It should be remembered that during our Lord's earthly ministry and up to this time, God was dealing exclusively with the nation of Israel in regard to the establishment of their Messianic Kingdom. Both the centurion of Luke 7 and Cornelius loved the Jewish people and gave alms to them, and as a result God recognized them for what they had done and sent salvation to them. One thing is certain: God is not duplicating the Cornelius event in this present dispensation.

It was the ninth hour, or 3:00 p.m., when the angel appeared to Cornelius. As soon as the angel departed he called two of his household servants and a soldier who was a religious man and after he had told them about the vision he had received from God he sent them to Joppa to find Peter.

B. Peter's Vision, 10:9-22. The servants of Cornelius arrived in Joppa the next day about noon. At the same time Peter went up on the housetop to pray. He became very hungry and wanted to eat, but while the meal was being prepared he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something that looked like a large sheet being lowered by its four corners. It was full of all kinds of four-footed animals, reptiles, and birds. Then he heard a voice: "Arise, Peter; kill and eat." Peter replied, "I certainly will not, Lord. I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean." And the Voice answered him, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This happened three times and then the sheet was taken back into heaven.

While Peter was wondering what could be the meaning of this vision, the messengers from Cornelius arrived at the gate and inquired whether Simon, who was known as Peter, was staying there. While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Three men are looking for you. Get up and go down stairs. Don't hesitate to go with them, because I have sent them." Peter went down and met the men and asked, "Why have you come?" The men then told him about the experience of Cornelius and that he was a righteous and God-fearing man who was highly respected by all the Jews. Peter invited the men in for the night and prepared to leave with them the next morning.

C. Peter's Meeting with Cornelius, 10:23-33. Peter left Joppa with the messengers and a number of Jewish brethren and on the second day arrived in Caesarea, a distance of about 30 miles. Cornelius had assembled all of his family and near friends and was anxiously awaiting their arrival. As Peter came in, Cornelius fell down at his feet and worshipped him. But Peter lifted him up and said, "I myself am also a man."

[It is interesting to see the parallels in the ministries of Peter and Paul. Paul was also worshipped (14:11-15). Both healed a lame man (3:2-7 and 14:8-10). Both had dealings with a sorcerer (8:9-24 and 13:6-11). Both imparted the Holy Spirit by the laying on of their hands (8:17 and 19:6). Both raised a person from the dead (9:36-41 and 20:9, 10). Both healed people by what might be called remote control (5:15 and 19:12). Both suffered imprisonment (12:3 and 16:23).]

Peter began by explaining to Cornelius that it was unlawful for a Jew to keep company or to come unto one of another nation, but that he now understood from the "sheet-vision" that he should not call any man common or unclean. Actually, there is no specific command in the Law of Moses forbidding Jews to associate with Gentiles, but the Law did place many restrictions on the Jew. A Gentile could not take part in Israel's worship unless he was circumcised (Ex. 12:43-49). The uncircumcised man was considered unclean (Isa. 52:1). Jews were forbidden to eat many of the foods which Gentiles ate, and especially so when the meat had been sacrificed to idols, as practically all Gentile meat was (Lev. 11; Acts 15:20). The slightest infraction of the Law defiled the Jew (Lev. 5:2; 7:19,21; Num. 19:16; Ezek. 44:23). With these many restrictions it is easy to see why a Jew would feel that he was breaking God's Law in associating and eating with Gentiles. But, we may ask, had not Christ commanded His Apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature? Why would Peter need a special revelation at this late date to show him that he could and should go to the Gentiles?

