Times of the Gentiles

[David M]

Hello Joseph

Hello again Dave:

There's no need to be ashamed of what Church you attend. To me, you sound very similar to the Christian Church as established by Alexander Campbell. But because you have a Dispensational attribute, you may very well be part of the First United Pentecostal Church (UPC) as they too preach Baptism (Acts 2:38).

I'm interested not because I want to label you; it'll save me a lot of research on what your positions are. I know about nearly every single denomination; even those who claim to be nondenominational. I've studied nearly every "traditional" Church except the new rising Churches that conjure up new titles or names. To me, the ever division of Protestants is proof of their fallacy; instead of getting alone, they choose to divide and conquer.

I am not ashamed, that is a false deduction. I won't say you are wrong about what church you think I belong to as that becomes a process of elimination. I am not interested in what church you belong to. It might help me understand where you are coming from, but I can see that already from your preterist (a label) views.

Anyways, I'm glad that you and I agree on Acts 2:38. It is impossible to refuse Baptism legally.

Yes, this is good. Although we might differ in understanding of prophecy, this is of less importance and could be considered totally irrelevant. The essence of belief is to believe in God and that God raised Jesus from the dead. The nature of our belief in that statement is established in our motives (our heart). I think we can be forgiven for not understanding prophecy. It is better that we are witnessing for God in the things we do and say in our everyday lives to the people we come into contact with. Talking about these things on this forum helps further our understanding and strengthen our faith and belief in God. We should build one another up, and build on the fundamentals of belief that God is and that God raised Jesus from the dead.

All the best,

David

[duxrow]

Hello again Dave:

There's no need to be ashamed of what Church you attend. To me, you sound very similar to the Christian Church as established by Alexander Campbell. But because you have a Dispensational attribute, you may very well be part of the First United Pentecostal Church (UPC) as they too preach Baptism (Acts 2:38).

I'm interested not because I want to label you; it'll save me a lot of research on what your positions are. I know about nearly every single denomination; even those who claim to be nondenominational. I've studied nearly every "traditional" Church except the new rising Churches that conjure up new titles or names. To me, the ever division of Protestants is proof of their fallacy; instead of getting alone, they choose to divide and conquer.
Anyways, I'm glad that you and I agree on Acts 2:38. It is impossible to refuse Baptism legally.
Joseph

Hey Joe, Have you studied on the name "Joseph"? How many are there in the Bible, and what's the meaning of the name?
Maybe you've covered this in an earlier post, but I've wanted to get an answer from someone like yourself.

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe, Have you studied on the name "Joseph"? How many are there in the Bible, and what's the meaning of the name?
Maybe you've covered this in an earlier post, but I've wanted to get an answer from someone like yourself.

The first time this name was used according to the Old Testament is in Genesis 30:

22 Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb. 23 And she conceived and bore a son, and said, “God has taken away my reproach.” 24 So she called his name Joseph, and said, “The Lord shall add to me another son.”

The meaning of the name Joseph is, "He will add or enlarge". Rachel named him Joseph in response to God, "taking away her reproach" and said, "The Lord shall add to me another son"; hence the definition, "to add" or "He will add".

As for the number of times the name Joseph is used, that depends on which collection of Old and New Testament writings you have. Seeing that I rely solely on the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, I'm certain that its number may differ from that of the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Then you'd have to consider the New Testament as well. In truth, however, I haven't really seen an interest in name-counting; no pun intended.

So, out of curiosity, how many times did you discover the name Joseph found in what ever Bible version you use?

Joseph

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Great question!

The meaning of the "times of the Gentiles" is unknown because the Bible doesn't say. So people speculate. And all speculations are based upon assumptions that fit a person's preferred eschatological position so they are useless for discerning between competing eschatological systems like Futurism and Preterism. The first task for anyone who wants to know what the Bible really teaches is to AVOID ALL SPECULATION and first establish the "Big Picture" that can be confirmed by many witnesses (mutually confirming verses). When this is done, you can then speculate about the things that are not clearly established by many clear and unambiguous verses.

If you follow this simple rule, you will see that the Futurist eschatology crumbles to dust before your very eyes.

