The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Kevin
New member
Hope,
I'd explain why the HS fell upon them, but I don't think I could present it any better than Francisco.
Context. It was about division over WHO baptized, not that water baptism was no longer necessary. Nowhere does it show God telling Paul water baptism is no longer necessary. You just make that assertion from ONE verse while not taking it into CONTEXT with the previous verses which clearly show why Paul said what he did - divisions over WHO baptized them. The apostles were given the same gospel message, which includes baptism. Peter saw to it in Acts 2:38, and Paul saw to it in Acts 19:5, and yes, also in 1 Cor 1:16. Peter and Paul taught the same message.
I'd explain why the HS fell upon them, but I don't think I could present it any better than Francisco.
Context. It was about division over WHO baptized, not that water baptism was no longer necessary. Nowhere does it show God telling Paul water baptism is no longer necessary. You just make that assertion from ONE verse while not taking it into CONTEXT with the previous verses which clearly show why Paul said what he did - divisions over WHO baptized them. The apostles were given the same gospel message, which includes baptism. Peter saw to it in Acts 2:38, and Paul saw to it in Acts 19:5, and yes, also in 1 Cor 1:16. Peter and Paul taught the same message.
Last edited:
John Gault
New member
I found the old Carl Douglas B-side
I found the old Carl Douglas B-side
of Kung Fu Fighting down here in the smoldering ashes of Sheol.
Jerry, I can't find a record player down here anywhere. Since your problem seems to be sounding like a broken record, can I borrow yours?
BTW - did you ever get around to answering Francisco's three questions? I mean, I know you're busy with the whole "method" movement and all, but the folks down here really need the heat turned back on.
I found the old Carl Douglas B-side
of Kung Fu Fighting down here in the smoldering ashes of Sheol.
Jerry, I can't find a record player down here anywhere. Since your problem seems to be sounding like a broken record, can I borrow yours?
BTW - did you ever get around to answering Francisco's three questions? I mean, I know you're busy with the whole "method" movement and all, but the folks down here really need the heat turned back on.
Jerry,
But since you are so convinced your 'method' is correct, could you possibly explain the following:
1) If Peter knew, before he went to Cornelius' house that he was going to baptize them, why would he ask them 'Why did you summon me'?
2) If Peter knew, after Cornelius told him about the vision to send messengers to Peter, that he was going to baptize them, why did he lie to the apostles and brothers on his return to Joppa and say he didn't remember Jesus' words until he saw the Holy Spirit fall on Cornelius?
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.'
3) If Peter knew all along that he was going to baptize Cornelius and his household, why didn't he just tell the apostles and brother that instead of 'blaming' his decision on seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Cornelius?
'If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?'
Of course, anyone who has about a 6th grade reading level can answer these questions for themselves by reading Peter's explanation to the other apostles and brothers at Joppa. They will see that Peter admits the visions of unclean animals let him know he could go to the house of a gentile; that Cornelius' vision let him know he could preach to the Gentiles; and that seeing the Holy Spirit descend on the Gentiles just as on the apostles at Pentecost let him know he should baptize them.
And I'll repost the dialogue Peter has with those upset with him on his return to Joppa (upset for even associating with Gentiles, much less preaching to and baptizing them) so no one has to go dig up the verses:
Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, saying, "You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them." Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, "I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. I also heard a voice say to me, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But I said, 'Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky. Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. The Spirit told me to ACCOMPANY them without discriminating. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house. He (Cornelius) related to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, saying, 'Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, who will SPEAK words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.' As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
I realize this is a revelation your 'method' has never revealed to you Jerry. And I realize, as I'm sure you and everyone else reading this thread has realized, this blows your man-made theory out of the water. But what I don't understand Jerry, is why do you want to lie to yourself? You must be a very insincere person, too proud to admit that you are wrong and your ridiculous man-made-put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method is flawed. Oh well Jerry, I pity you and your ignorance. Bluster all you want, anyone with sincerity of heart can see that my interpretation is correct and yours is completely wrong. The reason mine is correct is because I believe the PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, with no parans, no words to ignore, and no Greek syntax arguments that Greek speaking early Christians disagreed with.
And thanks for another 'church at Rome' insult Jerry. I'll keep taking each of your insults as a compliment. And boy are they stacking up. If you're not careful I might begin to believe you like me or something...
May God bless you, give you the grace to admit your error, swallow your pride, and seek the truth with sincerity of heart,
Francisco
PS - So we don't lose track of the questions you owe me answers to, I'll append the three above to the previous questions you have still not answered. Here they are:
1. If not into Jesus Christ, what was the eunuch baptized into?
2. Why did Peter still put so much importance on water baptizing Cornelius, even after Cornelius had already received the spirit?
3. What doctrine does the Catholic Church teach today that the fathers were in substantial disagreement with?
4. If Peter knew, before he went to Cornelius' house that he was going to baptize them, why would he ask them 'Why did you summon me'?
5. If Peter knew, after Cornelius told him about the vision to send messengers to Peter, that he was going to baptize them, why did he lie to the apostles and brothers on his return to Joppa and say
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.'
6. If Peter knew all along that he was going to baptize Cornelius and his household, why didn't he just tell the apostles and brother that instead of 'blaming' his decision on seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Cornelius:
'If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?'
Thanks in advance for the thoughtful and scholarly answers TO THESE QUESTIONS that I know you always respond with....
The information I posted is there for all to see Jerry. It is not me that would have you believe anything, it is the PLAIN WORDS OF SCRITPURE. I'm sorry your put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method can't deal with these verses.
But since you are so convinced your 'method' is correct, could you possibly explain the following:
1) If Peter knew, before he went to Cornelius' house that he was going to baptize them, why would he ask them 'Why did you summon me'?
2) If Peter knew, after Cornelius told him about the vision to send messengers to Peter, that he was going to baptize them, why did he lie to the apostles and brothers on his return to Joppa and say he didn't remember Jesus' words until he saw the Holy Spirit fall on Cornelius?
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.'
3) If Peter knew all along that he was going to baptize Cornelius and his household, why didn't he just tell the apostles and brother that instead of 'blaming' his decision on seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Cornelius?
'If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?'
Of course, anyone who has about a 6th grade reading level can answer these questions for themselves by reading Peter's explanation to the other apostles and brothers at Joppa. They will see that Peter admits the visions of unclean animals let him know he could go to the house of a gentile; that Cornelius' vision let him know he could preach to the Gentiles; and that seeing the Holy Spirit descend on the Gentiles just as on the apostles at Pentecost let him know he should baptize them.
And I'll repost the dialogue Peter has with those upset with him on his return to Joppa (upset for even associating with Gentiles, much less preaching to and baptizing them) so no one has to go dig up the verses:
Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, saying, "You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them." Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, "I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. I also heard a voice say to me, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But I said, 'Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' But a second time a voice from heaven answered, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky. Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. The Spirit told me to ACCOMPANY them without discriminating. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man's house. He (Cornelius) related to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, saying, 'Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, who will SPEAK words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.' As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
I realize this is a revelation your 'method' has never revealed to you Jerry. And I realize, as I'm sure you and everyone else reading this thread has realized, this blows your man-made theory out of the water. But what I don't understand Jerry, is why do you want to lie to yourself? You must be a very insincere person, too proud to admit that you are wrong and your ridiculous man-made-put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method is flawed. Oh well Jerry, I pity you and your ignorance. Bluster all you want, anyone with sincerity of heart can see that my interpretation is correct and yours is completely wrong. The reason mine is correct is because I believe the PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE, with no parans, no words to ignore, and no Greek syntax arguments that Greek speaking early Christians disagreed with.
And thanks for another 'church at Rome' insult Jerry. I'll keep taking each of your insults as a compliment. And boy are they stacking up. If you're not careful I might begin to believe you like me or something...
May God bless you, give you the grace to admit your error, swallow your pride, and seek the truth with sincerity of heart,
Francisco
PS - So we don't lose track of the questions you owe me answers to, I'll append the three above to the previous questions you have still not answered. Here they are:
1. If not into Jesus Christ, what was the eunuch baptized into?
2. Why did Peter still put so much importance on water baptizing Cornelius, even after Cornelius had already received the spirit?
3. What doctrine does the Catholic Church teach today that the fathers were in substantial disagreement with?
4. If Peter knew, before he went to Cornelius' house that he was going to baptize them, why would he ask them 'Why did you summon me'?
5. If Peter knew, after Cornelius told him about the vision to send messengers to Peter, that he was going to baptize them, why did he lie to the apostles and brothers on his return to Joppa and say
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.'
6. If Peter knew all along that he was going to baptize Cornelius and his household, why didn't he just tell the apostles and brother that instead of 'blaming' his decision on seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Cornelius:
'If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?'
Thanks in advance for the thoughtful and scholarly answers TO THESE QUESTIONS that I know you always respond with....
Last edited:
John Gault
New member
My first attempt at using the Chewbacca Method.
My first attempt at using the Chewbacca Method.
Jerry’s been a little quiet, so I thought I’d take this opportunity to share some things I’ve learned about the Chewbacca Method.
I think it’s working pretty well. The instruction manual for the Chewbacca Method suggests studying texts other than the Bible first and – when comfortable – moving to Scripture.
So the first thing I read were the posts on this thread. Amazing, I tell you. I now see that the exchange between Francisco and Jerry parallels exactly the exchange between Ike Clanton and Wyatt Earp in the movie Tombstone.
So for those of you who are not familiar with the Chewbacca Method of studying Scripture, let me explain that Jerry is Ike Clanton and Francisco is Wyatt Earp.
Ok, so, here’s the interpretation. Ready?
JERRY: “Please! [gurgle, snivel] Please! [snort, grunt] Please don’t kill me, Francisco!”
FRANCISCO: “I see a put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method I kill the man wearing it. So run you cur! Go tell all the other curs the Truth is coming! You tell 'em I'm coming, and Truth’s coming with me, you hear? Truth’s coming with me!!”
I mean, I’m blown away. I can’t wait to get started on reading the Scriptures.
My first attempt at using the Chewbacca Method.
Jerry’s been a little quiet, so I thought I’d take this opportunity to share some things I’ve learned about the Chewbacca Method.
I think it’s working pretty well. The instruction manual for the Chewbacca Method suggests studying texts other than the Bible first and – when comfortable – moving to Scripture.
So the first thing I read were the posts on this thread. Amazing, I tell you. I now see that the exchange between Francisco and Jerry parallels exactly the exchange between Ike Clanton and Wyatt Earp in the movie Tombstone.
So for those of you who are not familiar with the Chewbacca Method of studying Scripture, let me explain that Jerry is Ike Clanton and Francisco is Wyatt Earp.
Ok, so, here’s the interpretation. Ready?
JERRY: “Please! [gurgle, snivel] Please! [snort, grunt] Please don’t kill me, Francisco!”
FRANCISCO: “I see a put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method I kill the man wearing it. So run you cur! Go tell all the other curs the Truth is coming! You tell 'em I'm coming, and Truth’s coming with me, you hear? Truth’s coming with me!!”
I mean, I’m blown away. I can’t wait to get started on reading the Scriptures.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
Now to your many questions.This one I have answered many times,and you NEVER answer the question I ask you on this same subject.The eunuch was baptized INTO Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit:
"For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL baptized into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27).
How much plainer can it be?
ONE SPIRIT!!
Perhaps you cannot read even at a first grade level, or perhaps you have been blinded by "the god of this age"(2Cor.4:4).
I keep forgetting that you do not believe that the Scriptures are the final authority,but instead you think that it is the church at Rome who has the final authority.Those of us who have not been blinded put our trust in what the Scriptures actually say.We who put our faith in the Scriptures are just like "those in Thessalonica,in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and searched the Scriptures daily,whether those things were true"(Acts17:11).
You seem to think that the eunuch was "water baptized" into Jesus Christ,but you have yet to provide even one Scriptual passage to back up yor assertion.Are we supposed to believe that it is true based on your word,or because the church at Rome says so?
You are a broken record,stuck on a point which you have absolutely no Scripture support.But who needs Scripture when you have the church at Rome to back you up.
And the reason that Peter put so much importance on baptizing Cornelius after he had received the Holy Spirit is not hard to determine.I answered before,but you did not say a word about that at the time.Instead you wait and ask me again.Perhaps your memory is short,so I will once again give you the answer.He did so because the Lord commanded Him to go into the world and preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE and to teach the nations,BAPTIZING THEM.
Now I know that this does not fit with your idea in regard to Cornelius,but if you will open your eyes and go to Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 you will see that the Lord did say those words,and He did say those words to Peter BEFORE Peter went to Cornelius.
Of course since this does not fit into your argument,you say that Peter did not understand what the Lord said.But you must remember that Peter was NOT blinded by the god of this world.
Next,the early church fathers believed that the Lord Jesus would rule on the earth for a literal thousand years,but the church at Rome does not have that belief.Since the church at Rome puts so much stock in the teaching of the early church,perhaps you could tell me why they IGNORE the earliest church leaders from the first and second century.Perhaps you could give me at least ONE leader from these enturies who agree with the teaching of the church at Rome on eschatology.Just one?
Next,you ask why Peter asked why he was summoned.First of all,I will not even entertain the ridiculous idea that you propose--that Peter did not understand the clear words of the Lord Jesus that He should go to EVERY CREATURE.
Instead,Peter did not know why he was summoned to Cornelius because he did not think that the time had come yet to go to the Gentiles.Peter knew the OT prophecies which demonstrated that the children of Israel would be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation"(Ex.19:6).He was waiting in the hopes that the nation would believe the words of the gospel and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ.He was waiting for that to happen so that the nation of Israel and Jerusalem would fulfill the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in regard to them:
"Ye are the light of the world.A city that is set on an hill cannot be hidden...Let your light so shine before men,that they may see your good works,and glorify your Father,Who is in heaven"(Mt.5:14-16).
He was waiting for the prophecies to be fulfilled that state that it would be through the nation of Israel that all the world would become saved.After all,the Lord Jesus Himself had said,"We know what we worship;FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS"(Jn.4:22).
So when Peter as summoned to Cornelius,he was still under the impression that the word would not be going to the Gentiles UNTIL the nation of Israel had repented.After all,that is why the Lord Jesus was sent ONLY "unto the lost sheep of Israel"(Mt.15:24):
"Him hath God exhalted with His right hand,to be a Prince and a Savior,TO GIVE REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL"(Acts5:31).
Peter was not aware that the Lord was going to conclude the Jews in unbelief and raise up Paul to be the Apostle of the Gentiles (Ro.11:32,13).
But once he was before Cornelius,it would become clear why he was sent to these Gentiles.Cornelius told him,"We are all here present before God,to hear ALL THINGS THAT ARE COMMANDED THEE OF GOD"(Acts10:33).
If ALL the things which were commanded by God for Peter to preach INCLUDED the preaching concerning "water baptism",then your whole argument goes up in smoke.That is because he was going to preach water baptism regardless of whether or not he saw the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius.
And if it was only the gospel,then it is a fact that it is only the gospel by which Cornelius was saved.Cornelius said that the angel had told him to send for Peter,and that peter would tell him "words" by which he would be saved.
