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

[Francisco]

Freak

I know this may sound simple but its the truth-he was baptized in some water. It was a merely symbolic act, an act of witness.

This sounds a bit disingenuous, not simple.

The author of Acts very purposefully records the fact Philip would not baptize the eunuch until he professed faith in Jesus Christ. So to say he was only baptized into some water doesn't make sense. That would only make sense if Philip made the eunuch profess belief in water.

We see water baptism treated throughout the New Testament as a symbolic act. According to the apostle Paul he did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel. He made a difference between the baptism and the Gospel. It is the Gospel that saves (the life of Jesus not water).

This would contradict the fact that Paul tells us in Romans 6 that through baptism into Christ, we are joined to His death and resurrection. That IS the Gospel and that's what saves us Jay.

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Now don't say 'Holy Spirit' baptism is what Paul is speaking of because that certainly couldn't be considered being 'buried with Him through baptism'.

You're missing the same piece Jerry has difficulties understanding. We receive the Holy Spirit when we are baptized, just as Jesus did when He was baptized, and just as Peter promised the crowd at Pentecost:

'repent and be baptized,.....; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

You're right when you say it isn't the water that causes the inward change. It begins with faith in Jesus Christ, continues through repentence, and is completed by the receipt of the Holy Spirit when we are water baptized.

Think of it this way Jay. When Jesus applied the mud to the blind man's eyes and told him to wash in the pool at Siloam, the blind man's healing began with his faith that Jesus could heal him but was completed when he followed Jesus' instruction to wash in the pool. Upon washing in the pool the man received the grace of restored sight. It certainly was not the mud or the water that obtained this grace for him. It was his faith in Jesus Christ and his obedience to the instructions Jesus gave him. Do you think the blind man's sight would have been restored if he had just wiped the mud from his eyes instead of washing in the pool at Siloam? I don't!

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Kevin]

Still waiting for that scipture....

Still waiting for that scipture....

Freak,

Perhaps you haven't caught on yet but the Bible is a dictionary.

Indeed. According to Acts 2:38 it is for the remission of sins, just as we've been saying. Romans 6 tells us it's how we die with Christ (verse 3,4). Those who have died with Christ are freed from sin (verse 7). If you haven't died with Him, you haven't been freed form sin, and the ONLY biblical way to die with Him is through baptism. And because you are dead to sin, through baptism, you are alive to God through Christ (Romans 6:11)! That is the Biblical definition of what baptism is and what it does for the believer.

Now where's your scripture that it merely meant as an act of witnessing for other people? Where?

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

I'll reply to the rest of your post as well...

We see water baptism treated throughout the New Testament as a symbolic act.

What we see throughout the NT are people believing gospel and being baptized in the name of Christ for the remission of their sins, just as in Acts 2:38. Nowhere does it say that they did it as an act of witnessing to other people.

According to the apostle Paul he did not come to baptize but to preach the Gospel.

If you would take into account the context of that scenario, you would understand why Paul said what he did. He didn't say it because people were not supposed to do it, or because it's not necessary to be baptized, but rather because it was causing divisions over WHO baptized them. It was not Paul's main mission to baptize, it was to preach. But that doesn't mean that he was teaching that baptism wasn't necessary. Why would he do that when the Lord commanded it. And Paul did practice it himself in that occasion.

That Paul was sent to preach the word doesn't change the fact that those people were indeed baptized, and Paul was a part of that baptizing process. Why were they baptized? Because it was commanded by the Lord. Why did the Lord command it, Freak? He commanded it so that people would have a means FOR the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) BY the Blood of Christ!

He made a difference between the baptism and the Gospel.

No, rather, he was just saying that baptizing people was not his main mission. If you read it in context, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians because of their divisions over WHO baptized them. That's the only reason he said what he did, other wise why would he even mention it? Would he baptize and then go "DOH!" Christ didn't send me to baptize, as if it was something that wasn't necessary to be done? No, he said it because it was causeing divisions, plain and simple. He wasn't at all minimizing the importance of baptism, for they all WERE baptized, and Paul himself practiced it, and wrote about it's necessity in Romans 6! Also, the Lord commanded that it be done!

It is the Gospel that saves (the life of Jesus not water).