Take a look at my review of the three synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse called The Synoptic Apocalypse (because it speaks of the same events as Revelation) and let me know what you think. A good place to leave comments would be on the thread I started on this topic back in April 2008 of the same name. Here is my opinion about the "times of the Gentiles" that I wrote for that article:

Originally Posted by The Synoptic Apocalypse
This prophecy is unique to Luke's record. It is extremely significant because it links directly to Daniel's prophecy that states everything would be fulfilled when the Jews were scattered out of the Holy Land (see the preceding comments as well as above).

Futurist often interpret the "times of the Gentiles" mentioned here as implying that there will be a future restoration of Biblical Israel. Their view can not be confirmed because there are no other passages in the Bible that speak specifically of the "time of the Gentiles" or of a future restoration. But there is a passage that speaks of Jerusalem as being "tread under foot" by the Gentiles, and this reference is found in Revelation which is an expansion on the Olivet Discourse, a kind of "parallel passage" if you will: And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. Revelation 11:1-2

Thus the "time of the Gentiles" appears to have lasted about three and a half years (forty two months). Another posibility is that it ended was an ongoing period of many cernturies beginning with the Babylonian exile unti it ended with the three and one half years of the Great Tribulation of 66-70 AD. In any case, it is of central importance to realize that God did not leave us a clear and unambigous witness as to the meaning of this passage, so it can not be used in the foundation of any eschatological system (see The Fundamental Principle of Biblical Heremeneutics).

I think there may be further support of this understanding from Dan 9.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In vs 26 the desolations [of Jerusalem] are determined unto the end of the war.
In vs 27 the sacrifice and oblation are made desolate, even until the consummation; or until the desolations are consumate and until the end of the war.

In agreement with Rev 11:1,2 this seems to support that the 'times of the gentiles' in Matt 24 need only refer to the time alloted for them to physically trample the city, which time was stated to be 'until the end of the war'.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I havent devoted a lot of time to your articles as yet.

Just a quick Qu.

Jesus seems to allude to the fact that the prophets of the OT tell of the events of 70AD, and the times of the Gentiles.
What Prophecies is Jesus alluding to?

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

He's talking about the prophecies written about of the end of the mosaic covenant as declared by Moses himself and all the prophets from Samuel onward spoke of these days [30-70 AD] [as Peter said].

He's talking of the prophecies of the full establishment of the ordinances [Heaven] and principles of the eternal everlasting covenant in power and glory.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hello again Dave:

Anyways, I'm glad that you and I agree on Acts 2:38. It is impossible to refuse Baptism legally.

Joseph

Some questions to ask about baptism in order to understand it's significance to the original audience and peoples.

Why was John baptizing in the Jordan river while living in the wilderness outside of mosaic covenant Judea?

Why did Paul say that Johns baptism [in the Jordan River] was a baptism of repentence? Acts 19:4
If they crossed Jordan to enter into the condional, temporal, national covenant which was declared temporary and faulty even when it was given, a baptism unto repentence in the jordan would signify a repentence FROM the mosaic law. Didnt' baptism have a connotation of leaving the mosaic law or other legalistic systems?
[repentence by being re-baptized in Jordan in preparation for leaving Judea west to east]

Jesus declared that John was Elias who was to come and who would 'restore all things'. To a person under the oppression of the mosaic law, a restoration of 'all things' would signify a restoration to things previouis to mosaic law/nation.

Why is the experience of the Israelites crossing the red sea under the cloud and in the water referred to as 'baptism'? 1 Cor 10. They abandoned all hope in any way but faith.

How did baptism 'save' them at that time and provide for a pledge of a good conscience towards God.? What is the meaning or intent of the word "save" in this context.

Why did Paul exclaim that he only baptized a few? 1 Cor 1. Why didn't he 'baptize' everyone of his converts if it was supposedly neccessary for 'salvation' irreguardless of the risk of having people say that they were baptised into Paul as opposed with Appollos, Cephas.. etc...

[sylvius]

http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.nl...n-baptism.html

the flood of Noah is a type of Christian baptism, based on St. Peter's acclamation in 1 Peter 3:17-22

It comes to mind:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

Genesis 8:4,

And the ark came to rest in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat

Rashi:

From here you learn that the ark was submerged in the water eleven cubits, for it is written: (verse 5) “ In the tenth [month], on the first of the month, the mountain peaks appeared.” That is [the month of] Av, which is the tenth month counting from Marcheshvan, when the rains fell, and they were fifteen cubits higher than the mountains. They diminished from the first of Sivan until the first of Av fifteen cubits in sixty days, at the rate of a cubit in four days. The result is that on the sixteenth of Sivan they had diminished only four cubits, and the ark came to rest on the next day. You learn [from here] that it was submerged eleven cubits in the waters [which were] above the mountain peaks.

