Baptism not valid during this Dispensation

B.J. · #1 (**permalink**) 07-24-2007, 10:04 PM

At work recently I have been talking with perhaps the nost "died in the wool" Dispy I have ever met. Today I was informed that Baptism (Believers or Infant) is not necessary for the Church during this Dispensation of Grace. He told me that his source for his beliefs are best formulated by the work put forth by CLICK HERE

Anyone ever ran into this view before?

Pilgrim · #2 (**permalink**) 07-24-2007, 10:09 PM

I have heard that some "ultra" dispensationalists hold this view.

Theoretical · #3 (**permalink**) 07-24-2007, 10:10 PM

Well, that's one way to stop the Paedo/Credo and Sprinkling/Immersion debates.

Seriously, this is impressively bad theology.

turmeric · #4 (**permalink**) 07-24-2007, 11:09 PM

Is this Dave Hunt?

JM · #5 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:02 AM

Yes I have heard of this before and have contacted the website. These folks are Acts 9 dispey's and believe the Church had it's founding in Acts 9 with Paul who was the apostle to the gentiles.

Here's a chart from another site:

Notice how Hebrews - Revelation is not considered part of the 'Church age,' they often believe the Church is removed by the time these books come into play.

Pilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Is this Dave Hunt?

No, B.J. said it is a guy from work.

Although I haven't read him in a few years, I don't ever recall Hunt advocating ultra dispensationalism, Mid Acts, or anything similar.

victorbravo · #7 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

Is this Dave Hunt?

No, even Dave Hunt isn't this wacked. It's Cornelius R. Stam, modern torch-bearer of the ultra-dispy Bullinger. The Plymouth Bretheran anathematize the guy as well. None of the respectible dispies (as far as I know) will have anything to do with him.

Iconoclast · #8 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:44 AM

I was actually given a couple of books by an elder from this germantown fellowship that I visited over 6 yrs ago. It was extreme dispensationalism, taking the biblically phrase " rightly dividing the word" to new extremes.
[ the theology is like star trek,going where no man has gone before/ like the dispensational version of harold camping]
Every portion of the Nt. is divided so much by Stam, I lost track of how many different gospels there were, Paul's ,Peter's ,John's etc.
Over lunch I attempted to discuss Eph 2:11-16 with elder Miller,and he almost short circuited. He gave me these books by Stam, that i keep with my other cult material. He still sends me His newsletter,and sermon notes.
It is like they are lost in a maze,constantly looking to divide the apostles, the gospels, the letters, the chapters, to a point where you can no longer see Jesus as Lord. They are so convinced anyone outside of their camp cannot know the true gospel.:

JM · #9 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:44 AM

Bullinger was Acts 28, Stam is Acts 9.

CalvinandHodges · #10 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 12:56 AM

Greetings:

Here is a comment from their statement of faith concerning baptism:

Quote:

All believers are made members of
the Body of Christ by One Divine
BAPTISM (I Cor. 12:13), by which also
they are identified with Christ in His
death, burial and resurrection (Rom.
6:3,4). In light of I Corinthians 1:17,
Ephesians 4:5, and Colossians 2:12,
we affirm that water baptism has no
place in God’s spiritual program for
the Body of Christ in this dispensation
of Grace

It would be interesting to see how they get around passages like Acts 2; 8:12, 36; 10:47; or, 1 Cor. 1:14? - Not part of the "Dispensation of Grace" perhaps?

Blessings,

-CH

JM · #11 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Here is a comment from their statement of faith concerning baptism:

It would be interesting to see how they get around passages like Acts 2; 8:12, 36; 10:47; or, 1 Cor. 1:14? - Not part of the "Dispensation of Grace" perhaps?

Blessings,

-CH

CH, they contrast water baptism with Spirit baptism.

http://www.geocities.com/benwebb.geo/bapindex.html

CalvinandHodges · #12 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

CH, they contrast water baptism with Spirit baptism.

http://www.geocities.com/benwebb.geo/bapindex.html

Hi:

Yes, I see, but the instances I cited in Scripture are all water baptisms.

