Yuku free message boards

From: "Richard C. Church" <richard@richardchurch.com>
Subject: Re: Church on Ruckman
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:53:29 -0600
To: Carl Denson <cwd0210@charter.net>



Greetings in Christ!

I'd be happy to discuss these issues with you regarding what you
believe. I'm not interested in discussing what Dr. Ruckman does or does
not believe. I have deleted the passages below in which you are
defending Dr. Ruckman, and have added my comments to your statements.

Carl Denson wrote:
>

<<< Snip >>>

> Paul stated that he WAS NOT SENT to baptize. He certainly
> wasnt sent under the commission of Mark 16, for he
> doesnt connect it with salvation. You dont believe he
> was either, for you would then be a Bullingerite, instead
> of what you are. We both know that Bullinger taught he
> preached the kingdom message. Stam had better sense, and
> so does the Doc.
>
> He was not SENT to baptize, but DID baptize. Why? Thats
> what gets your goat. The answer is right in the text.
> The baptism he performed was NOT theirs, which was one
> NECESSARY for salvation. It was HIS baptism, which
> wasnt. The GOSPEL was connected to salvation, not Pauls
> baptism.

The fact that Paul baptized is irrelevant. He spoke in tongues, too.
Do you believe we should speak in tongues today? There were many things
that Paul did during the transitional period of the book of Acts which
are not appropriate today.

Paul had Timothy circumcised. On that basis, should we circumcise
today. Be consistent with your reasoning and you will have to admit
that Paul's practice of baptism does not make it a part of the present
dispensation.

> You fail to see that believers in the Bible get baptized
> no matter what message they hear! Whether it be John the
> Baptists message, the Lords and 12s precrucifixion
> message, or the 12s post resurrection message in Acts 2.

I agree. I've been baptized, just not with water. I figure that if God
baptizes you, you don't need a man to come back later and finish the
job.

> Water baptism is part of the counsel of God. (Luke 7)
> Thanks Dr. Luke. He always comes to PAULS defense!
> John was told (John 1), the 12 were told (Mark 16), and
> Paul was TOLD within the ministry of Gods counsel.
>
> You ask, Where is that? Look at Lydia. (Acts 16) She
> ATTENDED unto the things which were spoken by Paul! Her
> baptism is an ACT of TESTIMONY as to her belief in the
> message preached by Paul. He JUDGED her as faithful to
> the MESSAGE, due to her baptism. You say thats Baptist
> doctrine. Yes, and its also BIBLE TRUTH.

Can we agree that the book of Acts is a transitional book and does not
teach doctrine for the dispensation of grace? If so, then show me where
Paul explains this water baptism. Show me where he commands it. I can
show you all kinds of things that Paul practiced, but I'm concerned with
what he taught.

> Paul proclaimed the COUNSEL OF GOD when he preached.
> (Acts 20) Ah, Dr. Luke again coming to the Pauline
> defense! That is the context of the statement. That
> counsel INCLUDED water baptism as shown by Luke. Paul
> TOLD Lydia to get baptized.
>
> Your statement of Eph.4 is just as funny.
>
> Paul is discussing the UNITY of the Spirit for members of
> the body of Christ. There is plainly more than one God (1
> Cor. , one Lord (1 Cor. , one Spirit (2 Cor.11), and one
> baptism (1 Cor.1,12). His discussion concerns TO US,
> there is but one of these things which identifies the
> unity. Hes discussing the DOCTRINAL application in
> Eph.4, not the PRACTICAL applications as given in 1 and 2
> Corinthians.

1 Cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him.

Yes, there are many gods. One True God and many false gods.

Yes, there are many lords. One True Lord and many false lords.

And yes there are many baptisms. One True Baptism and many false
baptisms.

Surely you don't believe that there is more than one True God today!
Surely you don't believe that there is another Lord for the body of
Christ besides the Lord Jesus Christ! Yet you will maintain more than
one baptism for the body of Christ. Why?

> Sorry, bud, no cigar.
>
> Why, Paul did not say he was the first member of the body
> of Christ. He said he was the first in a PATTERN of
> longsuffering shown by the Lord to those which should
> hereafter believe. The longsuffering was due to UNBELIEF.
> Those saved before him were looking for Christ and
> BELIEVED when he came. Paul was a RIGHTEOUS PHARISEE like
> the others seen at Johns baptism. They were UNBELIEVERS.

Read your Bible and don't correct it to fit your theology.

1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first
Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them
which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Paul says he obtained mercy. Jesus Christ showed forth "all
longsuffering" in Paul FIRST. (Don't argue with me, argue with your
King James Bible.) Paul's salvation was for a pattern to them which
should "hereafter" believe. Thus Paul was saved, and everyone who
believed after Paul was saved according to Paul's pattern. You can't
have the finished product in existence before the pattern. The pattern
comes first, then the new creation. So the King James Bible says that
Paul is the first member of the body of Christ, and those saved before
Paul were not members of that body.

> There were people in Christ before Paul. (Rom.16) Yes,
> you recognize the statement. Its a PAULINE term,
> describing the riches of the glory, Christ in you.
> (Col.1, Rom. Those in Christ are in the body of
> Christ.

Care to prove that point from Scripture? Scripture teaches the
opposite.

Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the
cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Jew and Gentile are reconciled to God in one body "by the cross." Yet
people were "in Christ" before the cross:

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of
itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in
me.

Thus "in Christ" does not equate to "member of the body of Christ." All
members of the body are "in Christ," but not all those "in Christ" are
members of the body.

> Paul said the mystery was that GENTILES were
> fellowheirs, of the same body, and partakers of his
> promise in Christ by his gospel. Who were they partakers
> with? It was the REMNANT, according to the election of
> grace. Jews. They were in Christ before Paul. They
> just didnt KNOW anything about the MYSTERY, which
> concerns the Body of Christ until Paul. These are the
> ones whom Paul and the Gentiles HELP OUT for they partook
> of their spiritual things. (Rom.15) Those are the
> believers at JERUSALEM.

You're reading the wrong bible, brother. It is the NIV that says:

Eph 3:6 (NIV) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are
heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers
together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

My Bible makes no mention of Israel in Eph 3:6. I'm a fellowheir with
Christ, not Israel (Rom 8:17). I'm a member of the body of Christ, not
the congregation of Israel. I'm a partaker of HIS promise in Christ,
not the promises of Israel.

> Yes, you showed your ignorance in not knowing where it
> started again. The Doc told you WHEN it could come into
> existence and HOW it could come into existence.

Perhaps you could tell me where the dispensation of grace began? And
when did the body of Christ begin? Dr. Ruckman said that we can't give
a clear answer to those questions. But I submit that you can't tell me
a specific point where the dispensation of grace, or the body of Christ
began and document it with Scripture.

> Quote:
>
> Did Paul go around trying to convince people not to get
> circumcised?
>
> Why yes, he did go around telling GENTILES not to get
> circumcised, according to Acts 15, Gal.2,3,5,6, after they
> had been told to so by false teachers. You should know
> that.

Now here's an interesting problem. Paul told Timothy to get
circumcised. But then he told people not to get circumcised. Do we see
a pattern here?

