What’s your style of worship?

As I have talked to many people about our Church Plant here in East TN, this is one of the questions that comes up.  The other two are;

Who are you trying to attract?, and
Are you reformed?

Good questions, I guess.

First, Worship style…Gospel-centered.

If by worship we are talking about the time when our local assembly comes together to worship God, here’s what our worship ‘style’ is.  We worship God through Christ by the Spirit in the reading of the Scriptures that testify of Christ, preaching the Gospel from the Scriptures, hearing the Gospel in the Scriptures, singing the Gospel in accordance with the Scriptures, showing the Gospel as commanded in the Scriptures, and fellowshipping in the Gospel around the Scriptures.  If we’re talking about our music style…whatever is Biblical and easy to be sung by the WHOLE congregation.  Ancient, Old, Modern, New…so far in the first month we have sung them all…without music for the time being, hopefully with music in the future.

Second, Focus Group…the lost in our communities.

The conventional wisdom in Church-planting today seems to be identify a particular sub-section of culture and limit the growth of the Church those ‘four and no more’.  I know that limiting the attenders is not the purpose, but it does end up as the natural result.  Imagine a Church tailored to meet the needs of one subset of Americans…let’s say golfers.  All the illustrations in the sermon relate tothe ‘golfing’ lifestyle (is there a golfing lifestyle?), all the music sounds like the music being played in the clubhouse, and the Pastor wears Izod brand knickers to preach in every Sunday.  Who are you going to attract?  Golfers.  Who are you not going to attract?  Me.  Because I don’t feel welcome in your Church.  I have never golfed, I have worn Izod before, it was a gift, and I don’t speak the language.  Now take look at another Church.  The worship is tailored to God.  Suddenly I have something in common with everyone who attends there.  We’re all not God.  But we all need Him.  This is where I can hang my hat.  I have no doubt that we won’t attract all of Loudon County, but we have a bigger pool to draw from than the Golfer Church does.

Finally, Are you reformed?…No.

I hope I never become so comfortable with myself as to say that I’m reformed.  I hope I am always reforming.  For many being reforemd centers around five doctrines and I hold those doctrines near and dear to my heart as any regualr reader of this blog knows.  But those five doctrines do not a reformation make.  They are a good start, but they are not an end in themselves.  Orthdoxy leads to doxology which affects our orthopraxy.  In English that means that right doctrine leads us to worship God in the right way.  There are many practices in Southern Baptist Churches that stand in need of reformation.  Many churches neglect the public reading of Scripture.  Many sing songs that are simply not Biblical.  Many pull professions out of their youth under high pressure, just like the Muslim in the video from the last post.  Many do not preach thier text.  Many do not practice Church Discipline.  I could go on, but you get the point.  But the biggest point in this is that I do not believe even myself to be completely perfect, therefore as I study God’s Word I must be reforming myself and my practices by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Any questions?

Baptism: What, Who, When, Where, and Why Part 2

By Jeremy Weaver

I started writing on Baptism over a month ago, then got interrupted by life, and now I want to post other stuff.  I’m going to try not to commit myself to any series of posts in the future, since it seems I never get the time to finish them.

So here is the long anticipated ‘Part 2′. This has been so long coming I’m going to cut it short and get on with the blog.

We have already looked at what baptism is. Baptism is the physical act of immersing in water (the word is never used with any other sense in Scripture), and the spiritual act of immersing into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the command of Christ, in order to symbolize our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

This then leads us to four more questions. Who is a candidate for Baptism?, When should they be Baptized?, Where should Baptism occur?, and Why be Baptized?

Who is a candidate for Baptism?

When we confine ourselves to the text of Scripture, I think that it is very clear that the proper subjects, or candidates, for Baptism are those who have evidenced faith and repentance. Jesus sent out His Apostles with these words; “…All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mat 28:18-20 ESV) Notice the place of ‘make disciples’ in relation to ‘baptizing them’. We are to make disciples and then baptize those disciples. That is contrasted with the old Catholic way of making disciples by baptism. More sensible Paedo-baptists will argue the fact that their children are being discipled. But I think there is a marked difference between being discipled and being a disciple.

For instance, I have met many seminary students who have been taught Greek, Hebrew, Theology, etc. and yet I would not call them ‘students of Theology, Greek, or Hebrew’. They studied and passed the required classes, not for the knowledge but for the degree. A student of Theology would persist in the study of Theology for the love of Theology. A disciple of Christ persists as a disciple of Christ for the love of Christ. Discipleship is not me hammering facts about Christ into my son’s head, but discipleship begins when, after hammering facts about Christ into his head, my son sees Christ for who He is and loves and follows Him. Disciples are the proper recipients of Baptism.