-CH

Blueridge Believer · #13 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 09:43 AM

Hyper- dispensationalism smacks of gnosticism. These 'brethren' believe they, in these final days, have been given special revelation about these things that was not revealed to the last 1900 years of church doctrine. They are to be rebuked for thier error. The teachings of Stam and Bullinger are the mad end of dipensationalism imo.

Daniel Ritchie · #14 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

At work recently I have been talking with perhaps the nost "died in the wool" Dispy I have ever met. Today I was informed that Baptism (Believers or Infant) is not necessary for the Church during this Dispensation of Grace. He told me that his source for his beliefs are best formulated by the work put forth by CLICK HERE

Did EW Bullinger hold this view? How does those who argue this way get around the fact that Paul did baptise some people and that the Lord's Supper was celebrated in 1 Cor. 11?

JM · #15 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Appendix 115.

"BAPTIZE", "BAPTISM", ETC.
It will be useful for the student to have a complete and classified list of the various usages of these words in the N.T.; the following conspectus has been prepared, so that the reader may be in a position to draw his own conclusions.

I. The VERB baptizo occurs eighty (*1) times, as follows :

i. In its absolute form, or followed by a noun in the accusative case. See Matt. 3:16; 20:22, 23. Mark 6:14; 10:38, 39; 16:16. Luke 3:12, 21; 7:29; 12:50. John 1:25, 28; 3:22, 23, 26; 4:1, 2; 10:40. Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:4; 22:16. 1Cor. 1:14, 16, 17.

ii. With the Dative case (implying element) : Luke 3:16. Acts 1:5; 11:16.

iii. With en (Ap. 104. viii), denoting
1. The element, described as being
a. Water. Matt. 3:11. Mark 1:8. John 1:26, 31, 33.
b. Pneuma hagion. (see Ap. 101. II. 14) Matt. 3:11. Mark 1.8.
Luke 3:16. John 1:33. Acts 1:5; 11:16. 1Cor. 12:13 (*).
c. The name of the Lord. Acts 10:48.
d. The cloud and sea. 1Cor. 10:2 (*).
2. The locality. Matt. 3:6 (*). Mark 1:4, 5 (*). John 3:23.

iv. With eis (Ap. 104. vi). Matt. 28:19. Mark 1:9 (*). Acts 8:16; 19:3, 5.
Rom. 6:3. 1Cor. 1:13,15; 10:2 (*); 12:13 (*). Gal. 3:27.

v. With epi (Ap. 104. ix). Acts 2:38 (with Dative)

vi. With huper (Ap. 104. xvii). 1Cor. 15:29.

vii. With hupo (Ap. 104. xviii). Matt. 3:6 (*), 13, 14. Mark 1:5, 9 (*).
Luke 3:7; 7:30.

viii. Translated "wash". Mark 7:4. Luke 11:38.

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

II. The NOUNS.
i. Baptisma. Occurs twenty-two times, as follows :

1. General. Matt. 20:22, 23. Mark 10:38, 39. Luke 12:50. Rom. 6:4.
Eph. 4:5. Col. 2:12. 1Pet. 3:21.
2. John's baptism. Matt. 3:7; 21:25. Mark 1:4; 11:30. Luke 3:3; 7:29; 20:4.
Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3, 4.

ii. Baptismos. Occurs four times :

1. Translated "washing". Matt 7:4, 8. Heb. 9:10
2. Translated "baptisms". Heb. 6:2.

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

(*) In the five passages thus marked, the verb is followed by two phrases, and therefore appears under two heads. They are : Matt. 3:6. Mark 1:5, 9. 1Cor. 10:2; 12:13.

AND

Quote:

16: And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17: 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.

