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

[Kevin]

Hope,

Ok, Hope, let's continue on with your point of view. Well, once we sell all that we have, we have to follow Christ around. Well, there's one little problem: Christ isn't here on earth anymore to follow as he told the rich young ruler!
Are you telling me it is not possible to follow Christ because He is no longer on the earth? Silly you.

I was trying to show how rediculous you were being for using this verse against Fransico. You were being literal and called him a hypocryte. To show the how rediculous your assertion was, I was being just as literal as you. After all, in the context of that passage, the rich young man was told to sell all and follow Christ - as in physically come with Him.

Of course I'm not saying we can't follow Christ just because he's not here on earth. But like I said, in the context, it was literally phyiscally following Christ, and again, I was using it so show how rediculousness of your agrument.

If we are to sell all as Christians, then how are we to provide for our families? Was Timothy missing something when he said:
Hold your horses Kevin, I said we are not required to obey that command.

Then why did you try and use it again Fransico, who advocates, like me, the necessity of following Christ's commandments? If you use something to try and defeat an argument, then you should be ready when your opponent shows you evidence to the contrary. You called him a hypcryte for not obeying that commandment, so I used the Timothy verse to show how bad you were missapplying it.

Don't be deceived, Christ did mean what He said when He told the rich man to sell "all" that He had and at Pentecost they believed and obeyed.

And "all that believed" were together, and had all things common; Acts 2:44
And "sold their possessions and goods", and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:45

You are comparing apples to oranges. Christ told the rich man to sell all because He knew that he valued riches more than to follow Christ.

The people in Acts 2:44-45 sold their posessions and divided them up so that nodoby would be in need.

The rest of your post doesn't deserve an answer. I wonder if you have the ability to understand what you read.

Doesn't deserve an answer? Whatever. Your silence speaks for itself. I see it, and everybody else sees it too. And yes, I undertand what I read just fine.

Hey, when you meet Christ in Judgement Day, you sould tell Him that He shouldn't have casted those people in Matt. 25:41-46 in Hell for their lack of good works towards man. And just in case you are going to try and say these people were under the Law, don't bother. This event speaks of Judgement Day (verse 32), a future event that hasn't even happen yet, well after the death on the cross.

They also still believed in a water baptism for the remission of sins(Mark 1:4) as taught by the Baptist before the cross.

The people at Pentecost were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is not John's baptism. Baptism in the name of the Lord... that's the same baptism that was performed in Acts 19:5 when people were rebaptized after the preaching of Paul.

We are no longer under the law for remission. Christ has provided a better way for what the law could not do His death made possible.

I'll agree that were not under the Mosaic Law, but what does that have to do with water baptism in the name of the Lord? That was instituted AFTER the death on the cross. Why do you think the apostles went around performing this baptism on newly converted disciples after the death on the cross?

Your dispy theory just isn't true. The apostles had the same message for ALL nations:

Luke 24:46-47
46) And He said to them, So it is written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

It's quite clear that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name (by BAPTISM in His name) amoung ALL nations (which includes the ones Paul preached to), beginning at Jerusalem - PENTECOST.

There's not even the SLIGHTEST hint that another gospel would replace the one at Pentecost. It was to begin there, and go to ALL nations - the same message. Paul preached Christ and Him crucifed, and so did Peter. Peter baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 2:38), Paul baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5).

 

[c.moore]

Hello freak
you see they don`t commit on my formular because they don`t know that we obey, and do the commands because of our hearts, and that we love to do them in our love walk.

But Fanc,Kevin do it like a military commandment, just because it was an order to obey or an order to baptism , or what ever.
I hope they don`t tell the unbelievers they have to join their army, this will kill the good new of the gospel.
But I think sence their churches remain under 60 same old members , they are not spreading to much of their doctrine, and it has no effect.

I thank God for our love army, it deals with the heart praise God, and God see`s our heart and love of obedience to HIM.

God Bless you

ps: I sent you a e-mail but it came back for some reason, I`ll try againd, because I have set up the place for you to stay when you come in three weeks.



How do you like the good news formular I wrote Francisco??
??


So it goes like this.

believe(faith ,blood of Jesus)+relationship= salvation, and eternal life.

Then after all this it goes

getting washed in the Word of God,learning +obedience (baptism,helps,witnessing,good works,religious works like going to church,bible schools,etc= the christian walk,or following Jesus,also showing your fruits to others you are saved.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Originally posted by Kevin
Hope,

I was trying to show how rediculous you were being for using this verse against Fransico. You were being literal and called him a hypocryte. To show the how rediculous your assertion was, I was being just as literal as you. After all, in the context of that passage, the rich young man was told to sell all and follow Christ - as in physically come with Him.

Look Kevin, Fran said "following His commands are not optional" that is a literal statement. He used it as the basis for his argument and I proved him wrong by stressing his point to show how ridiculous he was. I never held him to the command and I said "don't worry Fran, Christ has provided a way for us to receive eternal life freely without works. You just have to believe it."

Of course I'm not saying we can't follow Christ just because he's not here on earth. But like I said, in the context, it was literally phyiscally following Christ, and again, I was using it so show how rediculousness of your agrument.

Well Kevin, it is not my agrument. I do not believe we are required to physically follow Christ.

Then why did you try and use it again Fransico, who advocates, like me, the necessity of following Christ's commandments? If you use something to try and defeat an argument, then you should be ready when your opponent shows you evidence to the contrary. You called him a hypcryte for not obeying that commandment, so I used the Timothy verse to show how bad you were missapplying it.

Fran made the absolute statement to imply following Christ's commandments without exception and he used it to prove the belief of others was wrong. So thanks for proving my point. A hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs that they do not hold. Fran said His commands are not optional and Christ said sell "all". Fran has not sold "all" and that is hypocritical. We do not have to follow commands given under the law, that is my argument. Christ was speaking truth, if the rich man who believed in works wanted eternal life he had to sell "all" that he had. My point, eternal life can not be obtained by works of righteousness. The Timothy verse proves my point! Thanks.


Hey, when you meet Christ in Judgement Day, you sould tell Him that He shouldn't have casted those people in Matt. 25:41-46 in Hell for their lack of good works towards man. And just in case you are going to try and say these people were under the Law, don't bother. This event speaks of Judgement Day (verse 32), a future event that hasn't even happen yet, well after the death on the cross.

Judgement day, law, or grace it doesn't matter how many works one performs it will never merit eternal life. There is only one gospel of Christ and it will never change. We must receive the righteousness of Christ because ours is nothing more than filthy rags.

