The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[agape]

Originally posted by Kevin
Agape,

Kevin,

I fully aware of the meaning of the word "BUT"

Good. You understand then that John baptized with water BUT we are baptized with holy spirit.

HS baptism does not happen to everybody.

This is your private interpretation because the Word does not teach this at all. You really need to take the time to study the Word. It is clear throughout Acts and the Pauline Epistles that baptism with the holy spirit is given to all those who believe. Act 2:38, also make it clear that there were Judeans present on the day of Pentecost, heard the Apostles speak with tongues and after hearing Peter teach the Word, repented and were baptized, not with water, but, according to verse 38; "...and ye shall receive [lambano, receive into manifestation] the gift of the Holy Ghost. God already gave the gift originally to the twelve apostles and from Pentecost on there would not be a question of God's gift being given again, but only of man's receiving what had already been given. Everyone who believes in Christ as their Savior from sin are baptized with the holy spirit.

Verse 39: For the promise is unto you [Israel], and to your children [the children of Israel] and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Peter here explains that the promise as given in verse 38 is first to Israel and the children of Israel, then to all who will believe. "To all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call."

So, no, the baptism of holy spirit is not just for certain people. It's for all who do one thing; that is, to believe in Christ.

why didn't the flaming tongues rest upon my head? Why?

The cloven tongues "like as of fire" (not real fire) which sat upon them, was a phenomena. It was something God specifically chose to do on that great and momentous day. It signified the gift of holy spirit coming from above, from God, His spirit descending on them. The word "sat" is very interesting because usually when something was completed or finished that word "sat" is used. For example, after six days of creation, Genesis 2:2 says, "And he [God] rested [sat]." God's creative activity was completely finished. After Jesus Christ had given his life, was raised again and ascended into heaven, he "sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12). When man's redemption was completed, Jesus Christ "sat down." On the day of Pentecost "the cloven tongues like as fire "sat" upon each of them indicating outpouring was complete, it was in full. The gift from the Holy Spirit (God) was "fully come."

Oh, you mean "hypocrite"? The word that Jesus used also?

Yes, the word he used. He called the so-called self-righteous Pharisees who put people in bondage with works, rules regulations of man-made doctrines and creeds that does not come from the true God; HYPOCRITES. I'm sorry, Kevin, but it is you who lacks spiritual understanding concerning the Scriptures because you got it all backwards. You put "AND" in place of "BUT" for spirit baptism and "works" in place of Grace and faith for salvation. There's no water and no works for salvation. We are saved, born-again of God's incorruptible seed, which is eternal life spirit via SPIRIT BAPTISM...NOT WATER. It is the GIFT OF GOD...NOT WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.

 

[Francisco]

Freak,

Fran states: The grace of the God has the power to justify us, that is, cleanse us from our sins, and to communicate to us the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

I have no problem with that statement.

But it is important that we state very clearly justification is by faith.

Are you even slightly surprised that our beliefs on justification are the same?

The quotes I posted were from the SBC Baptist Faith and Message, and from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The terminologies are a little different, but both say the same thing: that by having faith in Jesus Christ, the grace of God justifies us to Himself. Even though you say it is BY faith, and I say that it is THROUGH faith, we are substantially in agreement.

Many times I have found Catholics and Protestants to actually agree on a matter of faith, but due to differences in terminology they THINK they disagree. I'm glad we are in agreement here Freak, and thanks for actually considering what I was trying to say rather than ranting and throwing a few insults like many others would have done, without really considering it.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Redfish]

Be baptized, yes, but not...

Be baptized, yes, but not...

I have to take my stand with C. Moore. In my opinion the bible does not teach that water baptism is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation. A simple reading of 1st Cor. 1:14-17 strongly suggests that for Paul such was not the case.