Now if the "words" just include the gospel,then it is obvious that submitting to the rite of water baptism is not necessary for salvation,and that is because the "gospel" has not a word in it that refers to "water baptism".Here are the "words" of the gospel according to Paul:
"I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,which also ye have received,and in which ye stand,by which ALSO YE ARE SAVED...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;and that he was buried,and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"(1Cor.15:1-3).
Do you realize that thee is not one word about "water baptism" included in the gospel!!
And Peter does say that it was the "gospel" which as spoken by him to Cornelius:
"...ye know that a while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL,and believe.And God,who knoweth the hearts,bore them witness,giving them the Holy Spirit,even as He did to us"(Acts15:7,8).
How much plainer can it be?Cornelius heard the gospel and believed.The Lord then gave him the gift of the Holy Spirit because He knew the heart of Cornelius.Cornelius received the Holy Spirit because he believed the gospel.
How simple can it be?
If the Lord gave the Holy Spirit to Peter so that Peter would knw to baptize him with water,why didn´t Peter say so.He did not say anything that resembles your contention.Instead,he said:
"...that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.And God,who knoweth the hearts,bore THEM witness,giving them the Holy Spirit..."
You say that the giving of the Holy Spirit was a WITNESS to Peter so that he would know to baptize them with water.
However,Peter ays that the Holy Spirit was given as a WITNESS to them,Cornelius and his household.
The following verse only leads further weight to the idea that they received the Holy Spirit because THEY BELIEVED:
And put no difference between us and them,purifying their hearts BY FAITH"(Acts15:9).
And this goes along with the verses which you keep avoiding.When asked by the Philippian jailer,"What must I do to be saved",Paul said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
So if you are going to say that it was only the "gospel" that Paul was going to reach unto Cornelius (which he did),then it is also obvious that it is the "gospel",and nothing but the gospel by which Cornelius was saved;
"Who shall tell the words,by which thou and all thy house shall be saved"(Acts11:14).
It is obvious to all who are not blinded that Cornelius and his household were saved before a drop of water touched them.
Next to question #5.Are you confused to the extent that you think that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same as being baptized in water?
Question #6.Peter was defending what he did before the other Jews.He is saying that he was in the right to preach the gospel to them,and he was in the right to baptize them.And the fact that he was following what the Lord commanded him to do was proven by the fact that the Holy Spirt fell on them.
I believe that that answers ALL your questions.
In His grace,--Jerry
Now to your many questions.This one I have answered many times,and you NEVER answer the question I ask you on this same subject.The eunuch was baptized INTO Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit:
"For by ONE SPIRIT are we ALL baptized into one Body...the Body of Christ"(1Cor.12:13,27).
How much plainer can it be?
ONE SPIRIT!!
Perhaps you cannot read even at a first grade level, or perhaps you have been blinded by "the god of this age"(2Cor.4:4).
I keep forgetting that you do not believe that the Scriptures are the final authority,but instead you think that it is the church at Rome who has the final authority.Those of us who have not been blinded put our trust in what the Scriptures actually say.We who put our faith in the Scriptures are just like "those in Thessalonica,in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,and searched the Scriptures daily,whether those things were true"(Acts17:11).
You seem to think that the eunuch was "water baptized" into Jesus Christ,but you have yet to provide even one Scriptual passage to back up yor assertion.Are we supposed to believe that it is true based on your word,or because the church at Rome says so?
You are a broken record,stuck on a point which you have absolutely no Scripture support.But who needs Scripture when you have the church at Rome to back you up.
And the reason that Peter put so much importance on baptizing Cornelius after he had received the Holy Spirit is not hard to determine.I answered before,but you did not say a word about that at the time.Instead you wait and ask me again.Perhaps your memory is short,so I will once again give you the answer.He did so because the Lord commanded Him to go into the world and preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE and to teach the nations,BAPTIZING THEM.
Now I know that this does not fit with your idea in regard to Cornelius,but if you will open your eyes and go to Mark 16:15 and Matthew 28:19 you will see that the Lord did say those words,and He did say those words to Peter BEFORE Peter went to Cornelius.
Of course since this does not fit into your argument,you say that Peter did not understand what the Lord said.But you must remember that Peter was NOT blinded by the god of this world.
Next,the early church fathers believed that the Lord Jesus would rule on the earth for a literal thousand years,but the church at Rome does not have that belief.Since the church at Rome puts so much stock in the teaching of the early church,perhaps you could tell me why they IGNORE the earliest church leaders from the first and second century.Perhaps you could give me at least ONE leader from these enturies who agree with the teaching of the church at Rome on eschatology.Just one?
Next,you ask why Peter asked why he was summoned.First of all,I will not even entertain the ridiculous idea that you propose--that Peter did not understand the clear words of the Lord Jesus that He should go to EVERY CREATURE.
Instead,Peter did not know why he was summoned to Cornelius because he did not think that the time had come yet to go to the Gentiles.Peter knew the OT prophecies which demonstrated that the children of Israel would be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation"(Ex.19:6).He was waiting in the hopes that the nation would believe the words of the gospel and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ.He was waiting for that to happen so that the nation of Israel and Jerusalem would fulfill the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in regard to them:
"Ye are the light of the world.A city that is set on an hill cannot be hidden...Let your light so shine before men,that they may see your good works,and glorify your Father,Who is in heaven"(Mt.5:14-16).
He was waiting for the prophecies to be fulfilled that state that it would be through the nation of Israel that all the world would become saved.After all,the Lord Jesus Himself had said,"We know what we worship;FOR SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS"(Jn.4:22).
So when Peter as summoned to Cornelius,he was still under the impression that the word would not be going to the Gentiles UNTIL the nation of Israel had repented.After all,that is why the Lord Jesus was sent ONLY "unto the lost sheep of Israel"(Mt.15:24):
"Him hath God exhalted with His right hand,to be a Prince and a Savior,TO GIVE REPENTANCE TO ISRAEL"(Acts5:31).
Peter was not aware that the Lord was going to conclude the Jews in unbelief and raise up Paul to be the Apostle of the Gentiles (Ro.11:32,13).
But once he was before Cornelius,it would become clear why he was sent to these Gentiles.Cornelius told him,"We are all here present before God,to hear ALL THINGS THAT ARE COMMANDED THEE OF GOD"(Acts10:33).
If ALL the things which were commanded by God for Peter to preach INCLUDED the preaching concerning "water baptism",then your whole argument goes up in smoke.That is because he was going to preach water baptism regardless of whether or not he saw the Holy Spirit fall upon Cornelius.
And if it was only the gospel,then it is a fact that it is only the gospel by which Cornelius was saved.Cornelius said that the angel had told him to send for Peter,and that peter would tell him "words" by which he would be saved.
Now if the "words" just include the gospel,then it is obvious that submitting to the rite of water baptism is not necessary for salvation,and that is because the "gospel" has not a word in it that refers to "water baptism".Here are the "words" of the gospel according to Paul:
"I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,which also ye have received,and in which ye stand,by which ALSO YE ARE SAVED...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;and that he was buried,and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"(1Cor.15:1-3).
Do you realize that thee is not one word about "water baptism" included in the gospel!!
And Peter does say that it was the "gospel" which as spoken by him to Cornelius:
"...ye know that a while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear THE WORD OF THE GOSPEL,and believe.And God,who knoweth the hearts,bore them witness,giving them the Holy Spirit,even as He did to us"(Acts15:7,8).
How much plainer can it be?Cornelius heard the gospel and believed.The Lord then gave him the gift of the Holy Spirit because He knew the heart of Cornelius.Cornelius received the Holy Spirit because he believed the gospel.
How simple can it be?
If the Lord gave the Holy Spirit to Peter so that Peter would knw to baptize him with water,why didn´t Peter say so.He did not say anything that resembles your contention.Instead,he said:
"...that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.And God,who knoweth the hearts,bore THEM witness,giving them the Holy Spirit..."
You say that the giving of the Holy Spirit was a WITNESS to Peter so that he would know to baptize them with water.
However,Peter ays that the Holy Spirit was given as a WITNESS to them,Cornelius and his household.
The following verse only leads further weight to the idea that they received the Holy Spirit because THEY BELIEVED:
And put no difference between us and them,purifying their hearts BY FAITH"(Acts15:9).
And this goes along with the verses which you keep avoiding.When asked by the Philippian jailer,"What must I do to be saved",Paul said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
So if you are going to say that it was only the "gospel" that Paul was going to reach unto Cornelius (which he did),then it is also obvious that it is the "gospel",and nothing but the gospel by which Cornelius was saved;
"Who shall tell the words,by which thou and all thy house shall be saved"(Acts11:14).
It is obvious to all who are not blinded that Cornelius and his household were saved before a drop of water touched them.
Next to question #5.Are you confused to the extent that you think that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the same as being baptized in water?
Question #6.Peter was defending what he did before the other Jews.He is saying that he was in the right to preach the gospel to them,and he was in the right to baptize them.And the fact that he was following what the Lord commanded him to do was proven by the fact that the Holy Spirt fell on them.
I believe that that answers ALL your questions.
In His grace,--Jerry
HopeofGlory
New member
Kevin
Fair enough.
You can't over look the fact that Paul said "CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE".
None of the twelve would have said, Christ sent me not to baptize, they believed Christ sent them for that very purpose. Paul on the other hand states that he had only water baptized a few during his entire ministry, therefore it is logical to conclude he was not commissioned to water baptize. If Paul had others perform baptisms for him it would still have been by his authority and he could not say Christ sent him not to baptize. Paul clearly says Christ did not send (commission) me to baptize but to preach the gospel. It is a fact that Paul never commands water baptism in any of his epistles. If water baptism was commanded for remission of sins under his ministry we can be sure he would have expounded on it in at lest one epistle. If Paul believed that at the moment of obedience to water baptism the Spirit places us into the body of Christ he would have never thanked God he had baptized only a few but would have praised God for them and corrected the confusion at Corinth. God is not the author of such confusion!
C R Stam said:
"In Paul's estimate baptism could neither have been a confession of Christ or of sin, for then he would have thanked God that so few had confessed Christ or their sin, and this idea is absurd of course. Neither did he believe that it was a matter of obedience for in that case he would have thanked God that so few had been obedient. And again, is equally certain that he saw no burial or resurrection in baptism, because it is entirely unthinkable that he would have thanked God that none or a few only had been buried and raised with Christ. Nor is it a matter of good conscience for them he would thanked God that this was absent. That Paul does not mean to apply this praise (1 Corinthians 1:14-17) to the peculiar circumstances in Corinth alone, as has been averred, is evident from the fact that his statement is as broad and as general as his preaching. Just as he was sent not only to Corinth to preach, but everywhere, so, by virtue of the absolute contrast he draws, he was sent nowhere to baptize. Everywhere to preach, nowhere to baptize, and this proves by the way, that he was not one of the twelve and did not work under the mandate of the so called Great Commission. The circumstances in Corinth do not in any way circumscribe his argument, for regardless of reason, place, and purpose, all must admit that he did thank God for not baptizing, and he simply could have never done this, if there had been any real benefit in it whatsoever. Could slanderous Corinthians ever be a reason for a man lie Paul to stop doing good? The Lord's Supper was also greatly abused in Corinth, but Paul did not put this aside, but reformed it in detail upon a special revelation from heaven. It is a standing rule in sound theology that the abuse of a truth, never takes away the use of that truth. If water baptism was then deformed, why did he not reform it? Negatively, because he had no revelation from heaven about it, and positively, he knew that it was not God's order for this day of grace, but had to disappear with all the signs and miracles given to Israel. The Church had to live by faith alone and this excludes signs, visions, angel visits, and material rites like baptism."
For 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 Cor. 1:17
It is entirely possible that water baptism can make the cross of Christ of none effect if it is believed by performing this ritual one will receive remission of sins. Water baptism began with the Baptist (Mark 1:4) and the new testament (Matt 26:28) was not in effect (Heb 9:17). Paul tells us that remission is through faith in Christ’s shed blood (Rom 3:25) of the new testament and not once does he ever state that water baptism is required for remission. It is not difficult to conclude that the false idea that water baptism must be obeyed for remission comes from the inability to properly interpret the scriptures.
Peter:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and 'worketh righteousness', is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
Paul:
Not by 'works of righteousness' which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3:5
Fair enough.
You can't over look the fact that Paul said "CHRIST SENT ME NOT TO BAPTIZE".
None of the twelve would have said, Christ sent me not to baptize, they believed Christ sent them for that very purpose. Paul on the other hand states that he had only water baptized a few during his entire ministry, therefore it is logical to conclude he was not commissioned to water baptize. If Paul had others perform baptisms for him it would still have been by his authority and he could not say Christ sent him not to baptize. Paul clearly says Christ did not send (commission) me to baptize but to preach the gospel. It is a fact that Paul never commands water baptism in any of his epistles. If water baptism was commanded for remission of sins under his ministry we can be sure he would have expounded on it in at lest one epistle. If Paul believed that at the moment of obedience to water baptism the Spirit places us into the body of Christ he would have never thanked God he had baptized only a few but would have praised God for them and corrected the confusion at Corinth. God is not the author of such confusion!
C R Stam said:
"In Paul's estimate baptism could neither have been a confession of Christ or of sin, for then he would have thanked God that so few had confessed Christ or their sin, and this idea is absurd of course. Neither did he believe that it was a matter of obedience for in that case he would have thanked God that so few had been obedient. And again, is equally certain that he saw no burial or resurrection in baptism, because it is entirely unthinkable that he would have thanked God that none or a few only had been buried and raised with Christ. Nor is it a matter of good conscience for them he would thanked God that this was absent. That Paul does not mean to apply this praise (1 Corinthians 1:14-17) to the peculiar circumstances in Corinth alone, as has been averred, is evident from the fact that his statement is as broad and as general as his preaching. Just as he was sent not only to Corinth to preach, but everywhere, so, by virtue of the absolute contrast he draws, he was sent nowhere to baptize. Everywhere to preach, nowhere to baptize, and this proves by the way, that he was not one of the twelve and did not work under the mandate of the so called Great Commission. The circumstances in Corinth do not in any way circumscribe his argument, for regardless of reason, place, and purpose, all must admit that he did thank God for not baptizing, and he simply could have never done this, if there had been any real benefit in it whatsoever. Could slanderous Corinthians ever be a reason for a man lie Paul to stop doing good? The Lord's Supper was also greatly abused in Corinth, but Paul did not put this aside, but reformed it in detail upon a special revelation from heaven. It is a standing rule in sound theology that the abuse of a truth, never takes away the use of that truth. If water baptism was then deformed, why did he not reform it? Negatively, because he had no revelation from heaven about it, and positively, he knew that it was not God's order for this day of grace, but had to disappear with all the signs and miracles given to Israel. The Church had to live by faith alone and this excludes signs, visions, angel visits, and material rites like baptism."
For 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 Cor. 1:17
It is entirely possible that water baptism can make the cross of Christ of none effect if it is believed by performing this ritual one will receive remission of sins. Water baptism began with the Baptist (Mark 1:4) and the new testament (Matt 26:28) was not in effect (Heb 9:17). Paul tells us that remission is through faith in Christ’s shed blood (Rom 3:25) of the new testament and not once does he ever state that water baptism is required for remission. It is not difficult to conclude that the false idea that water baptism must be obeyed for remission comes from the inability to properly interpret the scriptures.
