baptism dismissed because part of kingdom church not grace

[email]

you need to take a look at what you are preaching here --- acts is NOT the beginning --- they are sill preaching the kingdom church and not Grace Paul revealed the MYSTERY and the gospel of grace no WE DO NOT NEED WORKS AND NO WE DO NOT NEED BAPTISM -- WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE NOT BY WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST AND IT IS THE FREE GIFT ("free") THAT MEANS YOU DO NOTHING TO GET IT EXCEPT ASK AND BELIEVE IN THE KINGDOM CHURCH THEY WERE TO BE A NATION OF PRIESTS AND TO BE A PRIEST ONE HAD TO BE WASHED (BAPTIZED) NOW WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION OF PRIESTS BUT RATHER WE ARE (per Paul) AMBASSADORS --- THE NEW COVENANT DID NOT START AT ACTS --- IT BEGAN WITH THE REJECTION OF THE KINGDOM AND THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY OF THE GENTILES OR THE BEGINNING OF THE DISPENSATION OF GRACE.

PLEASE TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT WHO WAS TALKING AND WHO WAS BEING SPOKEN TO IN ACTS THEN LOOK AT THE GOSPEL THAT PAUL PREACHED IN HIS LETTERS

[m273p15c]

Thanks for jotting down your concerns. Clearly, this is a grave matter. It seems your point is that we are preaching a different gospel, an old, maybe transitory, gospel that was replaced sometime before the close of revelation. Paul had once warned the Galatians that they may have regrettably accepted a different gospel, which would lead to the false teachers being accursed by God (Galatians 1:6-8). With such a heavy penalty hanging over our heads, we must face this matter with sobriety, honesty, and humility. I appreciate your concern for us and those we might unwittingly convert to error. However, I must confess that I would like for us to mutually consider these points, because if my understanding is correct, then you could be in the same grave danger in which you perceive me as being. If we are both wrong, then may God give us understanding as we consider these important matters.

To discuss this, I would like to separate your note into its main points, as I understand it. This will hopefully allow us to consider this concern more concisely.

"acts is NOT the beginning --- they are sill preaching the kingdom church and not Grace Paul revealed the MYSTERY and the gospel of grace"

I have some questions about this statement: Acts is not the beginning of what? I understand it to be the beginning of the church, also known as the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33), the family of God (Ephesians 3:14-15), the building of God (1Corinthians 3:9; 2Corinthians 5:10), and the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23).

Would you mind elaborating on when is the "beginning"? What was begun? When was the beginning? Any Scripture you can provide along these lines would be much appreciated. This is somewhat a new concept to me.

"no WE DO NOT NEED WORKS AND NO WE DO NOT NEED BAPTISM -- WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE NOT BY WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST AND IT IS THE FREE GIFT ("free") THAT MEANS YOU DO NOTHING TO GET IT EXCEPT ASK AND BELIEVE"

I do not understand how baptism eliminates grace any more than asking and believing. If baptism earned man salvation, then would not God owe salvation to any man who was immersed in water? This seems silly to me. I do not preach this. Although some preach a gospel of meritorious works, I consider it to be equally as invalid as the gospel of faith alone:

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe -- and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:19-26)

How do you define works? Paul described works in this way,

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." (Romans 4:4)

Apparently, the works under discussion in Romans were those that earned salvation. It is something that causes God to owe salvation to man. Being dipped in water can never earn salvation, any more than asking or believing. The works under discussion in James are not meritorious works. Rather, James recognizes works and faith as working together (no pun intended ), when he says, "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ... You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (James 2:22,24). These are conditional works that demonstrate our faith.

On the last day, our faith will be judged by our works (2Corinthians 5:10; 1Peter 1:17). It is not that works earn us salvation; rather, our works will be the proof of our words and faith.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

Spoken words alone will not cut it. Actions alone will not cut it. We must abide within law, which requires obedience.