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
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23


The people at Pentecost were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is not John's baptism. Baptism in the name of the Lord... that's the same baptism that was performed in Acts 19:5 when people were rebaptized after the preaching of Paul.

Both John's baptism (Mark 1:4) and Peter's (Acts 2:38) WERE A BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, do you disagree? Was John's baptism a message given under the law?

I'll agree that were not under the Mosaic Law, but what does that have to do with water baptism in the name of the Lord? That was instituted AFTER the death on the cross. Why do you think the apostles went around performing this baptism on newly converted disciples after the death on the cross?
When God commands something it is law and if you disobey there will be penalties and it doesn't necessarily mean the Mosaic law. Jesus did not institute a new "water baptism for remission of sins". John's baptism was done in recognition that Jesus was the Christ. It prepared the way for Him therfore it was done in His name. The apostles contiuned to manifest Jesus as the Christ to Israel under the law by baptizing in His name. Paul participated in this ministry but eventually was called to go to the Gentiles who were without the law.
Your dispy theory just isn't true. The apostles had the same message for ALL nations:
This is a fact. Paul was the first apostle to preach the new testament for remission (Matt 26:28). Glean from it what you will.

Peter said:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and "worketh righteousness", is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all Acts 10:36

The word that Peter preached to Cornelius was the same as John the baptist and it was in the name of Jesus. They knew the word, it began at Galilee with John.

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; Acts 10:37

Paul said:
"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

The messages are not the same. Peter's is by works and Paul's is not.

Your theology depends on a new water baptism in that John's baptism in water was not the same as Peter's. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I challange you to prove it!

 

[Kevin]

Hope,

Look Kevin, Fran said "following His commands are not optional" that is a literal statement.

Yes, and I back him on that.

He used it as the basis for his argument and I proved him wrong by stressing his point to show how ridiculous he was. I never held him to the command and I said "don't worry Fran, Christ has provided a way for us to receive eternal life freely without works. You just have to believe it."

First of all, you didn't prove him wrong. You took a verse misapplied it's meaning to try to show that we don't actually have to obey the Lord's commandments. I've already shown why Christ said what He did to the rich man. He didn't say sell all things because He expects Christians to sell all things. You went to the extremes and misapplied that passage, which is why I pulled the Timothy passage to show how rediculous your argument was.

Secondly, you're right, Christ has provided a way for us to receive eternal life, you say all we have to do is believe it, I say we have to believe and obey what He told us to do for the remission of sins - baptism in His name. Belief, if not acted upon, if there's no obedience, will profit you nothing.

Well Kevin, it is not my agrument. I do not believe we are required to physically follow Christ.

Well, for one thing... that's impossible to do now... He's not here on Earth for us to physically follow Him. I just went that literal because you did, to try and show you that you were misapplying that passage.

Fran made the absolute statement to imply following Christ's commandments without exception and he used it to prove the belief of others was wrong. So thanks for proving my point. A hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs that they do not hold. Fran said His commands are not optional and Christ said sell "all". Fran has not sold "all" and that is hypocritical. We do not have to follow commands given under the law, that is my argument. Christ was speaking truth, if the rich man who believed in works wanted eternal life he had to sell "all" that he had. My point, eternal life can not be obtained by works of righteousness. The Timothy verse proves my point! Thanks.

I showed the Timothy verse to show that you were misapplying the Luke verse. The point of that verse was to show the rich man that he needed to put Christ before his riches, not that in order to be a Christian, we must sell all our possesions.

Judgement day, law, or grace it doesn't matter how many works one performs it will never merit eternal life. There is only one gospel of Christ and it will never change.

Like I said, those people mentioned in Matt. 25:41-46, which is a future event, well after the death on the cross, were thrown into Hell because of their lack of good works towards man, which proves what the book of James says - faith without works is DEAD in the eyes of God.

Both John's baptism (Mark 1:4) and Peter's (Acts 2:38) WERE A BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, do you disagree?

First of all, John's purpose was to "Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight." (Mark 1:3). So to prepare the way for the Lord, John preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The baptism that John preached about was the baptism that was to come - baptism in the name of the Lord. Yes John baptized, but it was done to prepare people for the baptism that forgives sins, allowing one to die with Christ, putting their old mand of sin away (Rom. 6) that they may live with Him (2 Tim. 2:11).

For as it says in Luke 24:47 - "and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

How was remission of sin proclaimed in His name beginning at Pentecost? Baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This baptism, baptism in the name of the Lord, BEGAN at Pentecost AFTER Christ's death, and therefore is different than John's baptism. Peter did NOT baptize people into John's baptism at Pentecost, rather, he baptized people in the name of the Lord ("remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.").

The simple fact is that John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord are different baptisms - or there would be no need for the people in Acts 19:1-5 to get baptized "in the name of the Lord" AFTER they had already been baptized into John's baptism. Also, as I've pointed out above, baptism in the name of the Lord BEGAN in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross.

And baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, as proven in 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.

So, both baptism use water, but they are entirely different, and I showed you when and where baptism in the name of the Lord began, which is well after the death on the cross and after John's baptism.

Jesus did not institute a new "water baptism for remission of sins".

Yes He did. He commanded it in the Great Commission (Matt. 28: 19-20). This baptism BEGAN at Pentacost (Luke 24:46-47), after His death, and yes, it uses water (Acts 10:47-48). See above.

John's baptism was done in recognition that Jesus was the Christ. It prepared the way for Him therfore it was done in His name.

Wrong. Not only will you not find a SINGLE example of a person being baptized in the name of the Lord before the cross, but you assertion goes directly against Luke 24:47 when it says that it will BEGIN at Jerusalem. This was said AFTER the death on the cross. This was fulfilled when Peter baptized people in His name at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Not to mention, if baptism in the name of the Lord was the same as John's baptism, there wouldn't have been a need to rebaptized those of John's baptism to baptism in the name of the Lord. (Acts 19:5)

This is a fact. Paul was the first apostle to preach the new testament for remission (Matt 26:28). Glean from it what you will.

Nope. As it says in Luke 24:46-47, remission for sins in His name was meant for ALL nations. This certainly includes the ones who Paul preached to. There is not ONE scripture you can pull that shows that baptism in His name was voided out and a new gospel began. Not ONE.

Paul and Peter preached the same message. What did Paul preach? Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1-2):

1Cor. 2:1-2
1) And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God.
2) For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Paul preach Christ and Him crucified. Now what did Peter at Pentecost preach? Let's look:

Act 2:36
36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Peter preached Christ and Him crucifed. Coincedence? I think not. So your assertion of: "The messages are not the same." is not true. It's ONE gospel for ALL nations BEGINNING at Jerusalem, after the death on the cross.

