Featured has The Gentile Church Misunderstand pauline Theology?

Speaking as a non-seminary student or Bible college graduate that would be my position, reformed protests to the contrary not withstanding.

It is interesting to take a deep breath, clear the clutter out of the mind and analyze the reformed position with respect to baptism. While there is the in-house squabble over modes of baptism, the one thing they agree on is that baptism replaces circumcision with respect to the covenant. Again I ask what covenant?

The NT settles the issue regarding gentile circumcision as an act of religious service. No where that I'm aware of does the NT require baptism the way that the OT Israelites were required to be circumcised. Left out of the reformed argument is the act of Paul having Timothy circumcised.

When I was a Jr. in college (1979) I approached one of the resident directors of a dorm that I knew from the campus Christian fellowship (he was ordained Presbyterian pastor) about being baptized. He agreed to perform the service but had me study a book that discussed the various views and modes of baptism. After my study, he asked me what I thought was the correct mode of baptism. Strictly from my study of the book he gave me I replied adult full immersion. His reply: "we sprinkle".

When I joined my local Baptist Assembly, I was required to be re-baptised. At the time and for many years after I thought is was a bit of overkill. But having studied the reformed covenant position and how they view baptism and covenants and compared that view with the teaching of the Holy Bible, I have come to understand why being rebaptised is a good and Biblical thing.

Jehovah gave Abraham (and his seed) circumcision to note the covenant He had with Abraham, the Abrahamic covenant. Baptism is given to make public the confession of sin, the desire to repent and the new creation in Christ.

 

Your presumption was that those books were actually written before Paul wrote his letters. That would be incorrect. Though the circumstances recorded in those accurate accountings of history by Luke -- a companion of Paul on his journies -- they were certainly not written prior to most of Paul's writings.

 

Of note is the letter of the Jerusalem Council when the issues regarding doctrines applicable to the Gentiles came up (argued by Paul before the Council). The covenant that the Council turned to for the Gentiles was the Noahic Covenant.

It should also be noted that the actual cut covenants in Scripture bear no direct ties to Covenantal Theology. The two are not one and the same. Covenantal Theology stipulates two covenants -- the first a covenant of works that existed in the Garden prior to the fall into sin, the second is a covenant of Grace that covers the age following. The balance of the scriptural covenants are noted and dealt with, as they are in any theology that considers the actions of God with man through history, but THEY do not drive Covenantal Theology.

 

Some covenant theologians would argue a third covenant, that of redemption, a covenant between the first and second person of the Godhead.

 

I consider anyone who tells folks to ignore a COMMAND of the Lord, an enemy of the Church.

Reading such filth ought to make any real Baptist feel a need to be imersed in water.

Hot water, with lots soap.

This is no BAPTIST forum.

Far from it.

 

It is difficult ACF for one such as me to maintain a presence on this forum without the occasional break from the nonstop nonsense.

Two questions I ask myself are 1. Why do reformed Christians yell and scream sola scriptura when they don't really mean it and 2. In a technical sense how can there be such a thing as a reformed Baptist?

One good thing has come from my time here and that it has given me the needed push to investigate all kinds of doctrinal issues from the Bible, sort of moving me in the direction of establishing my own personal doctrinal statement.

 

Thomas,

There is a lot of nonsense being thown about on this board. This is not a "Baptist Only" forum as the title of it claims.

In fact, I have seen very few posts from real Baptists, certainly none of these making statements that the Gospels don't apply to us, or water Baptism isn't for us.

You have never heard a real Baptist say anything like either of those things, but read some of the posts Beameup and Dachaser1 have made just on this one thread, read them carefully, and you tell me if you still think you are discussing theology with Baptists.

These people are Hyper-Dispensationalists.

The one called Beameup claimed he had never heard of Marcion, well I have no doubt he/she is uneducated on real theology, so maybe he/she hasn't heard of Marcion, but the claim that he/she hasn't heard of the other people I mention is suspect.

I doubt a one of them hasn't heard of Bullinger, Stam, and Baker, and you can bet your baptismal they all listen to Les Nesbit.

There is small booklet, or an article, written by an Independant Baptist preacher named Peter Ruckman.