In answer we might ask, did not Jesus know that the Gentiles were to be incorporated into the Kingdom? Why then did He say, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" (Matt. 15:24). And why did He command His apostles not to go to the Gentiles? (Matt. 10:5). He referred to the Gentiles as dogs (Matt. 15:26). Dogs were classified as unclean animals (Prov. 26:11; Matt. 7:6; Phil. 3:2; Rev. 22:15). Jesus answered this question by stating that the children of Israel had to first receive their blessing and be filled before the Gentiles could receive their blessing. This statement is based upon the Abrahamic promise that all nations would be blessed through the multiplied seed of Abraham (Mk. 7:27 cf. Gen. 22:17,18). Just as Jesus knew that the Gentiles would be incorporated into the Kingdom in due time, so the apostles knew the same truth, but the due time was not at Pentecost, even as it was not while Christ was on earth. However we interpret the conversion of Cornelius, it would appear that it was God's time to bring about Gentile salvation by the fact that He gave a special revelation to Peter to go to Cornelius. After Peter had explained his new relation with the Gentiles, he asked why Cornelius had sent for him. Cornelius then rehearsed his vision of how the angel had bidden him send for Peter with explicit directions where he would be found. Therefore he said, "We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."

D. Peter's Sermon, 10:34-43. Peter's opening words are the conclusion he preached from his vision and subsequent events. "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." This statement raises two important questions. The first is, if God is no respecter of persons, how do we explain the fact that for two thousand years He dealt almost exclusively with one little nation, Israel? Here it must be remembered that the Bible shows that the whole human race apostasied from God and that God in justice could have destroyed them all. However, in sovereign grace He chose this one small nation through which to work His rederuptive program, so that in the end He might provide salvation for all. The other problem with Peter's statement is that it sounds like salvation by character or works, plain and simple. Does the gospel preacher tell people if they fear God and work righteousness God will accept them? Or does he tell the sinner, "There is none righteous, and it is not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saves us?" The problem seems to lie in the connotation of the word "accepted." It is evident that we are not to equate this word with "salvation" in this context, for it is clear that although Cornelius was acceptable to God, he was not as yet saved, for Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he could be saved (Acts 11:14). God was pleased with the way Cornelius had responded to the sanctifying influences which God had brought into his life, and which finally led up to his salvation.

Next, Peter preaches exactly the same word which God had sent to the children of Israel. He was given nothing new or different to preach to the Gentiles. His message, of course, exalted Jesus Christ as Lord of all. Strangely enough he says that Cornelius knew this story of Jesus from the baptism of John down to His death and resurrection. He knew all about the history of Jesus Christ, but that knowledge had not saved him. Peter goes on to tell him and his friends that he and the other apostles were eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection and' that all of the prophets give witness that through His Name whosoever believes in Him shall receive
remission of sins.

E. Cornelius' Salvation, 10:44-48. While Peter was speaking these words the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. Peter and the Jews who had come with him were all amazed, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. How did they know the gift of the Spirit had been given? They knew, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. At Pentecost Peter had told the people to be baptized and they would receive the Holy Spirit. But these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit upon believing. Peter therefore hastens to ask: "Can any one keep these people from being baptized with water?" Then he commanded them to be baptized. Cornelius and his friends requested Peter to stay with them certain days, during which Peter no doubt gave them further instructions concerning the Kingdom.

F. The Significance of Cornelius. Cornelius was a Gentile, and we have referred numerous times to the statement of Christ that the children must be filled before the Gentiles were to be blessed. Some dispensationalists have taken this statement to mean that the nation of Israel must be blessed or converted before the Gentiles could have the gospel of the Kingdom preached to them. Thus it is argued that Peter's being sent to a Gentile before Israel had been converted is a departure from this kingdom principle and is evidence that a new dispensation had begun with the conversion of Saul. We feel, however, that there are serious objections to this view.

First of all, we believe "the children," of whom Christ spoke comprise the believing remnant in Israel and not the whole nation including its rulers. In Matt. 13:38 Christ said, "The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one." The tares represented the rulers of Israel. Christ told these rulers: "Ye are of your father, the devil" (John 8:44). He also told those rulers, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof' (Matt. 21:43). He did not say it would be given to the Church, or to the Gentile nations, but to a nation. It is evident that "the nation" of which Christ spoke consisted of His followers, the believing remnant in Israel, for He said to them, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Lk. 12:32). Whole chapters in the Gospels could be quoted to show that the rulers of Israel would never be converted or enter into the Kingdom. Therefore, we believe it is a mistake to teach that under the kingdom commission the disciples could not go to the Gentiles until the nation of Israel had been converted.

