The Gospels and the Mystery

[Musicmaster]

I'm a little late responding to your question: Are you saying that Paul also taught the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins, as was taught in the four gospels? No, Paul taught baptism with the Holy Spirit, by which believers become one spiritual body (1CR 12:13. Harmonizing this with references to water baptism in the gospels, we arrive at this understanding:

At the moment of repentance/acceptance, God’s Holy Spirit enters converts' spiritual hearts (RV 3:20), uniting them with God as heavenly Father (RM 8:9) and identifying them with Christ’s worldwide/catholic body or church (CL 1:18). This manifold event is called spiritual birth or baptism (1CR 12:13). We can infer that this dynamic occurs also for pre-NT believers, because there is no salvation outside of Christ’s ekklesia or church (ACTS 4:12). Partial knowledge of God’s Word will limit ability to cooperate with Him, so there is a need for evangelism or learning the full Gospel (MT 28:18-20, cf. ACTS 18:24-26) as well as for lifelong discipleship or spiritual training (2TM 3:16-17).

Confusion may arise from the fact that in Ephesians 4:5 Paul says there is only one baptism, but elsewhere the NT seems to refer to two types of baptism: one by water and another by the Holy Spirit. In His “Great Commission” Jesus tied saving faith closely to the work of water baptism when He said “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (MT 28:19). Yet, in 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul wrote that “We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.” This suggests that spirit baptism occurs at the moment of conversion, when the Holy Spirit unites the new saint (saved sinner/soul) with Christ, because “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” (RM 8:9) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit may also be called the initial filling by the Holy Spirit, because at the point of confession and conversion a person is cooperating fully with God. (See RM 6:3-7, GL 2:20) The evidence that a person has been baptized by God’s Spirit or included in Christ’s spiritual body is love in its myriad of forms (GL 5:22-23, JN 13:35).

Any confusion is resolved by understanding that the two types of baptism are united if baptism with water is viewed as a symbolic way of portraying baptism by the Holy Spirit. The details for this work are vague, but the mode of immersion best portrays a Believer’s spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection to eternal life (CL 2:12, RM 6:4). As a practical matter, a new Believer normally would be baptized by the local congregation of the catholic (worldwide) church in which he/she will want to participate as an acknowledged member. Water baptism symbolizes spiritual baptism.

Instead of commanding water baptism for salvation, Paul said in one place (RM 10:9-10) that a convert should confess “with your mouth” in order to be saved, even though elsewhere (EPH 2:8-9) he taught that one is saved by faith. Both outward confession and water baptism may be seen as works manifesting love for God that every new Believer will want to (but we cannot say “must”) perform as soon as possible following his/her decision to have saving faith (cf. MT 3:13-15, ACTS 2:38).

Paul taught only one Gospel that did not require water baptism:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Peter, James and John preached water baptism unto salvation, but not Paul since the eleven were under the Kingdom Gospel, but the mystery revealed to Paul by Christ Jesus was the Gospel of Grace without works.

Does that clarify?

MM

 

[GWH]

Paul taught only one Gospel that did not require water baptism:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Peter, James and John preached water baptism unto salvation, but not Paul since the eleven were under the Kingdom Gospel, but the mystery revealed to Paul by Christ Jesus was the Gospel of Grace without works.

Does that clarify?

MM

Yes, realizing that the NT contains the story of the culmination of the OT re physical Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant re spiritual Israel is helpful, and baptism with water should be viewed as symbolic of portraying baptism by the Holy Spirit.

 

[GWH]

Yes, realizing that the NT contains the story of the culmination of the OT re physical Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant re spiritual Israel is helpful, and thus baptism with water should be viewed as symbolic or portraying baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Paul also did not commend communion, but neither did he condemn it. No doubt such practices may be viewed as in the same vein as other OT practices that may continue to be observed by Messianic Jews as long as they do not contradict the NT Gospel of grace. (ACTS 15:1-29)

 

[Musicmaster]

Yes, realizing that the NT contains the story of the culmination of the OT re physical Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant re spiritual Israel is helpful, and baptism with water should be viewed as symbolic of portraying baptism by the Holy Spirit.

What's problematic is the increasing popularity out there among some evangelicals is replacement theology, which is a doctrine of demons.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Paul also did not commend communion, but neither did he condemn it. No doubt such practices may be viewed as in the same vein as other OT practices that may continue to be observed by Messianic Jews as long as they do not contradict the NT Gospel of grace. (ACTS 15:1-29)

As an Israelite, I fully participate in communions and also of the Gospel of Grace.