Dr. Ruckman is a little off to one side on some issues like Calvinisim, but he is dead on target about the Hyper-Dispensationalists.

His booklet is all over the Internet, but you can get an ebook copy of it for one of those electronic books from Amazon.

The link to Amazon is worth following just to see the artwork on the cover of the book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005V32QIU/?tag=baptis04-20

 

I don't mean to sound disrespectful ACF and I hope you continue to post here as I enjoy your conviction but some of Peter Ruckman's views with regard to English language Bible translations are a little off center also.

 

Dachaser1,
I see what goes on this forum, and after this day, I will no longer be a participant, but as I did make reference to your posts, I will respond to the question you had about it.

You asked me to show your heresy.

What I referred to was your choice to believe the command of the Lord to be baptized does not apply to you.

You go further by attempting to inflict this choice upon others, in your efforts to convince them of the same thing.

This goes a bit beyond mere heresy.

Baptism is an “Ordinance” observed by the Baptist church.

It is called an “Ordinance” for a very good reason.

It has to do with whether or not one acknowledges Jesus Christ as “LORD”.

You see, we can only serve one master. The Lord God, or the Adversary.

It is one, or the other, as there is no middle ground.

A failure to accept the command of the Lord, demonstrates a failure to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the LORD.

What we say to others will serve as a witness to which master we have chosen to serve come judgment day.

Your long list of excuses as to why you chose not to obey the Command of the Lord, and instead chose to busy yourself trying to subvert others from doing so, will be your testimony come judgment day, if you do not repent of this falsehood, and pray for forgiveness for having ever taught it to others.

--

If you have made these choices because of being misled about why a Baptist gets baptized, which is what I strongly suspect is so, perhaps I can remedy that error.

I tell you first that a bible believing Christian should not think the rite of water Baptism has to do with Salvation.

Consider the thief upon the cross who gained the glory without being Baptized.

He was saved by Grace, just as all who are in the Body of Christ are saved.

Whenever a Baptist wades into the water, it is in obedience to the COMMAND of our GOD.

Through this rite we say to the world around us that we accept Jesus Christ as our LORD.

We were already “SAVED” before we got one toe wet.

A Bible Believing Christian who can read through Acts 2, will know this truth.

If you were to ask me “If baptism does not have to do with Salvation, what does it have to do with?”

I will say, all the symbolic aspects aside, it has to do with our acknowledgment of the LORDSHIP of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I have chosen to follow the Commands of the Lord.

Who is your master?

 

To all, I have a correction to something I posted.

I made referrence to "Les Nesbit" when I really meant "Les Feldick"

I don't watch a lot of TV, and sometimes get the characters from one sitcom confused with another.

Sorry, if this caused any confusion.

Goodbye folks.

 

Thomas,

There is a lot more than just his views on tranlations that are a bit off center, but he has the Hyper-Dispensationalist nailed down pat.

I like H.A. Ironsides work "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" better than Ruckman's booklet, but Ruckman does a better job in detailing an appropriate biblical response to Hyper-Dispensationalism.

Read that article of his, and see if he doen't.

These folks all say they were unable to "understand" their bibles until someone showed them how. All they had to do was decide 90% of the bible didn't apply to them. They claim that only Paul's epistles apply to them.

Such an approach, devoid of any comparitive support from the rest of the Bible, is simply a way to twist what Paul said, and falsify what he taught.

The whole Bible applies to me, especially the Gospels.

I'll take what Jesus Christ said as the GOSPEL.

How about you?

 

??????????????
Paul baptized. See 1 Cor 1:13-16

But, the baptism that really matters is THIS ONE:
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. - Mark 1:8
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. - Acts 1:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts [the EGO-directed Christian]
shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, [deaf to the H.S.]
2 Tim 4:3-4

 

Totally agree.

 

I will stick with Ironside. Also, Charles Ryrie, in his book Dispensationalsim Today (a book that should be on everyone bookshelf, dispie or not) has a chapter on Hyper -dispensationalism.

As for Ruckman, you ACF are saying in effect "eat the fruit, spit out the pits". The same could be said for E. W. Bullinger. Some of his works are excellent, for example: Figures of Speach used in the Bible.

Good day Sir!

 

What is this word?

 

Who's Pauline?