On the other hand, someone has rightly asked in so many words, why should we be baptized at all, if it's not a necessary pre-requisite for salvation. Again, my opinion is that we should do so in order to follow Christ's example and to make a public committment of dedication to the Lord's service. But the question is best answered with another question (something Christ himself did at times)...we might also ask, why should we do good works at all if they are not to be considered as a necessary pre-requisite for salvation? Obviously it is always right to do good, and never right to wrong....but this is not presented as the pre-requisite for salvation. Rather, we are saved by the Faith God gives us all...and not by our works....lest any man should boast. There is no boasting when God does what we were helpless to do. So then, repenting (turning around the mind)and confessing our sins, and accepting Christ's sacrifice are the necessary pre-requisites...the rest should occur to as a natural outcome of gratitiude to God and making a public committment to Him.

 

[PENIEL]

WASH AWAY YOU SINS . . .

WASH AWAY YOU SINS . . .

Receive the Holy Spirit.

We must Follow Jesus Example of being dunked and hands

layed on us.

If we do not , then we are not following Christ .

:thumb:

 

[JustAChristian]

Let's Take A Peek At Some Greek!

Let's Take A Peek At Some Greek!

More Information of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38...

Because the evidence of Jesus’ statement which is recorded in Mrk 16:16 is to powerfully conclusive, it will be briefly noted here (with special concern with how it fits so marvelously with Acts 2:38).

In the original Greek of Mark 16:16, it is absolutely “ungetoverable” that both “believeth” and “is baptized” are aorist participles. This importance is obvious because the Greek New Testament never uses the aorist participle to refer to action which is subsequent to (occurs after) the acation of the main verb in the sentence (see Robertson and Davis, “A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament”, P. 297). Ray Summers, renowned Baptist Greek scholar in his book, “The Essentials of the Greek New Testament”, agreed with Robertson and Davis that the aorist participle never indicates action which is subsequent to the action of the main verb in the sentence. What does this mean? It means that whatever action is indicated by an aorist participle cannot refer to action which occurs after the action of the main verb in the sentence. This fact is very important!

Thus, since in Mark 16:16 both “believeth” and “is baptized” are aorist participles in the original Greek, it follows that neither “believeth” nor “is baptized” can occur after salvation. Thus, this passage constitutes proof positive that baptism comes before – not after – salvation from sin. Thus, the passage plainly teaches that no one is saved by the blood of Christ until after he both believes and is baptized by the authority of Christ.

In Acts 2:38 “repent” and “be baptized” are aorist imperatives which is a command to be done seeking a precise result. “For” (Greek, eis) the remission of sins. This clause is in the “accusative case”, and tell us that “eis” means “in order to”. One is to repent and be baptized in order to have remission of sins. There can be no other interpretation for these words. We hope that this brings insight to these verses.

JustAChristian

 

[Kevin]

Agape,

As far as the "BUT" issue, Peter was just recalling how they recieved Spirit baptism in Acts 2:3-4, which game them power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL...squeezing in more PI...

When Peter recalled that statement "but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit", how could he not recount when the HS fell upon them, just as promised? What spurred this memory? The HS fell upon the Gentiles. Why? To show the Jews that they were no longer God's only favord people, but rather, that salvation was availble to all flesh. This is why the Jews were astonished (verse45).

After this sign from God was evident to the Jews, Peter turned to them and said, "Can anyone forbid WATER, that these should not be BAPTIZED who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

It's obvious to most of the world, except YOU (now that's private interpretation!), that Peter that Peter is saying exactly what he is saying... "Can anyone forbid WATER (yes, water), that these should not be BAPTIZED (yes, baptized)...". Forbid what? Water. That these should not be what? Baptized. Baptized in water, just like the ethopian eunuch!

We have evidence in the Bible of people being baptized into WATER after being preached Jesus (eunuch). We also have plenty of evidence from the Early Church Fathers who perfectly understood that baptism involves water. What do you have? You have "LOL! PI!! PI!! LOL!!" It is you who is in the minority, Ms. (Mrs.?) PI. You are the first person I've seen who doesn't think that Acts 10: 47 is speaking of just what it's saying: being baptized in WATER.

and you call me a hypocrite?

Yes. You lack serious biblical understand and yet you critisize others education, when you are in dire need of one yourself. ----> Hypocrite <----

Pretty funny.