Peter:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and 'worketh righteousness', is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
Paul:
Not by 'works of righteousness' which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Titus 3:5
John Gault
New member
NEWS FLASH!!! President Darby Proclaims Netherworld’s 2003 Pledge Week
NEWS FLASH!!! President Darby Proclaims Netherworld’s 2003 Pledge Week
Jerry:
I tell you, of all the heretic groups down here, I really would prefer to join either Galileo Galilei's or Joan of Arc’s. President John Nelson Darby has an order as well, but honestly, his folks are pretty lame.
Listen, when I was filling out my enrollment forms for Galileo and Joan, they both had the following question. Can you please help me answer it?
The preceding statement indicates:
a) righteous indignation
b) self-righteous ignoramus
Since you epitomize humility and always forbear in love, I thought you would be able to answer this one for me.
NEWS FLASH!!! President Darby Proclaims Netherworld’s 2003 Pledge Week
Jerry:
I tell you, of all the heretic groups down here, I really would prefer to join either Galileo Galilei's or Joan of Arc’s. President John Nelson Darby has an order as well, but honestly, his folks are pretty lame.
Listen, when I was filling out my enrollment forms for Galileo and Joan, they both had the following question. Can you please help me answer it?
The preceding statement indicates:
a) righteous indignation
b) self-righteous ignoramus
Since you epitomize humility and always forbear in love, I thought you would be able to answer this one for me.
Jerry,
'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sin; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So you're half right Jerry. That's as close as you've been, so rejoice!
It has been you that used the man-made-put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method that got you all confused. Look back at our posts. Who was putting parans around words, ignoring words, arguing Greek syntax with which no one but you agree? That would be you.
And who was using the BELIEVE THE PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE METHOD??? That would be me.
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. (Rom.6:4-5)
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
Since you were so kind as to list the 'majority' for us, I'll now list the 'minority':
Alexander of Alexandria, Alexander of Cappadocia, Alexander of Lycopolis, Ambrose, Aphrahat, Archelaus, Aristedes the Philospher, Arnobius, Athanasius, Athenagoras, Augustine, Bardesanes, Barnabas, Basil the Great, Caius, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Commodianus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gennadius of Marseilles,
Well, I guess we can already see that your 'majority' of 3 should prevail, so I'll stop here with my list of the 'minority' and will immediately write a letter to the Vatican and correct them on this issue. Don't worry, I'll give you the credit Jerry. Should I also correct them on any Greek syntax issues, or perhaps Latin???
I got it now Jerry, thanks for straightening us out on that!!! Boy, that's going to require another letter to the Pope. We have to get this straightened out right now...
Paul's 'Gospel' that you cited is about three sentences long and says nothing about the forgiveness of our sins. And we see that as Peter preached to Cornelius and the other Gentiles he said quite a bit more to them than Paul said to the Corinthians. I'm not sure why Peter talked so long, all about judging the living and the dead and forgiveness of our sins and stuff.
My question is 'Where do the parans go'? Forgive me Jerry, I'm new at this so you'll have to forgive my ignorance and help me out just this once. OK?
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
See, I am a quick study Jerry. And if I can learn John Gault's Chewbacca method and synthesize it with your put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method I can convert us all to Hinduism next week.
Hey, even if you're wrong I'll just tell God to put some parans around my list of sins and he can just ignore them.
'Repent and be baptized... and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'
May God bless you with the grace to find the sincerity to believe in the plain words of His message to us in Holy Scripture, and the strength to throw your parans away and stop ignoring pieces of scripture,
Francisco
PS - Stay away from the corral....
Wow Jerry, you almost got it half right, sort of but not really. The eunuch was baptized in WATER by Philip and he received the gift of the Holy Spirit just as Peter said the baptized would receive the Holy Spirit:
'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sin; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
So you're half right Jerry. That's as close as you've been, so rejoice!
See Spot. See Spot run. Run Spot run.
No, the problem isn't the 'church at Rome'. As far as I know, there are no Romans on this thread. Besides, I have based my entire argument with you on scripture, never once quoting anything 'Catholic' except scripture. The only time I quoted anything outside scripture was when you claimed to know Greek better than folks whose native tongue was Greek. And of course these Greek speaking early Christians disagreed with your much superior knowledge of the Greek language. Too bad you weren't around back then to help them understand their language.
It has been you that used the man-made-put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method that got you all confused. Look back at our posts. Who was putting parans around words, ignoring words, arguing Greek syntax with which no one but you agree? That would be you.
And who was using the BELIEVE THE PLAIN WORDS OF SCRIPTURE METHOD??? That would be me.
I've repeatedly shown you the scriptures. They are posted for all the world to read Jerry. You can put parans around them and ignore them as you were taught, but for those seeking the truth with a sincere heart, all they have to do is read the plain words of scripture.
OK, let's go with this. Why did Jesus command Peter to do this? Was it as some symbol for the edification of other humans, or was it because Jesus wanted us to be baptized into his death, in order to share in His resurrection?
We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. (Rom.6:4-5)
So you still argue that Peter knew he was going to baptize Cornelius before he went to his house, and before Cornelius told him about his vision, and before Peter saw the spirit descend on Cornelius??? And you say this even though Peter tells us in his own words that when he saw the Spirit descend on Cornelius he REMEMBERED the words of the Lord, and so conceded to God's wishes only then??? Are you going to now ask us all to put parans around these words of Peter:
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
I'm not blinded by anything, and neither are the plain words of scripture 'blinded by the god of this world.' We can see through parans, around parans, and between parans.
That's right, you showed us the 'majority' of church fathers that believed Jesus would rule for a literal thousand years. And as I'm sure you will agree, the standard has always been the Church only accepts the writings of the fathers if the the majority of the fathers were in substantial agreement. I believe your 'majority' consisted of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
Since you were so kind as to list the 'majority' for us, I'll now list the 'minority':
Alexander of Alexandria, Alexander of Cappadocia, Alexander of Lycopolis, Ambrose, Aphrahat, Archelaus, Aristedes the Philospher, Arnobius, Athanasius, Athenagoras, Augustine, Bardesanes, Barnabas, Basil the Great, Caius, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Commodianus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gennadius of Marseilles,
Well, I guess we can already see that your 'majority' of 3 should prevail, so I'll stop here with my list of the 'minority' and will immediately write a letter to the Vatican and correct them on this issue. Don't worry, I'll give you the credit Jerry. Should I also correct them on any Greek syntax issues, or perhaps Latin???
Sure, you can just throw some parans around his words to the apostles and brothers at Joppa and just ignore them...
So Peter knew he could go to the Gentiles before he saw the vision of unclean animals? So, then what was the purpose of the vision? I know, to give you something to throw parans around!
Now I understand!!! Peter knew he was going to baptize Cornelius before he even went to Cornelius even though he knew he wasn't going to baptize Cornelius because the prophecy hadn't been fulfilled which would allow him to baptize Cornelius even though he already knew he was going to baptize him and didn't really need to REMEMBER anything when he saw the Spirit descend on Cornelius even though he said he REMEMBERED what he hadn't forgotten in the first place, because he knew he was going to baptize them anyway, even though the Lord really said 'wait until the prophecy is fullfilled before you teach all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit', because the Lord said 'Jerry will put parans around the need to fulfill the prophecy first' then you can just ignore it and baptize them even though the prophecy that must be fulfilled isn't going to be fulfilled before you baptize them anyone because you know you're going to baptize them even before I show you the vision of unclean animals so Jerry can put parans around it and ignore it and show Francisco what a fool he is'!!!
I got it now Jerry, thanks for straightening us out on that!!! Boy, that's going to require another letter to the Pope. We have to get this straightened out right now...
I'm glad you pointed this out Jerry, because I always thought we had to repent of our sins too. And since this brief thumbnail sketch of the gospel doesn't include repentance I now know that we don't have to repent of our sins before we are saved, even though scripture tells us repeatedly that we must repent. I guess we just put parans around all those scriptures?
Well, I seem to have a small problem here. Nothing a couple of parans can't take care of I'm sure, but since I'm a neophyte at your put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method I'll have to ask you for some help. Here's the problem:
Paul's 'Gospel' that you cited is about three sentences long and says nothing about the forgiveness of our sins. And we see that as Peter preached to Cornelius and the other Gentiles he said quite a bit more to them than Paul said to the Corinthians. I'm not sure why Peter talked so long, all about judging the living and the dead and forgiveness of our sins and stuff.
My question is 'Where do the parans go'? Forgive me Jerry, I'm new at this so you'll have to forgive my ignorance and help me out just this once. OK?
I'm sorry Jerry. With my first grade reading level I thought that's what Peter was saying when he told the apostles and brothers at Joppa:
As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I REMEMBERED the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
I see how this works now!!! You have to put parans around everything from Acts 11:1 all the way through Acts 15:6 and use the speech Peter gave in front of the Jewish Christians who were insisting that Christians be circumcised instead of reading Peter's explanation immediately following the baptism of Cornelius.
See, I am a quick study Jerry. And if I can learn John Gault's Chewbacca method and synthesize it with your put-parans-around-it-and-ignore-it-dispensational-method I can convert us all to Hinduism next week.
I can very clearly see the parallels that were hidden from me using my dumb old plain words of scripture method now. If some Jews are insisting on circumcision of all Christians, then Peter didn't really have to REMEMBER anything because he already knew he was going to wait on the prophecy to be fulfilled that would allow him to baptize Cornelius even though he wasn't waiting on the prophecy to be fulfilled because he knew some Jewish Christians were going to insist that all Christians be circumcised with parans!!!
Right on Jerry, you have completely gotten rid of that nasty little command to repent. Boy, I can't wait to get out there and start sinning now that I know the truth.
Hey, even if you're wrong I'll just tell God to put some parans around my list of sins and he can just ignore them.
Right, like I said I see it now, what with all the explanation of Peter knowing what he really didn't REMEMBER but knew all along because he got a frontal lobotomy with parans after he was circumcised by the Jewish Christians in the prophecy that wasn't fulfilled before he returned to Joppa and lied about remembering even though he didn't because he knew the council of Jerusalem was going to be settled without one drop of water.
I'm not confused at all my friend. Why? Because the plain words of scripture tell us:
'Repent and be baptized... and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'
Well, then why didn't he just say that instead of giving this long speech about visions of unclean animals, the visions of Cornelius, and then acting like he only REMEMBERED the words of the Lord when he saw the Spirit descend on Cornelius?
The sad thing is you probably DO believe you answered my questions. And I would hang around and try to show you why you didn't answer even one of them, but I'm meeting Doc Holiday and the boys over at the saloon, and I'm already late...
May God bless you with the grace to find the sincerity to believe in the plain words of His message to us in Holy Scripture, and the strength to throw your parans away and stop ignoring pieces of scripture,
Francisco
PS - Stay away from the corral....
Last edited:
Kevin
New member
Hello, Craig.
Hello, Craig.
Hope,
And you can't overlook the fact that Christ commanded that believers are baptized in His name (Matt. 28:19-20). I tried to explain to you why Paul said that "Christ did not send me to baptize". It wasn't due to it's lack of necessity, for the Corinthians were indeed baptized, some even by Paul.
Would Paul baptize people and then say "Christ didn't send me to baptize" because he suddenly realized that that's not necessary? Was he confused or something? No, of course he wasn't, and the preceding verses clearly explain why he said what he did.
Actually, they were sent out to preach as well. And quite frankly, you don't know what they would have said if put in the same situation that Paul was in, when he was dealing with the Corinthians and their divisions over who baptized saying "I am of Paul", or "I am of Cephas". There is no indication whatsoever that ONLY the twelve could baptize, as the Corinthian example clearly points out. Was Apollos and apostle? No, but he baptized! When Christ commanded them to go out unto all nations preaching and baptizing that doesn't mean that ONLY they could do those things.
Therefore it was Paul's main purpose to preach, but that doesn't mean that he was forbidden to baptize, or that it wasn't necessary, for he still did baptize. He said that because of divisions, and for no other reason.
Fine... but that in no way means that baptism in the Lord's name was no longer necessary. Don't you see that if it was because it was a different gospel or that water baptism was no longer necessary, that Paul would NOT have done it at all? Don't you think Paul would have said something when he (or somebody else) made it a point to rebaptize some people in water in the name of the Lord after Paul preached to them in Acts 19:5? Those people were baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of Paul's preaching, the same baptism that Peter baptized with in Acts 2:38. Just because it wasn't Paul's personal commission to baptize doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary anymore. The Lord commaned baptism in His name of ALL NATIONS, which certainly includes the Gentiles that Paul preached to.
By Paul's authority? The only reason Paul would have authority to do anything in the Lord's name would be because that authority was given to him by Christ, for Christ has ALL authority (Matt. 28:18). Paul would NOT baptize people in the name of Christ by his own pesonal authority if he had not been given the authority from Christ to do that. Christ had all authority, He commanded baptism in His name, and that's why it was practiced. Had Christ not commanded it, there wouldn't be record of people baptizing people in the name of Christ when they had no authority to do so.
But anyway, none of this changes the fact that people of ALL nations (which includes the Gentiles) were to be baptized in His name.
People were baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of his preaching (Paul), which means it was commanded at some point, or it wouldn't have happened (Acts 19:5). Paul preached the gospel to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:17). Those people WERE baptized, some by Paul himself. Why would they be baptized unless commanded to do so?
Again, people would not be baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of Paul's preaching unless they were commanded to do so at some point, and baptism in the name of the Lord, which uses water (Acts 10:47-48), is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Ironically, he expounded upon it more than any other apostle (that we have record of). You'll find it in Romans 6. I can hear you now - "No, he speaking of Spirit baptism!". However, consider the following that would give Biblical evidence to prove the contrary:
Paul thanked God that he had only baptized a few because if he had baptized more than he did, then there would potentially be that many more people running around saying "I am of Paul" (verse 12), thus adding to the problem of divisions, which Paul was pleading to them to stop (verse 10)! God hates divisions and so does Paul, and he was glad that he didn't baptize more people than he did because it would have only added to the problem of divisions. The Bible completely backs me up:
1 Cor. 1:14,15
14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15) (The reason --->) lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. (Thus more people saying I am of Paul)
Context backs me up. You are trying to take ONE verse (vers 17) and make an entire doctrine out of it, when it's just not there. The Biblical context of the situation completely backs up my position on this matter.
No, He's not, especially when things are taken in context.
Now that's an author of confusion. What he says doesn't stand up to the context of 1 Cor. either. His entire arguement fails because he doesn't understand why Paul thanked God that he didn't baptize. The scriptures and context clearly point out why Paul thanked God, as shown in my above evidence.
Not with wisdom of words, which was common with the Greeks, lest the simple message of Christ and Him crucified would be made of no effect due to the empaphases placed on elequence and worldly wisdom. This is further expounded upon within the following verses. This has NOTHING to do with water baptism.