Your theology depends on a new water baptism in that John's baptism in water was not the same as Peter's. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I challange you to prove it!

Done.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin,

Jesus commanded the rich man to sell all if he wish to receive eternal life. Many others were told to forsake their possessions and families and if they looked back they would not be fit for the kingdom. This message is clear and to the point for all that have ears to hear.

And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. Luke 9:57
And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Luke 9:58
And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Luke 9:59
Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. Luke 9:60
And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. Luke 9:61
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. Luke 9:62
Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. Luke 18:22

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Luke 12:32
Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. Luke 12:33
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Luke 12:34

“All” that believed obeyed.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common; Acts 2:44
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:45
Your idea that this command was given only to the rich man and not Christians is ridiculous! All that believe they must obey every command of Christ to receive the kingdom and eternal life had better adhere to His words and take up his cross.

quote:
Well Kevin, it is not my agrument. I do not believe we are required to physically follow Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, for one thing... that's impossible to do now...

I agree with you completely but we can follow him Spiritually.

quote:
Judgement day, law, or grace it doesn't matter how many works one performs it will never merit eternal life. There is only one gospel of Christ and it will never change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, those people mentioned in Matt. 25:41-46, which is a future event, well after the death on the cross, were thrown into Hell because of their lack of good works towards man, which proves what the book of James says - faith without works is DEAD in the eyes of God.

Your use of a parable about sharing the gospel to prove that works will merit eternal life is most definitely ridiculous. You did not comment on the passage I provided where those that “did good works in the name of Jesus” where cast into hell.

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
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23

I will answer the rest of your post as soon as I can.

 

[Kevin]

Hope,

Your idea that this command was given only to the rich man and not Christians is ridiculous!

I never said that it was only given to the rich man, I said:

}You are comparing apples to oranges. Christ told the rich man to sell all because He knew that he valued riches more than to follow Christ.

The people in Acts 2:44-45 sold their posessions and divided them up so that nodoby would be in need."

Did I not acknowledge that Christians sold their possesions? Yes.

What I'm trying to get accross is here is that it isn't selling your goods that makes you a Christian, it's where your heart is. The rich man's heart was obviously to burdened by riches to follow Christ. As you correctly quoted:

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Luke 12:34

The people in Acts 2:44-45 obeyed that command, yes. But was the point that if you don't sell all your posessions that you are not a Christian? No. Why did they do it, then?

And "sold their possessions and goods", and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:45

The did it so the less fortunate would not go without, fulfilling the commandment to love one another as yourself.

As long as you put God first in your life, and you putting and loving one another, distributing aid to every man that has need, that's what counts in the eyes of God. You are putting all the emphasis on "sell all", and not taking into considering why Christ said what He did, and you tried to be so literal about it, stuck on "sell all", that you tried to make Francisco look like a hypocrite. You are missing the message: Put God first and give to those in need!

Your use of a parable about sharing the gospel to prove that works will merit eternal life is most definitely ridiculous.

First of all, I'm not saying that works alone will get a person into heaven. It's faith that produces obedience that will get people into heaven. So, my evidene of Matt. 25:41-46 is rediculous? Why, because you can't answer it? Is it yet another thing that I've quoted in the Bible that is not worthy of your answer, just as when I quoted all those passages that proves the necessity of obeying Christ?

You did not comment on the passage I provided where those that “did good works in the name of Jesus” where cast into hell.

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

This is your answer to Matt. 25: 41-46? Let's look at that in context:

Matt. 7:14-25
14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15) Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16) You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17) Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19) Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20) Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.

This sets the tone. Christ warns about false teachers, false prophets, and by their fruits, you shall know them. He speaks about those who come in sheeps clothing, but inwardly, are ravenous wolves. Continuing on...

21) Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
22) Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works?
23) And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness!

These people were false teachers, and false prophets in sheeps clothing, calling Him 'Lord' and going great works in His name, yet inside, they were ravenous wolves. Oh, they look good on the outside, doing many works in His name, but their hearts were far from Him, for Christ told them that He never knew them.

So, was it because of they tried to "work" their way into heaven why Christ comdemned them? No. Proof? Read on:

24) Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock.
25) And the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house. And it did not fall, for it was founded on a rock.

So whoever hears these sayings of Christ, and does them (WORKS), Christ will liken him to a WISE MAN. Does what sayings? Start at chapter 5 and read on...

So, was it their works that caused Christ to tell those guys to depart? NO, otherwise why would Christ liken a person who DOES His commandments (WORKS) as being like a WISE MAN? Was Christ confused?

Those people in Matt. 7:21 were never with Christ in the first place- "He never knew them". It wasn't because of their works, rather, it was because they were false teachers and prophets, doing many works in "His name" - Chrsit never knew them.

And just so there's no confusion, I never said works saves a person. It's faith that saves, but it's the faith that obeys. Faith without works is dead according to the book of James, and Matt. 25:41-46 proves that. I've answer your passage, now answer mine.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin,

My replies are in bold.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both John's baptism (Mark 1:4) and Peter's (Acts 2:38) WERE A BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, do you disagree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, John's purpose was to "Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight." (Mark 1:3). So to prepare the way for the Lord, John preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The baptism that John preached about was the baptism that was to come - baptism in the name of the Lord. Yes John baptized, but it was done to prepare people for the baptism that forgives sins, allowing one to die with Christ, putting their old mand of sin away (Rom. 6) that they may live with Him (2 Tim. 2:11).

John’s baptism did prepare the way of the Lord and that preparation was completed when John baptized Christ and God the Father spoke these words “ Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased“.
Baptism in the name of the Lord is to recognize that Jesus was the Christ in baptism and to say that none did this after God witnessed from heaven that Jesus indeed was the Christ is hard to believe. John’s baptism did not prepare for another baptism to come, you have not provided scriptures to prove such, “it prepared the way of the Lord”.
You are trying to argue that John’s baptism was not sufficient and all that were baptized by him had to be re-baptized. Christ Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the law and righteousness and it is by the biblical recorded that we can know that He did. If you would have us believe that His baptism was not valid then it is necessary that you provide evidence of His re-baptism.

For as it says in Luke 24:47 - "and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

How was remission of sin proclaimed in His name beginning at Pentecost? Baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This baptism, baptism in the name of the Lord, BEGAN at Pentecost AFTER Christ's death, and therefore is different than John's baptism. Peter did NOT baptize people into John's baptism at Pentecost, rather, he baptized people in the name of the Lord ("remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.").