Pathetic is more accurate.

The Gentiles were baptized with the holy spirit and were saved and received eternal life.

Yes, they were baptized with the HS, but no, this did not save them. The HS also fell upon the people in Numbers 11:25. It gave them miraculous abilities, just like it did the Gentiles. Did this save the people in Numbers?

If they were Christians at that point, then why did Peter command baptism in verse 48... AFTER they had already recieved the HS?

Even John said "but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Who was he talking to? The Apostles only...NO. It was to all those who believed in Christ and were baptized with the symbolic baptism of water only.

So, if people receive the HS upon believing, why didn't the Samaritans receive the HS when they believed in Acts 8:5-16? The Samaritans believed in verse 12, and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The believed the gospel message. Yet, they did not recieve the HS, even though they believed. Why? Peter and John had to travel from Jerusalem and lay their hands upon them for them to recieve the HS. Why didn't it automatically fall upon them like it did the Gentiles, since you claim that ths is what happens when ALL people hear and believe the word.

Also, again I ask, how come the HS didn't fall upon me when I believed? Since this is supposed to happen to all believers, and I certainly believed, and still do, why has it not fallen upon me? Are you going to have the audacity to throw out a lie like "Well, you must not have truly believed..."? I'm not accusing, I'm just asking. Now, about your response to this in another post to me... you said:

The cloven tongues "like as of fire" (not real fire) which sat upon them, was a phenomena. It was something God specifically chose to do on that great and momentous day. It signified the gift of holy spirit coming from above, from God, His spirit descending on them. The word "sat" is very interesting because usually when something was completed or finished that word "sat" is used. For example, after six days of creation, Genesis 2:2 says, "And he [God] rested [sat]." God's creative activity was completely finished. After Jesus Christ had given his life, was raised again and ascended into heaven, he "sat down on the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:12). When man's redemption was completed, Jesus Christ "sat down." On the day of Pentecost "the cloven tongues like as fire "sat" upon each of them indicating outpouring was complete, it was in full. The gift from the Holy Spirit (God) was "fully come."

I'm not arguing that it's real fire or not. I'm arguing that the falling of the HS is a visible phenomenon. It descibed as being visible in both Matt. 3:16 and in Acts 2:3-4. Both show this as being a visible phenomenon. There is no reason that it wouldn't be visible today.

All this time and you still have not proven that water baptism is necessary for salvation and you know it.

That's easily refuted. Watch this: Yes I have.

It is the GIFT OF GOD...NOT WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.

It's pointless for you to bring this up if you aren't willing to answer my arguements about this.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

you said:We are all sinners, therefore how could we earn it? God poured out His grace when He didn't have to, that's the free gift.

NO, God poured out His love for us and gave us a chance to be save

A chance to be saved, eh? Well well... if it is a "chance" at salvation, which it is (you are correct), then there must be some kind of strings/conditions to it, otherwise everbody would be saved.

and have salvation by the dieing of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Agreed, God poured out His grace on us. And yes, you are correct that He did it by sending His Son that He would die for us. My whole point is that God did not have to do this, He did it out of His love and compassion for us! That is free! There's nothing that we as humans could do to earn the sending of God's Son to die for us. Nothing! He sent His Son, through whom we can be saved, because of His love and mercy, when He didn't have to. Freely, He gave us a gift that we are not worthy of. Again, that's what the free gift is.

But you can't tell me that there aren't any conditons to becoming a Christian, there are! Jesus listed two of them in Mark 16:16! If salvation was free in the sense that your saying, that we don't have to do anything for it, then everybody would be saved! But that's far from the truth.

Is your church the Church of Christ also??

Yes, I've told you in the past that I'm a member of the chruch of Christ. I don't know if it's the same chruch that you mentioned: "Mission church of Christ".