"at the rate of a cubit in four days" - the "structuring principle", also expressed in the ratio of the two trees (233: 932) and in the one river that became four heads and in the "ed" that came up from the earth when nothing had yet grown.

v. 5

in the tenth [month], on the first of the month, the mountain peaks appeared.

v. 6

And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made.

Rashi:

at the end of forty days: since the mountain peaks appeared.

v.8,

And he sent forth the dove from with him, to see whether the waters had abated from upon the surface of the earth.

Rashi:

And he sent forth the dove: seven days later, for it is written:“And he waited again another seven days.” From this general statement you learn that the first time too he waited seven days. — [Gen. Rabbah 33:6]

v.10,

. And he waited again another seven days, and he again sent forth the dove from the ark.

v.12,

And he again waited another seven days, and he sent forth the dove, and it no longer continued to return to him.

v.13

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], on the first of the month, that the waters dried up from upon the earth

From which you might conclude that the mountains were "only" 15 cubits high, since it took 60 days for the waters to dry up ( If you take the 1 cubit in 4 days as measuring principle )

So at the moment the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat the waters were with 26 cubits above the earth, 26 divided in the 15 cubits of the mountains and the 11 cubits of the ark that were submerged. Thus showing the name of God ( 15-11 = 10-5-6-5)

"came to rest" = וַתָּנַח, "vatanach", said to be the fulfillment of the name Noach ("he will give us rest"), like also Jesus said of himself, Matthew 11:28)

Noteworthy,
Genesis 8:14 shows the same gematria as Genesis 1:1, viz. 2701, RAM's number that triggered me.

And in the second month, on the twenty seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

Rashi:

on the twenty-seventh: And they [the rains] started to fall in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month. These are the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year, for the judgment of the Generation of the Flood was for a whole year. — [from Eduyoth 2:10]

365th day being in principle "Yom Kippur" -- Man being created on the 1st of Tishri of biblical year 0 (or 1?), 365 days later it was 10th of Tishri of the year 1 (or 2?)

It said to be the day on which the Satan (the accuser) is not there (doesn't exist or is alseep) , since gematria of "hasatan' is only 364.

[TheForgiven]

Some questions to ask about baptism in order to understand it's significance to the original audience and peoples.

Why was John baptizing in the Jordan river while living in the wilderness outside of mosaic covenant Judea?

John baptized in the Jordon to fulfill the identification of Jesus; namely that Jesus would come to him to be baptized, yet only as a means to identify who the Messiah is/was; John himself did not know, and so his purpose of water-immersion was to wait for Jesus to come to him; he states this in his own words.

Why did Paul say that Johns baptism [in the Jordan River] was a baptism of repentence? Acts 19:4

Because that's what John's Baptism was; a baptism denoting repentance which was a picture of the Baptism Jesus later taught, and of which the Apostles taught, both before and after the cross. You'll note that after Paul told John's disciples that John's Baptism was a sign of repentance, he then explained that they were to believe in the one coming after Him. And so Paul baptized his disciples in Jesus name (water), instead of John's baptism (repentance), for the remission (washing) of sins only accomplished through the name of Jesus. After Paul baptized them, he laid hands on them, and they received the gift (powers) of the Holy Spirit.

The difference between John's baptism is that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, whereas baptism in Jesus name (Acts 2:38) was a burial and resurrection for the remission of sins.

If they crossed Jordan to enter into the condional, temporal, national covenant which was declared temporary and faulty even when it was given, a baptism unto repentence in the jordan would signify a repentence FROM the mosaic law. Didnt' baptism have a connotation of leaving the mosaic law or other legalistic systems?
[repentence by being re-baptized in Jordan in preparation for leaving Judea west to east]

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. I'll have to look at this circumstance a little further. To the best of my knowledge, and I'm merely guessing here, John's baptism was not a fulfillment of the Mosaic Law; it was an instruction given to John by God to perform until Jesus came. When Jesus came, John's baptism was no longer required.

Jesus declared that John was Elias who was to come and who would 'restore all things'. To a person under the oppression of the mosaic law, a restoration of 'all things' would signify a restoration to things previouis to mosaic law/nation.

