House Church Talk - Baptisms and Administrations

[Ross J Purdy]

Hi Bruce,

The problem with dispensational theology is not that it doesn't use Biblical
terminology because it does, the problem is that it can't be explained with
any kind of brevity! It also encompasses a wide variety of views which some
see as a weakness. But in general, dispensationalist circles contain many
independent thinkers and studiers which is rather its strength. Even though
as with any movement, there are elements that settle in and degenerate into
denominationalism, there are those that continue to grow and evolve as they
emulate the Bereans that searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those
things are true or not.



----- Original Message -----

From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at hotmail.com>


> Hi Ross,
>
> The baptism which we have been discussing is the new covenant baptism that
> is done by men. I am well aware that there are a number of different
> baptisms of people and objects in a variety of fluids in the old covenant
> scriptures (John's baptism included.) But after the new covenant was
brought
> in by the shedding of the blood of Christ at Calvary, the only baptism of
> which I am aware of which men were the baptizers is the baptism of
believers
> in water.
>
> I'm curious though about a few of your statements:
> You wrote:"...in Noah's case, he was baptized in the flood but never got
> wet!"
>
> Of all the places which I have listed where the words "baptizo" or "bapto"
> are used in the scriptures, I've not found any so far that speak of Noah's
> experience in the flood as a "baptism". I certainly may have missed some,
> especially in the O.T. If you could help me locate the text(s) you are
> speaking about, I'd really appreciate it.

1Pe 3:20-21; Also note Israel's baptism into Moses in the cloud and in the
sea without getting wet either. Of course these are types.

>
> You seem to distinguish between the baptism in the Spirit on the Day of
> Pentecost and the baptism by which believers are sealed. Regarding the
> latter you suggested that the Holy Spirit, Himself, was the baptizer and
> that "identification with Christ" was the "medium".
>
> I think you would agree with me that every baptism has: (1)a baptizer,
(2)a
> baptizee, (3)a baptismal medium into which one is baptized and (4) a
> baptismal purpose. It has been my understanding so far that in the case of
> each and every baptism in scripture, the baptizer is always a person ( a
> man, a woman, or the lord Jesus, Himself) and the baptismal medium is
either
> a substance (water, oil, blood, vinegar, honey, filth etc) or a person
(the
> Holy Spirit).
>
> So I'm wondering what scripture has lead you to believe that the Holy
Spirit
> is the baptizer of new believers into identification with Christ? I
realize
> that I Cor 12:13 KJV reads: "For BY one spirit are we all baptized into
one
> Body..." However, I'm sure you know that the word translated "by" is the
> Greek word EN, which really means "in".

Rom 6:3-4 EMTV Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we were buried with
Him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the
dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of
life.

If this is water baptism, then it is self-evident that water baptism places
us into Christ which would mean baptismal regeneration. Now that means all
the non-water baptized are unsaved. But Paul was NOT sent to water baptize
(even if he baptized a few, he did not baptize all and the reason is, I take
it, succeeding revelation), but he was sent to save! (As per 1Cor 10:33
etc.) The apostle to the Gentiles never mentions water baptism as a
requirement for salvation but rather explicitly states that it is through
faith apart from works. So this baptism can not involve water. Nor can the
one mentioned in Col 2:12

Col 2:12 EMTV having been buried together with Him in baptism, in which also
you were raised together through faith in the working of God, who raised Him
from the dead.

There appears nothing symbolic here either. The language is figurative but
it is referring to something real and actual. Verse 11 mentions a
circumcision made without hands, are we to imagine then in this context that
Paul is speaking of a baptism with hands? Gal 3:27 says we are baptized into
Christ, not water. What human hands can do that?

1Cor 12:13 says we are baptized into one body which is a corporate entity,
as per Romans, also which is the Body of Christ His church. The practical
effect of this baptism is identification with the person of Christ in God's
eyes and membership in the corporate body, i.e., the church. Now the context
of the chapter is the work of the Holy Spirit as per verse 11 and thus the
natural choice for translating the Greek "en" into English as "by" since the
context demands seeing this preposition as dative of agency. "En" can be
validly translated by a number of words other than "in". This is supported
by many Bible translations who all had excellent Greek scholars work on
their translation. Of course, there are also those who have different views
but there arguments seem weak and rather biased to me. ;^)

It is the Holy Spirit then that identifies/baptizes us into/with Christ, and
that without a drop of water.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that Christ promised was only
effective for those present there. I don't see any direct relevence for us
today.


> You also wrote:"Then there is the baptism of fire along with the HS at
> pentecost."
>
> Brother, how do you consider that the appearance of "cloven tongues LIKE
AS
> FIRE" which "sat upon each of them" (Acts 2:3) would ever qualify as a
> "baptism in fire" as is referred to in Mat thew 3:11 and Luke 3:16? A
> "fire-like appearance upon each one" does not sound to me like a baptism
any
> more than a few drops of water on an infant's head is a baptism! It has
been
> my understanding that the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the baptism of
> believers recorded historicly in Acts 2:1,2 but the baptism in fire is the
> baptism of all unbelievers in the Lake of Fire, recorded prophetically in
> Rev.20:15. But I am certainly open to correction if you believe scripture
> clearly teaches otherwise.

Perhaps, judgment is the superior understanding here, but it didlook like
fire to them and sat on them...is there any chance that they would have
thought of what Christ said as recorded by Luke? Likewise, it is not so far
fetched that a reader would think of it too. But judgment is probably the
better referrent.