When should they be Baptized?

After conversion. Philip tells the Ethiopian Eunuch, “If you believe…” (Acts 8:37)

Where should Baptism occur?

Baptism is an ordinance given to the Church by Christ.  Therefore, the place of Baptism is wherever the Church is gathered together.

Why be Baptized?

It is commanded by Christ.  He commands His disciples to be baptized, and He commands His Church to baptize disciples.

Baptism: What, Who, When, Where, and Why

So I’ve scrapped the post I said I was working on and decided to do something a little more simple. I think this format will provide the opportunity for the best discussion, if in fact, anyone happens to want to discuss Baptism after I’ve said my piece.

What is Baptism?

Baptism is properly defined as the immersion of a person into water. Before John the Baptist had baptized anyone, the Jews had developed the rite of Baptism which could serve one of two purposes. The first was for a ritual cleansing for a Jew before a feast, while the second, and more common purpose, would be as a rite of passage for Gentile converts to Judaism. Deep pools were dug with steps going down into and up out of the pool. The symbolism for new converts was that of crossing through the water into the promised land, just as Israel had crossed the Jordan upon their arrival in Canaan.

When John began to baptize, he was immersing people in the Jordan river, and calling Jews, not to a ritual cleansing, but to a rite of conversion to true ‘Judaism’. When Jesus came to be baptized by John, the symbolism of His act was the same to a larger degree. Jesus is true Israel, and He shows this from the very beginning of His ministry by passing through the Jordan river upon His official arrival in Canaan.

Now we jump ahead three or four years to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Before Jesus ascends to the Father, He leaves his disciples with some final instructions.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Mat 28:18-20 ESV)

Among the last instructions that Jesus gives His disciples is the command to baptize their disciples. But notice also that they are told to baptize them into (‘in’ from the Greek ‘eis’= to or into) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When Christian converts are baptized, they are being baptized into Jesus Christ, the True Israel. Jesus assumes identification with the Ark of the Covenant which entered the Jordan before the nation of Israel passed through, He assumes identification with Israel passing through the Jordan, He assumes identification with the Promised Land they were crossing into, and He assumes identification with the Jordan. And when we are baptized we are being baptized into Him.

There is a greater reality than even this identification with Christ. We are further identified with Christ by our baptism by the mode of baptism (immersion).

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. (Rom 6:3-10 ESV)

This is the greater aspect of baptism, it is a testimony that when Christ died, we died with Him, and that when He arose, we arose with Him (and when He ascended we ascended with Him, Eph. 2:4-6).

In short, Baptism is by immersion (Acts 8:38) and is symbolic of our union with Christ (Gal 3:27).

I’ll have to get to the Who, When, Where, and Why in another post.

In the meantime I’m also going to repost an old answer to a question about how I interpret 1 Peter 3:21.

UPDATE:  I would also like to point out for Prodigal that I’m going to interact with some of his points in the upcoming post(s), and that I do see a very close link between Baptism and salvation, as is obvious in this post, although I haven’t directly addressed it yet.  Also, I would like to point out to Pilgrim that immersion is a very important part of Baptism, for the reasons I have given in this post.

How do I interpret 1 Peter 3:21?

My view of I Peter 3:21 is very simply…Baptistic.
The confusion comes when taking the verse by itself apart from the immediate context as well as the context of the rest of Scripture. When taken like this the verse seems to say that we are saved by the act of immersing ourselves in water.

In looking at this passage of Scripture it is best, as always, to look at context. What is the context? Peter has just told us that it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing bad. His proof is grounded in his view of the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ has already suffered for our sins, therefore, why should we suffer for them? Or put another way, since there is no more penalty from the Father for our sins, why subject ourselves to the penalty of man for sins by continuing to commit them?

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (1Pe 3:18-22)

Since we have already set the immediate context, we must also set the Scriptural context. Since Scripture will never contradict itself, it is useful for explaining itself. John the Baptist said,

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Mat 3:11-12)

John the Baptist in these words draws a distinction between the external act of baptism as a sign and the internal reality of baptism as being sealed by the Spirit for the believer and the judgment of God on the unbeliever. This seems to fit the illustration of the flood that Peter describes in his passage. Everyone who got wet in the flood died. And yet the flood was a means of deliverance for Noah and his family. The floodwaters that destroyed the earth were the same waters that lifted the Ark above the earth for the salvation of Noah.
Peter then says as much in his short explanation,

“not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

In other words, NOT the external action of Baptism, but the internal action of faith and repentance towards God (conversion) which is prompted by the Holy Spirit. He further tells us that this is rooted not in our actions but Christ’s actions performed in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension.