Amen to that.

MM

 

[GWH]

What's problematic is the increasing popularity out there among some evangelicals is replacement theology, which is a doctrine of demons.

MM

I'm not sure what that term means.

 

[Musicmaster]

I'm not sure what that term means.

Oh. Sorry. What that system of thought teaches its blind followers is that the Church has replaced Israel in relation to the promises made to Abraham and his descendants. They teach that the Lord has completely set aside Israel for all of time and eternity, with Believing Gentiles and believing Jews being the "new" Israel in the place of the historic, national Israel.

That doctrine of demons is what helps to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism.

MM

 

[John146]

Yes, realizing that the NT contains the story of the culmination of the OT re physical Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant re spiritual Israel is helpful, and baptism with water should be viewed as symbolic of portraying baptism by the Holy Spirit.

The OT was not symbolic only, but God's physical dealings, covenants, and promises to God's physical people Israel. He will fulfill all things promised to the nation of Israel. He will restore their physical kingdom on earth and reign over them on the throne of David.

 

[rogerg]

The OT was not symbolic only, but God's physical dealings, covenants, and promises to God's physical people Israel. He will fulfill all things promised to the nation of Israel. He will restore their physical kingdom on earth and reign over them on the throne of David.

[Jos 21:45 KJV]
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

[Jos 23:14 KJV]
14 And, behold, this day I [am] going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, [and] not one thing hath failed thereof.

[Jer 3:8 KJV]
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

 

[John146]

[Jos 21:45 KJV]
45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

[Jos 23:14 KJV]
14 And, behold, this day I [am] going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, [and] not one thing hath failed thereof.

[Jer 3:8 KJV]
8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

 

[rogerg]

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

All Israel is spiritual Israel, not the nation of Israel. Spiritual Israel consists of those saved from all kindred, nations and tribes of the world:

[Rom 9:7-8 KJV]
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

[Gal 6:15-16 KJV]
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

 

[John146]

All Israel is spiritual Israel, not the nation of Israel. Spiritual Israel consists of those saved from all kindred, nations and tribes of the world:

[Rom 9:7-8 KJV]
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

[Gal 6:15-16 KJV]
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Nope. Doesn't match up..

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? Natural branches are natural Israel
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Blindness has happened to spiritual Israel?
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Jacob is spiritual Israel? Come out of Sion? Nope, second coming as King.
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. Spiritual Israel is the enemy of the gospel? Nope.

 

[GWH]

Oh. Sorry. What that system of thought teaches its blind followers is that the Church has replaced Israel in relation to the promises made to Abraham and his descendants. They teach that the Lord has completely set aside Israel for all of time and eternity, with Believing Gentiles and believing Jews being the "new" Israel in the place of the historic, national Israel.

That doctrine of demons is what helps to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism.

MM

Well, Paul’s doctrine in Romans is that God has included the Gentiles in His plan of salvation and that Israel must cooperate with the New Covenant in order to be saved.

 

[rogerg]

Nope. Doesn't match up..

Romans 11:
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? Natural branches are natural Israel
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Blindness has happened to spiritual Israel?
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: Jacob is spiritual Israel? Come out of Sion? Nope, second coming as King.
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. Spiritual Israel is the enemy of the gospel? Nope.

Yes, it does match up. It says, " how much more shall these"; it doesn't say "how much more shall the nation": branches represent individuals (see Jhn 15:5 below), not nations. Jacob is symbolic of spiritual Israel because he was the one whom God loved, not Esau, whom God hated, yet Esau was also of Abraham's physical seed - so just because someone is of Abraham's physical seed is irrelevant, instead, that someone is of his spiritual seed - the seed God had in view for the promise - the elect - is all that matters. God removes the sin (the ungodlyness) from the elect, as represented by Jacob.
Do you see the "as touching the election" in v28? It tells you right there that the nation of Israel cannot be in view. Instead, it
informs of the elect - those from all nations, kindreds, peoples, and tongues - whom God elected, and saves - they are the beloved.
The "for the father's sake" represents the spiritual fathers, not the physical fathers, as evidenced by the fact that not all of Abraham's seed are of the promise, therefore, not all of their physical progenitors are of the promise either.
Until becoming saved, those elected, while yet unsaved, are the spiritually blind, which is why the phrase, "in part" was included. When
the last becomes saved (with those yet unsaved being symbolically referred to as spiritual gentiles, not spiritual Jews - but when saved, they become spiritual Jews), they will no longer be spiritually bind and then the end comes.
I don't know where you got "Spiritual Israel is the enemy of the gospel" - that makes no sense? I did not say that. I am saying exactly the opposite - that Spiritual Israel alone formed, and is, the basis of the gospel; the earthly nation of Israel is not.
It is laid out very clearly in the verses I provided.