Next, there is the plain teaching in the Gospels that the Gentiles would have the gospel of the Kingdom preached to them before Israel as a nation had turned to the Lord. Christ warned His disciples that they would be persecuted by the leaders of Israel, "for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues" (Matt. 10:17; Lk. 21:12). Then He told them that in the Tribulation period, "This gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations; and then shall the end (of the age) come" (Matt. 24:14). And this dovetails perfectly with Rev. 7:9,14, where we are shown a great multitude "of all nations, and people, and tongues," who are saved "out of the great tribulation," as a result of the witness of the Jewish remnant. This great harvest among the Gentiles takes place while Israel nationally is under the reign of the Anti-christ, when Jerusalem is referred to as "Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8). Thus it is evident that the Great Commission of the Gospel of the Kingdom was to be carried out before the whole nation of Israel is saved. An important passage which reveals the sequence of events in the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom is Matt. 22:1-14. The Lord here likened the kingdom of heaven to a king who prepared a wedding feast for his son. He sent his servants to tell those who were invited to come to the feast, but they refused to come. This call to Israel to come no doubt refers to the earthly ministry of our Lord. Then a second call went forth. He sent other servants to tell the invited guests, "Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready; come unto the feast." But the invited guests paid no attention. One went off to his field, another to his business, and the rest seized the king's servants and mistreated and killed them. This second call to Israel must refer to the preaching in Acts 2 and 3, where Peter states that all things have been fulfilled, all things are ready; God will send Jesus back if they will only come. We have seen the reaction of those who were invited. They have thrown Christ's servants into prison, beaten them, and have stoned Stephen to death. Then what does the king do? He becomes angry and sends his armies and destroys those murderers and burns up their city. This doubtless refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Then after the destruction of Jerusalem a third call goes forth. The servants are told to go into the streets and invite as many people of all kinds as they can find.

This they do and the feast is finally furnished with guests. If the originally invited guests represented Israel, then those from off the streets must represent non-Israelites, or Gentiles. Therefore this parable seems to teach clearly that the Gentiles were to receive the Gospel of the Kingdom after Israel had been judged and Jerusalem had been destroyed. But this order of events poses a problem. Actually, we know, Cornelius, the Gentile, received the Kingdom message twenty-five or thirty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. How can we explain this seeming inconsistency?

We know from Paul's epistles that God had a secret eternal purpose to form the Church which is the Body of Christ and that it was through the fall and the casting away of Israel that He brought this new order or dispensation into being (Rom. 11:11,15). God, therefore, interrupted His dealings with Israel for the time being, to bring this new program into being, and His first step in preparation for this new program was to save the man whom He had chosen to administer this new dispensation, Saul of Tarsus. Then, in order to prepare the way for Paul's coming Gentile ministry, He gave a special revelation to Peter to go to an uncircumcised Gentile so that the Jewish Apostles would be convinced that Paul's ministry to Gentiles was according to the will of God.

We can not find any Scriptural evidence that the new dispensation as such began with the conversion of either Saul or Cornelius, but that these events were only to prepare for it. Saul was saved under the Kingdom order and received water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 22:16). Cornelius did receive the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues before he was baptized with water, but perhaps God reversed the order of baptizing and receiving the Spirit to convince Peter that a true work of salvation had occurred. From Peter's amazement at Gentiles receiving the Spirit, it is doubtful whether Peter would have baptized him unless God had given evidence Cornelius was saved. But notice that Peter preached exactly the same message to Cornelius as he had been preaching to the Jews. He was given no new revelation such as was given later to Paul. And we are plainly told that the Holy Spirit did exactly the same work on Cornelius as He had done on the Jews at Pentecost. Read carefully Acts 11:15-17. If Christ baptizing Cornelius with the Spirit placed him in the new Body of Christ, why did not the same baptizing work at Pentecost place those Jews in the Body? If we do not distinguish between Christ baptizing with the Spirit and the Spirit baptizing into Christ, we must agree that both Cornelius and those at Pentecost were baptized into the Body. But we do not read of the latter baptism or of the Body of Christ until we come some years later to Paul's epistles. It is the writer's personal belief that the dispensing of this new order under Paul began when God separated him unto the work for which He had called him (Acts 13:2). It is here that he is first called "an apostle." It is here that he performs for the first time "the signs of an apostle." And it is here that "the door of faith" is opened to the Gentiles.