We can also see the cross as a source of salvation for those who believe, but the same cross is a source of condemnation for those who reject Christ’s work there. This is Peter’s focus when he says that Christ is the Lord over all angels, authorities, and powers. Our comfort is that when we suffer for doing good, we have a just Lord in Heaven who will avenge us. This is also a cause for terror for unbelievers, because Christ has once suffered for sins, and without the appropriation of that work on their behalf, they will be punished all the more because of it.

Finally, in I Peter 4:1-2 Peter says this,

Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.
(1Pe 4:1-2)

Since Christ has suffered in the flesh, we also have suffered in His flesh. Baptism is an identification of ourselves with Christ’s sufferings. We are made one with Christ through the baptism in the Spirit (not water baptism). We are baptized into Christ. Immersed in Him. When Christ suffered, Peter says that I am to think of myself as suffering. Since we suffered with Christ we should stop sinning.
On the other hand, every person who has ever lived will be baptized. Unbelievers will be baptized in the Lake of Fire for eternity, while believers are baptized by the Spirit into Christ who was baptized in the wrath of God on the Cross. Only those who are baptized into the Ark (Christ) are saved from God’s wrath.

That’s my position in a nutshell. There’s also some exegetical stuff that no one wants to read through, if they’re anything like me.

You may continue to send me your questions through the week and I will attempt to answer them.

Baptism post…

…tomorrow night. Tell all your friends.

Why Every Self-Respecting Baptist Is A Calvinist, or, Vice-Versa

That’s just my lame sense of humor in the title to this post. The real title might be something like;

How Calvinism Makes Me A Baptist

We’ll simply follow the TULIP acrostic and briefly look at how each of the points affect my view of Baptism.

Total Depravity- All men inherit a sin nature from their parents, which has been inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve, and water baptism cannot take it away. Instead, it is removed by Christ’s atoning death and resurrection as we are united with Christ by faith, which is symbolically shown through water baptism.

Unconditional Election- God has chosen certain people to salvation, not based on any foreseen merit. Baptism does not profit an unbeliever as regards his election by God, making him more likely to ‘be saved’. Instead, baptism is given to the Church as a confirmation of God’s election of those who believe.

Limited Atonement- The effectualness of Christ’s atonement is limited to only those who believe. Baptism is a sign of that atonement. Baptism should be just as limited as the atonement is.

Irresistible Grace- The Holy Spirit effectually calls out all that the Father has chosen. As we have noted in Acts 2:39, baptism is commanded of all those whom are called out by God.

Perseverance of the Saints- All whom God has chosen are kept by God and persevere in faith towards Him. Baptism is the sign of the promise that his elect will be saved by Christ’s death and resurrection. Baptism should be reserved for those who have been placed into God’s preserving and protective grace.

In summary, all those who have been baptized by the Church into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be as close as possible to the same people that have been baptized into Christ by the Spirit.

Why I Am a Baptist

Baptism is a hot topic around the internet right now, and I’m not really wanting to join any debates, but all this talk of Baptism gives me an opportunity to talk about my credo-baptistic convictions.

Ligon Duncan has summarized the paedo-baptist viewpoint in three points. Take the time to read over his summary. It will be a guide for us in this post. Again, I’m not in this for a debate, especially with someone like Ligon Duncan, who I am sure would soundly thrash me with his exegetical and hermeneutical skills. Rather, I want to take his three points, understanding that they are not complete statements of his view, but a summary outline of the paedo-baptist position, and explain why I don’t think that view holds water, at least not enough to baptize anyone in, which is probably why they sprinkle.

By way of introduction, let me simply say that I tried to become a Presbyterian. I really, really tried…hard. I read Children of the Promise by Robert Booth, Christian Baptism by John Murray, William the Baptist by James Chaney, and The Communion of Saints by Philip Ryken (contains a chapter titled ‘Baptized into Communion’). I also listened intently to R. C. Sproul’s Covenant Baptism series, read many articles about infant baptism on the internet, and talked with several paedo-baptist friends. So when I read Ligon Duncan’s summary of paedo-baptist beliefs, I was reminded of the internal debate that lead me to discover exactly why it is that I am a Baptist.

1. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly makes a promise to believers and to their children (Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39).

In the Old Testament, God does explicitly make a promise to Abraham and his offspring.  The promise is that Abraham’s descendants and their households, those who have received the sign of circumcision, will live in the land that God has given them.

In the New Testament, however, the promise that we see is for everyone.  Note the words of Peter, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Act 2:39 ESV)  The paedo-baptist seems to cut his exegesis of this verse off at the word ‘children’.  (He really doesn’t, but he might as well.)  But if we follow the verse to the end, we understand that the verse does not teach that there is a promise of a covenant relationship available only to those present along with their children, but rather that Peter is instead stating matter-of-factly that the promise extends beyond those present, to a group of people defined as “…everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”  So the promise is for you, if the Lord should call you, your children, if the Lord should call them, and everyone in the world, if the Lord should call them.  And if the Lord does not call any particular person in the world, then we know that the promise was not for them.  The extent of the promise is not based upon familial relationships, but upon the sovereign pleasure of God in calling whomever He chooses.

The promise that is made to God’s called out people is not identified in Acts 2:39.  We have to back up a verse to see what the promise is.   “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Act 2:38 ESV)  The promise is forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

2. God, in both the Old and New Testaments, explicitly attaches specific signs (respectively, circumcision [Genesis 17:10] and baptism [Acts 2:38, cf. Colossians 2:11-12], to this promise that he gives to believers and their children.

Again, in the Old Testament, the promise is for Abraham’s descendants and their households to live in Canaan.  The sign that every male is supposed to bear is the sign of circumcision.  Here, I would like to especially emphasize the point that only male children were to bear the sign of the promise.

In the New Testament, the sign of the promise is Baptism.  But it is only given to those who are the recipients of the promise (forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit).  Those who have been called out by God.  Until their sins have been forgiven and they have received the Holy Spirit, they have not received the promise.  Therefore, they are not to be given the sign of the promise.  I may deal with Col. 2:11-14 at a later date…this is running kind of long.  In any case, I believe that that passage shows this same pattern…we were baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection, and that is very closely related to God’s forgiveness of our sins.

3. Therefore, since God has given an explicit promise to believers and their children, in the New Testament, and attached a sign to this promise, and enjoined us (in the new covenant) to administer that sign [baptism, Matthew 28:19-20], then we should give the sign of the promise he has made to believers and their children, to believers and their children, in humble obedience to biblical command and example. QED.

Therefore, since God has shown us who the proper recipients of the promise are, those who are called out, repent, trust in Christ, experience the forgiveness of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, only they are the proper recipients of baptism.

I know there are probably many problems in this post for some of you, but these are some of the biblical convictions that make me a Baptist.

Pilgrim, bring it on!

Bugbears

Well I’ve promised to get back to these questions and I would have started on this Friday if my health hadn’t gone sour.   Now that I’ve returned from the land of syringes and MRI machines I’m going to take this a bit at a time.  (that’s blog talk for taking the questions and breaking them into bite size pieces)

I’m very curious how one can emphasize yet de-emphasize baptism simultaneously, while declaring it essential to obedience, yet not an absolute to avoid the idea of works being added to the grace of God.
The bible is clear that we are created “unto good works” and that “faith without works is dead”, so why the bug-bear over baptism being a “work”?

Let me state that as I read Eph.2:10 my interpretation is that poiēma (workmanship) refers to our newly created state and that we can’t do the works until we are newly created. 

Now baptism has been used by both Lutherans and Roman Catholics as a means by which grace is infused into the infant and sin is forgiven.  It is something that must occur for salvation to be given to the individual.  The term for this is baptismal regeneration, it is something in addition to God’s electing grace.  And as such it is a work that must occur (according to Lutheran and Roman Catholic doctrine) for salvation to be present.  Baptists disagree insisting that the work of baptism doesn’t impart salvific grace of any kind.

To be continued… 

Regarding Baptism part three

Continuing on from here and here if you may recall this came about because of a conversation I had with a young man regarding his lack of baptism.

Now Mid-Acts dispensationalists use this verse to defend their position:

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1Co 1:17 ESV)

Their reasoning is that Paul’s purpose was to preach the gospel and not to baptize people. And because Paul’s gospel didn’t have baptism as Jesus’ gospel did therefore Christians under this dispensation do not need to get baptized. In fact Jesus’ baptism only applies to circumcised jewish believers before the Church began. Presumably this would again apply during the millenial age as Jesus’ kingdom message teaching would once again be in effect.