[Jhn 15:5 KJV] 5
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

 

[Musicmaster]

Well, Paul’s doctrine in Romans is that God has included the Gentiles in His plan of salvation and that Israel must cooperate with the New Covenant in order to be saved.

In times past, the Gentiles were saved only through joining with Israel, but because Israel has failed by continuing to reject Christ Jesus as Messiah...for now...there had to be some other means for Gentiles and believing Jews, so the Gospel of Grace was revealed as the alternative, which will end at the rapture. After that, the Kingdom Gospel will once again become the means, with those under that dispensation having to "endure unto the end" since they will not be sealed by Holy Spirit.

MM

 

[GWH]

In times past, the Gentiles were saved only through joining with Israel, but because Israel has failed by continuing to reject Christ Jesus as Messiah...for now...there had to be some other means for Gentiles and believing Jews, so the Gospel of Grace was revealed as the alternative, which will end at the rapture. After that, the Kingdom Gospel will once again become the means, with those under that dispensation having to "endure unto the end" since they will not be sealed by Holy Spirit.

MM

Well, Gentiles unfamiliar with Israel could have been saved on the basis of general revelation per RM 1:20.

Not sure how you think the Kingdom Gospel differs from the Gospel of Grace.

 

[Cameron143]

Well, Gentiles unfamiliar with Israel could have been saved on the basis of general revelation per RM 1:20.

Not sure how you think the Kingdom Gospel differs from the Gospel of Grace.

How would this work...that general revelation saves an individual?

 

[Musicmaster]

Well, Gentiles unfamiliar with Israel could have been saved on the basis of general revelation per RM 1:20.

Not sure how you think the Kingdom Gospel differs from the Gospel of Grace.

There are a number of differences.

Kingdom Gospel -

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Jesus)

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.

Gospel of Grace -

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (Paul)

The Kingdom Gospel made no mention anywhere for having to believe in these three elements. Instead, it was always about baptism and repentance. The "givens" in all this is that, yes, faith and Christ are indeed the commonality all throughout, so we can dispense with those as a part of the dicussion since they are "givens."

Paul never stated the requirement for baptism for remissions of sins not for salvation. The armchair experts in the Bible will claim that each writer of the NT books spoke only part of the Gospel, with us having to piece together all the various messages in order to possess the whole if it all. The trashy nature of this kind of doctrine speaks for itself, for it lays at the feet of those men the accusation that they were/are guilty for the sin of omission. The absurdity of that belief is self evident.

Where it's true that Paul did not ever downplay the practice of baptism, he never laid it down as a requirement for salvation as did Jesus and the eleven.

Now do you see the distinctions? All of scripture is for us, but not all was written TO us. It's all true, but the differences remain true to those to whom they were written/spoken.

MM

 

[GWH]

How would this work...that general revelation saves an individual?

Paul's explanation in RM 1:20 is that by perceiving God's power and love as revealed by His Creation a person might be motivated to seek Him/His will, which MT 7:7-8 and HB 11:6 is salvific.

 

[GWH]

There are a number of differences.

Kingdom Gospel -

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Jesus)

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.

Gospel of Grace -

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (Paul)

The Kingdom Gospel made no mention anywhere for having to believe in these three elements. Instead, it was always about baptism and repentance. The "givens" in all this is that, yes, faith and Christ are indeed the commonality all throughout, so we can dispense with those as a part of the dicussion since they are "givens."

Paul never stated the requirement for baptism for remissions of sins not for salvation. The armchair experts in the Bible will claim that each writer of the NT books spoke only part of the Gospel, with us having to piece together all the various messages in order to possess the whole if it all. The trashy nature of this kind of doctrine speaks for itself, for it lays at the feet of those men the accusation that they were/are guilty for the sin of omission. The absurdity of that belief is self evident.

Where it's true that Paul did not ever downplay the practice of baptism, he never laid it down as a requirement for salvation as did Jesus and the eleven.

Now do you see the distinctions? All of scripture is for us, but not all was written TO us. It's all true, but the differences remain true to those to whom they were written/spoken.

MM

I see your distinctions but not harmonizations. For example, Paul DID affirm the Lord's Supper in 1CR 11:17-29 and he DOES require baptism per 1CR 12:13.