And John did restore all things by bringing his disciples to the one who was to come; namely Jesus. And as John said, "I must grow smaller and He must increase". This was fulfilling the process of "restoring all things" back to God.

Why is the experience of the Israelites crossing the red sea under the cloud and in the water referred to as 'baptism'? 1 Cor 10. They abandoned all hope in any way but faith.

That is what baptism signifies; a death (blood) burial and resurrection. The figurative expression of the Hebrews crossing the red sea was a picture of what Baptism truly is; a death via blood (Jesus), a burial (full immersion), and a resurrection to a new life. When the Hebrews crossed the red sea, they were slaves prior to crossing. But after crossing, they had become free. In the same way, when we were baptized into Christ's death (Jesus name Baptism), we were set free from the laws curse due to our sins. After coming out of the water (like the red sea), we are raised to a new life; a new beginning; death because of the law was no longer lingering over our heads. We are thus resurrected as promised and set free from condemnation.

How did baptism 'save' them at that time and provide for a pledge of a good conscience towards God.? What is the meaning or intent of the word "save" in this context.

I'd say the more correct word would be "delivered", and not merely "saved", although both mean the same thing. The Hebrews were "delivered" out of slavery and into freedom with God. But this freedom came by the introduction of the law and the 10 commandments. Once any of them violated the law, they would become slaves again; slaves to sin. And because the law required a death penalty for sin, God instituted the temporary animal system to roll their sins into the next year; which is why they had to perform the same sacrifices annually over and over as the blood of animals could not permanently atone for sin; only roll them back. When Jesus fulfilled the Passover Lamb, no more sacrifices for sin is required (Hebrews 10:26). It is the same with us when we are Baptized in Jesus name; our passover lamb (Jesus) nails our slavery and condemnation of sin to the cross and we die with him (through our faith), in which we are also raised with Him (through our faith); all of this takes place at Jesus name Baptism (Immersion).

Why did Paul exclaim that he only baptized a few? 1 Cor 1. Why didn't he 'baptize' everyone of his converts if it was supposedly neccessary for 'salvation' irreguardless of the risk of having people say that they were baptised into Paul as opposed with Appollos, Cephas.. etc...

This is a huge misconception, but easily understandable considering we are listening to a single-sided phone conversation (figuratively speaking). Paul was not denouncing Baptism as some ascribe. He was simply stating that He Baptized the house of Cornelius, but no one else because that wasn't his calling. His calling was to "preach the gospels", in a figurative sense, "sow seeds". He explains how some are called to "sow seeds", and another person may be called to do the "watering", but it is God who provides the increase, and causes those seeds that were sown and watered to grow.

Thus, Paul's mission to the Corinthians was not to perform both missions; plant seeds and water them. Paul planted seeds, Apollos watered, but God caused their growth. To plant a seed into the hearts of men simply means to share the Good News. But someone else can water them (Baptism).

Now many read these passages and assume that Paul was denouncing Baptism, but that's taken out of its context. Furthermore, Paul was glad that he baptized (watered) no of the others considering the childish arguments and misunderstandings they had about baptism, as some of them were saying, "I was baptized by Paul, or Peter, or Apollos". And the last thing Paul wanted was for any of them to say they were baptized into his name. Truth is, they were not baptized by Paul, Peter, Apollos, etc. They were all baptized in the name of Jesus; the Apostles merely carried out the act.

I might share the gospel with someone (plant a seed into their heart), but someone else could later water them (water the seed). This happens everyday my friend. I might share the gospel with someone, but later when he/she attends church, the minister baptizes them in the name of Jesus (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This is nothing strange nor new.

In summary, Baptism is an act of faith and obedience. Too many people today look at Baptism as a useless waste of time, and not required. But when you consider the story of Namiun, who in the Old Testament reacted the very same way when he was asked to dip himself 7 times in the Jordon river. His thoughts were, "why the Jordon? Aren't there other waters much cleaner than the Jordon? And surely he (the prophet) could simply call upon the name of His God to restore me (without having to dip myself into physical water)". He responded just as many do today with Baptism, always asking why. The Prophet tells Namiun, "Did God ask you to do something difficult?" So Namiun obeyed, and it wasn't until the 7th time and coming out of the water that his leprosy was healed.