Why do you acknowledge the condition of asking and believing and not baptism? If you preach that asking and believing are requirements, then is the gift truly free, as you have defined it?

"IN THE KINGDOM CHURCH THEY WERE TO BE A NATION OF PRIESTS AND TO BE A PRIEST ONE HAD TO BE WASHED (BAPTIZED) NOW WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION OF PRIESTS BUT RATHER WE ARE (per Paul) AMBASSADORS"

Have you considered the following passages?

"Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, 'Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.' Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.' They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." (1Peter 2:4-10)

This passage says that Christ was a rejected stone, in whom we believe and obey and thereby become a royal, holy priesthood. Even after the rejection, saints are still recognized as priests.

The last book of revelation describes God's saints in this way:

"... To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen" (Revelation 1:5-6).

Regarding, Paul's use of "ambassadors", have you considered that Paul also speaks of Christians as "builders", "vineyard-keepers". Peter spoke of saints as "strangers", "pilgrims", and "living stones". Each of these words illustrate one facet of being a Christian. Would you mind elaborating how being a priest is in conflict with being an ambassador more so than being a living stone is in conflict with being a builder? Please be patient with me, for I fail to grasp your logic.

Also, please notice Paul's reference to Christians being part of the kingdom (Romans 14:17; 1Corinthians 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 1:13; 4:11; 1Thessalonians 2:12; 2Thessalonians 1:5; 4:1,18). If each of these books, including Peter's books, Hebrews (12:28), James (2:5), and Revelation (1:9) are considered part of the old kingdom covenant, then what books would you use to support a faith-only gospel, since these books do not pertain to the New Covenant?

"THE NEW COVENANT DID NOT START AT ACTS --- IT BEGAN WITH THE REJECTION OF THE KINGDOM AND THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY OF THE GENTILES OR THE BEGINNING OF THE DISPENSATION OF GRACE."

I think I am beginning to grasp your point, although as I do, I see more conflicts with it and Scripture. Maybe I'm prejudiced. If so, I pray you can help me as a friend. My only concern is truth and salvation. I am not deliberately trying to be prejudiced. However, I have yet to resolve these conflicts:

Jesus said that the kingdom of God would come in power before the generation that heard him had died out (Mark 9:1). The kingdom had not come by the time of Acts 1, because then Peter asked if Jesus was then going to restore the kingdom (Acts 1:6). In Jesus' response, He said that they were to wait in Jerusalem, until they received power by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5-8). In Acts 2, they received the Holy Spirit with power, just as Jesus promised (Acts 2:1-4). What began that day? Surely, it was the kingdom. It seems that you agree that this was the kingdom (Acts 2:37-38). However, please note that this was also called "the church":

"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added. ... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:41,47).

If this was the kingdom, then the church and the kingdom are the same.

Later, after describing how Cornelius and his family were baptized in the Holy Spirit, Peter said:

"'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?' And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord ..." (Acts 10:47-48).

Apparently, these Gentiles also had to be baptized, even though they had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as did Peter and the others. So, were these Gentiles priests too?

Interestingly, when Peter recounts this events, he says:

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:15-17).

Please note that Peter said that when they received the Holy Spirit, it was the beginning! He related it to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus mentioned when he told them to stay in Jerusalem to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5-8; 2:1-4). If the Gentiles were given a different gospel, then why were they "commanded" water baptism in the name of Jesus, just like those on Pentecost (Acts 10:47-48; 2:37-38)? Why did Peter call Pentecost the "beginning", if it was not?

Finally, Paul says, "therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God" (Romans 7:4). The Old Covenant was done away in Christ's death upon the cross. The writer of Hebrews, the greatest book on the contrasts between the Old and New Covenant, says:

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Hebrews 9:15-17)

Christ death put away the old law, just as the death of a husband frees his wife from the marriage bond (Romans 7:1-4), but His death also established and began the New Covenant. What can one do to establish the covenant that Christ did not do? If the New Testament did not begin at the death of the Testator, at whose death did it begin?

