Because during the first 150 years after the apostolic age nothing was written about the Bible despite the fact that the Scriptures had been completed (but possibly not circulated). It is easy to assume that what Paul taught in the churches he established took root in all the churches; but the truth is that the Truth was held only in a few churches as time went on; the Bible teaches that many churches faded out and even Paul says it; this however, does not mean that the Truth of the Gospel of Grace of Jesus Christ that was commended exclusively to Paul to teach and preach never took any root. Because the Bible says, Isa 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:it shall not return unto me void, but, it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Only in the second century did the early "church fathers" (this only means the second string of persons that followed the Apostles) begin to expound upon the Scriptures and questioned the prevalent theme: "Christ's second coming." They were quite confused. These early church fathers were not the "guided by the Truth" fathers; they were the mis-guided ones. This is evident because they understood that the Twelve Apostles were the ones to follow after; their writings attest to that. Many people have followed the teachings of what these early church fathers believed; particularly Origen who concluded that God was finisted with Israel; and Origin's writings manifest that. Then Augustine, a Bishop of Africa advanced Origen's belief and when Constantine became Emperor (3rd Century) he appointed many of these elite persons who were prolific in their writings about the Scriptures, albeit not on track, and Voila! From then on they attempted to establish that they were the first line after those the personally knew the Apostles; to wit, the generation that received the baton from the late apostles,(or they knew of one who knew the Apostles personally) particularly Peter and/or John the Divine. This is false. But by pushing this idea, they gained notoriety for establishing the first church of Constantine that was later named the Universal Church (Catholic Church).
The Apostles never passed any baton over to these "early church fathers." In fact, because they don't know the scriptures, they need to make that claim in order to gain validity by the world. God never commended the spread of His Word through these agents. Paul was the one and only representative of God to preach and teach the Gospel of the Grace of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.
To get to your question: If most of the world was convinced that God was finished with Israel; and that the "Church" replaced Israel; and by replacement we mean that the "Church" was to continue what previously belonged to the Israelite Nation, namely their system of worship,then it stands to reason that water baptism has been continued among the Christian churches of today. You see, this is the wrong premise. God is not through with Israel; does "forever" have any significance for you? Doesn't it mean eternal? Then God's promises to Israel were forever! How can God break His promise? He wouldn't be God if He broke His promises to anybody. This idea that the Church of the Age replaces Israel is inaccurate and it shows ignorance of the Word of God.
God's Word is to be "rightly divided." The Hebrew and Greek lexicons translate this phrase as "a straight cut" and further it means to analyze, dissect, examine the Scriptures. You remember your high scholl Biology class how you had to dissect that frog? Think of this when you are searching for Truth through the Bible. The Old Testament does not end in Malachi; it ends in Revelation; but continues from Malachi through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; then all of the Pauline epistles, are an interruption of the Hebrew program under the Law of Moses; and Paul's epistles are for the edification of the Church of this Age: Romans-Philemon.
This should be your template for studying the Word of God. If you don't use it you will continue to be off to the left of center, off target, my friend.
Best to you in your search of Truth,
Priscilla
tralon wrote:
-------------------------------
If what mid acts dispensationalists are correct in their statement, that Paul the apostle taught believers in his day that water baptism was totally unnecessary, then clearly we would find historic records of some churches in the 2nd century after Paul's death that didn't practice water baptism. But we can find NONE!. All the churches in both the West and the West practiced water baptism for believers. Phillip Shaff's "History of the Christian Church" proves this abundantly. There simply is NO historic record of any local Christin churches in the first three centuries who didn't baptize believers. How does one then maintain that Paul did indeed teach believers that water baptism was unnecessary? |