Thus it would seem that Peter, having been filled with the Holy Spirit, and having had the ministry of that Spirit operating in his life of "being guided into all truth," and "shown things to come" (John 16:13), now understood the meaning of the Lord's teaching while He was on the earth, and therefore understood the order in which the Great Commission was to be carried out. And since it was not yet time in the prophetic order to go to the Gentiles, we can understand why Peter had not been disobedient in not going to them, and why God had to give Peter a special revelation to go contrary to that prophetic order, as He was preparing to bring in His hitherto secret dispensation of the mystery (Eph. 3:1-11; Col. 1:24-27).

Understanding the Acts
by Charles Baker

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

You quoted somebody to bolster your opinion and I quoted someone to bolster mine. By including Charles Baker's extract, I was attempting to answer one of your original questions. No matter what I do I can't please you. My opinion is inadequate with you and when I cite other teachers that won't do it for you either. Water baptism is still an Old Testament practice as I said in earlier posts. Remember the Old Testament did not begin until Exodus 20 and did not end until Christ's death (per Heb. 8&9). only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon [them]. Hebrews 9:10 - (Young's Literal Translation)

I have addressed all of my comments honestly and you continued insinuations are annoying, but denominationalism has clouded your ability to be objective and you continuie to ignore my posts on the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ NOT by water, such that I feel that we will never go anywhere in that discussion. Why don't you start a post on Premillenialism you seem to be ready to go on that matter?

Last word, all the water of the flood of Genesis could never wash away one sin then, it still can't today and it will not in the future. As John 1:31 says it is an act of identifying the obedient even Christ Jesus in His earthly life and ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16).

A few observations of this passage follow:

First, it is evident that Paul was thoroughly converted on the road to Damascus, yet at that time water baptism was still required for salvation (Mark 16:16) thus he was called upon to "wash away his sins" by water baptism, not that water in itself could wash away sins. For if water baptism could wash away sins why did Christ die at all. Sinners came to John's baptism did it wash away their sins? If it did Christ was dead in vain and the blood of bulls and of goats can take away sins for all were part of the Temple worship. A worship that you fail to recognize in your implementation of the Law as it refers to the doctrine of baptism. No baptism under the Law dispensation that Paul was converted under was an expression of faith in what had been revealed of God's redemptive program to that point. When God had said water baptism was what the obedient did under the former dispensation there was no other choice. We see that circumcision too was necessary in the Acts account (Gal. 2:3), yet I see no emphasis on that practice from you in any of your posts. Yet when Paul pays virtually the same homage to baptism, you tell me that he's not really thanking God that he baptized so few and that Paul, the minister of the uncircumcision (a rather large population by today's measure) clearly says Christ sent him NOT to carry out Matt. 28:19&20, but instead 2 Cor. 5:18-21 and Eph. 3:8&9. Both passages are bereft of any ritual ceremony and Paul's credo of Eph. 4:4-6 has 7 spiritual verities -- NO man is responsible for any of them!!

Second, this passage bears witness to the fallacy of the "watery grave" theory of immersionists. Only those buried at sea for convenience are buried at sea even today, they're immersed with emmersion to happen at The Rapture. Do you suppose that in the cases of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailor and in Paul's case here, they just happened to have vessels large enough to hold sufficient water to bury people in? Certainly there is no indication in any of the above cases that they went out and got the equipment or conducted the applicant to any place where they might find such facilities. This theory of burial in water comes from the false notion that Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12 refer to water baptism. Water baptism is a natural symbol for washing or cleansing as this passage and Ananias' objections to visiting Paul confirm this to be true (See Acts 9:13-14).