> You boys problem is that you want Paul to TELL YOU to
> baptize someone. The Doc proved thats not the case.
> Your little clich, We do what Paul said, not what Paul
> did is mere foolish rubbish, as if what he DID
> contradicted what he SAID. It doesnt!

Do you speak in tongues? Paul did.

Do you tell people to get circumcised? Paul did.

Do you participate in Jewish purification rituals? Paul did.

Do you touch pieces of cloth to your body and send them out to sick
people for their healing? Paul did.

Pauline doctrine is not defined by Paul's practice in the book of Acts.
Pauline doctrine is defined by what Paul taught. So get out of the book
of Acts and show me where Paul tells you to get baptized or to baptize
anyone.

> You forget the Paul is an epistle, LIKE you. (1 Cor.3)
> Have you read him lately? His MANNER of LIFE teaches
> doctrine for the body of Christ for he is OUR PATTERN. (2
> Tim.3-4, 1 Tim.1)
>
> With that in mind, he writes to the bishops and deacons of
> the Phillipians (Hello Lydia, how did you get in there?).
>
> Those things, which ye have both learned, and received,
> and heard, and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall
> be with you. (Phil.4)
>
> Theres you a verse for water baptism.

If that's a verse on baptism, then it's also a verse for the
continuation of tongues, healing, miracles, special revelation, etc.
Paul wrote Scripture, too. So when he says to do the things they saw in
him, is he telling them to write Scripture like he did? Of course not!

> Notice also he sends Timothy to the Corinthians to bring
> them into remember of PAULs WAYS which be in Christ, as I
> teach everywhere in every church.
>
> Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were
> baptized. (1 Cor.1, Acts 1 Pauls failure to
> PERSONALLY dunk them is nothing. The Lord didnt either.
> He had it done for him, and it was accounted to him.
> (John 3)
>
> Lets get one more just for feeling!
>
> Notice in 2 Thessalonians 3 there are traditions taught by
> WORD and EPISTLE.
> Water baptism was PRACTICED by Paul for it was one of his
> ways in Christ.
>
> Thats several prooftexts for Pauls water baptism.

So now you're going to base your doctrine on what you think Paul might
have taught by word, even if he didn't write it down. So I guess it's
not the Scriptures which are profitable for doctrine, reproof,
correction, instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), it's the
Scriptures plus whatever you think Paul taught by word.

> You STILL havent proved Paul quit baptizing anyone.
> You ASSUME it from Eph.4. Weak position, bud to quote
> you.

1 Cor 1 proves it. Paul says he was glad he had only baptized a few and
that he wasn't sent to baptize. Stop trying to explain that away and
just believe it. Have the integrity to let God be true, and every
Baptist preacher a liar.

> My position is documented by the Bible.
>
> Believers in the Bible get baptized under any message.
> (Matt.3, John 3, Acts 2, Act 16)

This is a true statement. But why limit it to the New Testament
baptisms? What about the baptism unto Moses? (1 Cor 10:2) What about
the baptism of Noah? (1 Pet 3:20,21) Oh, you don't like those because
the people getting baptized didn't get wet. I believe in baptism, but
I've had a baptism that supercedes your water ritual.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy
and without blemish.

> Water baptism is under DIFFERENT ministries. (John 1,
> Mark 16, 1 Cor.1)
>
> Water baptism is part of the counsel of God and is an ACT
> of TESTIMONY as to belief of the message. (Luke 7, Acts
> 2, 1 Cor.1, Acts 16, Acts 20)
>
> Water baptism preached by everyone except Paul was for
> salvation. (Matt.3, Acts 2, Acts 16, 1 Cor.1)

Where does Paul ever distinguish the baptism he performed from the
previous baptisms?

> The men WITH Paul, under his ministry baptized (Acts 16,
> 1 He didnt baptize all of them himself.
>
> The ordained elders, bishops and deacons learned,
> received, heard and saw the truth of Pauls baptism of
> believers. (Phil. 1,4)
>
> Baptism was practiced by Paul for it was one of his ways
> in Christ, which was a tradition, to be adhered to by
> WORD, other than EPISTLE. (1 Cor.4, 2 Thess.2)
>
> Now what are you boys going to do with those verses now?
> Stam has never been able to do anything with them, nor
> has his mentor, or his PREVIOUS MENTOR.

Every one of your arguments above would apply equally as well to
tongues, healings, special revelation, etc. If you want to continue
this line of argument, perhaps you would like to explain why it applies
to baptism and doesn't apply to these other issues.

> You need to pick on someone other than the Doc, bud.
> Quit accusing a man of abandonment of the word, and
> having an accursed Book and doctrine. It just
> demonstrates your stupidity and foolish ignorance. Study
> the Book instead of HYPERDISPENSATIONALISM. He knew more
> about what you think you now know, before you ever saw and
> allegedlybelieved the Bible you say you believe.
>
> Drop by the site. Id love to talk with you.

I have looked at the site. It's no wonder you're confused about the one
baptism, since you don't understand that we have one Lord, one God, and
ONE HOPE to be resurrected BEFORE Daniel's seventieth week. Depart from
Paul on one of these issues of unity and pretty soon you'll be denying
all of them.

In His grace,

Richard C. Church
www.bereanbiblechurch.com

From: "Richard C. Church" <richard@richardchurch.com>
Subject: Re: Response
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:58:15 -0600
To: Carl Denson <cwd0210@charter.net>



Greetings in Christ,

I apologize for taking so long to get this response back to you. I've
been very busy lately, but I've found a few minutes to formulate a
response.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You stated that you were not interested in what Dr.
> Ruckman believes, but that is not true. It can be
> verified by your response to a post, which was not
> directed to you personally. So then, you are interested
> in what he believes. You addressed a document about
> hyperdispensationalism written by him.

For the record, I said I wasn't interested in discussing what Dr.
Ruckman does or does not believe with you. I'm happy to discuss what
you believe, but I'm not interested in a discussion of "Dr. Ruckman says
this..." or "Dr. Ruckman doesn't believe..." My point is, don't feel
you have to defend Dr. Ruckman, let's just talk about what you and I
believe.

> Youve got to be kidding? IRRELEVANT? No, friend, his
> baptizing is relevant to the ISSUE of you stating that we
> are NOT TO BAPTIZE in this dispensation, and the falsity
> of your teaching that he was NOT SENT to baptize and
> learned that he was to STOP.
>
> Paul HAD the gift of tongues. (1 Cor.14:1 Do you? Why
> dear fellow, all believers DO NOT have the gift of
> tongues. (1 Cor.12:1 What does that have to do with
> believers baptism in the Bible? Not a thing. Thats just
> a hyper ploy. (Sorry, couldnt help it.) Youve been
> listening to Bro. Stam too long.

Would you agree or disagree that many of the things which were happening
in the book of Acts were transitional and do not continue today? If so,
how do you determine which Acts-period practices were transitional and
which were not?

> All believers get baptized under any message, but they all
> dont speak with tongues.

I agree. It's just not always with water.

> Paul DID THINGS which were not appropriate? Surely you
> jest. Tongues are not appropriate? Dont be silly.