The gospel only saves if it is obeyed, just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38. Your comment that water doesn't save is more evidence that you simply don't understand baptism's purpose or what we are trying to say. Freak, please listen closely - water baptism in the name of Christ is FOR the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) BY the Blood of God's Son. Water doesn't forgive sins, but we are baptized in water FOR the remission of our sins. The blood of Christ will only cover those who do what is commanded FOR the remission of their sins through His blood - BAPTISM (Acts 2:38).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

You never refuted a thing I said.Instead,you appeal to the testimony of men!

How typical for someone who follows the church at Rome!

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You're laughable. I didn't 'appeal to the testimony of men'. I showed you that your Greek syntax argument is bunk by quoting the interpretation of the same verse from men who spoke Greek as their native tongue. Unless you can convince me that you know Greek better than they did, you have no argument.

I've also shown that, regardless of Greek syntax, your argument is illogical. Peter didn't just throw 'and be baptized' into the verse, between his exhortation to repent and his promise they would receive the Holy Spirit, for no apparent reason. That's stupid.

Then I showed that you are a manipulator of scripture. You tried to demote the middle of that verse by placing it in parans and suggesting we ignore those words. That's reprehensible at best!

You have no legitimate argument Jerry. I refuted your convoluted argument. And the best you can do is try to insult me for 'follow(ing) the church at Rome'. LOL.

I take each of your insults as a compliment! Thanks Jerry.

Francisco

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You have never given me a direct answer to my question: Into what was the eunuch water baptized, if not into Jesus Christ?

A DIRECT answer should be no more than 2 words. The best you have attempted is 'well Peter said this' and 'Greek syntax that'. Why can't you offer a direct answer to a very simple question? Could it be that simplicity does not lend itself to the manipulation of scripture to fit your man-made 16th century theology?

 

[John Gault]

Francisco, I am a Heretic

Francisco, I am a Heretic

and I think you should understand a few things about Jerry.

He is only trying to save your behind from the licking flames of Hell. My Kung Fu is not as good as Jerry's, so I am vanquished.

But please realize that Jerry is not seeking vainglory and he is (as all of his posts testify) humble before God.

I would hate it if you were forced to join me in the weiner roast of eternity.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Franscisco,

Why is it that the church at Rome dismisses the testimony of the early church fathers in some things but uses their testimony in other things to support their false teaching.

At least they could be CONSISTENT!

And let us examine the verse that we are discussing.If you are correct in your view,the sinner must FIRST be baptized in water BEFORE they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is EXACTLY what you are saying,and that could only be the meaning of Acts 2:38 if your interpretation of the verse is true.

"Repent and be baptized...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

However,the Scriptures themselves PROVE that your interpetation is INCORRECT,and that is because Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEORE a drop of water even touched him:

"Can anyone man forbid water,that these should not be baptized,who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"(Acts10:47).

So if the words of Scripture have any meaning at all it was not necessary for the sinner to be baptized with water in order for them to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And you continue to ask your question,and that question is not supported by Scriptues.

You ask into what was the eunuch "water baptized" into if not Jesus Christ.Well,you have not yet provided even a single verse that states that submitting to the rite of water baptism baptizes anyone INTO anything,much less into Jesus Christ.

And if submitting to the rite of water baptism is the baptism that one is baptized into Jesus Christ,then it becomes obvious that that "rite" does in fact save the sinner.But on page 189 of this same thread you say that "the rite of water baptism of itself doesn´t save."

If you are correct,it would be impossible to be baptized into Jesus Christ apart from the rite of water baptism,but you say that that rite does not save.

Now you tell me how it was that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized with water if your false teaching is correct--that submitting to the rite of water baptism is necessary BEFORE one can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It would be qite a SHOCK if John actually contributed something that is Scriptual to this thread.

He demonstrates over and over that he is of the mistaken idea that if he attacks the messenger enough that will make the message go away.

Every time he has been given an opportunity to back his ideas with Scripture,he has nothing to say.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

John Gault,

Jerry is twisting scripture to his own destruction, AND OTHERS. He follows a belief system created by MEN in the 16th century.

