The One Baptism of Ephesians 4:5 and the "Great Commission"

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=100 BGCOLOR="#CCCCFF" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="0c900640egdysm.jpg"> <div> <FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000066" FACE="Arial" ><B>Grace Bible Fellowship</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B></FONT><B>    |     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Grace Bible Fellowship"><B>home</B></A><B><IMG SRC="0e7523c0.png" border=0 width="82" height="60" ALIGN="LEFT" HSPACE="10" VSPACE="0"></B></div> <div> back to<B>  </B><A HREF="id32.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Studies on the Biblical Doctrine of Bapt"><B>Studies on the Biblical Doctrine of Baptism</B></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=200 BGCOLOR="#0000BF" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="What is a Baptism? The Many Baptisms of ">What is a Baptism? The Many Baptisms of Scripture, Part 1</A></div> <div> <A HREF="id54.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Many Baptisms of Scripture: Part 2, ">The Many Baptisms of Scripture: Part 2, The Charismatic Baptisms</A></div> <div> <B><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700c8ffcccc00.png" HEIGHT="13" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The One Baptism of Ephesians 4:5 and the "Great Commission"</B></div> <div> <A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="James W. Dale on Baptizo">James W. Dale on "Baptizo"</A></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=380 width="100%" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>The One Baptism of Ephesians 4:5 and the "Great Commission"</B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B> </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Are They Contradictory? </B></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <B>This Article Is an Edited Transcript of a Study Presented to the Grace Bible Fellowship by</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Phillip W. Dennis</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> Let me begin with a question: if asked whether you have been baptized, how would you respond?   </div> <bR> <div> Some might say, “Yes, as a believing adult, I was baptized by immersion.”  Others might reply, “Yes, as an infant, I received the sign and seal of `the covenant' through baptism.”  Or there could be any number of other answers regarding the water ceremony.  However, I claim the correct answer for saints today should be: “Yes, I have been baptized.  I have been baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, and believers should not be baptized twice.” </div> <bR> <div> If a saint is told that those who wish to join a particular assembly must undergo a water ceremony – if water baptism is included in that assembly's doctrinal statement, as a requirement for membership – then that assembly is making a public proclamation that being a member of the Body of Christ, and being baptized into His Body by the Holy Spirit, <B>is not enough</B>.  That assembly is affirming that <B>another baptism</B> is necessary.  If we were to agree with that premise and submit to the water ceremony, we would have to say, “I've had two baptisms.”  You see, those who require a saint to join their assembly by submitting to a ceremonial water baptism misunderstand – and thus fail to guard –– the unity of the Spirit.  Such unlawful prerequisites for fellowship serve only to divide the saints and to fragment the Body of Christ. </div> <bR> <div> My wife and I find it amazing that the scriptural, God-ordained method of baptism into the Body of Christ (by the Holy Spirit, without man's interference or assistance) is rejected as “inadequate” for fellowship (or membership) by the vast majority of professing believers, in the torn and disunited Christendom of today.  But time and again, as we participate in “Christian” e-mail discussion lists, we find that this is the case.  As soon as we say no water ceremony is required of believers and none is permitted, we are accused of being divisive!  And why are we tagged with this unpleasant label (“divisive”)?  Because we refuse to join with mainstream “Christianity” by submitting to their unscriptural requirements for “fellowship”!  </div> <bR> <div> We might well ask the adherents of the (many versions of the) water ceremony, “Since the various sects and denominations are already splintered regarding this issue, and the truth of a matter is not confirmed by the number of adherents to a particular view – which group should I join?”  Should I join with those who claim it is “they” who have the clear scriptural mandate to baptize with water in the so-called Great Commission, and that Ephesians 4:5 does not mean what it says (i.e., that “one baptism” means “one”)?   Should I join with the Calvinists among them who agree that baptism is by the Spirit into the Body – but go on to say that they know the word “one” cannot truly mean “one” because of the mandated water ceremony in the Great Commission of Matthew 28, which (as a command for perpetuity) holds forever?  </div> <bR> <div> We might ask further whether it is possible to demonstrate the “unity” of the Body while thoughtlessly disregarding or contemptuously trampling on the very basis of the unity that God has established for us.   The answer, of course, is that such behavior destroys the unity rather than demonstrating it!  This fact is underscored by the continuous censure that the various sects and denominations heap on each other regarding the issue – and the disfellowship that results!  Day by day, we observe the various sects saying, “Here is our doctrinal statement, and this comprises our unity.”  Or some, offering no specific statement, will say the unity is in “the essentials,” e.g., “no creed but Christ, no law but love.”  However, both are closing their eyes to the fact that – in Ephesians 4:4-6 – we have a passage of Scripture which does explicitly address unity for the Body of Christ, and it is the only passage to do so!  Furthermore, Paul charges Body members that we are to make every effort to guard this unity of the Spirit in “the bond of the peace.”  </div> <bR> <div> The number of professing Christians who attempt to deny the clarity of the passage – or who seem unaware that it is even in the Bible! – is staggering.  When confronted with it, one fellow basically said, “Well, you folks have a one-passage Bible, but that is not the overarching passage on unity.”  He couldn't have been more mistaken!  (He is wrong on both counts.) As previously stated, the text explicitly mentions and addresses the question of unity for the Body, and it is the only passage in Scripture to do so!  But how do we know that the “one,” in Ephesians 4:4-6, signifies the grammatical number category and therefore refers to a single item or unit?  Let us ponder the following evidence:</div> <bR> <div> 1.    The normative hermeneutic, the normal way of interpreting a text, assigns the normal meaning to a word unless the context or parallel passages compel us to use a less common or an exceptional meaning of the word.  But if you look at the Greek, there are no exceptional usages of the word “one.”  Unlike words such as <I>kosmos</I> (“world”) or <I>pas</I> (“all”), which carry a wide signification and therefore a varied and wide-ranging usage – to the Greek mind, the word <I>eis</I> (“one”) just means “one.”  Thus, standard (i.e., normative) usage plus context drive us to the conclusion that Ephesians 4:4-6 is speaking of seven “ones” (including ONE BAPTISM).  Are there parallel passages, which give a different take on the word?  No, there are not.  Some erroneously claim that Matthew 28 contains such a text, and we will address that misinterpretation before we close this study tonight.</div> <bR> <div> 2.    Secondly, the Scriptures are God-breathed, and this presents a major problem for those who practice water baptism today.  It presents a major problem because the Greek language contains a readily-available word which means “two.” and Paul, a well educated man, would have known that.  But he said “one,” and he wasn't being crafty or using empty rhetoric  – he spoke by inspiration.  He simply meant ONE.  </div> <bR> <div> I guess I should state this more strongly, so here it is: the people who claim that, in Ephesians 4:4-6, “one” doesn't mean “one” – what they`re really saying is that Paul is being crafty.  They wouldn't use that word themselves, of course, but what are the implications here?  