You seem to have some problems with the English language. Perhaps a
lesson or two in grammar might make communication a bit easier. Let me
clarify for you, Paul did some things during the Acts period which were
appropriate at the time, but would not be appropriate today. Agree or
disagree?

> The
> ONLY thing I remember which was NOT APPROPRIATE for Paul
> was going down to Jerusalem after the Lord had told
> him the Jews would not accept his testimony. (Acts 22)
> He went anyway following his own spirit, disregarding
> the Lord, and what would happen from a prophet of God.
> (Acts 21) That was NOT appropriate. He wasted two years
> of his life when he could have been out preaching and
> teaching ELSEWHERE.

And there's where you're wrong again. The Spirit did not tell Paul not
to go to Jerusalem, He only warned him of what would happen if he went.
And Paul was willing to face those consequences in order to preach the
gospel of grace at Jerusalem (Acts 21:11-14). You think it's
inappropriate to preach the gospel just because it's not popular and
might result in physical harm? So then do you ever preach the gospel at
all?

> My, my. Paul didnt practice circumcision of ALL
> believers.

Neither did he practice water baptism of all believers.

> Why write it like he did it regularly.
> Grasping I see. It is recorded ONCE for a specific
> purpose of ministry. What deluded reasoning of yours.
> Your QUESTIONS are not teaching your belief! Wheres
> your scriptures?

Deluded reasoning? My point is that there are some practices that Paul
did in Acts, like circumcision, that would not be appropriate today.
You have just conceded that point.

> God baptized you and you dont need a man to finish the
> job. Thats silly, and its also not biblical or
> scriptural.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Now where do Paul's epistles ever tell me that a second baptism with
water is at all necessary?

> The Corinthians and the Philippians were also baptized by
> the Spirit and they were also baptized in water BY MEN, as
> every believer was. YOURE the exception to the rule, as
> found, seen, and read in the Holy Bible.

Yet Paul says he was glad he only baptized a few at Corinth.

> Yes, the book of Acts is transitional, but to state it
> does not teach doctrine is a lie. You should know better.

Once again, you set up a straw man argument. I didn't say that it
doesn't teach doctrine, but that it doesn't teach doctrine for the
dispensation of grace. It's no wonder you have so much trouble with the
Scriptures when you can't even understand a simple sentence.

> All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
> profitable for DOCTRINE. You know where that verse is at.
>
> Your show me stuff is wasted. Ive ALREADY showed you
> that Paul baptized members of the body (unless youre a
> Bullingerite) and where Paul told the lady to be
> baptized.

I agree. He did. But later he said he was glad it was only a few.

> (She attended unto the things which were spoken
> of Paul, Acts 16) He certainly WAS NOT preaching Mark 16.
> [He was not sent to baptize but DID!]
>
> You have a problem. I dont. See youre caught up in
> your delusion. You cant UNDERSTAND the fact that water
> baptism is an ACT of TESTIMONY to the acceptance of ANY
> message, which is preached. (Luke 7, Matt.3, Mark 16,
> Acts 2, 8, 9,10, 16,1 If you accept it, you show it
> by getting baptized. Paul told her to, and they did that
> regularly.

Where is water baptism ever an act of testimony? John the Baptist
preached baptism for the remission of sins (Mk 1:4). Peter preached
water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:3 . Show me where
water baptism was ever just a testimony.

> Paul told you WHY and WHAT it was for in Acts 16, which I
> posted. Paul judged her to be faithful to the Lord AFTER
> she was baptized. Christians are to judge the acts of
> others. (1 Cor.5)

In fact, show me one place where Paul ever baptized a Gentile. Lydia
was either a Jewess, or at the very least a proselyte, as she was
worshipping God before Paul ever met her. The same goes for every
person that gets baptized in the New Testament.

> Didnt you say that you had NOT been
> baptized? Thats certainly NOT Pauline teaching, ways,
> tradition, or doctrine.

Really? Show me a single command in Paul's epistles to be baptized.
Show me a single passage that indicates that my baptism into the body of
Christ is not enough, or that my position in Christ is not complete
until I've undergone your water ceremony.

> Ive already posted that the passage refers to the UNITY
> of the Spirit. It speaks to the members of the body. You
> inserted TRUE against FALSE. Thats not the subject.
> The subject is NUMBER.
>
> I showed you that TO US, there is just one of all of the
> items. But in actuality, there are more. There are more
> gods, lords, spirits, baptisms, etc.
>
> Youre still stumped by the Book and Paul.

And so are you now ready to admit that, even though there are many
baptisms, to us there is only one? Or are you still going to maintain
two baptisms for the body of Christ? Stop wresting Paul's teachings and
just believe the Book.

> Correct it to FIT my theology? You are a comic also I
> see. So far your theology is this.
>
> Paul is not sent to baptize in this dispensation, but did
> it in this dispensation.

Right. Just like tongues are not for this dispensation, although they
were practiced at the beginning of this dispensation. Just like
circumcision is not for this dispensation, but it was practiced by Paul
during this dispensation. Just like there is no continuing revelation
today, but there was at the beginning of this dispensation. Remember
that revelation is progressive. It wasn't all revealed at once.

> He learned to quit doing it,
> because he spoke in tongues, and circumcised Timothy which
> were inappropriate also like his baptism.

All of those things were appropriate at the time. With further
revelation, however, they became inappropriate. So, yes, there came a
time where Paul didn't speak in tongues any more (because he didn't need
to), he didn't circumcise anyone any more (because he didn't need to),
and he didn't baptize any more (because, once again, he didn't need to).

> I dont need a
> man to baptize me because God did it, even though every
> believer in the Bible gets baptized by men and were also
> baptized by God.

First, every believer in the Bible doesn't get baptized. You keep
making the assertion, but have yet to prove it. Show me a single
baptism after Acts 28, and you'll have me convinced.

Second, not every believer in the Bible gets baptized by the Holy
Spirit. Peter and the Twelve were never baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Instead, they were baptized by Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit. For
Peter and the Twelve, Jesus was the baptizer, the Holy Spirit the
agent. For the member of the body of Christ, the Spirit is the
baptizer, the death of Christ the agent. (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:1-5)

> You have to show me where Paul told me
> to be baptized and explain to me why he baptized, even
> though its shown where he told members of the body to be
> baptized,

That's right. If you're going to claim that water baptism is Pauline
doctrine, you have to show not just where he practiced it, but where he
teaches it. Doctrine is teaching, not practice.

> and judged the faithful belief of that one, due
> to her baptism.

Technically, the verse doesn't say that it was because of her baptism
that he judged her faithful. You're reading that into the passage
because you suppose that it bolsters your weak argument.

> There is only one TRUE baptism for today
> and no others to be practiced.

Now you're catching on. Just like there is only one body, one Spirit,
one hope, one Lord, one faith and one God, there is only one baptism.
You can't separate that one item out of the list and claim that it is
somehow different from the rest. If there is only one legitimate God,
one legitimate Lord, etc. then there can only be one legitimate baptism.

> Thats your theology so far. That funny. The Book has
> refuted all of it. Dont talk to me about correcting the
> Book, to FIT my theology. You were the one who FIRST
> stated the Doc corrected the Book. You were wrong then,
> and wrong NOW.