But let’s look at that verse in context:

For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1Co 1:11-18 ESV)

So what is Paul talking about here? He is reproving the Corinthian church for dividing into schisms. He’s pointing that baptism into Christ (and notice that the Corinthians who were gentiles were baptized) means that they are followers of Christ not of Paul, Cephas (Peter), or Apollos. But Christ and Christ alone. What Paul is doing here is emphasizing the fact that their baptism associates them with Christ and not with any other teacher. Paul then goes on to emphasize his calling as a teacher of doctrine (1 Co 1:17) which doesn’t mean that he was disparaging baptism but instead emphasizing how the Corinthians needed to understand the gospel.

In fact in Romans Paul uses the believer’s baptism as an example of how the believer has died in Christ and just as Christ was raised so to we were raised into a new life in Christ.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
(Rom 6:3-4 ESV)

Now if Paul wasn’t baptizing people why then would he use baptism as an example of our transformation from death into life? It would be a complete non sequitur unless those Christians to whom he was writing to had actually been baptized.

To summarize: The false hermeneutics of the Mid-Acts dispensationalists actually ascribes to Paul commands and instructions that he did not give. By setting aside the commands of Christ regarding his ordinaces they are producing a false gospel. I’ll end this with what Paul told the Galatians:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel– not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9 ESV)

Regarding Baptism part two

I was trying to get this done last week but my mundane job demanded too much of my time.  And my boss just doesn’t see the idea of blogging for money.  So I’m going to have to break this post up a little more.

I started this here.  Let’s continue.

Let’s look at some objections to water baptism that I’ve seen.  This is by no means an exhaustive list I’m sure there are some so called reasons out there that I will not touch upon and that appears paramount in the eyes of the objector.

 

1.)  There are too many modes for baptism so how do we know which one is the right one. 

Typically there have been three modes practiced by the Church:  aspersion, effusion, and immersion.  Or if you will sprinkling, pouring, and dipping.    Baptists have only recognized one mode and that is immersion.  Non-Baptist churches have typically recognized all three modes and for the most part accept the baptism of a person who has been baptized in a mode not specifically practiced by the church in question.  But does a disagreement over the correct mode (and I hold to immersion as the only correct mode) constitute a valid reason as to not getting baptized? 

Not at all even John Calvin who held to paedobaptism and aspersion said this:

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. Institutes of Christian Religion Book 4 Chapter 15 section 19 {emphasis mine}

Mode should never be hindrance to baptism a person whose conscience dictates to him a specific mode should consult with his pastor and come to an agreement.  Even churches who hold to any mode other than immersion will in most cases immerse a person upon their request.

 

2.)  Paul taught that baptism wasn’t something that pertained to the Church.  This is a favorite tactic of the Mid-Acts dispensationalist.  They insist that water baptism actually saves the Jewish Christians that had it done: 

As a result, the Jews who believed in Christ were required to be washed (or baptized) with water for salvation (Mark 16:16), as the priesthood required (see also Ex.40:12; Lev.8:6; Lev.16:24; etc.).
Moreover, baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) only applied to circumcised believers, and remained in effect until Peter received his revelation concerning Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. And even then, Cornelius was not saved through the fall of Israel, as we are today (Ro.11:11), since he “blessed” Israel by giving “much alms to the people” (see Acts 10:2). Baptism: A Mid-Acts Dispensational View {emphasis mine}

By their separating the gospel in two distinct categories (Jewish kingdom gospel vs Paul’s grace gospel) and by their equating Paul’s writings as only pertaining to the Church they are a type of semi-Marcionism  denying that the entire word of God was written for us and forms a complete whole.  Because of this presupposition they actually teach that not all the commands of Christ are to be obeyed by the Church:

For another example of why Christians today should not necessarily observe every commandment the Lord gave to His followers, the Lord Jesus Christ even instructed a man to offer an animal sacrifice, after healing the man of leprosy (Mt.8:1-4, compare Lev.14:1-7). But the practice of offering animal sacrifices should never be observed by Christians today, even though the Lord Himself commanded for it to be done at one time. Consequently, we cannot simply take every commandment that the Lord gave to His followers in the Four Gospels, and apply all of them to Christians in the church today. Instead, we must first determine whether these commandments are even relevant for this present dispensation of the grace of God. Baptism: A Mid-Acts Dispensational View {emphasis mine}

To be continued …