Kevin, “among all nations” beginning at Jerusalem and it was the first time that “all nations” heard the message that began with John. All nations gathered at Pentecost for the first time since the beginning of John’s ministry.

Peter said:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and "worketh righteousness", is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all Acts 10:36

The word that Peter preached to Cornelius was the same as John the Baptist and it was in the name of Jesus. They knew the word, it began at Galilee with John.

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; Acts 10:37

Repentance and remission of sins began with the Baptist as Peter said and it was first preached to all nations at Pentecost.


The simple fact is that John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord are different baptisms - or there would be no need for the people in Acts 19:1-5 to get baptized "in the name of the Lord" AFTER they had already been baptized into John's baptism. Also, as I've pointed out above, baptism in the name of the Lord BEGAN in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross.

It would be more correct to say that the people in Acts 19 were not baptized in John’s baptism and that they had probably never even heard John preach.

And baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, as proven in 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.

So, both baptism use water, but they are entirely different, and I showed you when and where baptism in the name of the Lord began, which is well after the death on the cross and after John's baptism.

As I proved in the above both were a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins in the name of the Lord. Those baptized in John’s baptism receive remission of sins as those in Acts received remission of sins.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus did not institute a new "water baptism for remission of sins".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes He did. He commanded it in the Great Commission (Matt. 28: 19-20). This baptism BEGAN at Pentacost (Luke 24:46-47), after His death, and yes, it uses water (Acts 10:47-48). See above.

No Kevin, Jesus did not institute a “new” water baptism for remission and you have not provided any scriptures to the contrary. Jesus instituted a new testament for remission of sins and it was in His blood not water.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John's baptism was done in recognition that Jesus was the Christ. It prepared the way for Him therfore it was done in His name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. Not only will you not find a SINGLE example of a person being baptized in the name of the Lord before the cross, but you assertion goes directly against Luke 24:47 when it says that it will BEGIN at Jerusalem. This was said AFTER the death on the cross. This was fulfilled when Peter baptized people in His name at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Not to mention, if baptism in the name of the Lord was the same as John's baptism, there wouldn't have been a need to rebaptized those of John's baptism to baptism in the name of the Lord. (Acts 19:5)

You will not find a single example of baptism as Jesus commanded in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Your "you will not find" statement is silly. The apostles were baptizing as John did in the name of Jesus. John baptized Jesus and the Father gave recognition that Jesus was the Christ. After the manifestation of the Lord John testified that Jesus was the Christ and baptized all that believed in His name. It began at GALILEE as Peter, after the cross said...”That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee”. No one was re-baptized after being baptized in John’s baptism which required believing what John preached.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a fact. Paul was the first apostle to preach the new testament for remission (Matt 26:28). Glean from it what you will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. As it says in Luke 24:46-47, remission for sins in His name was meant for ALL nations. This certainly includes the ones who Paul preached to. There is not ONE scripture you can pull that shows that baptism in His name was voided out and a new gospel began. Not ONE.

Remission of sins in water baptism was preached to all the Jewish nations at Pentecost but that is not the new testament. The new testament is His shed blood for remission (Matt 26:28). Paul WAS the first man to preach it.

Paul and Peter preached the same message. What did Paul preach? Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1-2):

1Cor. 2:1-2
1) And I, brothers, when I came to you, did not come with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring to you the testimony of God.
2) For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Paul preach Christ and Him crucified. Now what did Peter at Pentecost preach? Let's look:

Act 2:36
36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Peter preached Christ and Him crucifed. Coincedence? I think not. So your assertion of: "The messages are not the same." is not true. It's ONE gospel for ALL nations BEGINNING at Jerusalem, after the death on the cross.

They at Pentecost believed that Jesus was denied and killed but not that He laid down His life for remission of their sins.

But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; Acts 3:14 (KJV)
And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Acts 3:15 (KJV)

We have to believe the "blood of Christ" washes away our sins in that Christ "died for our sins". At Pentecost the apostles did not preach the new testament message of faith in His shed blood for remission. Not once will you find this message given at Pentecost their remission of sins came through water baptism.

Israel first had to believe that Christ was the son of God or His death would have been in vain. The gift of the Holy Ghost with power was given so that the people would believe the apostles were the messengers of God. The apostles completed what the Baptist began and that was the manifestation of Jesus as the Christ. We have to believe Jesus is Christ but we also must believe the “new” testament of His shed blood for remission.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 (KJV)

Not found in the message given at Pentecost by the apostles!

1- Christ died for their sins

2-Christ’s blood was shed for sins

3-Faith in His shed blood for remission

The Pentecostal message (ACTS 2:38) granted remission of sins through obedience in water baptism.

Now we have a new message given by Paul that supercedes the old message making it obsolete.

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 (KJV)
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 (KJV)

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? Rom. 10:16 (KJV)
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17 (KJV)
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Rom. 10:18 (KJV)
But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. Rom. 10:19 (KJV)
But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. Rom. 10:20 (KJV)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your theology depends on a new water baptism in that John's baptism in water was not the same as Peter's. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I challenge you to prove it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Done.

Not hardly!

 

[Kevin]

Hope,

Baptism in the name of the Lord is to recognize that Jesus was the Christ

Incorrect. Baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), not "to recognize that Jesus was the Christ". The people at Pentecost recognized that Jeus was the Christ when Peter told them that very thing in Acts 2:36, BEFORE they were baptized in His name.

John's baptism did not prepare for another baptism to come, you have not provided scriptures to prove such, "it prepared the way of the Lord".

But I have proved it. Look again:

Luk 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, BEGINNING at Jerusalem.

Remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" did not happen before the death on the cross. It was to happen "BEGINNING" at Jerusalem (on the Day of Pentacost), AFTER the death on the cross. This verse shows when remission in the name of the Lord BEGAN - in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross!

So, if it BEGAN at Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross, how can you claim people were receieving remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" before it began?!

You are trying to argue that John's baptism was not sufficient and all that were baptized by him had to be re-baptized.

If John's baptism was sufficient for salvation, which was BEFORE remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" (Jesus), then there wouldn't have been a need for the people in Acts 19:1-5, who had been baptized into John's baptism, to be rebaptized in the name of the Lord. But they WERE rebaptized:

Acts 19:1-5
1) And it happened in the time Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was passing through the higher parts to Ephesus. And finding certain disciples,
2) he said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?
And they said to him, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is.
3) And he said to them, Then to what were you baptized? And they said, To John's baptism.
4) And Paul said, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ.
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

You want us to believe that John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord are the same, but this CLEARLY shows they are not. Why baptize somebody into the same baptism twice? Makes no sense. They ARE different. Baptism in the name of the Lord BEGAN in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross, therefore it could NOT be in effect BEFORE the death on the cross as you would have us believe.