As stated above, I'm not interested in discussing Dr. Ruckman's beliefs
with you. The fact that he corrects the Book is not the topic of this
conversation. I'd rather discuss how you correct the Book instead.

> Lets continue. Im so glad that you came to straighten
> me out.

Well, actually you came to straighten me out, but anyway...

> Who doesnt know that Paul was first in the pattern? I
> never said he wasnt. Its YOU whos arguing with the
> King James Bible. Its a PATTERN of LONGSUFFERING, not
> first in the body of Christ.

So God admitted people into the body of Christ before Paul without
showing them longsuffering? How does that work?

> Paul experienced the grace of God for he was CALLED on the
> road to Damascus while in UNBELIEF. The Lord changed
> his manner of talking to the Pharisees, bud! (Matt.23)
> Hes FIRST in Gods longsuffering to UNBELIEVERS. (2
> Peter 3) Thats the REVELATION of grace, not that he was
> FIRST in the body of Christ. God is NOW dealing with ALL
> ALIKE by grace.

I'm sorry. I thought everyone who ever got saved was called while they
were in unbelief.

> Are you kidding? Is that all you got? Thats an
> illustration for a VINE spoken to the apostles before
> Calvary. They must have all fell off the vine. They
> SCATTERED. (Matt.26) You forgot to mention how they are
> IN CHRIST, or where the term is found. Of course, the
> passage doesnt state that though, DOES IT? Well, Ill
> be, you went to a DISSIMILAR passage and verse, WITHOUT
> the same words to prove some doctrinal supposition.
>
> Like I said, in Christ is a PAULINE term, associated
> with the Body of Christ; not Christ likened unto a VINE.
> Sorry, no bingo, for you have no match.

In Christ is not an exclusively Pauline term. It is as much Petrine as
it is Pauline. You just can't deal with the fact that Christ himself
said that Peter and the boys were in Him before the Cross, can you? No,
that would require a change of mind, otherwise known as repentance.

> No, Ive got the right Bible, just the wrong man to
> believe what it STATES.
>
> My bible states nothing about ISRAEL either in Eph.3. The
> Gentiles are fellowheirs with others, NOT CHRIST in the
> passage! You distorted the text and the teaching. Look
> at the context. (Eph.2:11-22) It states SAINTS in
> Eph.2:19. Those are WHO we are fellowheirs with.

I know this deep truth might escape you, but a "fellowcitizen" is not a
"fellowheir."

> Who are
> they? My, my, its the ones JESUS CHRIST came and
> preached peace to, the JEWS who were near. These JEWS are
> the remnant, according to the election of GRACE which
> BELIEVED Christs coming. (READ John 1:11-17) These are
> the ones who believed who are OF his own. (Rom.9-11)

The remnant according to the election of grace are not Jews who believed
the gospel of the kingdom, but rather Jews who had rejected the gospel
of the kingdom which received the renewed offer of salvation under
Paul's gospel. You know that because Paul includes himself in this
remnant. Read the passage again, and see if it isn't so.

> The mystery given to Paul is the GENTILES are in this body
> with THEM. Thats the apostles and prophets. (Both
> contexts my brother. Eph.2-3) Read it and weep.

I agree. All who have believed the gospel of the grace of God, whether
Jew or Gentile, become members of the body of Christ. But this has
nothing to do with Israel. It is completely separate from Israel. We
are not made fellowheirs with Israel, but we are fellowheirs with
Christ.

> Paul started preaching the gospel of the grace of God.
> The body of Christ began at Acts 2 with the HOLY SPIRIT
> giving righteousness under the New Testament. (2 Cor.3)

Yet the body of Christ is a mystery. Peter said what happened at
Pentecost was the direct fulfillment of prophecy. You can't have it
both ways. Is Acts 2,3 the fulfillment of what God spoke "by the mouth
of all his holy prophets since the world began?" Or is it that which
was "kept secret since the world began?"

> In Christ deals with righteousness through the Spirit.
> (Rom. One is baptized by the
> Spirit into the body.

At Pentecost, no one was baptized by the Spirit. They were baptized by
Christ with the Spirit.

> The mystery REVEALED to Paul was that there was GENTILES
> made fellowheirs, and OF THE SAME BODY, and partakers of
> his promise in Christ by the gospel.
>
> The body was there with JEW in it according to that verse.

> Are you going to study the Bible or just joke about it?
> This is filler, when you dont have any verses, and
> dont know what to say. Ive dealt with many like that.

And apparently you don't have an answer. If you can't even answer what
you consider "filler," then how do you expect to answer the really big
questions?

> Well, how bout dat? The best you can offer AGAINST water
> baptism for ALL believers (like the bible teaches) is
> that! I thought you guys were supposed to be bible
> believers and teachers?
>
> Ill answer those questions.
>
> I dont have the gift of tongues. I think we covered this
> didnt we?

Do you believe that anyone has the gifts of tongues today, or do you
believe that they ceased like Paul said they would in 1 Cor 13?

> Paul did one time for help within the ministry. Covered
> this too.
>
> Im not a Jew. Theres no temple NOW. Youre being
> silly, but what can I expect out of a man who has no
> verses to teach what he believes.
>
> Im not an apostle.
>
> Makes you mad you cant PROVE what you believe and teach
> from the Bible doesnt it?

The only person I have to prove it to is myself. It doesn't affect me
one way or another what you believe. You can answer for that at the
judgment seat.

> Go ahead and get mad. Its good for you. (Eph.4:26)
> Its a Pauline thing. (2 Cor.11:29)

> Why you poor man, you did just what I knew you would do.
> You produced everything EXCEPT THE FACT that all
> believers in the Bible get baptized. Paul was an apostle
> and had the gift of tongues, and the signs and wonders. I
> am not and dont. Thats no defense against water baptism
> for this age.

Not alone it isn't. But once you admit the truth that some of the
things that were going on in Acts are not continuing to happen today,
then we can move on in the discussion.

> Look at way you deceitfully handle the Scriptures. The
> verse is clear as to its statement.
> Pauls talking about his MANNER OF LIFE, just like I said
> when I started. It teaches for HE ALSO is an epistle. He
> TAUGHT water baptism for he TOLD believers to get
> baptized. It was SEEN that he practiced it. Get real.

And my point is that not everything we SEE in Paul is to be practiced.
You believe this too, whether you will admit it or not. Since it is
obvious that you don't do everything Paul did, why not tell me how to
know which of Paul's practices I should emulate and which I shouldn't.

> On what I think? No way silly man. Im going to base THE
> DOCTRINE of water baptism for believers on what the Bible
> STATES, as I have posted. Youve got the verses, and
> dont LIKE them. No hyperdispensationalist does.

Oh, I like all of the verses you've given so far. Everyone defends my
point.

> You are a madman.

Well, I guess I'm in good company. (Acts 26:24)

> 1 Cor.1 does not PROVE that Paul quit
> baptizing. You STILL havent answered WHY he did, IF he
> wasnt SENT to do so.

Well, we can discuss that as soon as you will believe the verse and
admit that baptism was not a part of Paul's commission.