That the Creator of language doesn't know how to communicate?  That the apostle to the Gentiles wrote erroneously, while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  See what problems are engendered by those who try to avoid the clear teaching of the Scriptures?  Do these “naysayers” ever stop to ask themselves why the Holy Spirit didn't inspire Paul to use the “correct” word in the first place and thus avoid the confusion?  Voila!  The problem could so easily have been avoided or solved!    </div> <bR> <div> <I>Comment from the floor: folks who claim “one” doesn't mean “one” are already programmed to think that way because of the Apostle's Hermeneutic.  They're already accustomed to looking at some Old Testament passages and saying, “Well, the Old Testament says this but doesn't MEAN it.”  In other words, they think you can't understand the Old Testament in its own right . . . they think you've got to go to the New Testament and see how the apostles quoted or used a passage – and that the New Testament comparison provides the standard for understanding it.  Of course, you have to ask these folks what they do with all the passages that the apostles didn't explicitly quote or reference and, of course, they have no answer!</I></div> <bR> <div> I would claim the parallelism of the “seven ones” should be sufficient to convince that the unity consists of one and only one for each of seven.  Add to that the fact that there are no exceptional usages of the word “one” in the Greek – and that the Holy Spirit could have inspired Paul to say “two,” if “two” had been meant – and you can see that the case is air tight!  What's more, the <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I> explicitly says that the clear passages are supposed to set the standard for the less clear passages.  So, I ask you: how much plainer could it be?  The passage cites seven “ones,” and the Greek word used to modify each of the seven is the number “one.”  Where's the problem?  From time to time, I've asked those who practice water baptism to explain how they can freely acknowledge that the other six entities named in the passage are exactly “one” (as the text states), while, at the same time, they are doggedly arguing that the “one” associated with baptism is supposed to be “two” or “three” (depending on their persuasion regarding the charismatic baptisms)!  And when I press that point home, I am met with stone silence.  They have no answer!  </div> <bR> <div> We've previously gone through studies that show the apostle Paul never once commands water baptism.  There is not one scriptural passage where he says, “Repent and be baptized.”  Moreover, I think I've given convincing reasons tonight to show that Ephesians 4:4-6 – standing on its own – establishes the truth of the one baptism.  But, of course, there is other scriptural evidence, as well.  Let us look at an explicit reference to baptism in Colossians 2:12.  One reason I picked this particular scripture is that the <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I> uses it as a proof text to support their claim that water baptism replaced circumcision.  Those who espouse this view go back to the giving of circumcision, in Genesis, and then link the practice to Colossians 2:12, because circumcision is also mentioned there. </div> <bR> <div> Let us read the reference, starting with verse 11:  “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.  Buried with Him in baptism. . . .”  </div> <bR> <div> So, what they are saying in the <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I> and their catechism is that – in this passage – the circumcision is spiritual circumcision, but the baptism is with physical water.  That is their proof text for the sacrament of a water ceremony!  That is really a terrible usage of the passage because it is crystal clear that Colossians 2:12 is talking about the one baptism into the Body of Christ.  It is talking about the divine baptism which is regeneration – the divine baptism in which we are made members of Christ's Body.  It is talking about the baptism where we are identified with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, as in Romans 6:3-4.  In its context, the baptism in Colossians 2:12 is unmistakably that by which we are made COMPLETE in Christ. None of this is done by a physical ceremony. If you read the Greek text of Colossians 2:12, you'll see that the text is actually emphatic.  And I claim the Greek text of the New Testament defeats the <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I>!  Break the statement down and have a look at it. The Greek says, “Having been buried with him in THE baptism [the article is explicitly in the Greek] in which [BAPTISM, the antecedent] also ye were jointly risen through [that is the idea of agency!] . . . .“  We are jointly risen through the “agency” – which is the faith of the operation of God –  which is regeneration.  In other words, the faith is the result of the agency of God.  It is the same as Ephesians 2:8-10, “For by grace are ye saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”  Then compare I Corinthians 12:13. “For by one spirit were we all baptized into one body”!  And what's the only rational conclusion?  The whole passage in Colossians is a clear explanation of the action of God.  The circumcision is the action of God.  The baptism is the action of God.  It is one of the explicit passages in Scripture, speaking of the one divine baptism – and there is no water in the text!  </div> <bR> <div> Now, it is evident that the Scriptures do speak of a number of water baptisms, especially under the Mosaic Law – where priests, persons healed of leprosy, and others underwent the rite of water baptism, in given circumstances.  But we claim that the water baptism of believing individuals – introduced at the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and onward through the book of Acts – is the same ritual baptism with the same significance.  There was no change in the meaning of baptism after the Cross, as some mistakenly assert.  John came baptizing with water, and that baptism had continuity.  A little later in the study, we will look at some passages to verify that, and we will examine the reason for John's baptism.  But for now, we will postulate that – from the time of John's ministry – the purpose and mode of water baptism did not change.  We also see charismatic baptisms in the Scriptures, so there are actually THREE baptisms that we hope to cover tonight:</div> <div>   </div> <div> 1.    There is the inner baptism – which is regeneration.</div> <div> 2.    There is external ritual baptism – which is John's water baptism.</div> <div> 3.    There are the charismatic baptisms – which occur when the Spirit comes upon individuals, imbuing them with miraculous powers.</div> <bR> <div> But Paul says – for the Body of Christ – there is only one baptism.  So, which of these three types is it?  Is it inner baptism (regeneration), the external water ritual (John's baptism), or one of the charismatic baptisms?  When we asked this question on a particular e-mail discussion list, some picked “water.”  But there was also a Reformed Baptist who readily admitted that the one baptism is the inner baptism performed by the Spirit, which places us into the Body of Christ.  (So, he's moving in the right direction.)  But the point is – if we confess the “one baptism by the Spirit” as our unity – what do we unavoidably exclude?  We exclude water baptism and the charismatic baptisms – right?  We would never wish to exclude the one baptism by the Spirit, because that is our regeneration.  I don't know anybody who would deny that regeneration is an essential element of true Christian doctrine.  If you deny regeneration, you are not a Christian at all.  So, what's the conclusion?  That there is only one baptism included – or permitted! – in the Body's unity, and which we are to guard.  And that is Spirit baptism – all others are explicitly excluded.</div> <bR> <div> We're familiar with the usual difficulty, and that is that people come to Ephesians 4:4-6 with the “colored glasses” of their theology cemented to their faces.  They're wearing glasses of “Covenant theology” or “Baptist theology” or whatever theology it is.  They have pre-set notions firmly fixed in their minds.  Then they see “one baptism,” and they realize that isn't going to harmonize with their doctrine – and thus they fight with all their strength to prove that “one” means anything but “one.”  </div> <bR> <div> Here's a quote from D.A. Carson's book, <I>Exegetical Fallacies</I>.  Though he would not agree with our understanding of “baptism,” his words concerning preconception and bias are quite clear and to the point.  He says: “Careful handling of the Bible will enable us to hear it a little better.  It is all too easy to read the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of Scripture.  Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous degree of certainty.  Because traditions are re-shaped as they are passed on, after awhile we may drift far from God's Word while still insisting all our theological opinions are `biblical' and therefore true.  If when we are in such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply reinforce our errors.  If the Bible is to accomplish its work of continual reformation, reformation of our lives and our doctrine, we must do all we can to listen to it afresh and utilize the best resources at our disposal.”  I think that is a good quote.  We need to come to the Word of God to see what it teaches, not to bolster up our own corrupt ideas and beliefs.  In the beginning, the Reformers were guided by God's Word, in just that way.  Luther said he could be convinced to change his position only by the Scriptures and sound reasoning.  He said believers should disregard tradition and go to the Scriptures.  And he said, “God help me. Here I stand.  I can do no other.”  He was willing to take a stand for the doctrines that God had graciously allowed him to recover.</div> <bR> <div> A sound Calvinist will always acknowledge that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves, and that is good.  That is a good start.  But when we come along and say that – in Ephesians 4:5 – the word “one” means numerically “one,” he'll accuse us of making the Scriptures contradict themselves because of Matthew 28:19.  He'll claim we're ignoring Christ's explicit command to baptize.  He'll say we're abrogating Christ's commission to the Church.  We would agree wholeheartedly with this response, <B>if</B> – and these are some really big <B>“ifs” </B>– the words there recorded actually were Christ's last words, and <B>if </B>they were directed to us, the members of the Body of Christ.  But does the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 contain Christ's last words, or did He speak again?  Yes, according to the Scriptures, He did speak again!  The Great Commission contains Christ's last words on earth, but He spoke again after His ascension.  Paul says in Romans 15:8 that Christ WAS – note the past tense – a “minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to confirm the promises made to the fathers.”  So then, you compare that with Matthew 28, and you ask – who is Christ ministering to, here?  He's ministering to the circumcision!  But when Christ talked to Paul, He was not ministering to the circumcision – He was ascended into the third heaven!    </div> <bR> <div> We'll take a closer look at that, but first let us think about the attributes of God – particularly, the attribute of “efficiency.”   We know from the first and second chapters of Galatians that God separated Paul from his mother's womb; saved him on the Road to Damascus; appeared to him alone; and later “raptured” him up to the third heaven where a lot of information was revealed to him.  After all this, is it reasonable to assume that God would have Paul wait around for fourteen years and then go up to Jerusalem to tell the twelve apostles, “By the way, I am here `by revelation,' to tell you what you already know!”  Does that sound like the action of the efficient God of Scripture?  Furthermore, we know that Christ had endowed Peter with the “keys of the Kingdom.”  So, if Matthew 28 contained Christ's last words, and Peter had the keys of the Kingdom – why not save Paul and send him to Peter?  Why not send him to the man who had the keys of the Kingdom?  God always acts in a way that is perfectly suited to the situation.  He's full of mercy and grace.  But He's ushering in a new dispensation here!  He has mercy on Peter and He has mercy on us.  Some of these “interpretations” of Acts don't even do justice to God's attributes!  </div> <bR> <div> Let me point out that even those of the Covenantalist persuasion ascribe to what they call “progressive revelation.”  You might ask what is my point?  Well, they try to say that (on our view) Ephesians 4:5 and Matthew 28 contradict.  But, as we mentioned before, Christ spoke again after He gave the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19.  He spoke from Heaven to Paul, the apostle, and there are many verses to prove this. So, I am pointing out that the Great Commission is not a record of Christ's last words, and I am pointing out that Covenantalists claim to believe in progressive revelation.  So, if Paul says “one” – that <B>now</B> there is only one baptism – why can't they believe that Christ at one point commanded the twelve apostles to baptize and, as time went on, He spoke again (to Paul) and said to no longer baptize?  What's contradictory about that?  They believe that, at one time, God commanded circumcision.  And then later, Paul, by inspiration, tells the Galatians that – if they receive circumcision – Christ will become “of no effect” to them!  God said they should be circumcised, and later He said not to be circumcised.  Does this mean the Bible is contradictory?  Of course not!  It is “progressive revelation,” which they claim to believe in.  </div> <bR> <div> So, when Ephesians 4:5 says “one baptism” and Christ in Matthew 28 says “baptize with water” – are the Scriptures contradictory?  No.  Time passes.  There is progression.  There is no problem there.  The problem is with the axiom called Covenantalism, which, to some, is “the sign and seal of the covenant” – the problem is with those who want to cram everything into that mold.  They think they must have a sign and a seal, and so they ask: if water baptism IS NOT the seal, then what IS?  We discovered a few verses in Paul's epistles, interestingly enough, that say the Holy Spirit is our seal!  And doesn't that fit perfectly with the fact that we're baptized by the Spirit into one Body?  So the Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity Who places us into the Body, and He is the seal!  And what is the sign of being regenerate, anyhow?  What does Galatians 5:22 say?  It is the Fruit of the Spirit, of course – that is the sign!  Is it some ceremonial ritual that we go through?  No, it is not!  It is the evidence of the New Man.  It is the evidence of the new nature that is energized by the Holy Spirit.  </div> <bR> <div> As I mentioned, the Covenantalists ascribe to progressive revelation, so they should have no <I>a priori</I> objection to the fact that there used to be a command to baptize with water and now water baptism is forbidden.  But we also find an important piece of information in Ephesians chapter 3 and also in Colossians 1:26-27.  We find information about “the secret” (or “mystery”), which had been hid from the ages and from the generations but NOW is made manifest to “His saints” (that is, the redeemed who are the Body of Christ), to whom God would make known what are “the riches of the glory of this secret among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of glory.”  And verse 25: “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to complete the Word of God” – that is what the Greek text says, “to COMPLETE the Word of God.”  So, Paul is saying that – before the revelation was given to him – the counsel was not complete.  God had something secret, and He revealed it to Paul – and that revelation completes the Word of God.  So, the “secret revealed to Paul” completes the Word of God!  So, it follows, doesn't it, that – if the revelation of the mystery completes the Word of God – then Christ's words in Matthew 28 are, in some sense, incomplete.  </div> <bR> <div> But in what sense could the words recorded in Matthew 28 be incomplete?   First of all, it cannot be the doctrine of salvation that was incomplete.  Christ told His disciples (or apostles) to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”  And we know from the history recorded in Acts that they did teach what Christ had commanded, and we know that individuals heard their words and were saved.  So, the doctrine of salvation cannot be what we're talking about.  Okay then, could it be that Jewish doctrine was incomplete?  No, again we know from the historical record in Acts that – after His resurrection – Christ personally instructed His twelve apostles for forty days, concerning the “Kingdom of God.”  