I'm not doubting that it's BY Christ's blood that we recieve forgivens of our sins. But in order to receieve that forgiveness of sins BY His blood, we must do what He command us to do FOR the remission of those sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38). Water baptism is FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will ONLY cover the sins of those who obey what is commanded of them FOR the remission of their sins, which is baptism (Acts 2:38). This was commanded of ALL nations - including Gentile nations. No different gospel for them.
Indeed. But this isn't to imply that works of righteousness is what saves. It is BY grace THROUGH faith which saves... but the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. We do righteouse works because we love our God and want to please Him. As Jesus said in John 14:15 - "If you love Me, keep my commandments." But we also fear our God, for He is not slack conerning His promises. He will not be mocked. The disobedient will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Well of course we aren't saved by our own works, we are saved by grace through faith. As it says, it is by His mercy that He saved us, and He did that by sending His Son to die for our sins and by providing a way for us to be reborn, being washed in water FOR the remission of our sins and renewed again by the HS. This is exactly what was practiced (Acts 2:38). Paul clearly exaplains this process in Romans 6, which speaks about baptism. He explains that it frees us from sin and makes us alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11). Baptism now saves us 1 Peter 3:21. The baptism spoken of is the baptism that was practiced by ALL the apostles, including Paul, and commanded by our Lord for ALL NATIONS - baptism in the name of the Lord by immersion in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
There's ONE faith that was delivered to ALL the saints, not two. Even Paul says there's ONE faith (Eph. 4:5). If there were two gospels, Jude could not say in good conscience that THE (as in one) faith was ONCE deliever to ALL the saints. ALL the saints would certainly include the Gentiles.
Hello, Craig.
Hope,
And you can't overlook the fact that Christ commanded that believers are baptized in His name (Matt. 28:19-20). I tried to explain to you why Paul said that "Christ did not send me to baptize". It wasn't due to it's lack of necessity, for the Corinthians were indeed baptized, some even by Paul.
Would Paul baptize people and then say "Christ didn't send me to baptize" because he suddenly realized that that's not necessary? Was he confused or something? No, of course he wasn't, and the preceding verses clearly explain why he said what he did.
Actually, they were sent out to preach as well. And quite frankly, you don't know what they would have said if put in the same situation that Paul was in, when he was dealing with the Corinthians and their divisions over who baptized saying "I am of Paul", or "I am of Cephas". There is no indication whatsoever that ONLY the twelve could baptize, as the Corinthian example clearly points out. Was Apollos and apostle? No, but he baptized! When Christ commanded them to go out unto all nations preaching and baptizing that doesn't mean that ONLY they could do those things.
Therefore it was Paul's main purpose to preach, but that doesn't mean that he was forbidden to baptize, or that it wasn't necessary, for he still did baptize. He said that because of divisions, and for no other reason.
Fine... but that in no way means that baptism in the Lord's name was no longer necessary. Don't you see that if it was because it was a different gospel or that water baptism was no longer necessary, that Paul would NOT have done it at all? Don't you think Paul would have said something when he (or somebody else) made it a point to rebaptize some people in water in the name of the Lord after Paul preached to them in Acts 19:5? Those people were baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of Paul's preaching, the same baptism that Peter baptized with in Acts 2:38. Just because it wasn't Paul's personal commission to baptize doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary anymore. The Lord commaned baptism in His name of ALL NATIONS, which certainly includes the Gentiles that Paul preached to.
By Paul's authority? The only reason Paul would have authority to do anything in the Lord's name would be because that authority was given to him by Christ, for Christ has ALL authority (Matt. 28:18). Paul would NOT baptize people in the name of Christ by his own pesonal authority if he had not been given the authority from Christ to do that. Christ had all authority, He commanded baptism in His name, and that's why it was practiced. Had Christ not commanded it, there wouldn't be record of people baptizing people in the name of Christ when they had no authority to do so.
But anyway, none of this changes the fact that people of ALL nations (which includes the Gentiles) were to be baptized in His name.
People were baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of his preaching (Paul), which means it was commanded at some point, or it wouldn't have happened (Acts 19:5). Paul preached the gospel to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:17). Those people WERE baptized, some by Paul himself. Why would they be baptized unless commanded to do so?
Again, people would not be baptized in the name of the Lord as a result of Paul's preaching unless they were commanded to do so at some point, and baptism in the name of the Lord, which uses water (Acts 10:47-48), is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Ironically, he expounded upon it more than any other apostle (that we have record of). You'll find it in Romans 6. I can hear you now - "No, he speaking of Spirit baptism!".
However, consider the following that would give Biblical evidence to prove the contrary:- The baptism spoken of in Romans 6 is speaking of the baptism "into Christ". In that chapter, it stresses that through baptism we die with Him (Romans 6:3-4), putting away our old man of sin, no longer being slaves to sin (verse 6). It is he who has died with Christ through baptism who is "freed from sin". In otherwords, if you have died with Him through baptism, you are free from sins; it's for the remission of your sins.
- In Acts 2:38, the Jews were given a command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for what? The remission of sins. So, in Romans 6, which speaks of being baptized into Christ, we see that it frees us from sin (Romans 6:7). Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is also for the remission of sins - that we may be freed from sin! Coincidence? I think not. Acts 2:38 and Romans 6 are speaking of the same baptism... and it would only be appropriate for only ONE was written about by Paul in Eph. 4:5, and it would be the same baptism that was command by Christ, the one in His name (Matt. 28:19-20)! And that's exactly what the apostles preached and practiced. They practiced what they preached.
- Baptism in the name of the Lord uses water. (Acts 10:47-48)
Paul thanked God that he had only baptized a few because if he had baptized more than he did, then there would potentially be that many more people running around saying "I am of Paul" (verse 12), thus adding to the problem of divisions, which Paul was pleading to them to stop (verse 10)! God hates divisions and so does Paul, and he was glad that he didn't baptize more people than he did because it would have only added to the problem of divisions. The Bible completely backs me up:
1 Cor. 1:14,15
14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15) (The reason --->) lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. (Thus more people saying I am of Paul)
Context backs me up. You are trying to take ONE verse (vers 17) and make an entire doctrine out of it, when it's just not there. The Biblical context of the situation completely backs up my position on this matter.
No, He's not, especially when things are taken in context.
Now that's an author of confusion. What he says doesn't stand up to the context of 1 Cor. either. His entire arguement fails because he doesn't understand why Paul thanked God that he didn't baptize. The scriptures and context clearly point out why Paul thanked God, as shown in my above evidence.
Not with wisdom of words, which was common with the Greeks, lest the simple message of Christ and Him crucified would be made of no effect due to the empaphases placed on elequence and worldly wisdom. This is further expounded upon within the following verses. This has NOTHING to do with water baptism.
I'm not doubting that it's BY Christ's blood that we recieve forgivens of our sins. But in order to receieve that forgiveness of sins BY His blood, we must do what He command us to do FOR the remission of those sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38). Water baptism is FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will ONLY cover the sins of those who obey what is commanded of them FOR the remission of their sins, which is baptism (Acts 2:38). This was commanded of ALL nations - including Gentile nations. No different gospel for them.
Indeed. But this isn't to imply that works of righteousness is what saves. It is BY grace THROUGH faith which saves... but the faith that saves is the faith that obeys. We do righteouse works because we love our God and want to please Him. As Jesus said in John 14:15 - "If you love Me, keep my commandments." But we also fear our God, for He is not slack conerning His promises. He will not be mocked. The disobedient will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Well of course we aren't saved by our own works, we are saved by grace through faith. As it says, it is by His mercy that He saved us, and He did that by sending His Son to die for our sins and by providing a way for us to be reborn, being washed in water FOR the remission of our sins and renewed again by the HS. This is exactly what was practiced (Acts 2:38). Paul clearly exaplains this process in Romans 6, which speaks about baptism. He explains that it frees us from sin and makes us alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11). Baptism now saves us 1 Peter 3:21. The baptism spoken of is the baptism that was practiced by ALL the apostles, including Paul, and commanded by our Lord for ALL NATIONS - baptism in the name of the Lord by immersion in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
There's ONE faith that was delivered to ALL the saints, not two. Even Paul says there's ONE faith (Eph. 4:5). If there were two gospels, Jude could not say in good conscience that THE (as in one) faith was ONCE deliever to ALL the saints. ALL the saints would certainly include the Gentiles.
Last edited:
John Gault
New member
More enlightenment from the Chewbacca Method
More enlightenment from the Chewbacca Method
Gang:
I mean, this Chewbacca Method is really out of this world. I see much more clearly how things fit together.
For instance, I studied Jerry's last post and found it parallels exactly the Men Without Hats song Safety-Dance.
I mean, again, the truth is so plain. Here it goes:
Method-Rant!
Ah we can rant if we want to
We can show off our behinds
Cause your friends don't rant and if they don't rant
Well they're no friends of mine
I say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind,
And we can rant
Francois!
Ah we can go in our mess kits
The method’s dumb and so am I
And we can dress real neat
Hoods, jack-booted feet
And surprise 'em with the victory cry
I say we can rant if we want to
If we don't nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile
I say we can rant
We can rant everybody look at my hole
We can rant, we can rant
We're doing it thread to thread
We can rant, we can rant
Everybody bloody your hands
We can rant, we can rant
Everybody takin' the chance
Method rant
Oh well the method rant
Ah yes the method rant
Mmmm-Eeee-Tttt-Hhhh-Oooo-Dddd
Method-Rant
We can rant if we want to
We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it
Everything'll work out right
Oh well the method rant
Oh well the method rant
Oh yes the method rant
Oh the method rant yeah…
Please, if anyone wants to begin using the Chewbacca Method for themselves, please drop me a line and I'll tell you how to get a copy.
More enlightenment from the Chewbacca Method
Gang:
I mean, this Chewbacca Method is really out of this world. I see much more clearly how things fit together.
For instance, I studied Jerry's last post and found it parallels exactly the Men Without Hats song Safety-Dance.
I mean, again, the truth is so plain. Here it goes:
Method-Rant!
Ah we can rant if we want to
We can show off our behinds
Cause your friends don't rant and if they don't rant
Well they're no friends of mine
I say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind,
And we can rant
Francois!
Ah we can go in our mess kits
The method’s dumb and so am I
And we can dress real neat
Hoods, jack-booted feet
And surprise 'em with the victory cry
I say we can rant if we want to
If we don't nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile
I say we can rant
We can rant everybody look at my hole
We can rant, we can rant
We're doing it thread to thread
We can rant, we can rant
Everybody bloody your hands
We can rant, we can rant
Everybody takin' the chance
Method rant
Oh well the method rant
Ah yes the method rant
Mmmm-Eeee-Tttt-Hhhh-Oooo-Dddd
Method-Rant
We can rant if we want to
We've got all your life and mine
As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it
Everything'll work out right
Oh well the method rant
Oh well the method rant
Oh yes the method rant
Oh the method rant yeah…
Please, if anyone wants to begin using the Chewbacca Method for themselves, please drop me a line and I'll tell you how to get a copy.
Kevin,
Excellent post my friend! Particularly the very clear explanantion of Paul's 'Christ sent me not to baptize' statement.
Context and obedience are two terms these guys are having trouble with, so keep showing them the turth, like you did above.
God Bless,
Francisco
Excellent post my friend! Particularly the very clear explanantion of Paul's 'Christ sent me not to baptize' statement.
Context and obedience are two terms these guys are having trouble with, so keep showing them the turth, like you did above.
God Bless,
Francisco
HopeofGlory
New member
Re: Hello, Craig.
Re: Hello, Craig.
Kevin
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20
Sure I can because it is not a fact. Christ said "teach, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The fact is NO ONE was baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost because this is a reference to Spirit baptism. They were instructed to teach
the "spirit" words of His shed blood!!! When He told the apostles....the words that I speak unto you, they are "spirit", and they are life. He was referring to...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54). To be born again by the Spirit (See 2 Cor 3:17) is to believe the spirit words of Christ. When we believe the words of the new testament we receice remission of sins (Roms 3:25) are baptized by the Spirit into Christ (1Cor 12:13) without water (1 Cor 1:17) as evidenced by God with Cornelius.
Another fact is the new testament for remission (Matt 26:28) is never mentioned at Pentecost. The same water baptism of repentance for the remission of sins as taught by the Baptist (Mark 1:4) was preached by Peter ( Acts 2:38). God reveals His truth and man through time and God working with him receives the full knowledge of that truth. Paul went through this process and it is evident that Peter had to have visions from God to finally preach the gospel to a Gentile.
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph. 5:26 (KJV)
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:27 (KJV)
It is clearly stated by Paul that Christ washes (baptizes) with the word with the power of the Spirit removes the stain of sin. Therefore it was no longer necessary to water baptize for remission of sin as John did before the cross (Mark 1:4).
Christ revealed this change when He said...
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. John 5:38
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39
The testimony of John was a water baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1 :4) and obedience to this rite plus faith washed away their sins. Christ explains that it will be replaced with a greater witness (testimony) and that it would be the work that was finished at the cross. The cross is the new testament for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28).
Paul never once tells us that John's testimony of remission was replaced with a "new" water baptism as you would have us believe. Christ clearly explained His shed blood of the cross for remission would supercede water baptism for remission.
Paul conveys this truth with these words...
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Pet. 1:23 (KJV)
Kevin, I appreciate your effort but Biblical facts will not allow me to to accept your explination. Paul had progressive revelations during a time of transition from Jews under the law to Gentiles without the law. Paul took part in both gospels and God brought him through the transition. This is evident from Acts 26:16, where Paul states that at the time of his conversion Christ said "But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou has seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." In 2 Cors Paul had visions and revelations and he was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words. There is no doubt that Paul had "new" revelation of truth given to him by the Spirit (Epf 3:5). From these new revelations of truth Paul tells us there is ONE baptism not two as you would have us believe.
Sorry Kevin, I will will have to finish my response later this afternoon.
Re: Hello, Craig.
Kevin
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20
Sure I can because it is not a fact. Christ said "teach, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The fact is NO ONE was baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost because this is a reference to Spirit baptism. They were instructed to teach
the "spirit" words of His shed blood!!! When He told the apostles....the words that I speak unto you, they are "spirit", and they are life. He was referring to...Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54). To be born again by the Spirit (See 2 Cor 3:17) is to believe the spirit words of Christ. When we believe the words of the new testament we receice remission of sins (Roms 3:25) are baptized by the Spirit into Christ (1Cor 12:13) without water (1 Cor 1:17) as evidenced by God with Cornelius.
Another fact is the new testament for remission (Matt 26:28) is never mentioned at Pentecost. The same water baptism of repentance for the remission of sins as taught by the Baptist (Mark 1:4) was preached by Peter ( Acts 2:38). God reveals His truth and man through time and God working with him receives the full knowledge of that truth. Paul went through this process and it is evident that Peter had to have visions from God to finally preach the gospel to a Gentile.
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph. 5:26 (KJV)
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:27 (KJV)
It is clearly stated by Paul that Christ washes (baptizes) with the word with the power of the Spirit removes the stain of sin. Therefore it was no longer necessary to water baptize for remission of sin as John did before the cross (Mark 1:4).
Christ revealed this change when He said...