You claim Jerry is humble before God. Maybe so, but I can't see anyone who constantly casts insults at fellow Christians as humble in any way, shape, or form. How does a humble person justify these insults, whether he is in agreement with my beliefs or not?

Francisco

 

[John Gault]

NEWS FLASH!!! Reporting in from the Gates of Hell.

NEWS FLASH!!! Reporting in from the Gates of Hell.

Jerry:

We've got plenty of relish down here and a case of Bunker Hill hot dog chili has just arrived.

Also, can you tell me who has the best price on marshmallows?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Franscisco,

I find it amusing that you of all people would say the things about me that you have.After all,you are the one who admitted that you made up lies about me.

When will the hypocrisy ever end?

Why will you and John not answer the points that I have brought up?

Tell me why you believe that submitting to the rite of water baptism was necessary in order for the sinner to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit DESPITE the fact that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE he as baptized with water.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[John Gault]

Houston, we have a problem.

Houston, we have a problem.

The a/c just went out! What will become of the Watergate salad?

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Franscisco,

Why is it that the church at Rome dismisses the testimony of the early church fathers in some things but uses their testimony in other things to support their false teaching.

There are things the Catholic Church dismisses the testimony of INDIVIDUAL fathers on, but nothing is dismissed that the church fathers were in substantial agreement on.

At least they could be CONSISTENT!

We are consistent. While we don't necessarily accept the testimony of any individual father on any given subject, we do accept everything the church fathers were in substantial agreement on. If you believe otherwise, please post a specific example of anything the fathers agreed on that the Catholic Church dismisses.

And let us examine the verse that we are discussing.If you are correct in your view,the sinner must FIRST be baptized in water BEFORE they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is not what I said. Now you are trying to manipulate my words the same way you manipulate scripture.

I did not say one must be baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. I said the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to those who are baptized.

That is EXACTLY what you are saying,and that could only be the meaning of Acts 2:38 if your interpretation of the verse is true.

"Repent and be baptized...and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

However,the Scriptures themselves PROVE that your interpetation is INCORRECT,and that is because Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEORE a drop of water even touched him:

"Can anyone man forbid water,that these should not be baptized,who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"(Acts10:47).

As I said above, you have tried to twist my words, but I won't let you.

Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before baptism as a sign to Peter, the head of the church on earth, to indicate the Gentiles were to share in the salvation Jesus won for us. Read the versse in context and that becomes clear.

I also NEVER said baptism was the only way or only time a person receives the Holy Spirit. God gives us this gift according to his will only, but I reiterate, this gift is promised to the baptized.

So if the words of Scripture have any meaning at all it was not necessary for the sinner to be baptized with water in order for them to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I agree completely. As I said, the Holy Spirit is not received ONLY through baptism, but is promised to those who are baptized.

'repent and be baptized,...; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'.

And you continue to ask your question,and that question is not supported by Scriptues.

You ask into what was the eunuch "water baptized" into if not Jesus Christ.Well,you have not yet provided even a single verse that states that submitting to the rite of water baptism baptizes anyone INTO anything,much less into Jesus Christ.

So you are saying that Philip told the eunuch he could only be baptized if he believed in Jesus with all his heart, the eunuch professed such belief, and then Philip baptized the eunuch with no effect? Bunk! The eunuch was clearly baptized into Jesus Christ.

Since you still say the eunuch was not baptized into Jesus Christ, tell me please, what was he baptized into?

And if submitting to the rite of water baptism is the baptism that one is baptized into Jesus Christ,then it becomes obvious that that "rite" does in fact save the sinner.But on page 189 of this same thread you say that "the rite of water baptism of itself doesn´t save."

If you are correct,it would be impossible to be baptized into Jesus Christ apart from the rite of water baptism,but you say that that rite does not save.

Correct. Just performing a rite doesn't save you. True repentence, beleiving with all your heart (just like Philip required of the eunuch), and then the obedience of submitting to the rite is what joins us to the Body of Christ. We have then been buried through baptism into Christ's death (Romans 6:3) and then share in His resurrection.

Now you tell me how it was that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized with water if your false teaching is correct--that submitting to the rite of water baptism is necessary BEFORE one can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That's not my teaching, never has been. It is only a parody of my teaching that you set up like a strawman in order to attack. Again, receipt of the Holy Spirit can come in various ways and various times to different people. However, the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised to the baptized, as I showed above.