 

[c.moore]

You said Kevin

But you can't tell me that there aren't any conditons to becoming a Christian, there are! Jesus listed two of them in Mark 16:16! If salvation was free in the sense that your saying, that we don't have to do anything for it, then everybody would be saved! But that's far from the truth.


the only condition is to accept the blood of Jesus for repentance,believe Jesus died on the cross and trust Jesus as your savior , and not everybody will do this so not everybody will be saved.
Even we have millions of people who don`t even believe there is a God ,forget even trust Him.
But old john the baptist rituals is done away like circumcision, and offering lambs for sacrifice.


God bless

 

[Francisco]

c.moore,

What about obeying God and loving our neighbor as ourselves? Is for that required for salvation, or not?

 

[agape]

Kevin,

I have answered all your same questions over and over again. I answered your question concerning the "cloven tongues of fire." What is your response? Nothing...zilch...just words that mean nothing.

I'm not going to repeat myself again.

It's about time that you prove to me HOW, WITH SCRIPTURE, baptism with water is NECESSARY for salvation, and HOW Christ's baptism with the HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT SAVE.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

the only condition is to accept the blood of Jesus for repentance

Yes, and you accept this through baptism, because baptism is what puts you into Christ. Those who are in Christ have accepted Him, for they are in Him. Those who are not in Christ through baptism have not accepted Him.

My point is, getting back to the grace arguement, that there are conditions to salvation. You even recognized that it is conditional. If there is a condition, that means there is something that we must DO to obtain salvation. Are we all of the sudden "earning" salvation because there is something that we must do?

 

[Kevin]

Agape,

I have answered all your same questions over and over again.

Yeah, mainly with answers of "LOL! More PI!". Compelling answers.

I answered your question concerning the "cloven tongues of fire."

You provided no evidence to show that the falling of the HS would not be a visible phenomenon as it was then. I listed two occurences from scripture to show that this was a visble phenomenon. You have nothing to show that it would not continue to show in this manner today. Nothing.

It's about time that you prove to me HOW, WITH SCRIPTURE, baptism with water is NECESSARY for salvation

In Mark 16:16 shows baptism is necessary for salvation. Yes, this is speaking of water baptism, for this is what was practed (Acts 8:38, Acts 10:47-48, Acts: 2:38).

Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Comission (Matt. 28:19-20). He commanded that the apostles go out and do this baptism. Man cannot perform Spirit baptism. This comes from Jesus. Man can and did perform water baptism in the name of the Lord, just as commanded.

and HOW Christ's baptism with the HOLY SPIRIT DOES NOT SAVE.

This was never commanded. Jesus NEVER said that one must have the HS fall upon them (Spirit baptism) to be saved. Never. What He DID say is that the apostles must go out into the world, preaching the gospel and baptizing them. The only baptism they can perform is water baptism, not spirit baptism.

 

[Francisco]

Kevin,

Unless you ask agape questions for which he can cut and paste canned answers from an anti-Catholic site, he won't answer you with anything other than inuendo and false cofidence.

 

[JustAChristian]

Why You Must Consider Baptism.

Why You Must Consider Baptism.

To place anything that God has commanded into the realm of secondary importance is to trivialize it. Baptism is among the clearest and most articulated doctrines in the New Testament. At the same time, there are more alternative teachings with regard to baptism than any other teaching in the denominations. These doctrines have arisen out of Roman Catholic and denominational traditions -- they are not the consequence of ambiguous biblical teaching.

In Mark's account of the great commission (Mark 16:15-16): "And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here Jesus made baptism a condition of salvation. Some argue that since Jesus did not say "he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned," only faith is the condition. However, if there were two conditions for non-salvation, one could be baptized without believing and still be saved. This would be nonsense. Of course, Jesus could have said "he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned." However, this would imply that it is possible to have faith without being obedient. The Holy Spirit brought to Mark's memory exactly what Jesus said and it was exactly what He meant. Both faith and the clear indication that faith is alive (baptism) are commanded, and they are conditions of salvation. The person who refuses to be baptized does so because he or she does not believe the clear commands of God.