This could not refer to His will for Paul, for why should he be chosen" to know that? Who else should it be revealed to? Clearly it refers to the will of God spoken of In Eph. 1:9&11 & 5:17, His will, or program, in view of Israel's rejection of Christ many others indicate (See Mark 7:1-5 where baptizo is twice rendered wash and where it is used alternately with nipto, another word for wash; also Heb. 9:10, where the original word is baptismos)

Third, it should be observed that Paul here relates what took place at the time of his conversion. He was converted under the dispensation when water baptism was required and, symbolically, he was baptized to wash away his sins, but later, using the very same word rendered "wash" here (Gr., apolouo) he had written to the Corinthians: And such were some of you: BUT YE ARE WASHED, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and BY THE SPIRIT OF OUR GOD (I Cor. 6:11). And still later he wrote to Titus: NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HE SAVED US, BY THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, AND THE RENEWING OF THE HOLY GHOST" (Titus 3:5).

Though the apostle's address is not yet finished, this concludes the account of his conversion. Before leaving it let me point out that where the twelve had "seen and heard" Christ only in His ministry on earth and were commissioned to be witnesses of these things (Acts 4:20) Paul had seen and heard Him in His glory "far above all" and had been commissioned to bear witness to this and to other revelations he was still to receive of and from the glorified Lord (26:16).

As to the geography of immersion of Paul at Damascus, the major river running through town is the Barada, which means "cold" in Syrian. The river is quite shallow and runs as a torrent in Spring and all but dries up as summer sets in. In ancient times it was the water source for an oasis there; however, in ancient times seven canals were cut in the river bed for irrigation. None of them deep enough to submerge a full grown adult without either being in a torrent or being polluted by slow moving almost boggy water. Therefore, that Paul was immersed rather than sprinkled or poured upon for baptism is questionable.



There is also an antitype which now saves us baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ( 1 Pet.3:21)

After the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter is identified as the minister to the circumcision (Gal. 2:2-9). He continues to be the minister to those believers. When Paul declared there to be no difference that didn't change Peter's ministry and after the fifteenth chapter of Acts we hear of Peter no more for until the Tribulation there will be no circumcision to minister to. The epistles that Peter penned are "for" that time and "to" those people.

Next, I will accede to your point that the obedient of Pentecost were baptized and repentant. Note that there is no joy at Pentecost over the death of Christ. We see no joy over Christ's death on the cross until after Paul is raised as an apostle. Baptism was a requirement, even as sacrifices were in the Old Testament, but neither sacrifices nor baptism had any saving power in themselves. Further, it appears there was a change in order when Peter went to Cornelius, for Cornelius was saved and received the Holy Spirit apart from water baptism.

Last, Peter makes it plain he is not talking about a washing which takes away the filth of the flesh. Christ Himself had taught Peter that His death was to be a baptism (Luke 12:50), and if we understand the death of Christ to be the antitype of the flood waters which bore up Noah's ark, then it is plain that it is Christ's baptism in death that saves circumcision here and uncircumcision before the Tribulation.

As to church attendance which you mentioned in an earlier post, I don't go to Grace "whatever" church. You are adamnat that you go to a church with a Biblical name. Is it the church in the wolderness (See Acts 7:38)? Can I guess that perhaps you attend a Church of Christ or a Disciples of Christ assembly? I am familiar with those assemblies since my wife was gloriously delivered from the severe legalism and joylessness of the Churches of Christ. Of highest importance to me is that I am a member of the Body of Christ, the one and only church of today (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:22) and it is undenominational unlike the groups mentioned above.

Regarding unbiblical names for churches the following is offered and includes some points I was trying to get across to you:

THE TRUE BIBLE CHURCH
by Cornelius R. Stam

Many people have truly come to know Christ as Savior after having been sincere, religious "church members" for years. Though faithful supporters of some earthly church organization they had never experienced the truth of II Cor. 5:17: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creation." It is possible to be a member in good standing of some church organization, yet be outside of the one true Church of which the Bible speaks.