Kevin, "among all nations" beginning at Jerusalem and it was the first time that "all nations" heard the message that began with John. All nations gathered at Pentecost for the first time since the beginning of John's ministry.

Ok, but so what if they heard the messsage that began with John? Does that mean they heard the same message as John? No. John laid the path straight for the Lord, preparing people for the coming of the Messiah. Was that the message heard at Pentecost? Hardly. By the time Pentecost rolled around, the Saviour had come, died, and been resurrected, and remission of sins was possible "in His name", and it began there. It was the first time that remission of sins "in His name", beginning at Jerusalem, after the death on the cross, was possible. Again, John's message was to prepare people for the Lord, so why would they preach about the coming of the Lord, when He had already came, died, and had been ressurected?

Peter said:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and "worketh righteousness", is accepted with him. Acts 10:35
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all Acts 10:36

Agreed.

The word that Peter preached to Cornelius was the same as John the Baptist

So, Peter preached the same word as John the baptist, eh? So, Peter went up to Cornelius and said:

"There is One coming after me who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen. I indeed have baptized you in water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (Mark 1:7-8)

He preached about the coming of the Messaih. Do you really think that Peter told Cornelious about the coming of Christ, when Christ had already come, died, and was resurrected? I don't.

and it was in the name of Jesus.

Well, you got that part of it right, for it was AFTER Jerusalem where remission of sins "in His name" BEGAN.

They knew the word, it began at Galilee with John.

That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; Acts 10:37

The word which they knew was the news of Christ and the miracles that He performed, which happened after the baptism that John preached:

Luke 4:14
14) Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news about Him went out through all the surrounding region.

Caesarea, which is where Cornelius resided, was not far from Galilee. He heard about Jesus and His mighty works, as it says in the verse above that news about Christ went out throughout all the surrounding region. That was the word that they knew.

So Cornelius had heard of Jesus and His mighty works, but had never had the gospel preached to him, which is exactly why Christ sent Peter to preach to him. Cornelius heard the gospel and obeyed it, being baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 10: 47-48), just like the people in Acts 2:38.

Repentance and remission of sins began with the Baptist as Peter said and it was first preached to all nations at Pentecost.

Yes, it began with John, for he laid straight the path for the Lord. But by the time Peter preached at Pentecost, remission of sins in the name of Christ BEGAN there. If remission of sins "in His name" began at Jerusalem, after the cross (Luke 24: 46-47), how can you say that remission of sins "in His name" happened BEFORE it BEGAN?

It would be more correct to say that the people in Acts 19 were not baptized in John's baptism

What!? :doh:

Acts 19:3
3) And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism."

Craig, you are in denial.

and that they had probably never even heard John preach.

So they knew they were baptized into John's baptism, yet never heard John's teachings? How did they know they were baptized into John's baptism without hearing his teachings? So they were baptized into something they never even heard of, yet they somehow knew what baptism they were baptized into.... hmmmmm. Makes no sense.

As I proved in the above both were a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins in the name of the Lord. Those baptized in John's baptism receive remission of sins as those in Acts received remission of sins.

Sorry, you have yet to prove this.

No Kevin, Jesus did not institute a "new" water baptism for remission and you have not provided any scriptures to the contrary.

Oh yes I have.

Jesus instituted a new testament for remission of sins and it was in His blood not water.

I would never say that baptism would take the place of Christ's blood. That's crazy.

Christ commanded baptism. Baptism in His name is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Doing something that is commanded by God for the remission of sins is certainly required for salvation. Sure, God sent His Son to die, and His blood covers all our sins. But when God commands us to do something FOR the remission of sins BY Christ's blood, you want to say that it's not required for salvation.

There's a difference between FOR and BY. When we are baptized into Christ FOR the remission of sins, we are cleansed BY His blood. The Bible says baptism is FOR the remission of sins, not that the waters of baptism actually forgives our sins! So, we know that baptism is FOR the remission of sins, but BY what is our sins actually forgiven? His blood. We know that it is the blood of Christ that forgives us of our sins, but that blood won't do anybody any good unless that person does what Christ commanded FOR the remission of sins - baptism in His name (Acts 2:38)!

If you pay a dollar FOR a candy bar that will fill your hunger, did that dollar actually fill your hunger? NO! You paid a dollar FOR the candy bar, and it is BY the candy bar that you hunger is filled! But unless you pay the dollar FOR that candy bar, your hunder will not be filled BY the candy bar. Can't you see the difference between "FOR" and "BY here? Think about it.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28

Guess who was among those who heard this from Christ? Peter. Peter knew perfectly well that Christ's blood was shed so that man would have their sins forgiven (but only for those who do what is commanded so they can receive the remission of those sins).

You will not find a single example of baptism as Jesus commanded in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Christ would not command His apostles to do something that they couldn't do. No, we don't see an example 'word for word' of it, but don't you know that that these three are in unity? Therefore to be baptized in the name of Christ is the same to be baptized in the name of the Father, because the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father, and Christ did speak of His own authority, but rather, of the Father:

John 14:10-11
10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The Words that I speak to you I do not speak of Myself, but the Father who dwells in Me, He does the works.
11) Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the very works themselves.

To be baptized in the name of the Son is to also be baptized in the name of the Father who sent His Son to do His will, and it is the Father who did the works by His Holy Spirit.

We are to be baptized in the name of Christ because it through Him that we have remission of sin - in His name beginning at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.

I know that you would have us believe that Matt. 28:19,20 is saying that the word baptized believers automatically with the Holy Spirit, but that's just not true.

For one thing, everyone of those commands were given for his apostles to carry out. EVERY one of them. Man cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit so this cannot be referring to Spirit baptism as found in Acts 10:44.

Another thing that proves that this is not speaking of automatically being baptized by the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing the word is Acts 8:5-16. Phillip preached the gospel to them, and they beleived, yet the Holy Spirit did NOT fall upon them as it did the Cornelius household.

Your "you will not find" statement is silly.

No it's not, considering that I can show WHERE and WHEN remission of sin "in His name" BEGAN.... and it was NOT before the cross. That's why you will not find anybody being baptized in the name of the Lord before the death on the cross because it was to BEGIN at Jerusalem AFTER the cross.

Remission of sins in water baptism was preached to all the Jewish nations at Pentecost but that is not the new testament.

So Christ died and was resurrected, but that was not the "new tesament"? Not so!