If you refuse to be baptized into Jesus name, then I question this persons salvation because those who refuse to be baptized clearly do not understand its nature. The healing power is not in the water, but in the Name Jesus.

Joseph

Hope this clarifies things for you my friend.

Joseph

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi Jo,
Just wanted to thank you for all your various insights. In most we agree, in some not in exact unity yet.

The primary point or observation that I was presenting for contemplation was that John was baptizing in the Jordan while living outside the land of Judea as a baptism of repentence against faith in the corporal law of Moses. Most of his instructions, like Jesus were more focused towards the individual, not saying repent and do the law of Moses again.

As the Israelites under Moses had been 'baptized' and given allegience to God by walking through the Red Sea, and then later 'baptized' and given allegience to the corporal mosaic covenant by walking through the Jordan under Joshua, they were now leaving the corporal, national instructions of Moses in preparation for the new individualized Instruction and truth of Christ, and relationship with God [salvation from the absence of that personal, real relationship and approval due to the ominousness of the law of sin/death] through faith in his Son.

In summary, Baptism is an act of faith and obedience. Too many people today look at Baptism as a useless waste of time, and not required. But when you consider the story of Namiun, who in the Old Testament reacted the very same way when he was asked to dip himself 7 times in the Jordon river. His thoughts were, "why the Jordon? Aren't there other waters much cleaner than the Jordon? And surely he (the prophet) could simply call upon the name of His God to restore me (without having to dip myself into physical water)". He responded just as many do today with Baptism, always asking why. The Prophet tells Namiun, "Did God ask you to do something difficult?" So Namiun obeyed, and it wasn't until the 7th time and coming out of the water that his leprosy was healed.

If you refuse to be baptized into Jesus name, then I question this persons salvation because those who refuse to be baptized clearly do not understand its nature., The healing power is not in the water, but in the Name Jesus.

I disagree. I feel and am contemplating that baptism was an expression of contractual acceptance and allegience of life with the weight of ones very life soul in the balance..... Baptism in Christ is an expression of a contractual allegience of ones life to faith and freedom in HIM as God and being freely justified by that faith. [John 6:28,29; 1 John 3:22-24]

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name [the person, entity and character] of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

It is the historic meaning that the expression of baptism had at that time which is important. Without that, it is just a religious ordinance which Christ came to free from and abolish, not set up. Your two underlined sentences above reflect a principle of works salvation rather than justification and being 'saved' into God's acceptance and relationship soley on faith and belief in Him and his Good character and person.

When they crossed the red sea under Moses, they contractually offered their lives in faith that the sea wouldn't fall down on them. They were 'baptized'. They walked through the Valley of the Shadow of death. They had little choice though. To be 'baptized' and give contratual allegience to faith and freedom in Christ and then walk in the law of Moses would have been sacriledge and apostocy. Similar, to be baptized in faith in Christ and then walk in faith in Religion, such as keeping certain ordinances, can likewize be apostacy.

It's not only the name, but the character, authority, person and simple ordinances behind the name. Your second underlined statement would be similar to some baptist mentality and quite frankly scares me.

The expereince of Nahum would have been prophetic, similar to how walking around Jericho 7 times was prophetic.

Though I've been 'baptism' 2 times and in two different ways, the second by immersion was a more accurate expression of abandonment of any other way but faith [and freedom] in Jesus as Creator, lifemaker incarnate. But it was a public expression of a previous personal occurance that I thought would be better expressed via immersion. I was being obedient to the necessary public expression and the proper expression, not obedience to a religious ordinance.

I think this 'public expression idea' is confirmed by Paul in Romans 10 where he says believe in thine heart and confess with thy mouth... It is at some early point made public, even if it's just public, true and perhaps recorded expression between a child and a S.S. teacher. It's further confirmed by Pauls description of purpose of baptism. The pledge of a good conscience towards God, not a good conscience by being 'obedient to the ordinance of baptism'; but in making ones faith in, and allegience to Christ's entity and teachings Public against all hope, consequences and odds.

[TheForgiven]

Hi Jo,
Just wanted to thank you for all your various insights. In most we agree, in some not in exact unity yet.

Well that's a start.

The primary point or observation that I was presenting for contemplation was that John was baptizing in the Jordan while living outside the land of Judea as a baptism of repentence against faith in the corporal law of Moses. Most of his instructions, like Jesus were more focused towards the individual, not saying repent and do the law of Moses again.