The gospels alone demonstrate God's commands that believers be baptized. However, this command was not fully understood or implemented until after the Old Testament law was no longer in effect. This occurred when Jesus died on the cross and ushered in the plan of salvation under which we now live. This is documented in the book of Acts. There are numerous examples of conversion to Christ in the Book of Acts, but none is more important than Paul’s encounter with disciples in Ephesus. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 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. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve. Peter and the apostles began in Jerusalem to preach the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins. Paul preached the same message. (Romans 3:25). These disciples were baptized to obey the Lord’s gospel as delivered by Paul. He laid hand on them and they received the Holy Spirit and the power to speak in other tongues. They were not overwhelmed like the apostles on Pentecost or the household of Cornelius, but none-the-less, Christ favored them with this precious gift. Eventually the need to speak in tongues and to perform sign ceased (1Cor. 13:8), and the gospel spread still, with the evidence of the miracles. Though signs have ceased the commandment to be baptized has not (Mark 16:16). Be immersed today and wash away your sins and be well pleasing to the Lord throughout your life.

JustAChristian

 

[Kevin]

Francisco,

Unless you ask agape questions for which he can cut and paste canned answers from an anti-Catholic site, he won't answer you with anything other than inuendo and false cofidence.

Hehehe. Yeah, as I said earlier, her answers usually aren't that compelling. By the way, I'm not Catholic (just in case you were under the impression that I was).

 

[HopeofGlory]

Baptism by the Spirit did not occur at Pentecost.

For by one Spirit 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 (KJV)

Spirit baptism at the moment of salvation places us into Christ when we believe that Christ died for our sins.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: Eph. 1:3 (KJV)
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Eph. 1:4 (KJV)

We were chosen based on God's foreknowledge.

Christ said to those who had received the power of the Holy Ghost.....

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Matt. 7:22 (KJV)
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23 (KJV)

If Christ never knew them then it is evident they were never saved even though they were given the power to perform miracles.

In Christ
Craig

 

[Redfish]

For Christ did not send me to baptize...

For Christ did not send me to baptize...

Hello Justachristian:

You seem to be giving a bit too much creedence to Greek Grammar in trying to defend your position. Although Greek Grammarians have noticed certain habits and consistencies in the way the people of that time put their thoughts into written form, and called them "rules" , context is still the number one rule when it come to interpretation.

Although you address the reverse of Christ's commission for others to believe and be baptized, your denial of the reverse seemed lame to me. If Christ felt that water baptism was a necessary pre-requisite to salvation, we would expect a consistency in his reverse statement. The fact that water baptism drops off in the reverse strongly suggests that it was NOT considered a necesary antidote for damnation.

You failed to directly address the passage I brought up, yet I think it is very compelling. Let's consider the following context:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void."

Now it seems to me that if Paul held water baptism as a necessary pre-requisite to salvation, he couldn't possibly have written in such a manner. He said flat out that Christ did not send him to baptize, hmmm..... Yet if water baptism were necessary how could he say that?

So I think the best we can say is that water baptism is necessary because we should follow Christ's example and make a public commitment of our decision to accept his provision for our salvation, but in accordance with Paul's attitude, we should not look upon water baptism as a necessary pre-requisite to salvation. It is the lack of belief that results in damnation, not the lack of water baptism.

Also, you might take a look at Acts 9:40 for the aorist participle being suggestive of a relative precedence.....thus it was only after she opened her eyes and saw Peter, that she sat up. We could just easily translate this as "and having seen Peter, she sat up...though my opinion is that "when" is the better way to bring this out.

I appreciate your remarks on this question.

Redfish

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Ijust can't believe this thread is still going!

I just taught a great class on Baptism to new parents in our church...we had a good time.

 

[Redfish]

Correction

Correction

Sorry, folks, I forgot to identify the location of the passage I quoted, it is found in 1st Cor. 1:14-17.

Redfish

 

[agape]

Originally posted by Pilgrimagain

I just taught a great class on Baptism to new parents in our church...we had a good time.

It's ashame that water baptism is still being taught especially when our loving Lord and Savior said: "BUT" YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST..." Actually, it's a slap in his face.