What I share is a spiritual revelation and many have written and spoken of these things all through the centuries.What I share is not new.
Brother. I love you in Christ, but I disagree with you on this one now.
Yes, I am aware there are other groups who hold to this viewpoint.
That is why it has gained in popularity.
In fact, it fits well with many today who turn God’s grace into a license to sin on some level.
If my memory serves my correctly: You basically said before that you did not feel it was right to carry a pool around to baptize people.
This is what I believe guided you to think that we should not be water baptized.
The original seed of your own thinking has led you to think this way.
But faith in what God requires of us does not always make sense to us.
Why did God ask the Israelites to march around Jericho seven times?
They could have rationalized that it did not make any sense to not do so that many times and only do it 2 or 3 times.
But we walk by faith and not by sight.
We also do not walk according to our own thinking when it comes to the faith.
You said:
water baptism is not needed for the church nor is it part of the gospel it seems to be connected to Kohns Old Testament program that the Jewish believers continued in as they did the law and sacrifices for many years after Christ death.
it is very clear in scripture that the Jewish believers for the most part,we’re still struggling with the law all through Acts. Where do you think Peter was going to in Acts 2? He was going To the temple, which according to the new covenant was not needed anymore. No more sacrifices or offerings Levites, priest etc.Yet they were still under the law for a long time.
I am not in disagreement of this truth in Scripture that the Jewish apostles struggled with coming out from the Old Law. It does not mean that water baptism in Jesus’ name was not a valid practice by the apostles. God seemed to operate in their life just fine with them doing that. Why did God not stop them and or communicate this to them? We see plenty of other cases in the Bible where men are corrected by God. Why not on this issue? That is why your theory here does not hold water, my friend (pun intended).
You said:
Much of Paul’s writings deals with this issue of not being under the law.
To not see this from the scripture misses the entire issue and water baptism of John from the Old Covenant as well.
I do see Luke 16:16 as a case for how John was of the Old Law. If John’s water baptism was what was practiced after Pentecost with Gentiles, then there would be a problem. John did not baptize in the name of Jesus. Even at Pentecost, Peter told them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. So this was following what Jesus telling them to do in the great commission. It’s the plain reading and understanding on the text.
You said:
Paul was not to preach circumcision yet he circumcised Timothy.when you can show why he might have done this, more clarity may come, it is a clue to this discussion.He did say he did it not want to offend the Jews there. So he obviously did it not by a New Testament command but condescended to thier weakness. But when they wanted Titus, (a Gentile) circumcised, he withstood them strongly (
Galatians 2)
I agree with this article on why Timothy was circumcised.
Why Did Apostle Paul Have Timothy Circumcised?
I believe it was not to hinder Paul and Timothy’s efforts in evangelizing and ministering to them the truth of God’s Word. In Titus’s situation, he most likely did not want to be circumcised and he was not agreeing to go on a missionary trip among Jews to evangelize them. They most likely wanted Titus to be circumcised because they seen it as a salvation issue (of which we read in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved. Note: The Law of Moses would be the 613 Laws of the Torah as a whole or package deal).
You said:
Some may we say the argument “well, if Peter did it and we see the Jewish believers doing it in Acts then we should to”, then we should have a temple, Levites, keep the whole law and customs if the Jews abd sacrifice animals as they did for many years after Christ death many many years.
But the Scriptures make it clear we are not under the Law of Moses in many places (Romans 6:14, Acts of the Apostles 13:39). Nowhere is it stated in Scripture that water baptism in Jesus’ name was a practice that was of the Old Law. Nor do we read was it a practice that was Christianized. That would be only your imagination and thinking that such a thing happened. In fact, is there a slight chance you may be right? Sure. But it’s not written. I would rather be a fool for God in obeying what He said in His Word than to not do what He said. I walk by faith and not by sight and neither do I seek to walk by faith by my own thinking. This is where we disagree. You disagree with the Bible Alone position. We discussed this before in this thread at CF:
The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"
Granted, I am for the “Bible Alone + The Anointing to Understand It.”
But you appear to say that you hear God’s voice outside of Scripture.
Granted, this may not be actual words, but the point here is that I let Scripture be my sole guide because God speaks to us by His Word. God forever abides with His Word. For His Word will not return void.
You said:
Remember Jesus did speak twice to the Jewish believers of Johns water baptism in the past tense and said John baptized with water BUT ye shall be baptized in Acts 1 and 11 again to Peter.
Why did he say that if baptism was to continue for all?
Yes, this was in reference to the baptism of the Spirit that happened at Pentecost. They spoke in tongues both in Acts 2, and in Acts 10. In Acts 11, Peter then knew that the Gentiles were accepted into God’s program because they also were baptized into the Spirit and spoke in tongues.