Heb 9:15-17
15) And for this cause, he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17) For a testament is of force after men are dead:, otherwise it is of no strength at all, while the testator liveth.

Here it clearly defines that Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the new testament, and that He must die for it to take effect.

When Peter preached Pentecost, Christ had certainly died, which made the new testament in effect, and Christ told Peter and the rest of the apostles that remission of sin in His name would BEGIN at Jerusalem for ALL nations (Luke 24:46-47). Peter preached, and yes, it was in the new testament.

The new testament is His shed blood for remission (Matt 26:28). Paul WAS the first man to preach it.

Like I said before, Peter was present when Christ said those words in Matt. 26:28. He knew perfectly well the signifcance of Christ's blood. Did Peter forget?

The new testament message was Christ and Him crucified, and knowing that He is Lord and Christ, and who ever calls on Him will be saved. How is that not the New Testament message? This is what Peter told them:

Acts 2:15-21
15) For these are not drunk as you suppose, for it is the third hour of the day.
16) But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17) "And it shall be in the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
18) And in those days I will pour out My Spirit upon My slaves and My slave women, and they shall prophesy.
19) And I will give wonders in the heaven above, and miracles on the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
20) The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before that great and glorious Day of the Lord.
21) And it shall be that everyone who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Peter then went on and told them God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ, that they that crucified Him and He was ressurected, and that by Christ salvation was possible (verse 21).

Peter preached Christ and Him crucified, and that by Christ people can be saved - that is the new testament message. Paul also preached Christ and Him crucified, as I have pointed out, and yes, Paul also practiced baptism in the name of the Lord, just as Peter did at Pentecost.

Now we have a new message given by Paul that supercedes the old message making it obsolete.

No we don't.

Paul himself said:

2Co 8:18 And we have sent with him the brothers whose praise is in the gospel throughout ALL the churches;

ALL the churches would certainly include the church that was founded by Peter's gospel message in Acts 2:38. Will you try and exclude them from "all" the churches, who recieved the gospel message (new testament message)? One gospel throughout ALL the churches!

Not found in the message given at Pentecost by the apostles!

1- Christ died for their sins

2-Christ’s blood was shed for sins

3-Faith in His shed blood for remission

You have to keep in mind who Peter was speaking to - the Jews. They had knowledge of the coming of the Messiah through Old Testament prophecies, and they certinaly knew the atoning power of blood. The Old testament is full of that.

The Gentiles on the other hand, had no prophecies to tell them that the Messiah was coming, and didn't have the knowlegde of the Old Testament. They needed more explanation.

What Peter preached at Pentacost was that salvation was through Christ (Acts 2:21), and that they just crucified the one through whom salvation is possible. He explained that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

When the Jews found out that they crucified the One who God made Lord and Christ, through whom salvation was possible, they asked what to do to be saved. Peter preached Christ and Him crucified, and brought them to Christ by baptism in His name for the remission of sins.

Paul also preached Christ and Him crucified, and brought many to Christ, and had people baptized in the name of the Lord, just as Peter did in Acts 2:38.

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 (KJV)

I know you like to try and emphasize "at this time" and try to make it sound like it's another gospel, but "at this time" simply references that the Savior had come, and because of that "at this time" one is justified by belief in Christ.

Your theology depends on a new water baptism in that John's baptism in water was not the same as Peter's. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I challenge you to prove it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Done.

Not hardly!

Yes I have... again.

 

[Freak]

Kevin, I'm curious to know about your salvation experience? Do you have one and if you do, would you please share it?

 

[HopeofGlory]

RE-baptism is not biblical!

RE-baptism is not biblical!

Kevin,

Incorrect. Baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), not "to recognize that Jesus was the Christ". The people at Pentecost recognized that Jeus was the Christ when Peter told them that very thing in Acts 2:36, BEFORE they were baptized in His name.

What you are saying is that at Pentecost they:
1-Believed Jesus was the Christ
2-Were water baptized
3-Received remission of sins

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

Now let's look at before Pentecost and John's ministry.

John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord and to give knowledge of salvation "by the remission of sins".

And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; Luke 1:76
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people "by the remission of their sins", Luke 1:77

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

Those baptized by John received remission of sins when they believed his message that Christ was coming.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

John prepared the way and Christ came and was baptized.

Kevin, remission of sins was not received unless they believed Jesus was the Christ. Many receive remission in His name during John's ministry before Pentecost.

Those baptized were "following Christ" in baptism and baptism witnessed that Jesus was Christ as exemplified by the Father from heaven when He said...This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt. 3:17

What did Jesus' baptism do Kevin? It witnessed that He was the Christ as confirmed by the Father.

Before the cross Jesus said that remission of sins would be to those that believed in His name.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:24

Before Pentecost many:

1- Believed Jesus was Christ
2-Were water baptized
3- Received remission of sins

Peter preached the same baptism as John and it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Kevin, was Jesus' baptism by John not the example for Christian baptism?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John's baptism did not prepare for another baptism to come, you have not provided scriptures to prove such, "it prepared the way of the Lord".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I have proved it. Look again:

Luk 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, BEGINNING at Jerusalem.

Remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" did not happen before the death on the cross. It was to happen "BEGINNING" at Jerusalem (on the Day of Pentacost), AFTER the death on the cross. This verse shows when remission in the name of the Lord BEGAN - in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross!

So, if it BEGAN at Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross, how can you claim people were receieving remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" before it began?!

It was proclaimed AMONG ALL NATIONS beginning at Jerusalem but remission in His name was before Pentecost.

Many received forgiveness of sins before Pentecost when they believed in Him. Read your bible! You are hung up on IN HIS NAME. To be water baptized in His name means nothing more that to be water baptized and believe He is Christ. It is the same message John preached.

Where is your scripture to prove that John prepared for another baptism. Sounds like another gospel to me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are trying to argue that John's baptism was not sufficient and all that were baptized by him had to be re-baptized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If John's baptism was sufficient for salvation, which was BEFORE remission of sins "IN HIS NAME" (Jesus), then there wouldn't have been a need for the people in Acts 19:1-5, who had been baptized into John's baptism, to be rebaptized in the name of the Lord. But they WERE rebaptized:

Acts 19:1-5
1) And it happened in the time Apollos was at Corinth, Paul was passing through the higher parts to Ephesus. And finding certain disciples,
2) he said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?
And they said to him, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is.
3) And he said to them, Then to what were you baptized? And they said, To John's baptism.
You want us to believe that John's baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord are the same, but this CLEARLY shows they are not. Why baptize somebody into the same baptism twice? Makes no sense. They ARE different. Baptism in the name of the Lord BEGAN in Jerusalem AFTER the death on the cross, therefore it could NOT be in effect BEFORE the death on the cross as you would have us believe.

2) he said to them, Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?
And they said to him, We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit is.

They had not heard of the Holy Spirit!

That is no different than to say they had not heard John preach.

What did John preach Kevin? Do you know?

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

Paul questions them, then to what were you baptized?

Read this again Kevin.

4) And Paul said, John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ.
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Paul said John TRULY baptized!

Then Paul explains to them that they should believe in Jesus Christ as John said.

And HEARING they were baptized in HIS NAME.

Do you undestand what this means Kevin?

Paul explained what John preached and they were BAPTIZED IN HIS NAME.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin, "among all nations" beginning at Jerusalem and it was the first time that "all nations" heard the message that began with John. All nations gathered at Pentecost for the first time since the beginning of John's ministry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, but so what if they heard the messsage that began with John? Does that mean they heard the same message as John? No. John laid the path straight for the Lord, preparing people for the coming of the Messiah. Was that the message heard at Pentecost? Hardly. By the time Pentecost rolled around, the Saviour had come, died, and been resurrected, and remission of sins was possible "in His name", and it began there. It was the first time that remission of sins "in His name", beginning at Jerusalem, after the death on the cross, was possible. Again, John's message was to prepare people for the Lord, so why would they preach about the coming of the Lord, when He had already came, died, and had been ressurected?

They heard the same message that John gave for the remission of sins. Jesus came during John's ministry and sins were forgiven in His name. When Jesus came John stop preaching that He was coming. Your argument makes no sense. Peter did not preach that Jesus laid down His life for their sins, Peter preached that they had murdered Him.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Acts 2:23

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word that Peter preached to Cornelius was the same as John the Baptist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, Peter preached the same word as John the baptist, eh? So, Peter went up to Cornelius and said:

"There is One coming after me who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down to loosen. I indeed have baptized you in water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." (Mark 1:7-8)

He preached about the coming of the Messaih. Do you really think that Peter told Cornelious about the coming of Christ, when Christ had already come, died, and was resurrected? I don't.

You're being foolish Kevin. Jesus came during John's ministry. Who do you think baptized Jesus. Peter preached the same message that began with John.

But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all 37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it was in the name of Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you got that part of it right, for it was AFTER Jerusalem where remission of sins "in His name" BEGAN.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. Saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Paul said:
John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into Him coming after him, that is, into Jesus Christ.

Baptism in the name of Jesus began with John.


I will finish responding to the rest of your post when I have the time.

 

[Kevin]

You are still missing the point.

You are still missing the point.

Hope,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it was in the name of Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you got that part of it right, for it was AFTER Jerusalem where remission of sins "in His name" BEGAN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're beginning to sound like a broken record. Saying it over and over again does not make it true.

The reason I'm sounding like a broken record is because you aren't getting what Luke 24:46-47 is saying, and understanding it is crucial when defining when baptism in His name began, and would therefore show that it is different from John's baptism.

46) And He said to them, So it is written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Questions:

• According to verse 46, when is this speaking of?
  Answer: After His resurrection.
  
  
• According to verse 47, where did remission of sins in His name begin?
  Answer: Jerusalem on the Day of Penecost.
  
• How did the people at Pentecost receive remission of sins "in His name"?
  Answer: Water baptism in His name for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
  

So, remission of sins IN HIS NAME, which came through baptism IN HIS NAME, happened AFTER Christ's ressurection (verse 46). AFTER His resurrection, remission of sins IN HIS NAME BEGAN at Jerusalem (Pentacost).

How can you say that John the baptist baptized people "in His name" BEFORE Christ's resurrection and BEFORE it began in Jerusalem AFTER His resurrection?!

The idea that people were baptized in His name before His resurrection goes against this passage, and also defeats the purpose of it saying that it would begin in Jerusalem (Pentecost). By your reasoning, it didn't begin after His resurrection or begin at Jerusalem, which is in direct defiance of this passage.

Until you get the meaning of this, there is no point having long winded debates with you when you are missing the point from the very beginning. Your entire doctrine of not being able to distinguish John's baptism from Christ's baptism is because you don't understand this passage. Your view is skewed from the beginning.

I will finish responding to the rest of your post when I have the time.

Until you realize the significance of this passage, please don't bother responding. I don't want to keep beating my head against the wall (or as you put it... sound like a broken record). If I can't get you to see that flour is needed to bake a cake, there's no sense arguing about the other ingreedients, because the cake is already ruined.

 

[Kevin]

Sorry for the delay, friend.

Sorry for the delay, friend.

Freak,

Kevin, I'm curious to know about your salvation experience? Do you have one and if you do, would you please share it?

It's nothing special or noteworthy. I grew up in the church as a child and stopped going around my early teen years. Up until about age 24, I lived a worldly life, believing in God... put putting Him off.

I guess my conviction finally made me realize that I could die at any moment, and delaying in turning my life over to God wasn't too smart. Thus, I was baptized into Christ as soon as possible and I've grown spiritually ever since.

 

[Freak]

Re: Sorry for the delay, friend.

Re: Sorry for the delay, friend.

Originally posted by Kevin
Freak,



It's nothing special or noteworthy. I grew up in the church as a child and stopped going around my early teen years. Up until about age 24, I lived a worldly life, believing in God... put putting Him off.

I guess my conviction finally made me realize that I could die at any moment, and delaying in turning my life over to God wasn't too smart. Thus, I was baptized into Christ as soon as possible and I've grown spiritually ever since.

Baptized in Christ? Baptism in water or spirit?

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

Baptized in Christ? Baptism in water or spirit?

I was baptized the same way the people in Acts chapter 2 were baptized. I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, at which I point I received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). This is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Kevin
Freak,



I was baptized the same way the people in Acts chapter 2 were baptized. I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, at which I point I received the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). This is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).

So, that is your testimony?

You were water baptized and that's all.

What is so strange is that you never spoke of trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Isn't Jesus your savior? Or is the water?

I honestly question, from what you have told me, your salvation. You need to be saved by Jesus Christ. Email me at jay@delivernaceradio.com to find out more.

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

So, that is your testimony?

Yes, I told you it wasn't noteworthy, didn't I?

You were water baptized and that's all.

Well, besides being baptized, I confessed Christ with my mouth. Why would I do that unless I truly believed that He would save me?

What is so strange is that you never spoke of trusting in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Isn't Jesus your savior? Or is the water?