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. John 5:38
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39
The testimony of John was a water baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1 :4) and obedience to this rite plus faith washed away their sins. Christ explains that it will be replaced with a greater witness (testimony) and that it would be the work that was finished at the cross. The cross is the new testament for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28).
Paul never once tells us that John's testimony of remission was replaced with a "new" water baptism as you would have us believe. Christ clearly explained His shed blood of the cross for remission would supercede water baptism for remission.
Paul conveys this truth with these words...
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Pet. 1:23 (KJV)
Kevin, I appreciate your effort but Biblical facts will not allow me to to accept your explination. Paul had progressive revelations during a time of transition from Jews under the law to Gentiles without the law. Paul took part in both gospels and God brought him through the transition. This is evident from Acts 26:16, where Paul states that at the time of his conversion Christ said "But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou has seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." In 2 Cors Paul had visions and revelations and he was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words. There is no doubt that Paul had "new" revelation of truth given to him by the Spirit (Epf 3:5). From these new revelations of truth Paul tells us there is ONE baptism not two as you would have us believe.
Sorry Kevin, I will will have to finish my response later this afternoon.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
Cornelius said that Peter was sent to him to tell him the "words" by which Cornelius and his household would be saved:
"...Peter,who shall tell thee words,by which thou and thy house shall be saved"(Acts11:14).
By your own words the "words" that were to save them did NOT include anything concerning being baptized with water.You said:
"First,when Peter began to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius,notice that Peter mentioned his commission to preach but MAKES NO MENTION OF HIS COMMISSION TO BAPTIZE."
So the "words" by which they were to be saved did not include anything concerning a "water baptism".
They were saved by believing the gospel!
And according to Peter Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit becuse they BELIEVED the gospel:
"Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.And God,Who knoweth the heart,bore them witness,giving them the Holy Spirit,even as He did us"(Acts15:7,8).
The Lord´s purpose was that the Gentiles should hear the gospel AND BELIEVE.And when they BELIEVED they received the Holy Spirit as a witness to them that they were saved.
They were saved before a drop of water touched them.
According to you,the Holy Spirit was given as a witness to Peter so that he would know that they should be baptized with water.But Peter says no such thing.They were saved when they head the gospel and BELIEVED.
And that matches perfectly the words of Paul to the Philippian jailer.When he asked Paul what he should do to be saved,Paul said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
Do you think that Paul just forgot to add the words that he must also be baptized with water?
Do you think that the Lord Jesus Himself just forgot to add the same words when He said?:
"He that heareth My word,and BELIEVETH on Him that sent Me,hath everlasting life,and shall not come into judgment,but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).
Perhaps the Lord Jesus just forgot to add the words concerning "water baptism" in the following verse:
"I am the Resurrection and the Life;he that BELIEVETH in Me,though he wee dead,yet shall he live.And whosoever liveth and BELIEVETH in Me shall never die"(Jn.11:25,26).
Perhaps John made a mistake when he wrote down the following words by forgetting to add that one must first submit to the rite of water baptism before they could be saved:
"That whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should not perish,but have eternal life"(Jn.3:15).
"For God so loved the world,that He ave His only begotten Son,that whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should not perish,but have eternal life"(Jn.3:16).
And perhaps the Lord forgot to add the words that the "dead" must also be baptized in water:
"The hour is coming,and now is,when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,and they that hear shall live"(Jn.5:24).
You just seem to have the hardest time in understanding a simple thing such as "time sequence".
First,we read that the sinner is "born again" by the Word of God:
"Being born again,not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible seed,by THE WORD OF GOD"(1Pet.1:23).
Once the sinner believes the word of God he is "born again".
The act of submitting to the rite of water baptism comes AFTER one is born again.
In His grace,--Jerry
Cornelius said that Peter was sent to him to tell him the "words" by which Cornelius and his household would be saved:
"...Peter,who shall tell thee words,by which thou and thy house shall be saved"(Acts11:14).
By your own words the "words" that were to save them did NOT include anything concerning being baptized with water.You said:
"First,when Peter began to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius,notice that Peter mentioned his commission to preach but MAKES NO MENTION OF HIS COMMISSION TO BAPTIZE."
So the "words" by which they were to be saved did not include anything concerning a "water baptism".
They were saved by believing the gospel!
And according to Peter Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit becuse they BELIEVED the gospel:
"Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.And God,Who knoweth the heart,bore them witness,giving them the Holy Spirit,even as He did us"(Acts15:7,8).
The Lord´s purpose was that the Gentiles should hear the gospel AND BELIEVE.And when they BELIEVED they received the Holy Spirit as a witness to them that they were saved.
They were saved before a drop of water touched them.
According to you,the Holy Spirit was given as a witness to Peter so that he would know that they should be baptized with water.But Peter says no such thing.They were saved when they head the gospel and BELIEVED.
And that matches perfectly the words of Paul to the Philippian jailer.When he asked Paul what he should do to be saved,Paul said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
Do you think that Paul just forgot to add the words that he must also be baptized with water?
Do you think that the Lord Jesus Himself just forgot to add the same words when He said?:
"He that heareth My word,and BELIEVETH on Him that sent Me,hath everlasting life,and shall not come into judgment,but is passed from death unto life"(Jn.5:24).
Perhaps the Lord Jesus just forgot to add the words concerning "water baptism" in the following verse:
"I am the Resurrection and the Life;he that BELIEVETH in Me,though he wee dead,yet shall he live.And whosoever liveth and BELIEVETH in Me shall never die"(Jn.11:25,26).
Perhaps John made a mistake when he wrote down the following words by forgetting to add that one must first submit to the rite of water baptism before they could be saved:
"That whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should not perish,but have eternal life"(Jn.3:15).
"For God so loved the world,that He ave His only begotten Son,that whosoever BELIEVETH in Him should not perish,but have eternal life"(Jn.3:16).
And perhaps the Lord forgot to add the words that the "dead" must also be baptized in water:
"The hour is coming,and now is,when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,and they that hear shall live"(Jn.5:24).
You just seem to have the hardest time in understanding a simple thing such as "time sequence".
First,we read that the sinner is "born again" by the Word of God:
"Being born again,not of corruptible seed,but of incorruptible seed,by THE WORD OF GOD"(1Pet.1:23).
Once the sinner believes the word of God he is "born again".
The act of submitting to the rite of water baptism comes AFTER one is born again.
In His grace,--Jerry
John Gault
New member
Civility has returned.
Civility has returned.
Was it really that hard to post without resorting to personal attacks aimed at repudiating another's integrity, intellect or salvation?
I personally have never been able to accept the “methods” either thrust on me as a child or studied as an adult. While some methods answer some questions better than others, none answers them all satisfactorily. Moreover, God has seen fit to NOT give us a method; he has been careful to NOT cast his pearls before swine.
The best minds mankind has produced are mere folly to God. This is not I saying so, this is God. We are born into sin because man sought to know the things of God, to be like God – and this was when man had an incorruptible mind. How much more dangerous are we now that our minds are corrupted?
I am comfortable with perceived conflicts in Scripture. God does not need my help to straighten out these conflicts. In fact, where you and Freak see conflict, I see none. (I only mention Freak here because he started the thread.) God is big enough to not only handle these conflicts but also my own limitations in understanding His mysteries.
In my spiritual walk – and mine is the only one I have control over – I have decided to acknowledge that all Scripture is God-breathed and is, therefore, valuable and useful. I will accept, in faith, all Scripture has said about any issue and will seek to walk according to that acceptance. It is the most honest thing I can do. For I believe the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit – the Great Teacher – is not corrupted. The Spirit will teach me how to balance perceived conflicts, or He will not. Either way, neither my salvation nor anyone else’s is based on an ironclad defense or interpretation of Scripture.
That's how I see it. So does that make me a heretic?
Civility has returned.
Was it really that hard to post without resorting to personal attacks aimed at repudiating another's integrity, intellect or salvation?
I personally have never been able to accept the “methods” either thrust on me as a child or studied as an adult. While some methods answer some questions better than others, none answers them all satisfactorily. Moreover, God has seen fit to NOT give us a method; he has been careful to NOT cast his pearls before swine.
The best minds mankind has produced are mere folly to God. This is not I saying so, this is God. We are born into sin because man sought to know the things of God, to be like God – and this was when man had an incorruptible mind. How much more dangerous are we now that our minds are corrupted?
I am comfortable with perceived conflicts in Scripture. God does not need my help to straighten out these conflicts. In fact, where you and Freak see conflict, I see none. (I only mention Freak here because he started the thread.) God is big enough to not only handle these conflicts but also my own limitations in understanding His mysteries.
In my spiritual walk – and mine is the only one I have control over – I have decided to acknowledge that all Scripture is God-breathed and is, therefore, valuable and useful. I will accept, in faith, all Scripture has said about any issue and will seek to walk according to that acceptance. It is the most honest thing I can do. For I believe the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit – the Great Teacher – is not corrupted. The Spirit will teach me how to balance perceived conflicts, or He will not. Either way, neither my salvation nor anyone else’s is based on an ironclad defense or interpretation of Scripture.
That's how I see it. So does that make me a heretic?
Last edited:
Please show me where it says Cornelius and the other Gentiles were 'saved'.
While I do not deny they received the Holy Spirit when they believed, you are eisegetically assuming the Holy Spirit was a witness to them that they were 'saved'. Please show me just one verse that says they were 'saved'.
Where does it say they were saved?
Your argument still contradicts the plain words of scripture where Peter tells the brothers and apostles at Joppa that he baptized Cornelius because he remembered the words of the Lord when he saw the Spirit descend on them:
'As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.' If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?"
You are obviously equating the receiving of the Holy Spirit with being saved, but nowhere does scripture say receiving the Holy Spirit saves you. If you know of such a verse, please post it.
Do you think Paul forgot the to add the words about repenting, or do you think he may have made a general statement? Either Paul doesn't think repenting is necessary and thereby contradicts many of his other verses, or Paul was making a very general statement where 'believing' would also necessarily include other commands of Christ, like repenting and baptism.
Same argument here Jerry. Do you think the Lord just forgot to say something about repenting here, or did he purposely contradict his other commands because we don't really need to repent?
Also, if 'believing' is all that is required, why isn't the devil saved? After all, scripture tells us the devil 'believes'.
And again, I guess the Lord just forgot to mention repenting???
And I guess John just forgot to write anything about repentence? Or maybe Jesus forgot to tell John what He told Mark:
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Mark 9:13)
Or maybe you don't think we have to repent to be saved? If so, what is your reasoning and scriptural support?
You seem to have the hardest time looking at scripture in it's entirety.
Really? I don't remember Jesus ever saying that. I thought he said:
Jesus 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 3:5)
John didn't forget to write those words in his Gospel, right Jerry? Or am I having paran problems again?
And could Peter have meant THE WORD OF GOD including what Jesus said about being born of water and Spirit? After all, John 3:5 is also the Word of God, right Jerry?
So, you're saying that we must be born of WATER and Spirit before we are born of water? This is sounding alot like your prophecy that had to be fulfilled before Peter would baptize Cornelius even though he knew he was going to ignore the prophecy because you said he knew he was going to baptize Cornelius before he saw the Spirit descend on the Gentiles and REMEMBER the words of the Lord about baptism even though he didn't really forget them. In other words, it doesn't make a lick of sense. And neither does your thumbnail sketch gospel that just says we only have to believe to be saved.
The problem Jerry, is that you don't read scripture in context, and the context should really be the entirety of scripture. Then you would stop running into problems like the devil having a right to salvation because he 'believes', or the problem of no need of repentence for salvation, and now the fact we must be born of water and Spirit before we are born of water, not to mention your theory must totally disregard Paul's words about baptism in Romans 6:
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Sharing in the likeness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ IS salvation Jerry. And Paul very clearly tells us we get there through baptism, right? So how does your 'saved through hearing the Word' theory coexist with these plain words of scripture?
God Bless,
Francisco
PS - I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears, but I thank you for refraining from the 'church at Rome' insults.
Kevin
New member
Hello Craig.
But it is a fact, for when you baptize somebody in the name of Christ, how are you not baptizing in the name of the Father and His Spirit also, for the three agree as one?
Also, we know it's a fact because after this commandment, people were then baptized "in the name of" Jesus Christ. That would NOT happen unless they had been given authority by Christ, who has ALL authority. Christ gave them that authority, and they went out baptizing "in the name of the Lord". This is not a coincidence. Also, Christ would not command man to do somthing that they would never do. Makes no sense.
And this is not a reference to Spirit baptism, either. In the context of Matt. 28:19-20, we was commanding man to do three things:
Every one of those things were commissioned for man to do. Man cannot baptize with the HS - only Christ can, therefore the baptism spoken of here can only be the one that man could perform and did according to numerous examples in the Bible: water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Christ would not command them to peform a baptism that they simply could not do.
Not quite. The faith spoken of in Romans 3:25 is the faith that obeys the gospels. The Jews at Pentacost were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins... why? Because of their FAITH in the gospel message preached to them by Peter. It is our faith which leads us to obedience to do that which was commanded for us to do for the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38).
Romans 3:25 is not speaking about faith without obedience. Faith alone is a dead faith. In James 2: 21 we find out that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the alter. In verse 22, it shows that by works, faith is made perfect. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (verse 23). Then verse 24 explains that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Faith without works is dead, and will save nobody.
So, getting back to Romans, what kind of faith is being spoken of there? Faith "only"? No, for that is a dead faith. It is a faith that produces obedience that is being spoken of here. When Paul preached to John the baptist's diciples in Acts 19, did they just believe? No. Paul preached to them, and as a result of his preaching, that were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins. Their faith was responsible for that, for if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been baptized, and not had their sins forgiven.
I agree that we are baptized by one Spirit into Christ. The difference is that you believe that this is referring the literal falling of the Holy Spirit as it happened to the Apostles in Acts 2:4 and the Gentiles in Acts 10:44. You believe that a sinner is born again at the very moment when he hears and believes the word of God.
I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit is what convicts us of our sins (John 16:9). Did not Peter, when he spoke to the Jews in Acts chapter 2, speak by the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Yes. He spoke through the Holy Spirit, which convicted the Jews of their sins (Acts 2:37), and as a result of that conviction by the Holy Spirit, they obeyed the command of baptism for the remission of their sins (verse 38), thus being alive to God, being reborn. The Jews were baptized into Christ. But if it were not for the Holy Spirit, convicting of them their sins, they would have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. By means of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized into one body, into Christ. So yes, it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into Christ (1Cor.12:13)
Regarding the Cornelious houseld, for your view to be correct, that a person is baptized by the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing, then I would invite you to explain why it did not happen to the Samaritans when they believed the gospel (Acts 8:12,15,16). Why didn't the Holy Spirit fall upon them when they believed the gospel? They were, however, baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins (verse 12,16). Why? Because it was commanded by Christ in Matt. 28:19-20. Why else would they be be baptized in His name unless authority to do so was given?
If Christ was referring to Spirit baptism in Matt. 28: 19-20 as you assert, then the Samaritans should have been baptized by the Spirit upon believing the gosple that was preached to them by Philip. But it DIDN'T fall upon them, which proves that Christ was not speaking about Spirit baptism.