And their subsequent behavior shows that they understood what He taught, and they understood that their “household law” was in place.  So, what's the only alternative then?  What is it that is not complete?  It is the fact that God was going to institute a whole new program.  Now THAT makes sense!  The unifying issue of the Scriptures is not just that God is going to redeem men, but that He's going to redeem men to three different “households.”  Each of these households is consistent – their doctrine has to be true.  But the doctrine of salvation, in particular – what Christ did for the elect – has to be complete in all dispensations.  Job knew about salvation, the twelve apostles knew about salvation, and we today know about salvation.  So, salvation in Christ cannot be the issue.  And the doctrine for each of those two households (the twain) was complete – so it has to be the fact that there was going to be a whole new set of doctrine that is not just involved with salvation.  The issue has to revolve around a whole new household!  We know now, of course, that the “new household” is the Body of Christ, in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile – and that is NOT the gospel which Christ commanded the twelve apostles to preach. </div> <bR> <div> Upon close examination, it is clear that the Great Commission, recorded in Matthew 28, does not contain the last words the Lord spoke, so let us move to another point.  Does the Great Commission contain the Lord's instructions for us, the Body of Christ?  I claim it does not.  And what proof can I offer?  Even those of Covenantalist persuasion agree that there is no distinctive role for the nation of Israel in God's program today.  As a matter of fact that is part of their eschatology.  You talk to a Covenantalist –  you ask him if there is a nation of Israel in the mind of God today – and he'll answer, “No, certainly not.”  In other words, he'll agree with the concept of the one Body.</div> <bR> <div> <I>Comment from the floor: if they are thinking that “Israel” is “the Church,” Covenantalists might say, “Yes, Israel is in the mind of God today.” </I></div> <bR> <div> Well that is true.  But when they say that, they are “spiritualizing” – and tonight's discussion is not about “spiritualizing.”  We know that method of interpretation is wrong. We know it is not scriptural because it distorts the clear words of Scripture.   But we're not discussing erroneous methods of interpretation tonight, and the point I want to make is – when they are not spiritualizing – even the Covenantalists agree that God does not recognize the physical seed as a “chosen nation” (Israel) today.  </div> <bR> <div> Now, we can prove that both water baptism and charismatic baptism were eschatological signs for Israel.  And what do I mean by the term, “eschatological sign for Israel”?  The expression refers to an occurrence that Israel should have recognized as a fulfillment of their prophetic program. [The introduction of water baptism with John the Baptist and the charismatic baptisms (gifts) were signs of the Messiah and the Messianic age.  Further, we should mention, they functioned as visible signs to the nation of Israel – whether the recipients of these two baptisms were Jews or Gentiles.] As I said, we can demonstrate to the Covenantalists that water baptism was an eschatological sign for Israel, and they cannot provide any contravening evidence.  They cannot show that the purpose of water baptism changed.  One fellow wanted to say it changed from a “sign to Israel” to “Christian baptism.”  In other words, before the Cross it was John's baptism, and after the Cross it was Christian baptism.  That was just his blunt assertion.  You say, “Show me the passage” – right?  Then he is in trouble, because there is no passage that says that.  He is just grasping at straws – just saying anything he thinks will negate your point.  Anyway, I called this line of argument the “eschatological cessation view of baptism,” so as not to immediately terminate the dialog.  Because if you use the term “dispensational” with a Covenantalist – you know what happens immediately?  The veil goes down, end of discussion, you are considered a heretic and  you're not worth talking to any longer!  Now, if you were only dialoguing with one close-minded individual, you might leave it right there.  But the email lists operate in a “Mars Hill” type of arena.  There are more people involved than the person who is openly debating with you – there are many others who just sit there and read but never post a response. So, you try to keep the dialog going – right?  </div> <bR> <div> You can also ask the Covenantalist when and why Israel was set aside, but you know the standard answer to that – they crucified Christ and that is it.  End of discussion!   We'll look at some verses tonight, to show that just doesn't hold up.   Of course, we will say the setting aside of Israel is temporary, and that is the shibboleth that ultimately marks us as “dispensationalists.”  Because once you say Israel's been set aside – and then you add the word “temporarily” – they say, “Red flag, red flag, red flag!”  And they nail you as a “dispensationalist” type for sure!</div> <bR> <div> Nonetheless, we know that Scripture teaches that Israel fell and was temporarily set aside, in accordance with God's decree – and we know the nation will one day be restored, in accordance with the selfsame decree.  We've discussed this in prior studies.  But the point is this: the elect of Israel have been chosen by God to a particular Hope, and they have not forfeited that hope because of the reprobates within their nation.  David did not forfeit his hope because of the unsaved members of the Sanhedrin, who blasphemed the Holy Spirit in the seventh chapter of Acts.  Daniel did not forfeit his hope!  Peter did not forfeit his hope!  So the idea that Israel, as a nation, has permanently and irrevocably forfeited its Hope is completely off the beam.</div> <bR> <div> We should also mention in passing – and we will probably come back to this later – there is no way that anyone can obey Matthew 28:19-20 today.  This is based on the fact that Christ told the twelve to teach EVERYTHING He had commanded.  Let us look at that passage.  Christ said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age. Amen.”  The phrase that is translated “all things whatsoever,” is actually stronger in the Greek than just the word “all.”  It is <I>panta hos pasa</I>, not just <I>panta</I>.  <I>Hos</I> is a strengthener, so it is “all things whatsoever.”  In other words, teach them to observe “all that I've commanded” or “all things whatsoever.”  It is the idiom for everything – so don't omit anything!  Christ is saying to the twelve, “Go out and make disciples and teach them to observe everything”!  So, where are we going to find “everything” that He taught?  Well, all of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!  He says “everything” emphatically – so don't exclude anything!  </div> <bR> <div> <I>Comment from the floor: He said a lot that is not written down.</I>  </div> <bR> <div> That is true, but ask yourself what was not written down?  Was anything we NEED to know omitted from the Scriptures?  Be careful with that kind of thing, because that is what the Roman Catholics say.  You don't want to get into the Roman loop.  They say, everything was not written down, but that is alright because the Church is the carrier of “oral tradition.”  They say they can “help” you by supplying what was not written down!  But we know that the Scriptures are sufficient, so the “everything” we need to know is there.  Christ may have said the same thing on many different occasions, may have performed many different miracles, may have said things in different ways – but the point is that, over and over again, He directs His listeners back to the Law.  He says, the Pharisees tell you to do something this way, but they are not telling you right – here's what you should do.  In Matthew 23:1 – which includes one of the “everything” – He says, do whatever you're commanded to do by those who sit in Moses' seat – but don't do as they do, because they “say” and “do not.”  So, one of Christ's commands – one of the “everything”! – which is written down, is that we'd better go find us a rabbi.  Ask how many Covenantalists are going to go search and find a rabbi – the answer is, none!  So, they are inconsistent.  See, you can't obey Christ's command in Matthew 28:19-20!  </div> <bR> <div> As a matter of fact, one of the fellows on the e-mail list asked, “Does anybody want to discuss the singular teachings in the Sermon on the Mount?”  Now why do you think he used the term “singular”?  Because this guy knows there are a lot of things in that portion of Scripture that they just don't do – like the doctrine of divorce.  And what about selling everything you have?  And what about turning the other cheek?  And today, if somebody sues you – I don't know whether anybody here has been sued! – but do you say, “Okay you win, take my house!”  I don't know if anybody here has been robbed – but if you've been robbed, do you say, “Take my wristwatch, take all my clothes, take everything”?  You see, there is a reason why Christ told the people of the Kingdom to do all those things – because the angels were going to be there, to be their protectors.  Those people were supposed to understand that God was going to care for them.  Do you recall Christ's statement about the birds?  He said, why are you worrying – what about the birds?  They don't do anything and God feeds them.  Those people were going to be cared for miraculously.  They were going to experience “the powers of the age to come.”  In fact, they saw some of these “powers” – I mean, Christ was raising the dead, the apostles were raising the dead.  In the second chapter of Acts, the Jewish believers sold everything and had everything in common.  Why?  Because God was going to provide!  At the same time, Christ was teaching very clearly that nobody should take revenge or seek retaliation against an enemy – absolutely not, don't retaliate!  He said, if somebody slaps you – you turn the other cheek.  Absolutely!  He did not give any exceptions!</div> <bR> <div> So anyway, this guy on the e-mail list asked for comments about the “singular teachings.”  Well, you have probably heard many studies on the Sermon on the Mount during your lifetime – you have heard what people do to try to get around the Lord's clear words.  They say, “You don't really have to sell everything, you just need to have the attitude that you're willing to sell everything.”  But remember, the twelve said, “Look Lord, we've sold everything, we've abandoned everything, and we've followed you.  What is there going to be for us?”  And what did Christ answer?  “You are going to sit on twelve thrones and rule over the twelve tribes of Israel.”   He didn't say they would get a temporary time to take vengeance – that is not it!  He said they'd get eternal thrones!  That is their reward, and that reward will far exceed everything they gave up!  They were going to be killed and whatever, but who cares!  There is an exceedingly great reward reserved for them!</div> <bR> <div> Let me draw a diagram on the white board, so I can summarize this point before we go too far off tonight's topic.  We're calling this line on the board the “Eschatological Cessation of Baptism.”  On one side of the line, we have a time we will call “Before the Body was Revealed.”  On the other side of the line, we have a time we will call “After the Revelation of the Mystery.”  And what am I showing by this?  Before the Body of Christ, there was a nation of Israel.  Then there was a point in time when Israel was set aside.  There was a point in time when Christ revealed the Mystery to Paul.  There was a “transitional period,” recorded in the book of Acts.  During the transitional period, God was phasing out the nation of Israel.  The Body had been revealed, and the Body was going to proceed to maturity.  There was going to be a maturity for the Body of Christ!  Paul said, in the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, that the Body had a “childhood.”  Before that occurred – before there was one Body – before the childhood of that Body – what was there?  There was a group God recognized as Jews and there was a group God recognized as Gentiles.  That is the “twain” of Ephesians 2:15.  That is not ONE Body of neither Jew nor Gentile!  The Jews were the “masters” in that set-up!  Do you remember what the Canaanite woman said to the Lord in Matthew 15:27?  She said “ . . . the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.”  We're going to go through some verses.  You're going to see that, in the book of Acts, the Jews have the priority.  It was required that the message go to the Jews first and then – once the Jews rejected it and the Body was in full maturity – it was to everybody, to Jews and Gentiles without distinction.  So, when the Body comes to maturity (the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10), we have the one Body, and that is all.  But what does that mean?  That means no “Jews,” which means no “Israel.”  </div> <bR> <div> But let us go back to the point – let us go back to the eschatological cessation of baptism.  Before the Body of Christ, we have what?  We have many baptisms.  Oh yes, we have the doctrine of salvation from the book of Genesis forward.  But salvation is what?  It is regeneration.   And regeneration is what?  It is an inner baptism.  David says, “Wash me and I will be whiter than snow” – that is inner baptism, that is regeneration.  Then we have the “diverse baptisms” of the Mosaic Law, but I am not going to talk about those tonight.  What I am talking about here is John's baptism.  That is what is at issue.  John's baptism was peculiar.  It was not in the Law, it was something new.  It wasn't customary for a Jew to undergo a “baptism of repentance for the remission of sin.”  Why would a Jew need to have a baptism of repentance for the remission of sin?  Jews were children of the covenant – they had the circumcision, they had the Word, they had the sacrifices.  They had all these things that God had commanded them to do!  That didn't mean that they were saved, of course; but their sanctification was in place, according to the Law.  Then John's baptism was added, and it was something new.  But we also have charismatic baptisms.  When the twelve apostles were told they would be “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “endued with power from above” – that meant they would have a charismatic baptism.  The sixteenth chapter of Mark also talks about charismatic baptism.  It lists a number of “signs” which SHALL follow those who believe.  It says believers shall pick up serpents, speak in tongues, all that kind of stuff.  Well, the basis for all these miraculous signs is charismatic baptism – and the signs themselves were for Israel.  </div> <bR> <div> So then, before the Body of Christ was mature, there were many baptisms.  There was inner baptism (or regeneration), water baptism (as initiated by John the Baptist), and the charismatic baptisms.  But after the Body matured – after there was only one Body in which there was neither Jew nor Gentile (which means no Jews, which means no Israel!) – what function did the various baptisms serve?  Can you have signs to Israel, when there is no Israel?  So then, what is the conclusion?  You have the one baptism, which is regeneration!  The others are gone.  If there is no Israel, there is no reason to baptize with water.  The charismatic gifts are gone also.  Why?  There is no Israel, so there is no reason for them.  That means the people who want to practice the other baptisms – especially the charismatic types – should be having their services outside a Jewish synagogue!  They should be baptizing outside a Jewish synagogue and then speaking in tongues outside the Jewish synagogue.  They could go out here on Janss Road up to <I>Etz Chaim</I>.  But of course, nobody is going to do that.  So what is the point?  Well, the point is here on the chart, and it is this: on the one side of the “Eschatological Cessation of Baptism” line that we drew, we have a “time area" that we called “Before the Body was Revealed” – Matthew 28 fits in there, and the “many baptisms” fit in there.  And on the other side of the “Eschatological Cessation of Baptism” line, we have a “time area" that we called “After the Revelation of the Mystery” – Ephesians 4:5 fits there.  One Body, one baptism!  When you understand how Israel, as a nation, was gradually set aside as the Body slowly but steadily matured – it makes perfect sense.</div> <bR> <div> Okay, so we have gone from many baptisms (prior to the maturity of the Body) to one baptism.  But it is important to understand that ALL the “seven ones” (in the list given in Ephesians. 4:4-6) form a parallelism.  And together, they establish the unity for the one Body which we are to guard.  </div> <bR> <div> Now recall that Israel fell at the stoning of Stephen.  