Freak, if I didn't trust that Jesus Christ could save me, then I wouldn't have been worried about being baptized in His name for the remission of sins, nor would I have confessed Him as being the Son of God.

As I've said, I was brought up in the chruch. I knew perfectly well that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that He died for our sins. I knew He is the Saviour of mankind. I just delayed in obeying the gospel and turning my life over to God.

I honestly question, from what you have told me, your salvation.

I appreciate your concern (sincerely). Thank you. But I really don't see how I haven't obeyed the gospel of Jesus Christ. I heard the word (which includes Jesus Christ dying for our sins). I believed the word. I confessed Him and was baptized in His name for the remission of sins (years later).

 

[HopeofGlory]

Re: You are still missing the point.

Re: You are still missing the point.

Kevin,

My replies are in bold.

I would never say that baptism would take the place of Christ's blood. That's crazy.

I am glad to here you say it but we must look at the biblical account to rightly define the doctrine of water baptism for remission and it's part in God's plan to have us be with Him for all eternity through faith in His shed blood for remission.

The reason I'm sounding like a broken record is because you aren't getting what Luke 24:46-47 is saying, and understanding it is crucial when defining when baptism in His name began, and would therefore show that it is different from John's baptism.

46) And He said to them, So it is written, and so it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47) and that repentance and remission of sins should be proclaimed in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


Questions:

• According to verse 46, when is this speaking of?
  Answer: After His resurrection.
  
  Yes it is but there is more to the gospel than believing In the name of Jesus and that He was resurrected .
  
• According to verse 47, where did remission of sins in His name begin?
  Answer: Jerusalem on the Day of Penecost.
  
  No kevin, I showed you that remission of sins in water baptism began with John. Read previous posts.
  
• How did the people at Pentecost receive remission of sins "in His name"?
  Answer: Water baptism in His name for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
  
  We are to believe that remission of sins is through fath in His shed blood and that message was not preached at Pentecost.

So, remission of sins IN HIS NAME, which came through baptism IN HIS NAME, happened AFTER Christ's ressurection (verse 46). AFTER His resurrection, remission of sins IN HIS NAME BEGAN at Jerusalem (Pentacost).

No Kevin, remission of sins in His name began with John the Baptist. I provided the proof text and you offered no rebuttle.

How can you say that John the baptist baptized people "in His name" BEFORE Christ's resurrection and BEFORE it began in Jerusalem AFTER His resurrection?!

I provided the scriptures testifing to this truth.

The idea that people were baptized in His name before His resurrection goes against this passage, and also defeats the purpose of it saying that it would begin in Jerusalem (Pentecost). By your reasoning, it didn't begin after His resurrection or begin at Jerusalem, which is in direct defiance of this passage.

It does not go against the passage. It was to ALL NATIONS at Jerusalem but it began with John. There is no defiance of scripture but in your mind.

Until you get the meaning of this, there is no point having long winded debates with you when you are missing the point from the very beginning. Your entire doctrine of not being able to distinguish John's baptism from Christ's baptism is because you don't understand this passage. Your view is skewed from the beginning.

Your theology is skewed becaused it is based on the assumed idea that John's baptism was not Christian baptism thus the need for re-baptism. My arguments backed with scripture defeated your idea and there was no rebuttle from you thus no real debate.

Until you realize the significance of this passage, please don't bother responding. I don't want to keep beating my head against the wall (or as you put it... sound like a broken record). If I can't get you to see that flour is needed to bake a cake, there's no sense arguing about the other ingreedients, because the cake is already ruined.

Your problem is one of trying to bake a cake with no flour.

To have eternal life we must have three witnesses:

1-Believe Jesus is the Christ (witnessed by the "Father" from heaven during John‘s ministry in "water" baptism).

2-Believe that He shed His "blood" was buried and rose again (witnessed by His "Son" the "Word" of God during the apostles ministry).

3-Believe we are baptized by the "Spirit" through faith and that His shed blood removed the law and granted eternal life (witnessed by the "Holy Ghost" during Paul‘s ministry).

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4

Before the new testament of Christ's shed blood was in effect (Heb 9:15-17) many were receiving forgiveness of sins (saved) under the law in water baptism when they believed Jesus was the Christ. The new testament (Matt 26:28) is a better witness for remission (John 5:36), granting eternal life (John 6:54) and is without the law (Rom 3:21), and it superceded the old testament (Mk 1:4).

For this is my blood of the NEW testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28

We can identify when man understands and believes a NEW message by when he first preaches it.

Any time a new message takes the place of the old it is progressively understood and believed. Acts is a record of this transitional message of remission. Water baptism witnessed that Jesus was the Christ and it began at Galilee (Acts 10:37) with John the Baptist under the law (Mark 1:4) and was to be delivered to all nations (Matt 24:14). The Baptist was beheaded and his witness (John 1:15) was finally delivered to ALL NATIONS (Luke 24:27) at Pentecost during Peter's ministry (Acts 2:38). The apostles added their witness (Luke 24:46-48) of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus to the message given at Pentecost (Acts 1:22,2:32,3:15,4:2,5:30-32). Saul after the stoning of Stephen is called to bear Christ’s name (Acts 9:15). . Paul preaches Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20) and His resurrection (acts 13:30).

Paul adds further witness (Acts 22:15) to the gospel with a message of deliverance from the law (Acts 13:39). Paul tells us he was sent not to baptize (1 Cor 1:17) and is the first apostle to preach remission of sins through faith in His blood (Rom 3:25). Paul’s message explains how to receive eternal life (Acts 13:38-48) (Rom 5:6-21)(Titus 1:1-3)(Titus 3:5-7) through His shed blood. Paul tells us we are baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) and through faith in the shed blood of Christ we receive remission of sins (Rom 3:25) and that he was called to fulfill the word of God (Col 1:25).

The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. Acts 22:14
For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Acts 22:15

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom. 2:16

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. 1 Tim. 1:16

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 John 5:9
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 1 John 5:10
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 1 John 5:11

 

[Kevin]

I'm sorry... but

I'm sorry... but

Hope,

As I just through explaining on the infant baptism thread, I'm really sorry to do this, but I have to pull out of debating for a while... I've been neglecting my family.

Sorry to pull out right in the middle of things. It's too bad that posting is so time-consuming. I hope you understand, Craig.

God bless you. :up:

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin,

No problem, grace and peace to you and yours through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Craig

 

[c.moore]

very good teaching

very good teaching

HopeofGlory

that was A awesome post, to bad you `might not get any feed back, but I think it is a eye opener of the truth for Kevin.
I like the way you explained the good new, and you lefted Jesus and not a baptismo ritual.:thumb:

God bless you