The falling of the HS upon the Cornelious household has been thouroghly explained, it was a sign to Peter that the Gentiles were also part of the covenant, and when Peter saw this, he asked the Jews "can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" He then commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, which is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Peter understood that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, for he was there when Christ made that statement in Matt 26:28. Peter told the Jews all they need to know... that Jesus was crucified, was resurrected, and that He was both Lord and Christ. When told what to do, they were commanded to be baptized FOR the remission of sins BY Jesus's blood. Peter understood that, again because he was there when Christ said "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Jesus's blood had already been spilled by the time Pentacost came around, so I can assure you that Peter was preaching the new testament message. Peter did exactly what Jesus commanded him to do in Matt 28:19-20- he preached the gospel and baptized them.
No, they are not the same baptism, which is exactly why people who were of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5, which is the same baptism at Acts 2:38. Until Christ commanded it, there was not authority to baptize in Christ's name.
Exactly- washing of WATER by the word (it's teaching). It is by hearing, believing, and obeying the word of God that one will be washed in the waters of baptism for the remission of sins (just like in at Pentacost who were baptized as a result of the word), thus... "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:27 (KJV)".
See above. Also remember that in Acts 8, the Samaratins weren't washed "with the word with the power of the Spirit removes the stain of sin." Also Paul would practice what he preached, and it's clear that he (or someone else) baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5, which uses water.
As explained above, John's baptism is different from baptism in the name of the Lord, despite that water is used in both baptisms - or else there would be no reason to rebaptize those of John's baptism into the baptism in the name of the Lord.
Well of course John's baptism will be invalidated. You just don't see that baptism in the name of the Lord is a different baptism than that of Johns. You just seem to figure that because they both use water that they must be the same.
Yes, it is by His blood that we receive for forgiveness. But what do we have to do FOR that forgiveness of sins BY His blood? After all, the Blood of Christ will only cover those who who do what is commanded of them for the remission of sins. The Bible says is it's baptism in the name of the Lord, which was instituted AFTER the death on the cross and practiced by the apostles, including Paul. We know that baptism in the name of the Lord is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). And Paul, who knew that it was by Christ blood that forgiveness was possible, practiced this same baptism.
When Paul wrote about the ONE baptism in Eph. 4:5, logic would demand that he would practice the ONE baptism that he himself writes about. And he practiced, or saw that it was practiced, baptism in the name of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:14, Acts 19:5), which uses water (Acts 10:47-48) and is FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ.
You won't find ONE instance of somebody being baptized in the name of the Lord BEFORE the death on the cross. Not ONE. Why? Because when we are baptized in the name of the Lord, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6). It would be impossible to be baptized into a death that hadn't occured yet, which is why baptism in His name was instituted by Christ AFTER He died, so people could be buried with Him through baptism, being free from sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11).
And again, it IS a new baptism or there would be NO need to rebaptize those who were of John's baptism. One cannot die with Christ through John's baptism.
Let's look about being born again:
John: 3:3
3) Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
From this we can clearly see that one has to be born again to make it to heaven. Now, in order for one to be born "again", a death must occur. Why? Because:
So this bring us to the question of how one dies with Christ. The Bible speaks clearly on this matter:
Romans 6:3-4
3) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4) Therefore we were buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
There is but ONE way to die with Christ, and I even took the liberty of underlining it: BAPTISM. That's how we die with Christ. And I've already stated arguments to show that this is speaking of water baptism in my previous post to you. But for convenience's sake, I present the evidence again:
Well, ok. :shrugs: But I presented Biblical verse and context to show why Paul said what he did.
Then Paul couldn't with a good conscience say that there is ONE faith. If there were two gospels, Jude could not say in good conscience that THE (as in one) faith was ONCE deliever to ALL the saints. ALL the saints would certainly include the Gentiles.
And if there were two gospels, I doubt Christ would the apostles to go into ALL NATIONS with the same gospel. ALL nations include both Jew and Gentile.
This just shows that Christ is sending him to the Gentiles. I see nothing in there that would indicate a new gospel.
We have no idea what was spoken to him, your assertion is pure speculation. And again, it wouldn't make sense for Christ to commission another gospel after he told his apostles to go out into ALL nations (Jews and Gentiles) and preach and baptize. Christ gave them commandment that was sufficient for ALL the nations, so why is it all of the sudden in need of change? It isn't.
But it is a fact, for when you baptize somebody in the name of Christ, how are you not baptizing in the name of the Father and His Spirit also, for the three agree as one?
Also, we know it's a fact because after this commandment, people were then baptized "in the name of" Jesus Christ. That would NOT happen unless they had been given authority by Christ, who has ALL authority. Christ gave them that authority, and they went out baptizing "in the name of the Lord". This is not a coincidence. Also, Christ would not command man to do somthing that they would never do. Makes no sense.
And this is not a reference to Spirit baptism, either. In the context of Matt. 28:19-20, we was commanding man to do three things:
- Make diciples of all nations
- Baptize in them in the name of the Father, Son, and HS
- Teach them to observe all things commanded of the them, and that He would always be with them
Every one of those things were commissioned for man to do. Man cannot baptize with the HS - only Christ can, therefore the baptism spoken of here can only be the one that man could perform and did according to numerous examples in the Bible: water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Christ would not command them to peform a baptism that they simply could not do.
Not quite. The faith spoken of in Romans 3:25 is the faith that obeys the gospels. The Jews at Pentacost were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins... why? Because of their FAITH in the gospel message preached to them by Peter. It is our faith which leads us to obedience to do that which was commanded for us to do for the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38).
Romans 3:25 is not speaking about faith without obedience. Faith alone is a dead faith. In James 2: 21 we find out that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the alter. In verse 22, it shows that by works, faith is made perfect. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (verse 23). Then verse 24 explains that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Faith without works is dead, and will save nobody.
So, getting back to Romans, what kind of faith is being spoken of there? Faith "only"? No, for that is a dead faith. It is a faith that produces obedience that is being spoken of here. When Paul preached to John the baptist's diciples in Acts 19, did they just believe? No. Paul preached to them, and as a result of his preaching, that were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins. Their faith was responsible for that, for if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been baptized, and not had their sins forgiven.
I agree that we are baptized by one Spirit into Christ. The difference is that you believe that this is referring the literal falling of the Holy Spirit as it happened to the Apostles in Acts 2:4 and the Gentiles in Acts 10:44. You believe that a sinner is born again at the very moment when he hears and believes the word of God.
I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit is what convicts us of our sins (John 16:9). Did not Peter, when he spoke to the Jews in Acts chapter 2, speak by the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Yes. He spoke through the Holy Spirit, which convicted the Jews of their sins (Acts 2:37), and as a result of that conviction by the Holy Spirit, they obeyed the command of baptism for the remission of their sins (verse 38), thus being alive to God, being reborn. The Jews were baptized into Christ. But if it were not for the Holy Spirit, convicting of them their sins, they would have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. By means of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized into one body, into Christ. So yes, it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into Christ (1Cor.12:13)
Regarding the Cornelious houseld, for your view to be correct, that a person is baptized by the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing, then I would invite you to explain why it did not happen to the Samaritans when they believed the gospel (Acts 8:12,15,16). Why didn't the Holy Spirit fall upon them when they believed the gospel? They were, however, baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins (verse 12,16). Why? Because it was commanded by Christ in Matt. 28:19-20. Why else would they be be baptized in His name unless authority to do so was given?
If Christ was referring to Spirit baptism in Matt. 28: 19-20 as you assert, then the Samaritans should have been baptized by the Spirit upon believing the gosple that was preached to them by Philip. But it DIDN'T fall upon them, which proves that Christ was not speaking about Spirit baptism.
The falling of the HS upon the Cornelious household has been thouroghly explained, it was a sign to Peter that the Gentiles were also part of the covenant, and when Peter saw this, he asked the Jews "can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" He then commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord, which is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Peter understood that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, for he was there when Christ made that statement in Matt 26:28. Peter told the Jews all they need to know... that Jesus was crucified, was resurrected, and that He was both Lord and Christ. When told what to do, they were commanded to be baptized FOR the remission of sins BY Jesus's blood. Peter understood that, again because he was there when Christ said "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Jesus's blood had already been spilled by the time Pentacost came around, so I can assure you that Peter was preaching the new testament message. Peter did exactly what Jesus commanded him to do in Matt 28:19-20- he preached the gospel and baptized them.
No, they are not the same baptism, which is exactly why people who were of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5, which is the same baptism at Acts 2:38. Until Christ commanded it, there was not authority to baptize in Christ's name.
Exactly- washing of WATER by the word (it's teaching). It is by hearing, believing, and obeying the word of God that one will be washed in the waters of baptism for the remission of sins (just like in at Pentacost who were baptized as a result of the word), thus... "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:27 (KJV)".
See above. Also remember that in Acts 8, the Samaratins weren't washed "with the word with the power of the Spirit removes the stain of sin." Also Paul would practice what he preached, and it's clear that he (or someone else) baptized in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5, which uses water.
As explained above, John's baptism is different from baptism in the name of the Lord, despite that water is used in both baptisms - or else there would be no reason to rebaptize those of John's baptism into the baptism in the name of the Lord.
Well of course John's baptism will be invalidated. You just don't see that baptism in the name of the Lord is a different baptism than that of Johns. You just seem to figure that because they both use water that they must be the same.
Yes, it is by His blood that we receive for forgiveness. But what do we have to do FOR that forgiveness of sins BY His blood? After all, the Blood of Christ will only cover those who who do what is commanded of them for the remission of sins. The Bible says is it's baptism in the name of the Lord, which was instituted AFTER the death on the cross and practiced by the apostles, including Paul. We know that baptism in the name of the Lord is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). And Paul, who knew that it was by Christ blood that forgiveness was possible, practiced this same baptism.
When Paul wrote about the ONE baptism in Eph. 4:5, logic would demand that he would practice the ONE baptism that he himself writes about. And he practiced, or saw that it was practiced, baptism in the name of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:14, Acts 19:5), which uses water (Acts 10:47-48) and is FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ.
You won't find ONE instance of somebody being baptized in the name of the Lord BEFORE the death on the cross. Not ONE. Why? Because when we are baptized in the name of the Lord, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6). It would be impossible to be baptized into a death that hadn't occured yet, which is why baptism in His name was instituted by Christ AFTER He died, so people could be buried with Him through baptism, being free from sin and alive to God (Romans 6:11).
And again, it IS a new baptism or there would be NO need to rebaptize those who were of John's baptism. One cannot die with Christ through John's baptism.
Let's look about being born again:
John: 3:3
3) Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
From this we can clearly see that one has to be born again to make it to heaven. Now, in order for one to be born "again", a death must occur. Why? Because:
- Logic demands it. Can one be born again into the Spirit while still living in his previous life of sin? Impossible. A death must occur so that a new life can begin.
- We must die with Christ in order to live with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11)
So this bring us to the question of how one dies with Christ. The Bible speaks clearly on this matter:
Romans 6:3-4
3) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
4) Therefore we were buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
There is but ONE way to die with Christ, and I even took the liberty of underlining it: BAPTISM. That's how we die with Christ. And I've already stated arguments to show that this is speaking of water baptism in my previous post to you. But for convenience's sake, I present the evidence again:
- The baptism spoken of in Romans 6 is speaking of the baptism "into Christ". In that chapter, it stresses that through baptism we die with Him (Romans 6:3-4), putting away our old man of sin, no longer being slaves to sin (verse 6). It is he who has died with Christ through baptism who is "freed from sin". In otherwords, if you have died with Him through baptism, you are free from sins; it's for the remission of your sins.
- In Acts 2:38, the Jews were given a command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for what? The remission of sins. So, in Romans 6, which speaks of being baptized into Christ, we see that it frees us from sin (Romans 6:7). Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is also for the remission of sins - that we may be freed from sin! Coincidence? I think not. Acts 2:38 and Romans 6 are speaking of the same baptism... and it would only be appropriate for only ONE was written about by Paul in Eph. 4:5, and it would be the same baptism that was command by Christ, the one in His name (Matt. 28:19-20)! And that's exactly what the apostles preached and practiced. They practiced what they preached.
- Baptism in the name of the Lord uses water. (Acts 10:47-48)
Well, ok. :shrugs: But I presented Biblical verse and context to show why Paul said what he did.
Then Paul couldn't with a good conscience say that there is ONE faith. If there were two gospels, Jude could not say in good conscience that THE (as in one) faith was ONCE deliever to ALL the saints. ALL the saints would certainly include the Gentiles.
And if there were two gospels, I doubt Christ would the apostles to go into ALL NATIONS with the same gospel. ALL nations include both Jew and Gentile.
This just shows that Christ is sending him to the Gentiles. I see nothing in there that would indicate a new gospel.
We have no idea what was spoken to him, your assertion is pure speculation. And again, it wouldn't make sense for Christ to commission another gospel after he told his apostles to go out into ALL nations (Jews and Gentiles) and preach and baptize. Christ gave them commandment that was sufficient for ALL the nations, so why is it all of the sudden in need of change? It isn't.
Last edited:
HopeofGlory
New member
Kevin
I am not arguing that ONLY the twelve could water baptize.
Christ did not command them to preach and baptize, He said go "teach, baptizing them".
The point is the twelve preached a baptism of repentace for the remission of sins and Paul preached remission through faith in His blood and we can KNOW what they said from scripture, anything else is prue speculation. We also know that Paul did not water baptize in his later ministry or no later than Acts 19:4-6 and it can be argued that Paul did not actually water baptize them.
Then 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. Acts 19:4
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:6
The contrast between John's baptism and believing in Christ is clear. If we compare this to other scriptures we can better understand this contrast.
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. John 3:27
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. John 3:28
He must increase, but I must decrease. John 3:30
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... Matt. 3:11
Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5
I find no scriptures that tell us of a new water baptism. In the Acts 19 account it does not say that Paul water baptized them, it says that "they were baptized". Note also that Paul did not command them to be water baptized as Peter did when he fulfilled what he believe to be his commission as he preached. Paul did lay his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. This account is not proof for the doctrine of a "new" water baptism. Give me the scriptures that you use to prove a new water baptism.
Confusion was the result of water baptism. How do we stop the confusion? Stop water baptizing! Not difficult to understand. I can see your delima because you believe water baptism is for the remission of sins but it is not needed if you believe 'at this time' faith in His shed blood of the new testament (Matt 26:28) grants remission. Give me one account where Paul water baptized after he said Christ sent him not to baptize.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom. 3:27
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:28
I am glad you agree that Paul was not commissioned to water baptize. Paul went through a transition the same as Peter, see earlier post. Paul did not believe that water baptism was for the remission of sins. Paul believed that God through the death of His Son granted remission without the righteous work of water baptism (Titus 3:5). I Believe in one gospel as taught by the Lord Jesus Christ but man progressively understood this truth. God could not cast them away but chose to save them until the full revelation of His gospel was received. The full revelation does more than save us, it grants eternal life.
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Col. 1:25
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Col. 1:26
At this time we are all baptized into One body by the Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13).
Paul preached with the authority given to him by the Spirit therefore Paul was in pocession of that authority. Paul then could not instruct others to baptize by the authority given to him by the Spirit and also say that Christ did not send him to baptize.