> Explain it away? I believe the verse, unlike you.
>
> I have answered it. His baptism is NOT theirs, for it is
> ONE PRACTICED apart from SALVATION. (Rom.1:16, 1
> Cor.1:1 His baptism is part of the counsel of God (Acts
> 20) RECEIVED from the Lord Jesus Christ for Paul told
> Lydia to be baptized. After she did, he judged her
> FAITHFUL.

Yet Paul doesn't make any distinction between his baptism and theirs, he
just says he wasn't sent to baptize at all.

> Integrity? You foolish deceived man, you wouldnt know
> the least thing about it the way you distort the verses.

Well, when you've been looking at everything through a funhouse mirror
all your life, clear sight might seem distorted.

> Why limit it? Are you sane fella? We are dealing with
> the practice of NT baptism thats why. Its hard to prove
> your point when you dont have any verses isnt it? Your
> teaching superceded the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
> I posted what they said.

John's baptism was not a New Testament baptism. The New Testament
couldn't come into effect until the death of the Testator. And Peter
and the Twelve attached the same significance to baptism that Paul did,
even after the cross and after Pentecost. The water baptism that Peter
and the Twelve received and preached was an Old Testament baptism (Heb
9:10).

> Well, Ill be. You might turn out to be a Bullingerite
> yet. In 1 Cor.1:17, Rom.1:16. Salvation is not connected
> to water, but the gospel. His baptism is different.
>
> OF course, you cant READ those verses and teach lies from
> them.

> No they would not APPLY to them. Those were performed by
> people which had the gifts, and the apostles.
>
> Ill say it one more time for you.
>
> BELIEVERS in the BIBLE get BAPTIZED, no matter what
> ministry they believed under.
>
> Your WHOLE defense against water baptism is that Paul
> spoke in tongues, circumcised Timothy, and had the signs
> and wonders. Thats not a defense. Those are gifts and
> signs given to SOME believers within the BODY OF CHRIST.
> You dont have a SINGLE VERSE which teaches what you
> believe and state.

I'll stand on Ephesians 4:5 and believe in my one baptism until you show
me a single verse which necessitates a second.

By the way, why not stop by www.bereanbiblechurch.com and check
out some of the info there. I'd love to chat with you in one of the
live Bible studies on Paltalk.com.

In His grace,

Richard Church

From: "Richard C. Church" <richard@richardchurch.com>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:12:39 -0600
To: Carl Denson <cwd0210@charter.net>



Greetings in Christ!

Looks like maybe we're starting to get somewhere in this conversation.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> All believers get baptized under any message, but
> they all dont speak with tongues.

Richard Church responded:
>
> I agree. It's just not always with water.

Carl Denson responded:
>
> Wheres your VERSES to prove that lie? Thats HYPER
> SUPPOSITION.

With only one exception, every mention of baptism for today in Paul's
epistles is without water.

Rom 6:3,4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him
by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into one Spirit.

1 Cor 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if
the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ.

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead.

The one exception is 1 Cor 1 where he is talking about water and he says
he's glad that he only baptized a few with water because he wasn't sent
to baptize but to preach the gospel.

1 Cor 1:13-17 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye
baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you,
but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine
own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I
know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to
baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the
cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

> Its ALWAYS with water AFTER they have believed under ANY
> MESSAGE. (Matt.3,Luke 7, Acts 2,10,16) That covers three
> messages and the full statement of the Scriptures on the
> teaching of water baptism.

I think we can agree that Matthew 3 and Luke 7 are kingdom passages, and
thus have no bearing on baptism in the present dispensation.

I'm unclear of your position on Acts 2. On the one hand, you think
those people saved in Acts 2 became members of the body. On the other
hand, I think we agree that the baptism of Acts 2 is under the kingdom
commission.

So that leaves us with Acts 10 and 16.

Here's my understanding of Acts 10. God had saved Saul in Acts 9 and
called him to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The events of Acts 10 are
a confirmation to Peter that God is now doing something new among the
Gentiles. However, Peter still preaches the kingdom gospel to
Cornelius, because that's all he knew. But God rearranges the order of
events. Instead of hearing, believing, getting baptized, and receiving
the Spirit, Cornelius' household hears, believes and receives the
Spirit. Then Peter, shocked at these events, immediately commands
baptism.

Peter's statements in Acts 15 seem to confirm that these events were a
sign to him concerning God's new way of dealing with the Gentiles:

Acts 15:7-11 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and
said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word
of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare
them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And
put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we
believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be
saved, even as they.

Why does Peter say that "we [Jews] shall be saved, even as they
[Gentiles]"? If all of the kingdom believers were already members of
the body of Christ before Paul's Gentile ministry, wouldn't it say that
they (Gentiles) shall be saved, even as we (Jews)?

Now Acts 16. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on these three
verses. First, Lydia was already worshipping God before Paul met her.
If she was a heathen Gentile, why was she worshipping the God of
Israel? She believes what Paul tells her. She gets baptized. And then
she begs Paul to stay with her "if [he has] judged [her] to be faithful
to the Lord." Paul stayed with her, so evidently he judged her to be
faithful. But the verse does not tell us on what basis he judged her
faithful. You say it was on the basis of her baptism, and I guess I
don't really have a problem with that. But this passage is by no means
a good proof text for believer's baptism today. It might be convincing
to someone like you, who already believes in it. But it does nothing to
prove the point, it just shows that Paul baptized believers during the
Acts period. We already agree on that.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Water baptism is NEVER referred to as being INAPPROPRIATE
> as you surmise falsely.

It was not appropriate when it was practiced. It is inappropriate
today, because we follow the pattern of Paul, who was sent "not to
baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor 1:17).

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Bro. Church, dont act pious and talk like a stupid fool.
>
> The verses are plain. The LORD told Paul to get out of
> Jerusalem for they would not accept his testimony. (Acts
> 22)

In Acts 22, Paul is recounting events that happened in Acts 9 on his
first visit to Jerusalem after his salvation. That first trip to
Jerusalem was inappropriate, because he had been instructed to go to the
Gentiles (Acts 26:17). His error was in trying to "join himself to the
disciples" (Acts 9:26) when God had a new purpose for Paul which was
separate from those Jewish disciples.

His second trip to Jerusalem (Acts 15) was by revelation from Christ
(Gal 2:2).

His third trip, the one we're discussing now, was something he purposed
"in the spirit." It doesn't say "in his spirit," but "in the spirit."
By the way, he also purposed at the same time to go to Rome, which
clearly was the will of God. Consider these verses:

Acts 19:21 After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the spirit,
when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem,
saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome.

Paul purposes "in the spirit" to go to Macedonia and Achaia, then
Jerusalem, then Rome.

Rom 15:25-28 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain
contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased
them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been
made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister
unto them in carnal things. When therefore I have performed this, and
have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.

Paul writes to the Romans from Corinth. He's already been to Macedonia
and Achaia. Now he says he will go to Jerusalem, and then come to Rome,
just as he had purposed "in the spirit" in Acts 19.

Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be
of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so
must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Now Paul has been to Jerusalem and Christ says it's time to go to Rome.
Do you hear any disapproval in Christ's voice when he says that Paul has
"testified of me in Jerusalem"? This final visit to Jerusalem and the
events that it set in motion are what carried Paul to Rome. Call it a
waste of time if you want, but those people that got saved through that
journey certainly didn't consider it a waste.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> He was WARNED about the consequences if he did go
> down. One and one make two. Paul didnt listen to the
> Lord or the Holy Ghost. His will OVERRODE what the Lord
> said.

God never told him not to go. The Holy Spirit showed the prophets what
would happen if Paul went, and they begged him not to go. The
consequences didn't concern Paul. He was ready to die for what he was
teaching.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> My, my. Paul didnt practice circumcision of ALL believers.

Richard Church responded:
>
> Neither did he practice water baptism of all believers.

Carl Denson responded:
>
> Now youre handling the scriptures deceitfully. Paul ONLY
> circumcised Timothy for helpfulness with completion of his
> ministry. He didnt PERSONALLY baptize all believers
> himself, but they were BAPTIZED UNDER HIS MINISTRY by
> others who did it FOR him. He was the Lords MINISTER and
> fulfilled the rest of his ministry. (Rom.15, Col.1, 2
> Tim.2) Did you forget the Lord had others do his
> baptizing for him? My, my, you better quit doing the BOOK
> that way. (Acts 16,1

Here's an opportunity for you to educate me. I don't know of a single
verse where any of the preachers instructed by Paul baptized anyone.
And I don't know of a single verse where Paul commands any of those
preachers (Timothy, Titus, etc.) to baptize.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> I have given you the verses, but you dont LIKE THEM, or
> BELIEVE THEM. You have got that circular reasoning like
> all Church of Christ preachers. You havent answered the
> verses YET. All you continue to holler is that Paul
> circumcised Timothy and spoke in tongues. Those things
> have been answered by the Book.

Could you give me a general principle that would explain which Acts
period practices continue today, and which were only temporary?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Lydia was in the body of Christ, and she was TOLD to be
> baptized by PAUL. (Acts 16) But see, you dont believe
> what Paul said. He said, ALL SCRIPTURE is given by
> inspiration of God and is profitable for DOCTRINE. You
> think ONLY Pauls epistles can teach doctrine which is
> applicable to you. That is deluded thinking and DENIES
> the testimony of Paul!

I don't deny that Lydia was a member of the body of Christ. And I don't
deny that she was told to be baptized by Paul. The fact that Paul
baptized members of the body of Christ in the transitional Acts period
does not prove that this practice was to continue after the close of the
Acts period. So explain to me what the difference is between the Acts
period practice of water baptism and other Acts period practices which
ceased.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Circular reasoning again. Paul only baptized a few in
> Corinth. THERE WERE MANY WHO BELIEVED AND WERE BAPTIZED
> UNDER HIS MINISTRY IN CORINTH. (Acts 1 Look at the
> verses sir. Others did it FOR HIM. They were all his
> sons, not just the ones he personally baptized. (1
> Cor.4)

You assume others did it for him. Can you demonstrate that fact from
Scripture?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> STRAW MAN? CANT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH? Youre funny. I
> can understand exactly what you state.
>
> Dont play dumb again, sir. You dont KNOW that WATER
> BAPTISM was identification of those believing the
> message?

Scripture? Can you show me one passage on water baptism which teaches
that it is merely an identification? Indeed identification was
involved, but water baptism was primarily a purification.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> It was an ACT of TESTIMONY as to your belief.
> (Luke 7, Matt.21) Look at the verses. They knew WHO
> didnt get baptized! (Matt.3) The baptized people got
> singled out. (Acts 5:13)

Peter's gospel was "Repent and be baptized!" So certainly if you
believed Peter's gospel, you would get baptized. Hence the instructions
regarding baptism in Mark 16. If you said you believed, but didn't get
baptized, you clearly didn't believe. But we're not talking about
kingdom baptism, we're talking about the dispensation of grace delivered
to the apostle Paul, remember?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> So Paul only baptized GREEKS eh? Not so budro. You
> forgot that it doesnt make any difference what you are
> UNDER Pauls ministry. Lydia was a worshipper of God, who
> was a Gentile. The text states nothing about her being a
> Jewess, or proselyte, a worshipper in the synagogue.

Did I say that Paul only baptized Greeks? I don't remember making that
statement, but if I did I recant.

Now, where did Lydia learn to worship the Lord God of Israel?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Did you forget about the jailer?

Nope. The jailer was clearly a Gentile. No question there.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Did you forget about the
> CORINTHIANS who believed? They were GENTILES, not Greeks
> from the synagogue. (Acts 1 Paul left the synagogue
> and STARTED his own church, as he preached to GENTILES.
> Those are the CORINTHIANS who were baptized.

Wrong answer. Crispus had been the chief ruler of the synagogue and was
saved after Paul left (Acts 18: .

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> I have given the verses and you have denied, distorted,
> and demeaned every single one of them. You cant deal
> with them.

You've proved only that Paul practiced water baptism during the Acts
period. You have not shown how we can distinguish between the Acts
period practice of water baptism and other Acts period practices which
ceased. You have not shown that water baptism was practiced after the
close of the book of Acts. You have not shown that Paul commanded
believers to be baptized or preachers to baptize in his Epistles.
You've already agreed with me that the fact that Paul practiced
something in the book of Acts does not automatically prove that it
should be practiced today. Yet when it comes to water baptism this is
your only argument. "But Paul baptized Lydia." "But Paul baptized the
Philippian jailer." "But Paul baptized at Corinth."

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Circular reasoning again.
>
> Yes, there are two baptisms for the body of Christ.

Warning! Warning! Warning! You've just completely departed from the
Scripture which says there is only one baptism for the body of Christ.
The rest of your argument in this paragraph is moot because it is based
on a false assumption that there are two baptisms, instead of one as Eph
4:5 states.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The
> Corinthians were in the body of Christ and were baptized
> by the Spirit (1 Cor.12) and in water. (1 Cor.1, Acts 1
> Thats two. Just because you cant read and understand
> the passage is no sign that I cant. Wresting Pauls
> teachings? Why you poor man, youre just as crooked as a
> dogs hind leg. Now you might be a saved Christian man,
> and dont beat your wife, and treat your kids nice, but
> you are CROOKED when it comes to the Book.

I don't have a wife or kids. And let me remind you that you began this
paragraph by directly denying the Scripture which clearly says "There
is... one baptism."

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> I have PRINTED and PROOFTEXTED Pauls teachings about what
> he said, and did throughout this correspondence. You
> cant understand what he said, and if you do, you REJECT
> it.

No, you've prooftexted Luke's teachings about what Paul said and did.
You haven't shown any of this from Paul's own writings. You claim to be
a "Pauline dispensationalist," but when it comes to the issue of water
baptism you throw Paul's epistles out the window and run to the book of
Acts.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> There you go back to the circular reasoning. You holler
> tongues. ALL DO NOT HAVE THE GIFT OF TONGUES. Then you
> lie. You stated Paul PRACTICED circumcision. No he
> didnt. YOU LIED.

Now, now, don't get all excited. I didn't say he practiced it often, or
even repeatedly, I just said he practiced it. Look up the word in your
dictionary and you'll find that it can mean to do something habitually,
but it can also mean "The act or process of doing something; performance
or action." Paul did perform circumcision on Timothy.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The last revelation received was by JOHN, not Paul.

Well, that really is a different discussion, isn't it?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> He learned to quit doing it, because he spoke in tongues, and circumcised Timothy which
> were inappropriate also like his baptism.

Richard Church responded:
>
> All of those things were appropriate at the time. With
> further revelation, however, they became inappropriate. So, yes,
> there came a time where Paul didn't speak in tongues any more (because
> he didn't need to), he didn't circumcise anyone any more (because he
> didn't need to), and he didn't baptize any more (because, once again, he
> didn't need to).

Carl Denson responded:
>
> Wheres the VERSES to prove that heretical farce which you
> think is biblical teaching. Theres no FURTHER
> REVELATION which states water baptism is INAPPROPRIATE.
> Youve been smoking too long.

You have the verses, you just don't believe them. Paul baptized early
in his ministry. Later he writes to the Corinthians that he was glad he
only baptized a few, and that he wasn't sent to baptize. If he wanted
them to get baptized at first, and then later was glad that only a few
of them had gotten baptized, what other conclusion am I to come to?

Richard Church challenged:
>
> First, every believer in the Bible doesn't get baptized.
> You keep
> making the assertion, but have yet to prove it. Show me a
> single
> baptism after Acts 28, and you'll have me convinced.

Carl Denson avoided the question by responding:
>
> ASSERTION? What an ignorant fool you are. Luke stopped
> at Acts 28, fella. Every single believer from
> Matt.3-until the last time it is mentioned in the book of
> Acts is BAPTIZED.

Luke stopped at Acts 28, but Paul didn't. I take this non-answer as
proof of your inability to show a single baptism, or even a single
positive mention of water baptism after Acts 28.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You are teaching heresy from silence. The Scriptures
> dont teach what you believe. I stated what the Bible
> said, UNLIKE YOU.

I've stated what the Bible says, you've denied it.

The Bible says there is one baptism (Eph 4:5), you say there are two.

Paul says he was not sent to baptize (1 Cor 1:17), you say he was.

The Bible says that the one baptism is performed by God (1 Cor 12:13;
Col 2:12), you say that the one God performs is not enough.

The Bible says that it is the baptism that God performs which identifies
us with Christ (Rom 6:1-4), you say it is a baptism that man performs
which identifies us with Christ.

Now these are just the positive Biblical teachings which you deny. Not
to mention the things that you assert which the Bible does not teach.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Were discussing water baptism, not Spirit baptism, but
> youre wrong on that one also. The Lord is that Spirit.
> (2 Cor.3) God (the Father) set them in the body. (1
> Cor.12)

So we can add another to the list.

The Bible says that the baptism with the Spirit at Pentecost was
performed by Jesus Christ (Mat 3:11; Acts 1:5), while the baptism into
the body of Christ is performed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). You
say these are the same thing.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Ive done SHOWN IT over and over. You reject the TEACHING
> of DOCTRINE outside of the Pauline epistles, for you
> reject Lukes DOCTRINAL TEACHING of Pauline water baptism
> for members of the body of Christ. (Acts 16,1

The dispensation of the grace of God was not committed to Luke. Luke
was writing Acts to show the diminishing of the nation of Israel, not
the rise of the body of Christ. If water baptism is a part of the
dispensation of grace, wouldn't you expect Paul to at least mention it
one time in his epistles?

I don't reject Luke's teaching. Paul did baptize members of the body of
Christ.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You
> reject Lukes DOCTRINAL TEACHING of the Pauline commission
> and counsel of God as INCLUDING water baptism. (Luke 7,
> Acts 20, 16,1

Interesting how Paul says he was not sent to baptize, but you think that
Luke says that Paul was sent to baptize.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Sorry, fella. Technically it refers to what came right
> before it. That was her baptism. I noticed you didnt
> STATE what it referred to, JUST that it didnt refer to
> her baptism. TYPICAL HYPER STUFF. All talk, no answers.

Already dealt with this above. It's not really germaine to the argument
anyway, but if you want to argue about it I'll indulge you.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> I keep quoting the Book and producing the prooftexts which
> you cant answer.

This is the problem you will always run into when you fail to "rightly
divide the word of truth." You always wind up picking and choosing
which verses to believe and which to reject. Because you don't
understand the purpose of the book of Acts, you wind up setting up some
kind of conflict between Acts and the Epistles and then you choose to
believe Acts instead of Paul's epistles. In reality, you don't believe
either one.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Good grief man. You call yourself a dispensationalist?
> Those people before Paul WERE BELEIVING Jews. How do I
> know? They got baptized. He was not. Thats where the
> pattern came in. God appeared to him, WHILE HE WAS ON HIS
> WAY to the wrath to come, just as the other Pharisees at
> Johns baptism. (Matt.3)
>
> Longsuffering deals with the Pauline message of the gospel
> of the grace of God. Surely you of all people should
> have known that, but again, you might not, the way you
> handle the Book.
>
> The Holy Spirit PUTS YOU into the body of Christ, not
> Gods longsuffering. The apostles were put in there in
> Acts 2.

You assume. There is no passage of Scripture that says that Peter or
any of the Twelve became members of the body of Christ. If they were
members of the body, don't you think they might have mentioned it at
least one time? Why no mention of the body in Peter's epistles, or
John's, or James', or Jude's, or anybody except Paul? Shouldn't that
tell you something?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> AGAIN, you dont produce the VERSES, for the term in
> Christ as being DOCTRINALLY taught of someone OUTSIDE of
> the body of Christ. You give me your supposition. Paul
> persecuted the CHURCH before he got saved sir. No, not
> the church of God (Gal.1), but the church. (Phil.3)
> Thats the PRISON EPISTLE. We know what he is talking
> about, if you dont. (Eph.1,Col.1) Its the body.

You know as well as I do that there is more than one church in the
Bible. What about the church in the wilderness of Acts 7:38? Was that
the body of Christ, too?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Well, Ill be Richard. You are a world of information.
> You dont mind telling me the difference do you? Its
> the old HYPER STUFF again. The context of Eph.3 is
> chapter two dealing with the SAINTS saved before and
> JOINED in the one body with the GENTILES Paul is writing
> concerning. Those saints are stated to be JEWS in Eph.2.
> You just LEFT the passage cold.

As Dr. Ruckman is fond of saying, I'm not interested in what the Bible
can be made to teach, because the Bible can be made to teach anything
you want. I'm interested in what the Bible says about itself.

Ephesians 2,3 are not talking about accepting the Gentiles into a
previously existing program, it is talking about the creation of a new
man, made up of both Jew and Gentile.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The remnant according to the election of grace are those
> who got the Spirit in Acts 2. They are those of the
> foolish nation (Rom.10) who believed. The foolish nation
> were those of Matt.21. They WERE provoking the others who
> hadnt believed! Those are the ONES who are the ELECT
> REMNANT. Thats PETER and the rest of them.

I agree regarding who the "foolish nation" was. But you need to show
why you equate this "foolish nation" to the "remnant according to the
election of grace." The foolish nation was not called to the "election
of grace," but rather to the kingdom.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Paul
> certainly INCLUDES himself amongst them, for they were
> IN CHRIST before him. (The Holy Spirit got you!)

"In Christ," but not member of the body of Christ. You can't just
assert this and expect me to believe you. "What saith the Scripture?"

You accused me of comparing unlike terms when I pointed to John 15
("Abide in me") as an example of being "in Christ" before the Cross.
But you are doing the exact same thing in equating "in Christ" with
"member of the body of Christ." "Abide in me," though an unlike term,
is much closer to the term "in Christ" than "member of the body of
Christ." Why is the use of unlike terms valid when you do it, but
invalid when I do it, even though my comparative term is much closer in
form than yours?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> No you added your words in the text. Thats not what it
> said. The TEXT is not talking about Jews and Gentiles
> which believe the gospel of the grace of God. Its
> talking about GENTILES which believe it being part of the
> body, which JEWS were in BEFORE them. That is the
> mystery. They are BOTH in the body! (Eph.2)
>
> You keep trying to confound the passage. Ive already
> stated its not talking about Israel. Its talking about
> the Gentiles and the REMNANT of believing Jews outside of
> the nation of Israel.
>
> I can have it just like the Bible states it. The Spirit
> gave them the righteousness of God. (1 Peter 1) The body
> was a mystery UNTIL Paul. (Eph.3) They understood the
> grace given to Paul in Acts 15/Gal.2. They understood
> they were part of the body at that time as Eph.3 and
> Rom.10-11 states.
>
> Why you poor little man. Ive answered and prooftexted
> all your questions, and given direct corroboration from
> the Book about the Pauline teachings I believe.

Well, maybe this response has given you a few more questions to "answer
and prooftext." What you have demonstrated is that you don't believe
the Pauline teachings, but favor the Lukan teachings of Acts. When you
understand what the book of Acts is, there is no conflict. But you
manufacture a conflict and then depart from Paul. Don't be dense, son.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The point is your constant and redundant LYING about what
> Paul practiced.

Here's this charge of lying again. Which of Paul's practices did I lie
about?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The Pauline MINISTRY contained water
> baptism for believers, just as ANY ministry did. See, you
> cant NEGATE that fact.

I don't have to negate it. I believe that Paul's early ministry did
include water baptism for believers. But we don't live in the book of
Acts. We live after the further revelation of the Prison Epistles.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You say, UMM, but he spoke in
> tongues. Yes, he had the gift. He circumsized Timothy.
> Yes, he did for help within his ministry. He had the
> signs and wonders. Yes, he was an apostle.
>
> Those things do NOT negate the baptism of all believers in
> water under any ministry.

Not alone they don't. But they demonstrate the fact that not all Acts
period practices are appropriate or valid today. You have agreed to
that fact. Now please explain what principle I can apply to determine
which Acts period practices continue today.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You teach your lies by silence. I teach the truth by the
> Holy Scriptures.

Conveniently ignoring or craftily denying the Scriptures you don't like.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Youre certainly NOT in the good company of Paul, for he
> baptized believers in water, was baptized himself, and had
> his other ministers baptize UNDER his ministry.
>
> You are just a madman, whos mad enough to think hes LIKE
> Paul, but youre certainly not ASSOCIATED with him by
> biblical definition, doctrinal teaching, and practical
> application of his SPOKEN WORDS. (Acts 16) Youre a
> mindless WHIM like others who fancy themselves Pauline.

I'm not like Paul at all, except that "in my flesh dwelleth no good
thing," just like his. But where you seek to follow Paul's practice, I
seek to follow his teaching. That's the difference between religion and
spirituality. Religion gives you something to do and a man to follow.
Spirituality gives you sound doctrine to believe. You can keep your
religion.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> BUD, can you read the verses that are POSTED there? Let
> me give them to you again. (Rom.1:16, 1 Cor.1:18, Mark
> 16:16, Acts 2:3 ) Those verses show that his baptism was
> NOT theirs. It was a baptism APART from salvation.

Agreed. Peter and the Twelve were commissioned to baptize in connection
with salvation. Paul never baptized anyone in connection with
salvation. And in 1 Cor 1:17,18 Paul completely removes the practice of
water baptism from the preaching of the gospel.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> You dont believe the verses for you have a DELUDED
> DOCTRINAL SYSTEM.
>
> Youre living in a dream world and dont even pay
> attention to what you yourself state.
> The baptism of Mark 16 was NOT UNDER the OLD TESTAMENT,
> but the NEW TESTAMENT.

What is the essential difference between Mark 16 baptism and John's
baptism? Is there any?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> There is NO WATER BAPTISM in the
> Old Testament law. Your washings is not baptism. Guess
> what it is? Its washings. Your supposition wont work
> for biblical teaching.

How did the Pharisees know to escape the wrath to come by coming to John
the Baptist? Was it by reading the New Testament? Baptize means to
wash, immerse, dip, etc. The "divers washings" of the Old Testament are
baptisms. You can't get around the meanings of the words.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Water baptism is by IMMERSION. That is the biblical
> definition. You go DOWN, INTO, UNDER, UP, and OUT. (See
> 1 Cor.10, Ex.14)

I agree. But do you see how you had to go to an Old Testament passage
to prove it?

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> The 12 and their followers preached WATER BAPTISM by
> immersion, which was not Jewish purification. They didnt
> USE waterpots of stone to SPRINKLE for their baptism.
> (John 2, Acts

That was because they had corrupted the teaching of God. When Elisha
sent Naaman to wash himself, it was by immersion. This was how even the
Old Testament washings were to be carried out. There were a few
washings by sprinkling, but generally it was blood or oil that was
sprinkled. I think the only water that was sprinkled was the "water of
purifying." We have no argument that the Old Testament baptism
performed by John and continued by Peter and the Twelve was by
immersion.

Richard Church wrote:
>
> I'll stand on Ephesians 4:5 and believe in my one baptism
> until you show
> me a single verse which necessitates a second.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> In other words, youll DEFY the statements of the Holy
> Bible and teach heresy and foolish speculation and
> supposition in TOTAL DISREGARD to the words of the Holy
> Spirit.

So by believing Eph 4:5, I am defying the statements of the Holy Bible?
It is true that I am defying instructions from past dispensations, but
those dispensations don't pertain to me anyway.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> My position is documented by the Bible.

Of course it is. Every false teacher worth his salt can document his
position from the Bible. The question in the dispensation of grace is
can you document it from the Pauline epistles. You have admitted, or at
least demonstrated, that you can't.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Believers in the Bible get baptized under any message.
> (Matt.3, John 3, Acts 2, Act 16)

Agreed. Only after the close of the book of Acts they don't get
baptized with water any more.

Carl Denson wrote:
>
> Water baptism is under DIFFERENT ministries. (John 1,
> Mark 16, 1 Cor.1)

Of course in the last passage you use there, Paul has nothing positive
at all to say about it. But then you knew that already.

I'll respond to the rest of this in a second message, since my email
program won't let me make this one any longer.

In His grace,

Richard Church