Israel fell as the government.  There was a Sanhedrin in place that was a ruling body of Israel.  If we speak hypothetically, we could say that – had God not had an eternal plan concerning the Dispensation of the Mystery – had the Sanhedrin repented – then that period in history would have been Daniel's “seventieth week,” and God's prophetic plan would have just kept unfolding.  But there was a requirement – Israel's government had to repent.  But instead of repenting, they blasphemed – and Israel, as a nation, fell.  Now, does that mean, as I mentioned earlier that – because these reprobates fell! – Peter and the eleven other apostles suddenly forfeited their Hope?  Absolutely not!  The Body has obviously begun when Paul is called – but there were still saved Jews (for a period).  This was just a unique time in history, when the dispensations temporarily overlapped.  Israel's dispensation was being set aside, but the Jewish saints were never in any danger of losing their Hope.  They couldn't lose their Hope – it was the anchor of their souls, both “sure and steadfast.”   They keep on going.  </div> <bR> <div> I know it is sometimes hard to determine exactly what is going on in the book of Acts, but – if you study it carefully! – you'll recognize that its purpose is not to talk about the revelation of the Mystery, <I>per se</I>.  Its purpose is to chronicle the fall of Israel, and that is what it does – it chronicles the fall of Israel.  Sure, it provides a record of Paul going up to the Gentiles, but it doesn't present Body doctrine.  So, I don't think we can go to that historical book and say “this man” is in the Body or not in the Body, <I>per se</I>.  I guess what I am saying is that you can't go to the book of Acts to determine specifically whether “this guy” is in “this program” or “that guy” is in “that program” – or to ask, what about guys that Paul went to or didn't go to, and so on and so forth.  In other words, if you went into a synagogue where God had already regenerated a certain Jew, and then Paul came declaring that the Messiah has come – which Hope would that man claim as his own (and he is already regenerated, so he believes Paul's testimony)?  His hope is Israel!  But the record doesn't say that, so how can we tell?  How do we know his Hope doesn't change?  We know because Romans 11:29 tells us that “the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.”  You see what I mean?  During the transition period, Paul is going to Gentiles – and he does go to some Jews – and God is calling men out of Jews AND Gentiles, and forming the one Body of Christ.  There are some who are there who are not already saved – right?  They're ethnically Jews and ethnically Gentiles, but they are not regenerate.  They hear Paul preaching the gospel – you know, not the gospel of the Kingdom – and they are saved and made members of the Body.  But when Paul preaches to those who are already regenerate, they maintain the Hope they've been saved to.   </div> <bR> <div> Okay, now I want to rewrite this in a schematic.  I want to summarize this argument that I just put on the chart.  The <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I> says something either has to be deduced by necessary inference or expressly stated in Scripture.  And Covenantalists ascribe to that premise, so this is going to be an <I>ad</I> <I>hominem</I> attack on Covenantalists.  </div> <bR> <div> <I>Question from the floor: What is an ad hominem attack?</I></div> <bR> <div> An <I>ad hominem</I> attack (or argument) is this: a group has a principle they ascribe to, and we say, “Let us start with `your' principle and see where it leads.  If it leads to a conclusion you don't like, maybe you'll then jettison your principle” – which they don't want to do.  Well, “one Body” is expressly stated in Ephesians 4:4-6, and that implies the cessation of Israel, as a distinctive nation before God.  In fact, the setting aside of Israel as a nation “till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in” is expressly stated in the eleventh chapter of Romans.  Therefore, the cessation of Israel is both implied and expressly stated in the Scriptures.  And the Covenantalists will agree with that.  So there is a double whammy on this.  The setting aside of Israel as a nation implies the cessation of signs to Israel.  That is a necessary inference.  Now, do you remember the list of three baptisms that we had on the board?  The inner baptism (or regeneration), the ritual baptism (with water), and the charismatic baptisms?  But when Israel ceases to exist as a nation before God, the water and the charismata by logical necessity must go.  They were signs to Israel, so they go.  And logic says one is left.  I had a list; and, at this point in time, the only one left on it is regeneration.”  So, that is the “one baptism” – regeneration.  Do you see what I am showing on the chart?  On THEIR principles, expressly stated in Scripture and implied by necessary inference – I should put a big arrow over here! – there is only one baptism left, and it is regeneration.  The Scriptures state that water and charismata are signs to Israel – that is expressly stated.  Do you see the point here?  The Covenantalists keep saying we're reading our theology into Ephesians 4:4-6, making it say only one baptism for today.  But here – without evoking Ephesians 4:5 – I've come to the same conclusion.  I haven't invoked Ephesians 4:5, and yet I am locked into one baptism!  But the <I>coup de grace</I> is that there IS A VERSE that specifically says one baptism!  And I've got to ask – why don't they believe it?</div> <bR> <div> I see that time is getting away from us, and we have a long list of other scriptures to go through.  But first, let us take a quick look at a portion of the <I>Westminster Confession of Faith</I>.  Chapter 1, “Of the Holy Scripture,” Section 6, says: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or traditions of men.”  Alright, the principle is “expressly stated in Scripture or implied by good and necessary consequence,” and the Covenantalists will agree with this – there is no controversy here.  They won't have any controversy with the cessation of Israel.  They won't have any problem with the cessation of signs to Israel.  But where do you think they are going to start bucking?  We have not yet mentioned how people's theology just starts bucking, have we?  They see where you are going with your argument – and whoa! – “I don't like it,” they say!</div> <bR> <div> So, let us start going through some of the passages.  Let us look at John 1:25: “And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?”  You see, the Pharisees ask a question.  They were expecting somebody, either the Messiah or Elijah or “that prophet.”  (Moses had said in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken” – so, they say “that prophet.”)  They were looking for somebody, and they did not have it quite figured out, but they knew it was either Christ or Elijah or the prophet that Moses had talked about.  So, they understood that a man would come from God and that he would come baptizing.  They knew this, because they said to John, “Why are you baptizing, if you are not one of those three?”  Clearly then, the men of Israel knew the significance of a national baptism – it was a sign of repentance of the nation of Israel and a recognition that the Messiah was “at hand.”  </div> <bR> <div> Now look at John 1:31: “And I knew him not: but that<B> he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water</B>.”  And remember that John the Baptist is a prophet, so when he says something, it is the Spirit speaking in him.  So, it is true.  And notice that John the Baptist says in this verse that he “knew him not.”  You see, John didn't know Israel's Messiah, but there were certain signs that would identify Christ to Israel – such as baptism with water and with what?  With Holy Spirit!  Christ did not perform His miracles from His deity, He performed his miracles by charismata!  The Spirit was given without measure to Christ.  The Father always heard the Son – everything the Son articulated, the Father heard.  The Holy Spirit would say, “Amen” – and charismata!  But it wasn't Christ in his deity – it was Christ as a man.  </div> <bR> <div> John 1:25 and 1:31 are two explicit verses that point out the purpose of water baptism – first, to alert Israel that their Messiah was “at hand” and then to identify Him to the nation.  And when we ask the Covenantalists to show even one contravening verse, they have none to offer.  