For by one Spirit (in the name of Christ) are we ALL baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13
Paul preached we are baptized by the Spirit when they believe the gospel and that our sins are remitted by the blood of Christ and Paul never commanded water baptism. Paul did baptize a "few" in his early ministry but it is clear that he was not commissioned to water baptize and that Christ did not send him to baptize. Give me a scripture where Paul commands water baptism for remission or where Peter says our sins are remitted through faith in the shed blood of Christ. Many continued water baptism as taught by the Baptist but Paul ended that confusion.
Water baptism began with the Baptist because the Jews required a sign that the baptized had accepted Christ as their Messiah after Christ was manifested to Israel at Pentecost it was no longer needed.
FOR THE JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:2
BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor. 1:24
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Cor. 1:25
Accepting Christ as Messiah granted remission, water baptism never did but it was required. Confusion is the result of putting faith in water baptism and not Christ. The repentence of Judaism is to believe that Jesus is the Christ and it was the main theme of Peterine doctrine at Pentecost but there is more to the Gospel of Christ and that is that He died for our sins. This was not reveal at Pentecost because they first had to believe that Jesus was the Christ or His death would would have be in vain. We have progressed into the doctrine of Paul revealed by the Spirit and we must tell the word that Christ died for our sins. Paul was called for that purpose, to fulfill the word of God.
Must go, will finish later.
I am not arguing that ONLY the twelve could water baptize.
Christ did not command them to preach and baptize, He said go "teach, baptizing them".
The point is the twelve preached a baptism of repentace for the remission of sins and Paul preached remission through faith in His blood and we can KNOW what they said from scripture, anything else is prue speculation. We also know that Paul did not water baptize in his later ministry or no later than Acts 19:4-6 and it can be argued that Paul did not actually water baptize them.
Then 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. Acts 19:4
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 19:5
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:6
The contrast between John's baptism and believing in Christ is clear. If we compare this to other scriptures we can better understand this contrast.
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. John 3:27
Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. John 3:28
He must increase, but I must decrease. John 3:30
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... Matt. 3:11
Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. John 5:33
But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5
I find no scriptures that tell us of a new water baptism. In the Acts 19 account it does not say that Paul water baptized them, it says that "they were baptized". Note also that Paul did not command them to be water baptized as Peter did when he fulfilled what he believe to be his commission as he preached. Paul did lay his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost. This account is not proof for the doctrine of a "new" water baptism. Give me the scriptures that you use to prove a new water baptism.
Confusion was the result of water baptism. How do we stop the confusion? Stop water baptizing! Not difficult to understand. I can see your delima because you believe water baptism is for the remission of sins but it is not needed if you believe 'at this time' faith in His shed blood of the new testament (Matt 26:28) grants remission. Give me one account where Paul water baptized after he said Christ sent him not to baptize.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Rom. 3:27
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:28
I am glad you agree that Paul was not commissioned to water baptize. Paul went through a transition the same as Peter, see earlier post. Paul did not believe that water baptism was for the remission of sins. Paul believed that God through the death of His Son granted remission without the righteous work of water baptism (Titus 3:5). I Believe in one gospel as taught by the Lord Jesus Christ but man progressively understood this truth. God could not cast them away but chose to save them until the full revelation of His gospel was received. The full revelation does more than save us, it grants eternal life.
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Col. 1:25
Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Col. 1:26
At this time we are all baptized into One body by the Spirit not water (1 Cor 12:13).
Paul preached with the authority given to him by the Spirit therefore Paul was in pocession of that authority. Paul then could not instruct others to baptize by the authority given to him by the Spirit and also say that Christ did not send him to baptize.
For by one Spirit (in the name of Christ) are we ALL baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13
Paul preached we are baptized by the Spirit when they believe the gospel and that our sins are remitted by the blood of Christ and Paul never commanded water baptism. Paul did baptize a "few" in his early ministry but it is clear that he was not commissioned to water baptize and that Christ did not send him to baptize. Give me a scripture where Paul commands water baptism for remission or where Peter says our sins are remitted through faith in the shed blood of Christ. Many continued water baptism as taught by the Baptist but Paul ended that confusion.
Water baptism began with the Baptist because the Jews required a sign that the baptized had accepted Christ as their Messiah after Christ was manifested to Israel at Pentecost it was no longer needed.
FOR THE JEWS REQUIRE A SIGN, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:2
BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor. 1:24
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Cor. 1:25
Accepting Christ as Messiah granted remission, water baptism never did but it was required. Confusion is the result of putting faith in water baptism and not Christ. The repentence of Judaism is to believe that Jesus is the Christ and it was the main theme of Peterine doctrine at Pentecost but there is more to the Gospel of Christ and that is that He died for our sins. This was not reveal at Pentecost because they first had to believe that Jesus was the Christ or His death would would have be in vain. We have progressed into the doctrine of Paul revealed by the Spirit and we must tell the word that Christ died for our sins. Paul was called for that purpose, to fulfill the word of God.
Must go, will finish later.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Francisco,
You seem to not understand the meaning of "repentance".It simply means to have a change of mind.If one believes the gospel it is obvious that he has aleary "repented".
For example,the word "believe" is found in John´s gospel over a hundred times,and the word "repent" not once.And John says that the words he wrote in his gospel were written so that men would believe and have life through his name (Jn.20:31).Evidently John understood that if one "believs" then he has aleardy had a change of mind.
It is the "gospel" itself that brings about the change of mind.As I stated earlier,if one "believes" the gospel it is then evident that he has aleardy repented.
And that is why Paul said nothing about repenting in answer to the Phiippian jailer´s question as to what he must do to be saved:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
But since the plain words of Paul do not match your ideas,you are forced to attempt to make it as if his answer was not quite complete.You would rather make Paul´s answer to be in error than to admit it is your theology which is wrong.
I also pointed out that the sinner is "born again...by the word of God"(1Pet.1:23),and that at the very moment that he believes he is born again.The act of submitting to the rite of water baptism only comes AFTER he has already received life by being born again.So it has NOTHING to do with salvation.
In response,you offered the following verse which you think proves that the sinner must be baptized with water in order to be born again:
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn.3:5).
In order to understand these words spoken by the Lord Jesus to Nicodemus,we must first “rightly divide the word of God” by distinguishing between things that belong to the spiritual sphere (or “heavenly” things) and those belonging to the natural sphere (or “earthly” things).
Scripture teaches us to compare “spiritual things with spiritual”(1Cor.2:13).
Many times God employs “types” to explain spiritual truths.The “types” are illustrations using “natural” or “earthly” things to demonstrate “heavenly” or “spiritual” realities.And the Lord´s words to Nicodemus can leave no doubt that the Lord was speaking in the language of “types” in regard to his statements concerning the birth of water and Spirit:
“If I have told you earthly things,and ye believed not,how shall ye believe,if I tell you heavenly things"(Jn.3:12).
The Lord Jesus also told Nicodemus that he should have understood His words in regard to the baptism of the “the water and the spirit”:
Are thou a teacher of Israel,and knowest not these things?”(v.10).
The Lord´s remarks in regard to “water” and “spirit” should have been familiar to any teacher of Israel:
“For I will…bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinke clean water upon you…a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you”(Ez.36:25,26).
The Lord Jesus is using a “type” concerning the rebirth of Israel in order to illustrate the new birth of the believer.The “water” represents the “water of purification” of Numbers 19.A red heifer was sacrificed and water that flowed over the burnt ashes of that sacrifice cleansed from defilement.The sacrifice of the red heifer represents the sacrifice of Christ.Those who were sprinkled with this water of purification received the benefits of His death by the water.In the present dispensation believers receive the benefits of His death through the Word.Therefore,for us who live in the present dispensation,we receive “the washing of water by the word”(Eph.5:26).
As the Lord Jesus said,"Now ye are clean through the WORD I have spoken unto you"(Jn.15:3).
The “water” spoken of by the Lord Jesus Christ is an example of the Lord using an “earthly” element in order to illustrate a spiritual truth.And the very next chapter of Ezekiel we can see that the nation of Israel will be reborn by the “word” and the “spirit”:
First,Ezekiel sees a valley “full of bones”,and these bones are described as “the whole house of israel”(Ez.37:1,11).
Next,the Lord asks,”Can these bones live?” The Lord then says,”Prophecy upon these bones;and say unto them,O ye dry bones,hear the word of the Lord.Thus saith the Lord God unto those bones,behold,I will cause breath (Heb. “ruach”=”spirit”) to enter into you,and ye shall live”(Ez.37:5).
So we see that the Lord is teaching the doctrine of the new birth through a “type”,the new birth of Israel.And notice the similiarity of the Lord´s words in regard to the “wind” and Spirit.He says to Nicodemus:
“The wind bloweth where it willeth,and thou hearest the sound of it,but canst not tell from where it cometh,and where it goeth;so is every one that is born of the Spirit”(Jn.3:8).
The teaching of the rebirth of Israel in Ezekiel also compares the Spirit to the “wind”:
“Then said He unto me,Prophesy unto the wind,prophecy,son of man,and say to the wind,Thus saith the Lord God: Come from the four winds,O breath,and breathe upon those slain,that they might live.So I prophesied as He commanded me,and the breath came into them,and they lived”(v.9,10).
The rite of water baptism is a public act performed by man,for which man can set the day and hour.However,the new birth of “water and the spirit” is the work of God,and as the Lord says,no man can forecast or command the work of the Spirit:
“The Spirit breathes where He desires,and you hear His voice;but you do not know from where He comes,and where He goes;so is everyone who has been generated from the Spirit”(Literal Translation,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”,Green).
Therefore,the words of the Lord Jesus Christ do not teach that one must submit to the rite of water baptism in order to be saved.In fact,an intelligent study of the "types" reveal just the opposite.
In His grace,--Jerry
You seem to not understand the meaning of "repentance".It simply means to have a change of mind.If one believes the gospel it is obvious that he has aleary "repented".
For example,the word "believe" is found in John´s gospel over a hundred times,and the word "repent" not once.And John says that the words he wrote in his gospel were written so that men would believe and have life through his name (Jn.20:31).Evidently John understood that if one "believs" then he has aleardy had a change of mind.
It is the "gospel" itself that brings about the change of mind.As I stated earlier,if one "believes" the gospel it is then evident that he has aleardy repented.
And that is why Paul said nothing about repenting in answer to the Phiippian jailer´s question as to what he must do to be saved:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,and thou shalt be saved"(Acts16:31).
But since the plain words of Paul do not match your ideas,you are forced to attempt to make it as if his answer was not quite complete.You would rather make Paul´s answer to be in error than to admit it is your theology which is wrong.
I also pointed out that the sinner is "born again...by the word of God"(1Pet.1:23),and that at the very moment that he believes he is born again.The act of submitting to the rite of water baptism only comes AFTER he has already received life by being born again.So it has NOTHING to do with salvation.
In response,you offered the following verse which you think proves that the sinner must be baptized with water in order to be born again:
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn.3:5).
In order to understand these words spoken by the Lord Jesus to Nicodemus,we must first “rightly divide the word of God” by distinguishing between things that belong to the spiritual sphere (or “heavenly” things) and those belonging to the natural sphere (or “earthly” things).
Scripture teaches us to compare “spiritual things with spiritual”(1Cor.2:13).
Many times God employs “types” to explain spiritual truths.The “types” are illustrations using “natural” or “earthly” things to demonstrate “heavenly” or “spiritual” realities.And the Lord´s words to Nicodemus can leave no doubt that the Lord was speaking in the language of “types” in regard to his statements concerning the birth of water and Spirit:
“If I have told you earthly things,and ye believed not,how shall ye believe,if I tell you heavenly things"(Jn.3:12).
The Lord Jesus also told Nicodemus that he should have understood His words in regard to the baptism of the “the water and the spirit”:
Are thou a teacher of Israel,and knowest not these things?”(v.10).
The Lord´s remarks in regard to “water” and “spirit” should have been familiar to any teacher of Israel:
“For I will…bring you into your own land.Then I will sprinke clean water upon you…a new heart also will I give you,and a new spirit will I put in you”(Ez.36:25,26).
The Lord Jesus is using a “type” concerning the rebirth of Israel in order to illustrate the new birth of the believer.The “water” represents the “water of purification” of Numbers 19.A red heifer was sacrificed and water that flowed over the burnt ashes of that sacrifice cleansed from defilement.The sacrifice of the red heifer represents the sacrifice of Christ.Those who were sprinkled with this water of purification received the benefits of His death by the water.In the present dispensation believers receive the benefits of His death through the Word.Therefore,for us who live in the present dispensation,we receive “the washing of water by the word”(Eph.5:26).
As the Lord Jesus said,"Now ye are clean through the WORD I have spoken unto you"(Jn.15:3).
The “water” spoken of by the Lord Jesus Christ is an example of the Lord using an “earthly” element in order to illustrate a spiritual truth.And the very next chapter of Ezekiel we can see that the nation of Israel will be reborn by the “word” and the “spirit”:
First,Ezekiel sees a valley “full of bones”,and these bones are described as “the whole house of israel”(Ez.37:1,11).
Next,the Lord asks,”Can these bones live?” The Lord then says,”Prophecy upon these bones;and say unto them,O ye dry bones,hear the word of the Lord.Thus saith the Lord God unto those bones,behold,I will cause breath (Heb. “ruach”=”spirit”) to enter into you,and ye shall live”(Ez.37:5).
So we see that the Lord is teaching the doctrine of the new birth through a “type”,the new birth of Israel.And notice the similiarity of the Lord´s words in regard to the “wind” and Spirit.He says to Nicodemus:
“The wind bloweth where it willeth,and thou hearest the sound of it,but canst not tell from where it cometh,and where it goeth;so is every one that is born of the Spirit”(Jn.3:8).
The teaching of the rebirth of Israel in Ezekiel also compares the Spirit to the “wind”:
“Then said He unto me,Prophesy unto the wind,prophecy,son of man,and say to the wind,Thus saith the Lord God: Come from the four winds,O breath,and breathe upon those slain,that they might live.So I prophesied as He commanded me,and the breath came into them,and they lived”(v.9,10).
The rite of water baptism is a public act performed by man,for which man can set the day and hour.However,the new birth of “water and the spirit” is the work of God,and as the Lord says,no man can forecast or command the work of the Spirit:
“The Spirit breathes where He desires,and you hear His voice;but you do not know from where He comes,and where He goes;so is everyone who has been generated from the Spirit”(Literal Translation,”Interlinear Greek-English New Testament”,Green).
Therefore,the words of the Lord Jesus Christ do not teach that one must submit to the rite of water baptism in order to be saved.In fact,an intelligent study of the "types" reveal just the opposite.
In His grace,--Jerry
Kevin
New member
Craig,
But we also KNOW that Paul himself practiced baptism in the name of the Lord, which is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). There is NO scriptual evidence that he stopped preaching that (and sometimes doing it himself).
Does it really matter when the last account of Paul baptizing in the name of the Lord was? He preached it, and he practiced it, even though it wasn't his main charge. Show me scripture where Christ said that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins.