Not quite following you, but I do agree that John's purpose was not to bring people back to the Law; it was to lead them to Christ. That was is sole reason for baptizing in the Jordon. He states this himself:

John 1:29-34:

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

32 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

John testified to the Apostles John that, "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit".

So this was the reason why John truly baptized with nothing more than water, which served its purpose; to prepare the way for the Lord; make His paths straight.

As the Israelites under Moses had been 'baptized' and given allegience to God by walking through the Red Sea, and then later 'baptized' and given allegience to the corporal mosaic covenant by walking through the Jordan under Joshua, they were now leaving the corporal, national instructions of Moses in preparation for the new individualized Instruction and truth of Christ, and relationship with God [salvation from the absence of that personal, real relationship and approval due to the ominousness of the law of sin/death] through faith in his Son.

Agreed.

I disagree. I feel and am contemplating that baptism was an expression of contractual acceptance and allegience of life with the weight of ones very life soul in the balance..... Baptism in Christ is an expression of a contractual allegience of ones life to faith and freedom in HIM as God and being freely justified by that faith. [John 6:28,29; 1 John 3:22-24]

In order for you to truly define what Baptism is, you must have scripture to support your theory my friend. What then does the Bible say about Baptism? Let us examine a few verses:

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice here, after Peter was just filled with the Spirit of fire/tongues, Jesus spoke through Peter and answered their question, "repent". This was the first condition. John the Baptism preached a Baptism of repentence, but this is not the same Baptism that the Apostles taught. Notice what Peter speaking through the Holy Spirit says next, "AND be BAPTIZED for the REMISSION/WASHING/NULLING of sins". Being water Baptized in Jesus name for the remission of sins is not the same as John baptizing as a sign of repentence. Those are two different baptisms here; one by John as a sign of good works (repentence) fruitful for holiness, while the other for washing/remission/forgiveness of sins (death on the cross through Jesus). So at this point, we see that Peter, speaking through the Holy Spirit, says to REPENT, and then be BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus for the washing/remission/forgiveness of sins. And then what comes next? He says, "YOU will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

So repentence, remission, and Holy Spirit are all one aspect of being saved (delivered). A sinner must first realize that he/she is a sinner. Once ready, this person is to be water baptized in Jesus name for the washing of sins. After his/her baptism, they thus receive the gift of Christ's Spirit (Holy Inspiration) which Paul refers to in Romans as the "mind of Christ".

Now one cannot confuse the "gift" of the Holy Spirit with tongues, healing, etc. The Holy Spirit is not the very gift, as a gift of (which comes from) the Holy Spirit. These gifts were in the form of tongues, prophesy, etc. This we know God provided to them in the first century to help aid in the spreading of the Gospels.

Now, getting back to Baptism, Paul also speaks of how Baptism saves, exactly how Peter denotes in Acts 2:38.

Colossians 2:

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[c] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Here Paul shows that our faith in Christ's resurrection is shown through Baptism. Through our faith in the resurrection of Christ (Romans 10:9-10), we demonstrate our faith (through action) by being buried in the waters of Christ (Baptism), and we are raised to the newness of life when we come up out of the water. Thus, Baptism is a burial and a resurrection; it is also a circumcision of the heart; the removal of that which is unclean. Our sins are remitted when we are buried with Christ through baptism (water) into death for the remissin of our sins, and after being raised, we are thus reborn. This is exactly what Jesus meant in John 3, "born from above of water (baptism in His Name) and Spirit (coming up out of full-emmersion).

Finally, Peter states that Baptism saves us, not by the physical washing of our body (as was the case with John's Baptism), but with the answer of a clean conscious, having our hearts and minds (through out faith) cleaned of all guilt, and thereby setting us right before God; we are re-born afresh, as was the case with the Hebrews after crossing the red-sea. The red-sea is a picture of Christ's blood.

1 Peter:

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us[e] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[f] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

Peter proves that Baptism saves you internally (clean conscious), and not externally (washing of dirt from our body). It saves us for one reason alone; the resurrection of Jesus. Figuratively speaking, the Hebrews were resurrected when they crossed the red-sea. They were figuratively also being led by the Holy Spirit, when Moses delivered the Law. We are delivered the laws of Christ upon our resurrection from the dead through baptism into death.

I'll respond to your other posts later.

Have a great night.

Joe