This is because the true Bible Church is not an organization but a living organism, a spiritual body, with a living Head and living members. Again and again St. Paul, by divine inspiration, calls the Church, the Body of Christ. He says: "We being many, are one Body in Christ..." (Rom. 12:5). "Ye are the Body of Christ, and members in particular" (I Cor. 12:27). "We are members of His Body" (Eph. 5:30).

How do we become members of this true Bible Church, the Body of Christ? First, we must acknowledge ourselves to be sinners in God's sight, for Ephesians 2 relates how Christ died for sinful men that He might "reconcile" them to God "in one Body" by the cross (Ver. 16). Thus, when believing sinners are reconciled to God by faith in Christ, they are regenerated, given a new life, by the Spirit, and by the Spirit are baptized into the Church, the Body of Christ.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (I Cor. 12:13).

Every one of us should ask himself: "Have I been baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ?" If not, trust Christ as your Savior and become a member of the one true Bible Church. Then associate yourself with some local assembly where Christ is honored and the Bible taught, "rightly divided."

Hold on to The Sword - 2 Sam. 23:10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

It is a shame that there are so many differences among denominational churches. I think of zealous Israel in Romans 10:2, who had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. The Church of Christ, which are the disciples of Alexander Campbell, certainly have a zeal for water baptism, a real zeal as you have demonstrated. Every one of them are absolutely certain that they have a good Scriptural name and Scriptural water-baptism message. I admit that you have a real Scriptural name and that I admit that you do preach Mark 16:16, as is, without transposing the words of Christ, without revising Christ’s words in that great commission. Christ Himself said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Shall we change that message or let it stand as it was given by the Christ of Christianity?

Likewise, the Roman Catholics claim to be the first and original Christian Church. They teach that they have the exclusive right to baptize adults and infants. They call their water ceremony ‘christening’, claiming that the water sprinkled by the priest is required to take care of original sin. Thus I conclude that the Church of Christ, with their splendid name, and the Roman Catholic Church, claiming to be the original and true New Testament Church, although they both use Mark 16:16 for their Christ-given authority to practice the religious ceremony or sacrament of
water baptism, radically differ as to the mode and meaning of water baptism. They are both similar in that they both teach dogmatically that no person can or will become a New Testament saint, or Christian, without being ‘water-baptized’. On the issue of baptism by water - Rome and the Church of Christ only differ in one other regard on the matter, Rome wears vestments when they administer the sacrament.

The Church of Christ theologians disagree with those who teach that water baptism is the seal of the righteousness which the believer receives without being baptized in water. With them it is impossible for an unbaptized person to be righteous only a righteous person is a saved person, and no one is saved without being born of the water, buried under the water, immersed for the remission of sins and for salvation? Why even the salvation of the thief on the cross at Christ's crucifixion, when Christ Himself offered him a place in Paradise, might not be a settled deliverance in the eyes of some Campbellite brethern. He was never immersed, but he did die, just as Christ said about His own death baptism (See Luke 12:50).

According to the unbending teaching of the Church of Christ and the Lutherans, with whom the Church of Christ also most heartily disagree, no Quaker, Friend or undenominational person such as myself; however spiritual, is saved. Quakers and I believe that water baptism are not necessary for salavation today, even though we believe that way for different reasons. This means that the Quakers, who are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ and the saving gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 and are temples of the Holy Spirit, are unsaved according to Campbellite teaching. According to the Church of Christ, no believer can be or will be saved by grace through faith in Christ and His shed blood or can be baptized by ‘ONE SPIRIT’ into ‘ONE BODY’, unless and until that person is immersed in water. Also the person must be old enough to repent of his sins, intelligently exercise faith in Christ and His gospel, and voluntarily, willingly submit to a burial all the way under the water, NOT just a sprinkling as others teach.

The Church of Christ elders see no difference between the gospel of the kingdom preached by Peter and the Eleven in the first chapters of Acts and the gospel of the grace of God for Gentiles, subsequently revealed to and through the apostle of the Gentiles (Romans 11:13; Galatians 1:11&12). Moreover being wholly ignorant of the great difference between the ‘kingdom’ prepared from the ‘overthrow’ of the world (Matthew 25:34), and the unprophesied Body of Christ chosen in Christ from before the ‘overthrow’ of the world (Ephesians 1:4,5&11), knowing nothing of God’s eternal predestinated purpose and the meaning of the ‘ONE NEW MAN’ of Ephesians 2:15, reconciled in ‘ONE BODY’ by the DEATH BAPTISM OF THE LORD JESUS (Ephesians 2:16 and Luke 12:50); the Church of Christ makes no attempt to obey Ephesians 3:9. With great joy and enthusiasm they are perfectly content to be just like Apollos before Aquila taught him ‘grace’ truth and brought him up to date with his message. (Acts 18:24-28).

Church of Christ teachers reject any Bible truth that does not agree with Mark 16:16 and James 2:24, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” . . . “ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” In saying they reject, I mean that your ilk interpret such Scriptures as Titus 3:5-8, Ephesians 2:8&9 and Romans 4:5 and 3:24-28 in the light of Mark 16:16 and James 2:24, which means no justification by grace through faith without immersion and because of those differences, I must agree to disagree with you - Grumlin. I will gladly stand before the Judgement Seat (bema) of Christ (2 Cor 5:10) and be responsible for the stewardship committed to me in that regard (1 Cor. 4:1). I will pray that even with my stumbling logic, which was not obvious to you, that you too will come to enjoy the blessings of Eph. 2:8-10, for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

Hold on to The Sword - 2 Sam. 23:10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

Dear Grumlin-

You are basing a good deal of your teaching for immersion as the mode of baptism on Acts 8:38 and in particular the rendering of eis as "into". On that word "into" you establish that immersion is what is meant.

First, if Philip and the eunech went into the water, yet only the eunech is baptized or you would say immersed. Yet you seem to contend that "into" means immersed not baptized. Also if they both went into the water (immersed) weren't they both baptized, yet the record says that it was only the eunech who was baptized?

Second, eis has many meanings, Strong's No. 1519 has it serving as a preposition, which can mean towards, into, unto and so forth. Luke by the Holy Spirit uses it several ways in the eighth chapter of Acts alone and they do not mean "immerse".

Further you point out to me that the several denominations of the followers of Alexander Campbell (i.e. Disciples of Christ and Instrumental and Non-instrumental Churches of Christ) are practicing their faith on a Scriptural basis alone. The following is a brief article written by a man in ministerial service for fifty years and was a result of that ministry. It may somewhat succinctly answer the issue of Scripture practice:

UNSCRIPTURAL OR UNDISPENSATIONAL

A Pastor friend of this writer has written the following: “There are professing Christians who religiously practice the washing of feet. Are they scriptural or unscriptural? There are some who anoint the sick with oil, while others use blessed handkerchiefs. Are they scriptural or unscriptural? Still others tarry for the Holy Spirit after they have received Christ for salvation. Some professing Christians claim visions and angelic visitations while hearing supernatural voices. Are they scriptural or unscriptural? Thousands of others break forth in some speech, which they call the gift of tongues. Are they scriptural or unscriptural?”

TO WHICH WE ADD: Scripture can be found to substantiate all of these actions. It seems to us that it is less than intellectually honest, much less a spiritual practice to arbitrarily select certain Bible commands for obedience while completely disregarding others. Why not obey the mandates in Numbers 15:32-36, Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. And Deuteronomy 21:18-21, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. Here infractions were punished by publicly stoning the offender to death? Why not build a tabernacle and offer sacrifices as God commanded in Exodus 25-31? Why not Sell what you have and give alms as Christ instructed in Luke 12:33? In short, why obey only certain Bible commands and ignore obedience to others? Why not obey them all?