They cannot produce one verse that says the purpose of water baptism changed, because it did not change!  Well then, what necessary inference can we draw?  We can draw the inference that it is THEIR THEOLOGY – not the Scriptures – that says the purpose of baptism has to be different after the Cross!  The argument is: “I am a Covenantalist. I look through the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, and I see that there are always covenants and every covenant has a sign and a seal.  Now, we're under the New Covenant and, again, every covenant has to have a sign and a seal – so, as Berkhof says, `If water baptism is not it, what would it be?'”  That is his argument!  Can you believe that!  Well, if you read the Scriptures through your theological glasses, those are the types of conclusions you will come to!  Berkhof has an axiom that we are under a covenant, and every covenant has to have a sign and seal, and – if it is not water baptism! – then what is it?  Therefore, it has to be water baptism!  That is nonsense!  Where are the verses that say the purpose and meaning of water baptism changed after John the Baptist?  I want you to remember that John himself was explicitly a prophet, and to notice that – in John 1:31 – he gives the REASON for his baptism, not what it supposedly “symbolizes.”  The fact that it symbolizes purification, or “washing away of sins,” is not the issue under discussion.  We are discussing the reason for the baptism.  And the reason is – whether it symbolized the washing away of sins or priestly baptism – it was a sign to Israel.  Now, this same water baptism and the charismatic baptisms are expressly conjoined as a further development of prophecy.  </div> <bR> <div> We have looked at John 1:25, we have looked at John 1:31.  Now look at John 1:33, and remember we are still in the same context.  John 1:33 says: “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which <B>baptizeth with the Holy Ghost</B>.”  So, John the Baptist is saying here that the Messiah will be baptized and thus will be made manifest, and then the Spirit will descend and remain on Him.  That is a textual clue.  I remember in the Old Testament that the Holy Spirit came in power.  The Spirit came down in power on the prophets, and they had charismatic gifts.  Did those gifts always stay with the prophets?  No, because the Spirit did not always stay with the prophets – sometimes He left!  But John the Baptist says, when you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon a man – He is the Messiah!  The Spirit is given to Him without measure!  Continually residing!  And Messiah is the One Who baptizes with Holy Spirit.  Now, that baptism is not regeneration – it is charismatic power.  John says Christ is going to baptize the Jewish believers with charismatic power.  And we see Him doing that in the twentieth chapter of John.  Do you remember when Christ breathed on the twelve apostles and said, “Receive ye Holy Spirit” – whose sins you remit, they are remitted, and whose sins you retain, they are retained”?  That is an example – pre-Pentecost! – where Christ is baptizing with Holy Spirit.  And after His ascension, He baptizes all the Jewish saints on earth with Holy Spirit.  So what is my point?  Here in John 1:33, the baptism with water is conjoined with the future fulfillment of Joel 2:28-31 – which is a sign to whom?  To the nation of Israel!  Go back and read the passage and see for yourself that it was a sign to and for Israel.</div> <bR> <div> Now, let us move on and see that the same water baptism we just looked at in John 1:33 is also expressly underscored by Christ's death and resurrection in the book of Acts – but first, let me summarize the background for you.  John the Baptist came baptizing with water so Messiah might be manifest to Israel.  He also said that the One on whom the Spirit descends and remains will baptize with Holy Spirit – it is part of the fulfillment of the sign.  So, we have John's baptism and Spirit baptism conjoined.  Now, look at Acts 1:5.  Christ says “For John truly baptized with water, but you all shall be baptized with Holy spirit not many days hence.”  Now, what's the interesting point here?  Christ doesn't say that the water baptism everybody received was a “new” baptism!  Not at all!  He calls it “John's baptism.”  And why does He call it “John's baptism”?  Not because it was done on John's authority – but because John was the one who inaugurated it!  John, by metonymy, initiated God's command to baptize – and that is why it is called John's baptism.  Christ, after the resurrection, is still calling it John's baptism.  So, after the resurrection – when they are baptizing – whose baptism are they baptizing with?  John's baptism!  “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence.”  We also need to look at Luke 24:49, which is parallel to the “shall be baptized with Holy Spirit.”  Luke 24:49: “And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”  So, the baptism with Holy Spirit is not salvation – it is “power from on high”!   </div> <bR> <div> “Ye shall be baptized with Holy Spirit” is parallel with “endued with power from on high.”  It is not salvation, not indwelling – it is charismatic baptism.  What about Mark 16:15-18?  “He who repents and is baptized shall be saved.  He who believes not shall be damned.  And these signs shall follow those who believe.”  I guess we don't need to list the signs, but the passage is parallel to Luke 24:49.  You will be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence, and you will be endued with power from on high – the power is demonstrated by not dying when bitten by a poisonous serpent or when you have drunk poison, by not dying after receiving a “mortal” wound, by raising the dead to life, by speaking in tongues.  That is how the charismatic baptisms worked.</div> <bR> <div> Let us summarize again: the reference to John's baptism in Acts 1:5 points back to John 1:33 and to John 1:31, and the baptism is the same.  But this is not all, there is more.  The same water baptism is expressly called the “baptism for remission of sins” – both before Christ was crucified and also after his resurrection.  Let us go to Mark 1:4: “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”  Now, you know Church of Christ people come to this passage, and they say “not baptized” means “not saved.”  And this interpretation of the verse is actually correct, because the passage says that anybody who refuses water baptism at that time is saying that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Christ.  That is what it meant for them to refuse water baptism – not that the baptism saved them but that those who refused were showing they were unregenerate.  Anyhow, that is why it is called “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” – not that baptism is what remits the sin but it is that which declares a person's sins have been remitted.</div> <bR> <div> Now, let us look at Luke 3:3.  And remember, that verse – and also Mark 1:4 – are BEFORE the Cross.  Luke 3:3 says, “And he came into all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”  Now let us go to Acts 2:38, which is AFTER the Cross.  Acts 2:38 says, “Then Peter said unto them [“ye men of Israel”], repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”  It is the same baptism, folks!  The purpose before the Cross and after the Cross is the same!  It is the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and then, of course, Acts 2:38 says, “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” meaning charismata, as in Mark 16:16-18.  And do these signs OCCASIONALLY or SOMETIMES follow those who believe?  No, these signs WILL follow those who believe.  Period.</div> <bR> <div> Okay, so that is more evidence against those who argue for water baptism today.  Not only do the Covenantalists not have a verse that says the meaning of baptism changed after the Cross but there is EXPLICIT testimony that it is the same baptism – it is the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.  And Christ calls it “John's baptism.”</div> <bR> <div> Now coming to the third baptism listed above, there are clear verses that show that the baptism with the Holy Spirit (the charismatic gifts) is the eschatological fulfillment of a sign to Israel in conjunction with their prophetic program.  Look back at Acts1:5-6: “For John truly baptized with water, but ye all shall be baptized with Holy Spirit not many days hence.  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him saying, Lord will thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel?”  