Accordingly, since Christ sent Paul to preach the gospel, and not to baptize, then the gospel which Paul preached did not require water baptism. Otherwise, Paul could not have made a pointed distinction between baptism and the gospel he preached. And since Paul was not sent to baptize, then he was not under the instructions that the Lord gave to the other apostles (Mt.28:19-20; Mk.16:16), which did require water baptism "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).

Although it is true that Paul also baptized certain believers in the early days of his ministry, we must be careful not to draw the wrong conclusion from this. Paul also circumcised Timothy (see Acts 16:1-3), even after contending with the other apostles that circumcision is no longer necessary (Acts 15:1-21). Paul, then, did not circumcise Timothy because the Lord required it. Instead, Paul circumcised him "because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:3). In other words, Paul circumcised Timothy of his own volition, instead of by the Lord's commandment. We therefore should never endorse the practice of circumcision, or the practice of water baptism, just because Paul performed them at one time.

Likewise, Paul also took a Jewish vow associated with animal sacrifices (Acts 21:23-27), thereby placing himself back under the Law, as well. In Acts 21:26, Paul actually joined himself with certain Jews who believed, but who were also "zealous of the law" (verse 20), having shaved their heads (verse 24). Consequently, an "offering" was to be "offered for every one of them" (as in Acts 21:26; compare Numbers 8:7-8). Yet Paul took this Jewish vow, which was associated with animal sacrifices, after he had written his epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Thessalonians! Animal sacrifices, though, were certainly not necessary at that time. Paul, then, must have performed circumcision and endorsed the practice of animal sacrifices by using his own free will, instead of by commandment from the Lord, since such practices are quite contrary to the doctrines that he himself wrote. In like manner, since he also stated in 1Cor.1:17 that Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, then Paul must have also baptized certain believers using his own free will, as well. Otherwise, by practicing water baptism, how could Paul be carrying out the Lord's instructions in the first place, if Christ sent him not to baptize?

I have a bunch of theological works published by these guys on CD-Roms, I also have the Companion Bible by Bullinger, Romans Commentary by Stam, sermons in mp3, etc. After reading Mid to Latter Acts dispensational works for a few years I have to say Bullinger was the most consistent. If you take the fundamental ideas of dispensationalism you end up in Acts 28 which is extremely false.

Peace,

jason

B.J. · #16 (**permalink**) 07-25-2007, 07:00 PM

Thanks for the feed back. What was interesting today is the consistent bombardment of the phrase" Rightly dividing the word of truth." I always love hearing dispy's say that. I told him that I divide, just not with a chain saw.

I had had enough about Baptism and finally asked what Baptism was. He responded with an answer something like this......"It was just some Jewish thing." He explained that Believers Baptism, as a position, has major problems. He qouted Acts 2 ands Mark 16, I think. He explained that these passages link salvation directly to Baptism and this is what must be done in order to be saved and that if Baptism should be practiced today it should reflect the teachings of the Chrsitian denomanation(Baptism or Hell). However, since the theft on the cross was not Baptized we can conclude that Baptism was not necessary for entance into the Chruch. This proves that Baptism practiced by Peter and the other 12 was some Jewish thing, and not what Protestants argue about today.

I told him "Boy, I sure am glad I dont have to worry about the Baptism debate on the PB anymore. We are all wrong and have been for the last 2000 years." He said, "Well it wont be the first time the Church has been wrong."

I said," Famous last words of every heretic for the last 2000 years."

ctownsen357 · #17 (**permalink**) 07-27-2007, 07:12 AM

Hi all,

I've been a reader on the board for a little while now but haven't jumped in until today. I'm very acquainted with this whole dispy notion of baptism not being valid for today. I wonder, does the guy from work attend church with or listen to the teachings of Rev. Hastings from Atlanta? He was ordained by and is pretty much a clone of the pastor I grew up listening to, Bob Thieme, who taught this and other strange doctrines by "rightly dividing the word".

I'd be interested to hear your comments should you talk to him of repentance and the gospel.

At any rate, cheers all and thank you for so many thought provoking threads to read.