The answer to these questions and observations of Scripture are clearly stated in 2 Timothy 2:15, Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Though ALL Scripture is most certainly for our admonition and instruction, all Scripture is NOT for our obedience. In fact, obeying commands given to others in past dispensations could be direct disobedience in this dispensation, (Compare Genesis 17:10-14 with Galatians 5:2 and Romans 2:25-29, Also Matthew 19:16-21 with Romans 4:5 and Ephesians 2:8&9). 2 Timothy 3:16&17 does not contradict or nullify 2 Timothy 2:15. To the Apostle Paul, the Glorified Lord revealed God’s message and program for this Dispensation of Grace. To him was committed the Dispensation of the Grace of God (See Ephesians 3:1-9). In his epistles we find the commands given directly to the Body of Christ.

The question then is not only, IS IT SCRIPTURAL, but also IS IT DISPENSATIONAL?

Win Johnson

Hold on to The Sword - 2 Sam. 23:10

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eleazar

I am beginning to see why Scott did not respond to your question.

Your condemnations and invectives are wasted on me. I prefer to stake my position on The Word of Truth rightly divided than to try to please mankind (Gal. 1:10).

If W.E. Vine (a good Plymouth Brethren (PB)) or others present baptism as immersion every single time they are simply wrong for such is NOT the case. Vine points to Naaman's baptism of 2 Kings 5 for the cure of leprosy. He was dipped ( 7 times), but dipping and immersion are not the same thing. For dipping places one in and takes one out, but immersion leaves one in. Even if that is your anti-typical example of what should be the practice of immersion today, you are practicing a command given by a Jew for a Jew and practiced under the Old Covenant, which is what I told you water baptism was all along. If I understand that to be the case then today's water ceremony, that you embrace looks back to a procedure that today's Pentecostal assemblies would warmly endorse. That is Naaman was healed as a result of a baptismal ceremony. (By the way did you know that PB's believe in a 7 year Tribulation? Also, they don't have any sign posted at their churches, since they believe in "Household" worship and baptism by immersion!! No axe to grind for immersion in his fine dictionary, now is there?)

"In Rev. 7:14, 'the great tribulation,' RV, lit., 'the tribulation, the great one' (not as AV, without the article), is not that in which all saints share; it indicates a definite period spoken of by the Lord in Matt. 24:21,29; Mark 13:19,24, where the time is mentioned as preceding His second advent, and as a period in which the Jewish nation, restored to Palestine in unbelief by gentile instrumentality, will suffer an unprecedented outburst of fury on the part of the antichristian powers confederate under the Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2:10-12; cp. Rev. 12:13-17); in this tribulation Gentile witnesses for God will share (Rev. 7:9), but it will be distinctly 'the time of Jacob's trouble' (Jer. 30:7); its beginning is signalized by the setting up of the 'abomination of desolation' (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14, with Dan. 11:31; 12:11)." Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Further, if the act of baptism is always immersion then what of the cermeonial baptisms that Vine appeals to in the noun form for household items especially "tables" (See his referral to Mark 7:4).

And what of the multitudinous examples of baptisms, that I have referred to in previous posts that could not possibly include water much less immersion. What of the baptism of the children of Israel unto Moses of 1 Cor. 10:2 (Exod. 15:19). Finally, Christ himself referred to His death as a "baptism" (See Luke 12:50) and He was crucified NOT drowned! Yet, you've ignored all of it!! I pray that your eyes will be opened and you will see the joy of Christ's death baptism as applied to you per Rom. 6:3&4 and not some drenching based on denominational dogma.

As to church attendance, that's really quite irrelevant for this discussion and I don't get why that's such a big deal with you. If you consider a church building to be sacred ground and the so-called clergy to be more sanctified than the so-called laity, then you may be leaning more toward Roman Catholicism or to a lesser degree Judaism (i.e. Levites) then you let on. Again the worthiness of the assembly that I attend, will be determined at the Judgment Seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10) NOT by any man's judgement.

Post script: Good and bad news about immersion. It's in the Bible, but if people do it they'll die 'Also anything on which one of them may fall when they are dead becomes unclean, including any wooden article, or clothing, or a skin, or a sack--any article of which use is made--it shall be put in the water and be unclean until evening, then it becomes clean. (Lev. 11:32)

Hold on to The Sword - 2 Sam. 23:10

---