Question. Why weren't those people automatically Spirit baptized upon believing Paul's preaching, as it did to the Gentiles in Acts 10:44, which you claim happens to believers upon believing the gospel? Why was the command given to be baptized in the name of the Lord?
Ok, we both know that John's baptism included water. But you say that in Acts 19, it does not say that were water baptized but rather it says "they were baptized".
First of all, for you to claim that Acts 19:5 merely says "they were baptized", is incorrect. It says:
Acts 19:5
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
So, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This baptism involves water, as shown in Acts 10:47-48
Acts 10:47-48
47) Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, and the people in Acts 19:5 were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus".
So, those people had been water baptized into John's baptism, and then rebaptized in the name of the Lord, which uses water as shown in Acts 10:47-48. They ARE different baptisms, and both use water, and you don't have a single verse that shows Christ telling Paul that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins.
First, logic demands it. For why would they, after hearing Paul preach, be baptized in the name of the Lord, unless they were commanded to do so? They wouldn't know to be baptized in His name unless told to do so by somebody.
Secondly, scripture demands it. When Christ commanded baptism of diciples of ALL nations, whom does that command NOT extent to? It is commanded of disciples of ALL nations, which would include the people in Acts 19:5, and everybody else in the entire world, whether Jew or Gentile. ALL nations.
What is this supposed to prove? Miraculous gifts don't save anybody. The HS even fell upon people in the OT, and it certainly didn't save them.
See above. I've shown that both John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord involves water, and the fact that they were rebaptized proves that they are different. Baptism in His name was not instituted until AFTER the death of Christ, which is why you will find NO record of anybody being baptized "in the name of the Lord" before His death on the cross.
You can't die with Christ through John's baptism, because John's baptism was practiced BEFORE His death. You can't be buried into a death that hasn't happened yet. Baptism in His name happened after His death, and it is how we are buried with Him through baptism, and that's the baptism that was practiced, even by Paul.
The confusion was not in water baptism, but rather WHO baptized them, as I have given proof of this in a previous post. You don't just stop doing something that the Lord commands! Paul (or someone else, it really doesn't matter WHO baptizes, which is exactly what Paul was trying to tell the Corinthians)continued water baptism in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5.
When Peter baptized people in water for the remission of their sins in Acts 2:38, had not Christ's blood been shed? YES! They were baptized FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ. There's a difference. And Peter was quite aware that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, because he was present when Christ said what he did in Matt. 26:28. The blood of Christ will do NO good to people to do not do what is commanded FOR the remission of their sins by His blood: baptism in His name. Why do you think the apostles went around baptizing people in His name?
Well, the last known account I'm aware of is in Acts 19:5. The actual account of the Corinthians being baptized happened in 18:8. But obviously Paul's letter to the Corinthians happened after the actual account of them being baptized. Whether that letter was written before the events of Acts 19:5... I don't know.
It really doesn't matter though, because I've already shown you in scripture and context why Paul said what he did (which you have not refuted), and you don't have ONE verse that shows Christ telling Paul that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins. You're trying to build a doctrine out of this verse when it just isn't there.
Not quite. The faith spoken of in Romans 3:25 is the faith that obeys the gospels. The Jews at Pentacost were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins... why? Because of their FAITH in the gospel message preached to them by Peter. It is our faith which leads us to obedience to do that which was commanded for us to do for the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38).
Romans 3:25 is not speaking about faith without obedience. Faith alone is a dead faith. In James 2: 21 we find out that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the alter. In verse 22, it shows that by works, faith is made perfect. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (verse 23). Then verse 24 explains that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Faith without works is dead, and will save nobody.
So, getting back to Romans, what kind of faith is being spoken of there? Faith "only"? No, for that is a dead faith. It is a faith that produces obedience that is being spoken of here. When Paul preached to John the baptist's diciples in Acts 19, did they just believe? No. Paul preached to them, and as a result of his preaching, that were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins. Their faith was responsible for that, for if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been baptized, and not had their sins forgiven.
Baptism in the name of Christ is not a deed of the Law, for it was instituted when the Law was nailed to the cross.
Then why did Paul see to it that the Corinthians were water baptized? Why did he see to it that John's diciples were baptized in the name of Christ in Acts 19:5? Why didn't he stop it?
I've already address this. We are going in circles:
Well of course we aren't saved by our own works, we are saved by grace through faith. As it says, it is by His mercy that He saved us, and He did that by sending His Son to die for our sins and by providing a way for us to be reborn, being washed in water FOR the remission of our sins and renewed again by the HS. This is exactly what was practiced (Acts 2:38). Paul clearly exaplains this process in Romans 6, which speaks about baptism. He explains that it frees us from sin and makes us alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11). Baptism now saves us 1 Peter 3:21. The baptism spoken of is the baptism that was practiced by ALL the apostles, including Paul, and commanded by our Lord for ALL NATIONS - baptism in the name of the Lord by immersion in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
This is speaking of the same dispensation that the other apostles preached in, in which baptism in His name was practiced. The previous dispensation was that which was before the cross: the law of Moses.
Again, we go in circles:
Yes, and I agree with this verse. The difference is that you believe that this is referring the literal falling of the Holy Spirit as it happened to the Apostles in Acts 2:4 and the Gentiles in Acts 10:44. You believe that the sinner is born again at the very moment when he hears and believes the word of God.
I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit is what convicts us of our sins (John 16:9). Did not Peter, when he spoke to the Jews in Acts chapter 2, speak by the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Yes. He spoke through the Holy Spirit, which convicted the Jews of their sins (Acts 2:37), and as a result of that conviction by the Holy Spirit, they obeyed the command of baptism for the remission of their sins (verse 38), thus being alive to God, being reborn. The Jews were baptized into Christ. But if it were not for the Holy Spirit, convicting of them their sins, they would have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. By means of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized into one body, into Christ. So yes, it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into Christ (1Cor.12:13)
Also, for your view to be correct, that a person is baptized by the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing, then I would invite you to explain why it did not happen to the Samaritans when they believed the gospel (Acts 8:12,15,16). Why didn't the Holy Spirit fall upon them when they believed the gospe? The were, however, baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins (verse 12,16).
Actually, no. The Spirit give no authority to anybody for it does not speak on it's own accord, but rather speaks what He hears from Christ (John 16: 13), who has ALL authority (Matt. 28: 18). So again, Paul would not baptize in the name of Christ unless it was he was given authority to do so. That authority can be found in Matt. 28:19-20.
You didn't answer my question. Why would the people of 1 Cor and Acts 19:5 be baptized in the name of the Lord if they weren't commanded to do so? As a result of Paul's preaching in Acts 19:5, people were baptized in the name of the Lord. How could they know to be bapztized unless given the command to do so? Logic demands that it was commanded at some point, or they wouldn't have been baptized.... but they were, which means it was commanded.
I'm not speaking of John's baptism, I'm speaking of baptism in the name of the Lord, which I have proven to you is different (or John's diciples would NOT have been rebaptized in the name of the Lord), and they both use water.
The Jews in Acts 2:38 accepted Christ as the messiah, and remission was granted because they were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins.
Who would put "faith" in baptism? One puts faith in Christ which leads to baptism in His name for the remission of sins, just as it happened in Acts 2:38.
What is to be preached, in the words of Paul, is: BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23. Used your own verse against you. Peter certainly preached Christ crucified to the Jews at Pentacost.
But we also KNOW that Paul himself practiced baptism in the name of the Lord, which is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). There is NO scriptual evidence that he stopped preaching that (and sometimes doing it himself).
Does it really matter when the last account of Paul baptizing in the name of the Lord was? He preached it, and he practiced it, even though it wasn't his main charge. Show me scripture where Christ said that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins.
Question. Why weren't those people automatically Spirit baptized upon believing Paul's preaching, as it did to the Gentiles in Acts 10:44, which you claim happens to believers upon believing the gospel? Why was the command given to be baptized in the name of the Lord?
Ok, we both know that John's baptism included water. But you say that in Acts 19, it does not say that were water baptized but rather it says "they were baptized".
First of all, for you to claim that Acts 19:5 merely says "they were baptized", is incorrect. It says:
Acts 19:5
5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
So, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This baptism involves water, as shown in Acts 10:47-48
Acts 10:47-48
47) Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, and the people in Acts 19:5 were baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus".
So, those people had been water baptized into John's baptism, and then rebaptized in the name of the Lord, which uses water as shown in Acts 10:47-48. They ARE different baptisms, and both use water, and you don't have a single verse that shows Christ telling Paul that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins.
First, logic demands it. For why would they, after hearing Paul preach, be baptized in the name of the Lord, unless they were commanded to do so? They wouldn't know to be baptized in His name unless told to do so by somebody.
Secondly, scripture demands it. When Christ commanded baptism of diciples of ALL nations, whom does that command NOT extent to? It is commanded of disciples of ALL nations, which would include the people in Acts 19:5, and everybody else in the entire world, whether Jew or Gentile. ALL nations.
What is this supposed to prove? Miraculous gifts don't save anybody. The HS even fell upon people in the OT, and it certainly didn't save them.
See above. I've shown that both John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord involves water, and the fact that they were rebaptized proves that they are different. Baptism in His name was not instituted until AFTER the death of Christ, which is why you will find NO record of anybody being baptized "in the name of the Lord" before His death on the cross.
You can't die with Christ through John's baptism, because John's baptism was practiced BEFORE His death. You can't be buried into a death that hasn't happened yet. Baptism in His name happened after His death, and it is how we are buried with Him through baptism, and that's the baptism that was practiced, even by Paul.
The confusion was not in water baptism, but rather WHO baptized them, as I have given proof of this in a previous post. You don't just stop doing something that the Lord commands! Paul (or someone else, it really doesn't matter WHO baptizes, which is exactly what Paul was trying to tell the Corinthians)continued water baptism in the name of the Lord in Acts 19:5.
When Peter baptized people in water for the remission of their sins in Acts 2:38, had not Christ's blood been shed? YES! They were baptized FOR the remission of sins BY the blood of Christ. There's a difference. And Peter was quite aware that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, because he was present when Christ said what he did in Matt. 26:28. The blood of Christ will do NO good to people to do not do what is commanded FOR the remission of their sins by His blood: baptism in His name. Why do you think the apostles went around baptizing people in His name?
Well, the last known account I'm aware of is in Acts 19:5. The actual account of the Corinthians being baptized happened in 18:8. But obviously Paul's letter to the Corinthians happened after the actual account of them being baptized. Whether that letter was written before the events of Acts 19:5... I don't know.
It really doesn't matter though, because I've already shown you in scripture and context why Paul said what he did (which you have not refuted), and you don't have ONE verse that shows Christ telling Paul that baptism in His name was no longer necessary for the remission of sins. You're trying to build a doctrine out of this verse when it just isn't there.
Not quite. The faith spoken of in Romans 3:25 is the faith that obeys the gospels. The Jews at Pentacost were baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of sins... why? Because of their FAITH in the gospel message preached to them by Peter. It is our faith which leads us to obedience to do that which was commanded for us to do for the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38).
Romans 3:25 is not speaking about faith without obedience. Faith alone is a dead faith. In James 2: 21 we find out that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac on the alter. In verse 22, it shows that by works, faith is made perfect. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (verse 23). Then verse 24 explains that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Faith without works is dead, and will save nobody.
So, getting back to Romans, what kind of faith is being spoken of there? Faith "only"? No, for that is a dead faith. It is a faith that produces obedience that is being spoken of here. When Paul preached to John the baptist's diciples in Acts 19, did they just believe? No. Paul preached to them, and as a result of his preaching, that were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins. Their faith was responsible for that, for if they had no faith, they wouldn't have been baptized, and not had their sins forgiven.
Baptism in the name of Christ is not a deed of the Law, for it was instituted when the Law was nailed to the cross.
Then why did Paul see to it that the Corinthians were water baptized? Why did he see to it that John's diciples were baptized in the name of Christ in Acts 19:5? Why didn't he stop it?
I've already address this. We are going in circles:
Well of course we aren't saved by our own works, we are saved by grace through faith. As it says, it is by His mercy that He saved us, and He did that by sending His Son to die for our sins and by providing a way for us to be reborn, being washed in water FOR the remission of our sins and renewed again by the HS. This is exactly what was practiced (Acts 2:38). Paul clearly exaplains this process in Romans 6, which speaks about baptism. He explains that it frees us from sin and makes us alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11). Baptism now saves us 1 Peter 3:21. The baptism spoken of is the baptism that was practiced by ALL the apostles, including Paul, and commanded by our Lord for ALL NATIONS - baptism in the name of the Lord by immersion in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
This is speaking of the same dispensation that the other apostles preached in, in which baptism in His name was practiced. The previous dispensation was that which was before the cross: the law of Moses.
Again, we go in circles:
Yes, and I agree with this verse. The difference is that you believe that this is referring the literal falling of the Holy Spirit as it happened to the Apostles in Acts 2:4 and the Gentiles in Acts 10:44. You believe that the sinner is born again at the very moment when he hears and believes the word of God.
I do not believe this. The Holy Spirit is what convicts us of our sins (John 16:9). Did not Peter, when he spoke to the Jews in Acts chapter 2, speak by the authority of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Yes. He spoke through the Holy Spirit, which convicted the Jews of their sins (Acts 2:37), and as a result of that conviction by the Holy Spirit, they obeyed the command of baptism for the remission of their sins (verse 38), thus being alive to God, being reborn. The Jews were baptized into Christ. But if it were not for the Holy Spirit, convicting of them their sins, they would have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. By means of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized into one body, into Christ. So yes, it is by one Spirit that we are baptized into Christ (1Cor.12:13)
Also, for your view to be correct, that a person is baptized by the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing, then I would invite you to explain why it did not happen to the Samaritans when they believed the gospel (Acts 8:12,15,16). Why didn't the Holy Spirit fall upon them when they believed the gospe? The were, however, baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins (verse 12,16).
Actually, no. The Spirit give no authority to anybody for it does not speak on it's own accord, but rather speaks what He hears from Christ (John 16: 13), who has ALL authority (Matt. 28: 18). So again, Paul would not baptize in the name of Christ unless it was he was given authority to do so. That authority can be found in Matt. 28:19-20.
You didn't answer my question. Why would the people of 1 Cor and Acts 19:5 be baptized in the name of the Lord if they weren't commanded to do so? As a result of Paul's preaching in Acts 19:5, people were baptized in the name of the Lord. How could they know to be bapztized unless given the command to do so? Logic demands that it was commanded at some point, or they wouldn't have been baptized.... but they were, which means it was commanded.
I'm not speaking of John's baptism, I'm speaking of baptism in the name of the Lord, which I have proven to you is different (or John's diciples would NOT have been rebaptized in the name of the Lord), and they both use water.
The Jews in Acts 2:38 accepted Christ as the messiah, and remission was granted because they were baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of their sins.
Who would put "faith" in baptism? One puts faith in Christ which leads to baptism in His name for the remission of sins, just as it happened in Acts 2:38.
What is to be preached, in the words of Paul, is: BUT WE PREACH CHRIST CRUCIFIED, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23. Used your own verse against you.
Peter certainly preached Christ crucified to the Jews at Pentacost.
Last edited: