In Bed with Premillennialists

Those who know me know I do not have many kind things to say about Dispensationalism. I believe most of its adherents advocate a view that makes Christ's sacrifice vain (e.g., a new temple during Christ's “millennial reign” (cf. Ezekiel 40ff)). But I must admit I find Partial Preterism to be just as distasteful, and I believe its adherents are cowards.

Partial Preterists wish to remain in bed with the other Futurist brands, which is why they reject Full Preterism. After all, Full Preterists are not Christians, according to Partial Preterist Sam Frost, and in a desperate attempt to still be “Christians,” Partial Preterists maintain Futurist doctrines, such as a future, bodily return of Christ, and a future, bodily resurrection of the dead. Interestingly, the Dispensationalists that believe the terms of the old covenant will be reinstated at some future return of Christ on Earth are “Christians,” according to Sam, but Full Preterists are not? I wonder what the bigger heresy is?

Partial, or Orthodox Preterists, as they like to be called (makes them feel like they're in pull-ups), have no problem tossing around the “heretic” label among Full Preterists. Truth be told, I see very few of us actually arguing with this label. I mean, if orthodoxy is determined by various creeds, and those creeds maintain Futurist propositions, then naturally the Full Preterist paradigm is “heretical,” or against orthodoxy. Of course, I find no problem with this. What I do have a problem with are the cowards like Sam Frost telling us we're not Christians! Reality check: I am a Christ follower, which makes me a “Christian.” This fact is apparently above Sam Frost's comprehension (a possible result of not yet having moved up from pull-ups into tighty-whities).

I have learned that the Partial Preterists just want to feel warm and fuzzy, and accepted in scholarly circles. While I certainly like to feel loved, I don't do so at the expense of truth. They, however, do. Interesting, isn't it, that those of us actually being honest with the text aren't “Christians,” but those who lie about the actual implications of their views (such as Gary DeMar and Joel McDurmon) are? I find something off about that. Oh, right! It's “off” because it isn't logical.

Partial Preterists follow similar hermeneutics as Full Preterists. They recognize that “soon” means “soon,” and “near” means “near.” Well, until it doesn't fit their presuppositions, of course (it's at this point in which they play word games with the Greek language). Partial Preterists also recognize the relevance of Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70. Moreover, they identify her as the harlot of Revelation (Revelation 11:8; 17-19). For the most part, Full and Partial Preterists are in agreement about the fulfillment of Revelation up to this point, with some Partial Preterists going a little further.

I'd like to point out an inconsistency now. If Mystery Babylon (Jerusalem) was destroyed in A.D. 70 (which it was), and the marriage supper of the Lamb was to occur after this (Revelation 19:2,7; cf. Matthew 22:1-14), then Revelation 21-22 must also be fulfilled (cf. Revelation 21:2ff). Naturally, Revelation 20 would have found its fulfillment as well. Such is the problem with adding random gaps in the text to accommodate presuppositions (which is exactly what Partial Preterists lecture Premillennialists for doing to Daniel 9:24-27). Some Partial Preterists acknowledge this. Makes one wonder just what makes them “partial.”

In all honesty, Partial Preterists are just Full Preterists in disguise. They know we're right about the time of fulfillment (though they disagree on some points in regards to the manner of fulfillment), but they can't bring themselves to admit it, and seek some way to make certain things yet future to us. Two people who are little short of being Full Preterists are Sam Frost (ex-Full Preterist) and Kenneth Gentry. Recall what I just said about the latter chapters of Revelation while you read this article by Sam Frost: http://thereignofchrist.com/revelation-21-22/

In this article, he is addressing Revelation 21 and 22. Gentry acknowledges the covenantal nature of these two chapters (a Full Preterist position). The argument becomes a matter of sequence at this point, as Frost and Gentry argue. Sam writes, “...it seems as if the material of Revelation 21-22 comes after the events of 20:11-15. However, as it can be shown, this is not the case. But, for this, let me first propose the order of the visions.” He continues:

“Revelation 20.1-11 refers to the time leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in the Jewish Wars (66-73, 135 AD, roughly). What some may point out here [is] that it appears that satan is thrown into the 'lake of fire' at the same time he destroys the 'camp of the saints.' However, the text does not necessarily say this. Many commentators have seen this problem because 19.20 states that the 'beast and false prophet' were thrown in the lake of fire, when, in fact, the 'lake of fire' judgment is the final judgment. Again, on appearance, one may (and many have) take the events of Revelation 19 to be followed by the events of Revelation 20, leading up to the consummation in 21-22. However, many others understand that John's visions do not necessarily work in such a nice and neat chronological order, or even a nice and neat sequential order.”

I agree with Sam Frost that Revelation 20:1-11 regard the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the text is quite clear that the “thousand years” take place at this time, just as the great white throne judgment (20:11ff). Simply put, Revelation 20 is simply stating what John had already written in previous chapters. Revelation 20:1-11 likely spans from Christ's ministry to A.D. 70. In fact, the whole chapter does. Then, in Revelation 21 we see the marriage of the Lamb and his bride (new Jerusalem) take place (cf. Revelation 19:7). These chapters are clearly overlapping each other. (I think Sam and I both wish to slap the person that created the chapter breaks in the canon, as it creates unnecessary divisions in the text which distort the way things are meant to be read.)

Jesus stated that “Satan,” the “strong man,” was already bound at the time of his ministry (Matthew 12:24-30; cf. Revelation 20:1-3). When “Satan” is released (Revelation 20:7), the tribulation John wrote of in previous chapters begins. So, again, we can see that John is simply repeating that which he has already written. After this, the judgment. Nothing about this leaves room for thousands of years preceding a bodily return of Christ.

Like I've stated, Partial Preterists are Full Preterists in disguise, just too scared to be labeled “heretics,” so they do what they can to make the text offer future fulfillment. But as we can see, much of what people like Ken Gentry, Sam Frost, and Gary DeMar say and/or publish can be placed right alongside the works of “heretics” such as Don Preston, Larry Siegle, and others.

If anyone has read Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness, they know that it is a Full Preterist book in almost every way. The implications of his views, such as the fulfillment of Revelation 21:1, should leave no one guessing as to what eschatological label he wears. Yet, he denies being a Full Preterist. This doesn't change the fact that many Full Preterists, myself included, give him credit for leading others to Full Preterism. Even Partial Preterist websites label him a “heretic” and do not provide his material for others to view.

Anyway, this is mostly just a rant, but I couldn't help but get this off my chest after having read Sam Frost's latest article on Revelation 21-22. It is just further proof of the dishonesty and cowardice of the “Orthodox Preterists” as they do what they can to make sure their Premillennial girlfriends don't leave them for another man.

Hope you enjoyed.

Jason Watt

A New Exodus and Salvation

What I wish to present in this article is much more stripped down and to the point, and less of a lesson plan than the previous article was. I believe my previous article fairly expresses my thoughts on baptism from the Preterist perspective, but it doesn't touch on the "transition period." In this brief article, I wish to acknowledge this argument and how I believe my previous points relate to it.

In relation to the topic of baptism, one must take into consideration what some call “the new exodus,” or the transition period between the cross and the parousia. When this topic is brought up during the discussion of baptism from the Preterist perspective, many will draw on the types and shadows found in the Old Testament. I also believe my fellow Preterists are correct in doing so (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).

You see, just as Noah was saved by water, baptism acted as the anti-type during the apostolic era, or transition period. Likewise, when the Israelites were being led out of Egypt during the first exodus, they passed through the Red Sea. Thus, when one considers the remnant being led out of bondage during the first century (i.e., being led out of the bondage of the old law, and Jerusalem, which was likened to Egypt (Revelation 11:8)), the parallels are rather obvious, which allows us to understand that the period between the cross and the parousia was a “second exodus.”

This is what leads many, or most Preterists to believe baptism ceases to serve a purpose today. After all, if there's no more “transition period” (which there's not), then what purpose could baptism actually serve today? My counter to this is to stop looking at baptism as a means of “transition” and start looking at it as a sign of the covenant! Baptism is likened to circumcision more than it is likened to a liquid safety net! Through baptism, believers do away with the old man of sin (Romans 6:1-11; 2 Corinthians 5:17), and become circumcised in their hearts, not the flesh (Colossians 2:11-14). This is the circumcision God always wanted for his people (Jeremiah 4:1-4).

But many seem to think that since the kingdom has been established within believers that there is no need for baptism anymore, for the transition period is over, and there remains no reason to travel through this new “Red Sea,” or “neo-Noahic Flood,” if you will. Many of these same people reject Universalism, but consistency forces them to accept it! If the kingdom of God is present today, and we believe it is, then claiming that the necessary means by which we enter that kingdom (John 3:1-5) is nullified is to claim that it is present among everyone, and that everyone living since A.D. 70 have been a part of it. You can't claim that there are still people outside the gates of new Jerusalem whilst removing the means by which people enter, and still reject Universalism. Do you understand that?

If what you say is true, my fellow Preterists and beloved friends, why are people still outside the gates of this heavenly city, this new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27)? The argument I hear the most is that all we need is faith to come into covenant with God. Yes! But what is “faith”? Is “faith” void of obedience? When Jesus gave the great commission to his disciples, did he not command for them to teach all things which Jesus commanded? Was that only to last until the parousia forty years later? How ridiculous! Those people outside the gates of the city have to come in somehow! If baptism is the putting away of the old man, and the rising of the new creation, and its the old man that cannot enter through the gates (i.e., the carnal man which has not been “born again”), then by what means do we expect these people outside the gates to come into covenant with Christ?

If we remove one requisite from coming into covenant with Christ, we will find ourselves removing all the requisites, and this leads to Universalism, which many Full Preterists reject! We cannot simply say, “Salvation was only for the time leading up to the parousia.” Salvation is much more than that. Sure, those born under the law needed to be “saved” from the law. I understand that. But sin wasn't only of the Israelites (cf. Isaiah 13:1,9), and there are sinners today!

I realize that this makes me the black sheep among a group of black sheep (I suppose I always have burned rather than tan), but I am willing to accept that and all it means for the sake of remaining more honest to the text than I believe many of my friends are. And this is not to say I am above correction. The fact that I'm a Full Preterist who was once a diehard Dispensationalist proves that! But I truly believe people misunderstand the implications of Full Preterism, and that goes for both cessationists and Universalists alike.

For the sake of truth and wisdom, consider what is written in this brief article, as well as the previous one. It is no secret that I do not subscribe to a "no salvation after A.D. 70" view, and all I want is for those outside the gates of God's glorious kingdom to enter, and partake in the purest form of fellowship that God always wanted with his people. In bringing healing to the nations, I wish to be as open and truthful as I possibly can, and correct myself as needed. I only hope to be a light for you.

Blessings,

Jason Watt

Baptism and the Preterist

The continuation of water baptism after A.D. 70 is pretty well rejected by most in the Full Preterist community. For some, they boast that their salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and since baptism is a “work,” baptism can't be required for salvation. Others recognize the error of this, but propose that Matthew 28:19-20 tells us it would cease after the parousia. There are, of course, more reasons, reasons that will be addressed, but I will start with these two issues.

I find myself distanced from Full Preterists as each day passes. It is the people who identify themselves with this nomenclature that I have begun to distance myself from, however, though not the belief itself. For me, the Bible's never made as much sense to me as it does now, and I continue to grow in my knowledge every day. And while I recognize that each of us are at a different place in our pursuit of truth and knowledge, I can't help but feel...alone, perhaps? Many Full Preterists have audience relevanced (yes, I made that word up) God right out of the picture! Others think that just because Jesus spoke certain words to Jews, those same words can't possibly have relevance to us. Such is the case with baptism.

And this is why I have distanced myself from a lot of Full Preterists. Most have a good handle on applying hermeneutics, but they've also taken themselves right out of the text. Now, as Preterists, we recognize that the Bible was written to a certain people, and that the text was relevant to those living at the time of each book's authorship. I'm not challenging this. What I am challenging is just how we understand the fact that heaven and earth would pass, but Jesus' words would never pass (Matthew 24:35)! Futurists are guilty of making the Bible about us way too much, but Preterists are starting to become guilty of exactly the opposite. Full Preterism, while currently on an incline in popularity, will not survive very long if we continue on this same path. And given the truth contained in this paradigm, I refuse to watch that happen.

So, at risk of being branded “inconsistent,” “incorrect,” and “one who doesn't follow proper hermeneutics,” I'm going to tackle post-A.D. 70 water baptism and its relevance today, because I believe it had relevance then, and has relevance now.

Why the Big Deal All of a Sudden? 

A friend of mine, Mike Miano, posted a Facebook status inquiring thoughts on this very topic. By the time I saw the post, nearly sixty comments had been made. I read through all of these comments, and I disagreed with the majority of what was said. Some made fairly strong points for and against baptism's continuance, while others made arguments that didn't make sense in the first place. I'll be interacting with these posts, leaving the names of the authors out for the sake of privacy.

Before I get started, I'm going to define “salvation” in the way I believe the Bible makes it relevant to us today: life in the kingdom of God. When I say someone is “saved,” I mean to say they've had their sins remitted and have entered through the gates of new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2,22ff). When we die, we will depart from the flesh and remain with God eternally. This is “salvation” post-parousia, if I were to give it a brief definition. Thus, you might imagine the disagreements I have with baptismal cessationists when I read, “I think we need to understand 'salvation' and 'baptism' hand in hand here. If we don't get salvation right, we won't get baptism right either!”

Of course.

But before we get into the tangled mess of some of the more complex objections made by the cessationists, I want to address Matthew 28:19-20, because I believe Full Preterists shoot themselves in the foot with these verses, causing problems for the paradigm as a whole:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

This is always a passage used by the cessationists to prove their point. What they do not acknowledge, however, is their hypocrisy. Notice that if baptism ceased at the parousia, so too did Jesus' presence among us! The apostles were to commanded to teach all nations to observe all things that Jesus commanded, and to baptize them in his name. They understand this to mean baptism would cease at the “end of the [age]” given the kingdom's arrival. Besides the fact that the text doesn't actually say anything close to this, if baptism ceased, then at the end of the age, so did Jesus' presence among his people. This is a sticky situation for people who claim Jesus is still with us—within us—despite this passage saying the complete opposite according to their application in regards to baptism. I can just imagine Robin saying to Batman, “Holy contradiction, Batman!”

Is this not clear? Why is baptism singled out in this passage? The text never says anything about baptism ceasing, yet it's read into the text. Did teaching all Jesus commanded cease at the end of the age, too? See, Full Preterists can't accurately apply cessation to baptism without applying it to the other aspects of the text. If they were consistent they would acknowledge this in two ways: 1) since the text clearly doesn't regard baptism's cessation in any way, shape, or form, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would not cease, either; 2) if the text does tell us of baptism's cessation, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would cease at the end of the age.

Point two is a predicament for the Full Preterists who reject the Hyper Preterist view of complete cessation after A.D. 70. It also doesn't make a lot of sense when we consider Jesus' completely opposite statement about a week prior to him giving the great commission (cf. Matthew 24:35).

This matter is simple to correct, but it's not so simple for those that believe baptism never had any part in salvation. Per my definition of salvation above, I believe this statement is erroneous. Jesus taught of the kingdom of God throughout his entire ministry. I will use John 3 as my first argument against the “easy-believism” that is popular today:

1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:1-5)

“But Jesus was speaking to a Jew,” they say, trying to invoke audience relevance. And? Jesus commanded his apostles to teach all nations all things he had commanded. Does one believe being “born of water and of the Spirit” is different than baptism? This is exactly what Jesus commanded his apostles to teach the nations! What's the result? Entrance into the kingdom of God! As Full Preterists, we believe this kingdom is present today. The unrepentant and faithless have no such part in this kingdom after its full establishment at the parousia (Revelation 21:27), but I don't see very many Full Preterists rejecting faith and repentance as requisites for entrance into the kingdom (excluding the Universalists). So, why reject being born of water and Spirit as a requisite, when Jesus' plainest answer to Nicodemus was that the kingdom of God is not available to those who have not undergone such a rebirth?

Romans 6 is another place where we find the relevance of baptism:

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11)

Dead, how? Through the burial of baptism. Upon rising from this baptism, we are a new creature:

16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)

A cross-reference of 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 6 seals the deal. There should be no question of baptism's relevance in the first century, and if it was necessary to enter into the gates then, it is certainly necessary now. The establishment of this kingdom does not nullify the requirements for entry. If this were true, then we'd have to accept Universalism, for even faith and repentance would not be necessary to come into covenant with Christ! This is absurd!

Equally absurd is the fact that Full Preterists use Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 5 to prove the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21, claiming that those coming into covenant with Christ in the first century were already partaking of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), entering into the gates of new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), but they make this argument whilst contradicting scripture. I do not disagree with using these passages to make this clear, but many of these same people who claim baptism was never necessary for “salvation” are using passages which state the contrary to prove another point. But the truth is, without acknowledging the first point (baptism's necessity), they can't make the second point with Biblical consistency!

To put it more simply, baptism signifies our burial and resurrection with Christ. We are made new creatures, becoming dead to sin (cf. Acts 2:38), and walking in the newness of life (cf. John 14:6). The old man could not enter into the kingdom of God before the parousia (John 3:1-5), just as the old man cannot enter into the kingdom of God after the parousia (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, if baptism is the means by which we shed the old man, then it is, in fact, necessary for “salvation” (entrance into the kingdom of God).

This angers many people, because they claim baptism is a “work” by which we earn merit, or favor. This slaps God himself in the face, for it is his work. One such comment on brother Miano's thread brings this into question: “I'm lost on the 'it being a work of God thing.'” This shouldn't be a problem, however:

11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, where in ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; (Colossians 2:11-14)

This is clearly a work of God, not of man.

We should be mindful of what baptism signifies, which is circumcision. Just as the old covenant required circumcision of the flesh for one to be in covenant with God, the new covenant of Christ required circumcision of the heart. This was always the circumcision God wanted:

1If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. 2And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. 3For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. 4Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:1-4)

Simply put, God always wanted his people to be circumcised of the heart, to put away evil. In Christ, this became possible, and when we are baptized we are baptized into his death and resurrection, putting away the old man, the evil, the sin. This is the circumcision of the heart per the terms of the new covenant of Christ!

The practice of immersion was not foreign to first century Jews. When John the Baptist came preaching the imminence of the kingdom of God, he did so with the command to baptize, and those who heeded his words were not ignorant of what he was asking of them. Jesus also gave baptism its relevance in regards to the kingdom of God (John 3:1-5; Matthew 28:19-20). Many then argue that this was for the circumcised Jews only. Colossians 2:11-14 blows that idea out of the water (no pun intended) since Paul regards them as uncircumcised in their flesh.

See, there are a lot of nonsensical arguments that arise when people try to take things too far. Like I said at the beginning of this article, some have “audience relevanced” God right out of the picture. Likewise, many have done the same to key teachings of Christ.

Paul made clear the distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. It is Christ's baptism (or, believer's baptism, some call it) that has Christ's authority behind it. Note Paul's words:

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)

Paul makes a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. John had the task of preparing the way for the Jesus, turning the hearts of men toward Christ and his kingdom. Baptism in the name of Christ, however, carries much more significance, and an even greater purpose, as I have already explained. So, while baptism was not foreign to the first century Jews, it by no means limits its relevance to them alone. For John, baptism was solely a means of exercising repentance. Under Christ, baptism became the circumcision of the heart that God always sought for his people, the seal of his covenant relationship with us through faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Another topic that always arises is whether there is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. Another person commenting on Mike Miano's thread asked, “Water baptism or spirit baptism?” Why the distinction? Truth be known, there is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), yet scripture mentions at least six kinds of baptism. So, when Paul is referring to baptism, which of the six is he referring? Any good Bible student will narrow this down to water baptism and Spirit baptism. However, these same people will attribute water baptism to John the Baptist (requiring immersion, naturally) and Spirit baptism of Christ (requiring faith alone). A distinction of this kind is inaccurate.

If not clear already, I argue that the baptism Paul refers to is water baptism. This was commanded by Jesus himself, for all nations (Matthew 28:19). The apostles commanded this baptism in response to the gospel for the Jews (Acts 2:38), as well as the Gentiles (Acts 10:48). If there is only “one baptism” in Christ, it has to be this one, otherwise it must be thrown out (which has obviously been done by many, if not most Christians).

If this is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of, then what is the baptism of the Spirit? John the Baptist promised that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (and fire—a third baptism?). Jesus also promised that he'd baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). When Peter converted Cornelius (Acts 10), the Holy Spirit fell on him. This was not all that needed to be done for his conversion, however. Peter said that even though Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit, he still needed to be baptized. Notice the distinction here. Peter later recalled Cornelius' conversion (Acts 11). What came to Peter's mind was that John baptized with water, but Christ would come to baptize with the Spirit. He connected the receiving of the Spirit by Cornelius with what happened on Pentecost (cf. Acts 2). Spirit baptism was fulfilled on Pentecost. Thus, any kind of distinction made in this regard between John's baptism and Christ's baptism is misplaced, because scripture does not separate John's baptism from Christ's baptism in this way.

When discussing baptism with believers, every so often I am told, “Paul said he was glad he wasn't called to baptize. Doesn't this mean it wasn't necessary?” It's unlikely a single statement made by Paul can nullify every single point I've made thus far, and fortunately, this isn't even what Paul was trying to say. It is wise to observe Paul's statement in context:

11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by then which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:11-17)

Paul was glad he hadn't baptized more than two of them, but not because he wasn't “sent...to baptize,” but because people were identifying themselves with those who did baptize them. His gratefulness came from not having many claim, “I am of Paul.” Paul clearly baptized people (Acts 19), and knew its relevance. He wasn't “sent” to baptize in the same way John the Baptist was, but this did not relieve him of his duty to baptize his converts. Those who use 1 Corinthians 1:17 as an argument against baptism aren't reading in context.

Does all the relevance presented in this article suddenly disappear just because a "transition period" between the cross and parousia is over? I recognize that there are more objections, and will likely take the time to address the biggest ones in another article. Until then, I hope this has been enlightening and beneficial, and that it encourages further study in the pursuit of truth.



Blessings in Christ,

Jason Watt










<iframe  src="http://www.preteristdoctrine.com/Baptism_webring.html" width="400" height="230" frameborder="0" 
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no">
</iframe>