It would give me no greater joy than to read and understand your Scripture-based answers to these questions. Not only would it turn me back from my error, but it would also bring us into unity, which Jesus described as one of the most powerful tools to reach the lost (John 17:20-21). If for no other reason than this, we should seek unity so that we may together better reach a lost and dying world.

Thanks again for your note. I hope that you will give these questions the same consideration that you ask of me. Our very souls, and that of others, could be in jeopardy to which point you have well eluded.

Please pray for humility and love of truth for both of us (James 4:6-8; 2Thessalonians 2:9-12)!

May God bless us in understanding His Word.

[email]

Thank You For Writing ---- I have Had some time to do a little but not the whole document so here is what I have and Fell free to reply

To discuss this, I would like to separate your note into its main points, as I understand it. This will hopefully allow us to consider this concern more concisely.

"acts is NOT the beginning --- they are sill preaching the kingdom church and not Grace Paul revealed the MYSTERY and the gospel of grace"

I have some questions about this statement: Acts is not the beginning of what? I understand it to be the beginning of the church, also known as the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33), the family of God (Ephesians 3:14-15), the building of God (1Corinthians 3:9; 2Corinthians 5:10), and the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23).

The word kingdom in Matt 6:33 is (strongs-932-BASILEIA) meaning REALM-and the word church as used in acts (many were added to the CHURCH daily) CHURCH = 1577 Ekklesia meaning meeting place or synagogue--- 1 cor-3:9 Building = 3619 oikodome - Building - structure-a place -----so you see you have changed from the kingdom REALM that was to be heaven or the Kingdom of God on earth to the building or Body of Christ - the church------- the Kingdom of God as was looked for by the disciples was rejected by the Jews and the conversion of cornelius in acts was the beginning of the Gospel of Grace --- now going forward --- eph. 1:22-23 again we find the word church =ekklesia = assembly and the word Body= soma =Body (LIT>OR FIG) -the church which is his body --- (spiritual body or dwelling place and physical body of Christ -the church here on earth)

Would you mind elaborating on when is the "beginning"? What was begun? When was the beginning? Any Scripture you can provide along these lines would be much appreciated. This is somewhat a new concept to me.

Let me back up ?? did the old TESTAMENT start at Gen. And did the new test. Start at math.1 no the old started with EXODUS and the giving of the Law --- and the new test could not have started till the DEATH of Christ so acts ch 1 was not the beginning of the CHURCH __ THE BODY OF CHRIST because the Jews were told to seek the kingdom and not until Paul and the rejection of the kingdom --- that is when the church - THE BODY of CHRIST began do you know where I am now (of course you do you already did but hay I'm not set in stone I'm looking for truth and so far you are the only one that has cared enough to DISCUS it so lets go I love a Good STUDY)

[m273p15c]

Thanks for the quick response. That will give me something "to chew on".

As I read through your thoughts, I believe that much of the last part of my previous correspondence will be applicable to these thoughts. If I respond immediately, I am afraid that I will simply be rehashing the previous note, so if you don't mind, I will hold my response until you have time to study and respond to the note in its entirety.

I'm not in a hurry, so feel free to take your time.

Thanks again for the response. This will help me in the intermediate time.

May God bless us in our study of these things.

[m273p15c]

Hadn't heard from you in a while, which is OK, but I wanted to check on you to see if you had time to give any more thought to our study? If you have any questions, let me know.

Hope you're doing well.

[email]

have not forgotten just been busy --- it will be long and drawn out so hang on ok

[m273p15c]

No problem. I'm still here.

BTW, rather than trying to save the world in one round of e-mails, why don't we pick just one point and talk about it, preferably the foundation point. If we use shotgun blasts, then we'll get lost in the clouds of many small points and never get anywhere. I think if we can identify a fundamental point of difference and focus on that, it will make things easier on both of us. If you are willing, I'll be glad for you to pick out that point. If you'd rather do this some other way, then I'll be glad to discuss whatever you have in mind at any time.