[don-o]

I believe that the link is to a semi-Bullingerite source. It does reject some of it, but does accept the rejection of water baptism.

Did I say that right?

[roamer_1]

I believe that the link is to a semi-Bullingerite source. It does reject some of it, but does accept the rejection of water baptism.

Semi-Bullinger is not Bullinger. Ultradispensationalism is not Bullinger, but Bullinger is ultradispensationalist. To indict all of ultradispensationalism with Bullinger is misinformed.

For instance, my own view is right along Pentecostal lines... That the baptism by water is not the efficacious mechanism, but rather, the baptism by fire is:

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

If one has received the Spirit, then the deed is done. That does not mean that I deny the water baptism per se... Nor do the Pentecostals. This is no doubt considered to be an ultradispensational view, but it is not Bullinger, and the water baptism is not discounted.

I will note, however, that I think that the baptism practiced today is not what was done then, and I think the sense of the Hebrew Mikvah is more appropriate (my own view, not the Pentecostals).