Now, the disciples' question was not asked out of ignorance, because they' had just been taught for forty days, concerning the Kingdom of God.  And notice that Christ did not say to them, “Oh fools and slow of heart, I've talked to you for forty days.  Don't you know there is not going to be a Kingdom of Israel?” – like the Covenantalists say.  No, Christ says in verse 7: “ . . . it is not for you to know THE TIMES OR SEASONS, which the father hath put in his own power.”  Christ answers that there is going to be a Kingdom but He doesn't say WHEN.  Do you see the point?  He doesn't say when, but He also doesn't suggest in any way that there is NOT going to be one!</div> <bR> <div> Then verse 8: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”  So, this shows the priority of the Great Commission – first Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the rest of the world.  And here the baptisms continue to be expressly stated as being both “a fulfillment of prophecy” and “for Israel.”  Let us look at Acts 2:14 – we really see the Great Commission in action here!  We see its history unfolding.  Acts 2:14: “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea [those are Jews!], and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.”  Let us skip down to verse 16: “But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel.”  So, what's happening here?  All the men see the people speaking in tongues, and Peter says, “This is it!”  Verse 22: “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.”  Verse 36: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly. . . .”  Who's Peter talking to?  To all the house of Israel!  Is that a sign to Israel?!  Of course it is!  Peter is saying, “Let all the house of Israel know ASSUREDLY, that God has made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”  Acts 2:38: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”  So, here again we have the signs – baptism is required as a sign to Israel, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are going to follow.  Verse 39: “For the promise is unto you. . . .”  Who is the “you”?  It is Israel!  Jesus Christ was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers” – Paul said that explicitly in the fifteenth chapter of Romans, and Peter is saying it here!  Can you see that?  “For the promise is unto you [Jews], and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”  Now, it doesn't matter whether you take the “afar off” as being the Diaspora or being the Gentiles, because both are prophesied – and the “afar off” could include both.  But the “ye men of Israel,” in verse 22, and “all the house of Israel,” in verse 36, do identify the audience as Jews .</div> <bR> <div> Let us look at Acts 3:12 (we're wrapping around the axle here, but let us keep going!): “And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk.”  Verses 14 and 15: “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”  Now, what do the Covenantalists say?  They say, “Well, you killed the Prince of life, whom God has raised from the dead, so you've had it.  You've committed the unpardonable sin.“  But let us skip down to verse 17: “And now, brethren [Who's the brethren?  It is the men of Israel!], I wot that through ignorance ye did it. . . .”  Do you remember what Paul said in I Timothy 1:13?  He said he “did it ignorantly in unbelief,” and he had “obtained mercy.”  He underscores it!   Yes, and Peter says here, “ . . . ye did it, as did also your rulers, in ignorance.  Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto you. . . . “  Now, wait a minute!  I don't see anything about Israel being set aside here.  Peter says, “Ye crucified the Lord.”  But he adds, “Ye did it in ignorance, so repent and God will send Jesus back.”  Did you get that?  If they repent, God will send Jesus back!  And Peter's already asked Christ when the Kingdom would be restored?”  Peter didn't know when this would happen, but he tells them plainly – if they will repent – God will send Jesus again.  So, that is the whole prophetic program – that is it in a nutshell!</div> <bR> <div> But let us move quickly on.  Verse 21: “Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”  The restitution of what things, you ask?  The answer is declared expressly in the Old Testament – in the Hebrew Scriptures!  But, in contrast, what does Paul say about his gospel?  Romans 16:25: “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, even the proclaiming of Jesus Christ according to the revealing of the secret which was held in silence since the world began.”  Israel's program and the Body's program are different – they are not the same!  One is a major topic of the Old Testament and one is held in silence till revealed to Paul, after his conversion in the ninth chapter of Acts.  You cannot legitimately cram the two programs together, no matter how you try!  So, the “restitution of all things,” in Acts 3:21, refers to the Kingdom that Peter and the eleven apostles had asked about earlier.  </div> <bR> <div> Now skip down to verse 24: “Yea, and <B>ALL the prophets</B> from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have <B>spoken</B>, have likewise<B> foretold</B> of these days.”  What's that?  Beginning with Samuel, ALL the prophets foretold of “these days”!  But Paul said his gospel was held in silence – something held in silence cannot be the thing that was spoken!    So, why does the Scripture call the Pauline gospel “the secret”?  Because it WAS secret!  Because it can't be found in the Old Testament!  Because it was held in silence!  The Old Testament prophecies were not secret – they were not held in silence.  Verse 25: “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.”  Which covenant is that?  It is the one made with the Jewish “fathers” – that is pretty easy to understand, isn't it?  Now pay attention to verse 26: “And to you without distinction, Jews and Gentiles”?  Is that what it says?  No, it doesn't say that – it says, “Unto you first . . . .”  Jews first!  First let the "children” be fed!  “ . . . God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”</div> <bR> <div> I want to summarize again, and then we will be done for the night: </div> <div>  </div> <div> 1.    There are scriptural passages that state expressly that the two distinct baptisms, water baptism and spirit charismatic baptisms, are signs to and for Israel.  There are no contravening passages.</div> <div> 2.    There are passages that state expressly that there is no longer a Jewish-Gentile distinction before God.  For example, Ephesians 2:14,15, which says “the dividing wall has been removed,” “peace” has been made between “the two,” and “the twain” have become “one.”  And Ephesians 4:4, which says there is “one Body” – and therefore, there is no Israel.  (I am just recapping what I put on the board here).  By logical and necessary consequence, if there is no Israel, there can be no signs to Israel.  </div> <div> 3.    There is an express verse that says for the Body there is but one baptism.  And this one baptism is part of the unity that is to be guarded in the bond of<B> the </B>peace (Eph. 4:3, cf. Eph. 2:14,15). There is no command in Paul's epistles for water baptism.  Paul nowhere says to repent and be baptized.  What does he say in Romans 10:9?  Does he say, “Repent and be baptized”?  No, he says, “If thou confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”  Period.  That is it.</div> <div>                                    </div> <div> The conclusion is that “one baptism” is consistent with the eschatological cessation view.  “One Body” is likewise required by the cessation of the nation of Israel (the <B>twain</B> have been made <B>one</B>).  These things are clearly taught in the Scriptures.  We've looked at the passages tonight, and <B>there is no contravening evidence</B>.  </div> <bR> <div> Our position is intelligible, consistent, and noncontradictory.  It is based on the biblical evidence, not a theological axiom.  It explains why the many denominations which embrace some sort of water ceremony fight and display disunity.  Why?  Because they are not recognizing and guarding the unity of the faith (the "seven ones”) in the bond of "the peace," articulated by Paul in Ephesians 4:4-6.  </div> <bR> <div> ----------------------------</div> <div> [Acknowledgement: Many thanks to Leonard and Kae Nawojski for their assistance in editing this study transcript.]  </div> <bR> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>