And by your own admission above, Peter still deemed baptism to be very important, even after he saw the Spirit had already descended on Cornelius. Do you care to share with us your belief as to why Peter would still find water baptism so important?

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Those of us on this Forum who are SERIOUS students of the Word of God are interested in understanding the Scriptures in a way that that proves that His Word does not contradict other parts of His Word.There are others on this Forum that have no interset in anything other than defending the teaching that they have received from man.

The following rendering of the words of Peter do indeed contradict other parts of Scripture:

"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 Spirit"(Acts2:38).

If this is the correct interpretation of the original Greek,then we would not expect to see anyone receive the gift of the Holy Spirit BFORE they were baptized in water.

However,that is exactly what happend in regard to Cornelius and his household.They received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized with water:

"Can any man forbid water,that these should not be baptized,who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"(Acts10:47).

With those SCRIPTUAL FACTS before us,we must see if there is another interpretation of the original Greek that supports the idea that submitting to the rite of water baptism is NOT necessary for one to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.And the following is the correct rendering of the words of Peter:

"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 Spirit"(Acts2:38).

First,Peter spoke to ALL the Jews who were listening.He said:

"Repent" (metanoeo),an "aorist active imperative","second person PLURAL"--"you all".

Then the words that follow-"and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ"--are no longer in the "second person plural" but change to "third person singular".Becuse of this there is a syntactical break and this introduces a separate idea.

Then we can see that the following words are again in the "second person plural",so these words belong to the word "repent" and not to "repent and be baptized":

"...for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The words "ye shall receive" is in the "second person".

Therefore,the correct meaning of the verse is:

"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 Spirit."

Now when we skip the parenthesis we can plainly see the meaning of his words:

Repent for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

And that matches perfectly with what Peter said later in the same day:

"Repent,therefore,and be converted,that your sins may be blotted out..."(Acts3:19).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Franscisco,

I find it amusing that you of all people would say the things about me that you have.After all,you are the one who admitted that you made up lies about me.

I admitted no such thing. After you continually propogated lies about 'the church at Rome' believes this or that, even after every Chatholic on the thread professed otherwise, I attempted to show you what you were doing. Afterward, I regretted doing that because I realized I had stooped to the level of your tactics, and I offered apologies multiple times. And you still continue to insult me, and were never big enough to accept my apology.

When will the hypocrisy ever end?

Much of it will end when you leave TOL.

Why will you and John not answer the points that I have brought up?

I've answered every point you have ever addressed to me. Why won't you give a simple direct answer to my simple direct question: If the eunuch was not water baptized into Jesus Christ, into what was he baptized?

Tell me why you believe that submitting to the rite of water baptism was necessary in order for the sinner to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit DESPITE the fact that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE he as baptized with water.

Why do you continue to try to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said baptism was a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit. I have only said the Holy Spirit is promised to those who are baptized.

In His Grace - Jerry

I doubt it.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Francisco,

You must be ignorant of the fact that the early church fathers of the first and second century did not believe that the "great tribulation" had come to pass.They did not believe that the "beast" (antichrist) had already come and gone.There is not one of these church fathers who believed that the 1000 year reign of Christ had started at the time they were living.

But is that the teaching of the church at Rome today?

And your answer as to why Cornelius received the Holy Spirit BEFORE he was baptized in water makes no sense whatsoever.You say:

"Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before baptism as a sign to Peter,the head of the church on earth,to indicate that the Entiles were to share in the salvation Jesus won for us."

But that does not even begin to explain away why they received the HOly Spirit BEFORE they were baptized with water.Are we supposed to believe that if Cornelius received the Holy Spirit after they had been baptized with water then Pater would not know that the Gentiles were to share in salvation?

Your explanation is no explanation at all!

In HIs grace,--Jerry

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

Who are you trying to mislead now? Are you going to demote some words of scripture, put them in parans and suggest they be ignored, in order to make them fit your man-made theology?

Those of us on this Forum who are SERIOUS students of the Word of God are interested in understanding the Scriptures in a way that that proves that His Word does not contradict other parts of His Word.There are others on this Forum that have no interset in anything other than defending the teaching that they have received from man.

The following rendering of the words of Peter do indeed contradict other parts of Scripture:

"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 Spirit"(Acts2:38).

If this is the correct interpretation of the original Greek,then we would not expect to see anyone receive the gift of the Holy Spirit BFORE they were baptized in water.

I don't see anywhere that this verse says you MUST BE BAPTIZED BEFORE YOU CAN RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT. I do see that the Holy Spirit is promised to those who are baptized.

However,that is exactly what happend in regard to Cornelius and his household.They received the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized with water:

"Can any man forbid water,that these should not be baptized,who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"(Acts10:47).

Yes, Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, as a sign to Peter that the Gentiles were to share in the salvation won by the Blood of the Cross. And Peter, knowing the extreme importance of baptism, proceeded to baptize Cornelius even after he saw that Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit.

Why? Because through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and become a member of the Body of Christ so we too can share in His resurrection:

'Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried in baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' (Romans 6:3-4)

With those SCRIPTUAL FACTS before us,we must see if there is another interpretation of the original Greek that supports the idea that submitting to the rite of water baptism is NOT necessary for one to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.And the following is the correct rendering of the words of Peter:

"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 Spirit"(Acts2:38).

You like to use the parans to ignore certain words of scripture that don't fit with your man-made theology, don't you Jerry? Which words in Romans 6 should we ignore? Maybe the part about being buried through baptism?

First,Peter spoke to ALL the Jews who were listening.He said:

"Repent" (metanoeo),an "aorist active imperative","second person PLURAL"--"you all".

Then the words that follow-"and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ"--are no longer in the "second person plural" but change to "third person singular".Becuse of this there is a syntactical break and this introduces a separate idea.

Then we can see that the following words are again in the "second person plural",so these words belong to the word "repent" and not to "repent and be baptized":

"...for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The words "ye shall receive" is in the "second person".

Therefore,the correct meaning of the verse is:

"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 Spirit."

Now when we skip the parenthesis we can plainly see the meaning of his words:

Repent for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Jerry like to make convoluted 'Greek syntax' arguments to confuse the issue. However, I have shown Jerry the interpretation of Greek speaking church fathers, people whose native tongue was Greek, that disagree with his 'ignore these words but read the words I want you to' approach to interpretation. Most people call it eisegesis, the reading of your own beliefs into something, rather than trying to discern what is meant by the text.

And that matches perfectly with what Peter said later in the same day:

"Repent,therefore,and be converted,that your sins may be blotted out..."(Acts3:19).

Then Jerry want's to confuse the issue of repentence for the forgiveness of sin, which is only one aspect of baptism, with the idea that repentence is is all that is necessary. That's why Jerry insists that we ignore much of what Peter said:

[color]'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 Spirit.' [/color]

If Jerry had it his way, we should put parans around the middle of the sentence and ignore these plain words of scripture. If Jerry's position was correct, we could insert anything in the middle of this sentence with no effect on the rest of the verse. For example:

'Repent (and drink a six-pack of Coor's Lite every day), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

His eisegesis is ridiculous. His twisting of scripture is reprehensible. And his insistance that he knows Greek better than men whose native tongue was Greek is laughable.

Bellieve in the plain words of scripture people, without parans, without ignoring certain verses or parts of verses. That is the only way to discern the true message of the Bible!

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[John Gault]

Anyone seen my January copy of "Heretic's Quarterly?"

Anyone seen my January copy of "Heretic's Quarterly?"

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
It would be qite a SHOCK if John actually contributed something that is Scriptual to this thread.

Jerry:

As I am vanquished - and a Heretic - I don't see much point in contributing something Scriptural. I mean, what do I know anyway? Wouldn't you agree?

However, if you're not beyond accepting some little input from the Damned - you might want to fix those typos, buddy.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Or we can believe Francisco´s rendering of John´s words,"Repent and be baptized and you might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,or you might receive it even though you are not baptized."

And we must believe the idea that the Holy Spirirt was given to Cornelius BEFORE he was baptized in water so that Perter would know that the Gentiles were to be saved.As if them receiving the Holy Spirit after they were baptized in water would not convey the same message to Peter.

In His grace,--Jerry