>
> Your last statement was:"This is the "one baptism" of Eph 4 and it is my
> conviction that it is the only valid baptism for this present
> dispensation/administration of God."
>
> I agree with you that the "one baptism" of Ephesians 4 is the baptism of
> believers in the Holy Spirit. But regarding your "conviction that it is
the
> only valid baptism for this present dispensation/administration of
God"...I
> have a few questions:
>
> -When the Lord Jesus commanded His disiples to go, make disciples of all
> nations, baptize those disciples in the name of the Father and of the Son
> and of the Holy Ghost and then to teach those disciples all the things
that
> He had commanded them, He promised to be with them even unto the end of
the
> world/age. Mat thew 28:19,20 So my question is, if this action of baptizing
> of disciples was to cease at some point between then and now, how would
they
> (or we) know that we were no longer to baptize disciples? What divine
> instruction would teach that the Lord Jesus' instruction in Mat thew 28 was
> completed and was no longer valid? At what point, historicly did that take
> place?

As per the Gospels, we know that signs were to follow those who were
baptized. The book of Acts follows up with folks manifesting the HS after
H2O baptism. At least until Peter meets up with Cornelius' Gentile
household. Here something happens that freaks Peter out including those
pious Jews back in Jerusalem. These Gentiles manifested the HS without H2O
baptism! Peter who rightly understood the Lord's command that one should be
baptized made sure they all got baptized. Then we have Paul who I showed
baptized a few but ultimately thanked God he did not baptize anymore. He
states that he was NOT commissioned to H2O baptize nor does he promote it in
his teachings. But on the other hand, John the Baptist and the 12
Circumcision apostles WERE commissioned to baptize! But their covenant
kingdom was put aside for a new administration of God.


>
> -Re. your view of dispensations and "this present dispensation", it is my
> conviction that a doctrine that cannot be stated in words of scripture is
> NOT a scriptural doctrine. So I wonder what statement(s) of scripture have
> lead you to believe that there are various dispensations (i.e. a
> dispensation in which baptizing disciples was a valid and God-ordained
> practice, and another dispensation extending to the present in which
> baptizing disciples is no longer a valid and God-ordained practice)?
>
> The Greek word OIKONOMIA, the administration of a household or estate is
> translated "dispensation" or "stewardship" and appears 7 times in
scripture.
> 6 of those times it is used of something being entrusted to a particular
> person who is charged with the responsibility of administering that trust
> for the one who has committed it to them.
> In Luke 16:2,3and 4 the word is used 3 times of the stewardship committed
to
> the unfaithful steward who was about to be put out of his "stewardship".
>
> In I Cor.9:17 Paul is the steward to whom a dispensation was committed.1
> Corinthians 9:17
>
> In Ephesians 3:2, we learn that that dispensation was a stewardship of His
> relative to the grace of God which was given to him in order to benefit
> others.
>
> In Colossians 1:25, Paul tells us that it was God who gave this
stewardship
> to him and that the purpose for which it was given to Paul was "to fulfill
> the word of God".
>
> The only usage of the word (of which I am aware) in scripture in which the
> word may be used of a particular period of time in which God works in a
> particular way is Ephesians 1:10, "the dispensation of the fullness of
> times".

>
> Do you believe that "this present dispensation" is the dispensation of the
> fullness of times? If so, when did this dispensation begin? If there are
> other dispensations (i.e. periods of time) of which scripture speaks, what
> are they? I have become very suspicious of any doctrines suggested by
> others which cannot be stated in words of scripture and I have personally
> had to dispense with many such doctrines that I once held and taught to
> others. But if you can demonstrate your doctrine of dispensations with
> scriptural statements, I am ready to learn.
>
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce
>


You have done a good job showing that dispensation is a good Bible word and
that it can refer to an administration or stewardship. Naturally, such an
administration will cover a period of time, but it is better to define it in
terms of an administration which entails its own administrative guidelines,
or house rules in keeping with the figure of the house steward.

Now, various ministers have come up with various dispensational schemes and
the most infamous is Scofield's due to his popular study bible. He defined
dispensations with respect to periods of time, but like I mentioned, it is
better to define it in terms of a particular administration of God.

Going back to Eph 3, Paul talks about the secret(mystery) dispensation of
God given to him to administer the grace of God to the Gentiles. Back to Eph
2 for a simple and Biblical scheme. Eph 2:7 talks of "the ages to come", Eph
2:11, 12 speak of "time past", and Eph 2:13 talks about "But now". In "time
past" there is the raising up of Israel, circumcision, law keeping etc. in
order to not be "cut off" from God's congregation. But we have the record of
Israel's fall and the putting away of the ordinances such as seders,
circumcision, baptisms et. al. in the book of Acts. Israel was to be God's
nation of priests and kings over the Gentile nations, and of course, ritual
purification via baptism was the order for any Israelite who wanted to be in
line with God's plan for them to be a preist. But the leadership rejected
their Messiah and removed their nation, as a covenant nation, out of the
will of God in violation of the covenant.

"But now" God has put a different administration in place via Paul. One
without Law keeping and all its ordinances. One where God, also being free
of the covenant, could bless the Gentiles and Israel too, now that their
priviliged status was revoked, through an administration of grace to all
individuals rather than through a covenant with a nation intended as a
channel of blessing to the rest of the nations. Now they were on common
ground with a common salvation identified with Christ in a new corporate
creation, or entity if you will, called the Body of Christ. Salvation by
grace apart from works like baptism and circumcision and any Law keeping!

That's the short answer and I know there are other questions but I am going
to break it off here for now.

In Christ,

Ross Purdy