The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
rene
New member
You can say that - knowing that the following is said by Jesus - and think that somehow your words are more in line with God's will than Jesus?? That your pick and choose theology is more on target than the very words of the Son of God??
Mat 28:18 Jesus came to them and said: I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth!
Mat 28:19 Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 and teach them to do everything I have told you. I will be with you always, even until the end of the world.
May God open your eyes, forgive you for what you have just done.
Kevin
New member
Freak,
Enough. I'm not confused, I know how to read, and you made no mention of demons whatsoever. That's a fact.
Oh... you curse them instead of me now. There's a BIG difference. If that's what you meant the first time, you should have said instead of asking God to curse me.
C.Moore is a kind hearted man, and I respect him for that. As far as standing for the truth, however, believes as you do, and you cant answer questions. People who have the truth can answer questions. That says a whole lot about your man-made can't answer questions doctrine of pick and choose verses.
I understand that friends back each other. I do. But when you can't even answer scriptual questions, I don't care how strong a friendship is, the truth is all that matters. I know you think you have the truth, but like I said, the truth can answer, and you can't answer.
I do sincerely hope that someday you guys pay attention to the other verses in the Bible that speak of salvation. But as long as your pride gets in the way, not much will happen.
Enough. I'm not confused, I know how to read, and you made no mention of demons whatsoever. That's a fact.
Oh... you curse them instead of me now. There's a BIG difference. If that's what you meant the first time, you should have said instead of asking God to curse me.
C.Moore is a kind hearted man, and I respect him for that. As far as standing for the truth, however, believes as you do, and you cant answer questions. People who have the truth can answer questions. That says a whole lot about your man-made can't answer questions doctrine of pick and choose verses.
I understand that friends back each other. I do. But when you can't even answer scriptual questions, I don't care how strong a friendship is, the truth is all that matters. I know you think you have the truth, but like I said, the truth can answer, and you can't answer.
I do sincerely hope that someday you guys pay attention to the other verses in the Bible that speak of salvation. But as long as your pride gets in the way, not much will happen.
c.moore
New member
I am going deeper in the Glory and more and more spiritual and my faith and dividing the Word of God is on the right track.
God had showed me that Acts 2:38 as long as you keep the book of acts or the book of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in context you will see which scripture are water baptism or spiritual Holy Ghost baptism.
Let look at this again what God or the Holy Spirit has shown me.
Ac:1:1: The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Ac:1:2: Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
notice the Holy Ghost in action.
Ac:1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
yes , up to John you had a leg to stand on, but now today what even the apostle was waiting for is the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Notice this is still the book of Acts in the beginning, so let continue on so we can walk up to chapter 2 in Acts in context of Holy ghost baptism.
You will see why i ask do you think everytime the word baptism means water , and how to discern if it is water or spiritual.
I think going through this baptism walk will clear up the false teaching and thinkin about Act 2 being a water baptism, and if you still want to believe a lie I can change your mind I can only show you what the bible is saying in context.
1+1=2 , but if someone believe it equal 3 then i can only show them the truth , and it is a matter of accepting or rejecting get my point?
So , let walk with the bibnle in Acts praise God this will bless your heart Kevin i pray.
Ac:1:8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
So now we see power is planted by the Holy ghost, and then the bible says you can then witness with power, so again we see the need for the baptism of the Holy spirit on a Christian to preach , teach the gospel like in Matt28 say`s with powers, and wisdom anointed.
Ac:2:1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Ac:2:2: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Ac:2:3: And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Ac:2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Here again following precepts upon precepts, we follow the contexts and the topic here is the pentecost and about the Holy Ghost.
Ac:2:16: But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Ac:2:17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith 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:
Ac:2:18: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
I think we are now living in these last days , and this is what we are waiting for is the out pouring of the Holy spirit , not the waiting of a outwards water baptism this is nothing to wait for or is it anything new.
Ac:2:37: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Ac:2:38: 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.
Now the people asked how to be saved and recieve, and peter instructed to first repent, and he didn`t say be baptized like John the baptist taught and Peter knew about the Holy Ghost coming and is there now, and they need power to witness, and they need to be filled with the Holy spirit and Peter knew it can be done when they are baptized in the out pouring of the Spirit.
why would Peter give them a powerless baptism when peter knew the Holy Ghost baptism has power, knowledge, fire???
So they recieved the new baptism which John did talk about also that Jesus came to bring according to Joh:1:33: And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
So when will this baptism happen ?, that is in the books of acts 2:38.
notice in verse 38 at the end it say recieving a gift of the Holy Ghost but you can`t recieve the a Holy Ghost gift without first being filled or the holy Ghost to come upon you like fire.
Now if we continue in Acts we come to this verse.
Last but least this happens Ac:ts2:41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Yes , now it is your turn for the wet , in verse 41, but not before, that is out of Context.
the jehovah witness trys to do the same with the bible going out of the context with the creation of Jesus , and they say jesus can not be God , because He was created, and when you look at it the way they want it , you can be decieved untill you read the chapter step by step like I walked you through Kevin.
The Jehovah uses prov 8, and they say look at verse Proverb:8:22: The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Proverb:8:23: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
They try to point out this can only be Jesus becaus eJesus was in the beginning, and we know that Jesus is the A and the O , and they try to say this is jesus and it looks like Jesus but when you go through the Chapter precept upon precept, and in contexts of the Scripture, you see the whole picture and topic, and main point is not about Jesus it is about Wisdom and of course wisdom was with Jesus from the beginning and it will never end God´s Wisdom and knowledge.
Even teh topic heading on the top of the page is written Wisdom Reward, Just like in Acts on the top of the page is pentecost , and pentecost is aboutthe main point Holy spirit baptism , not A john baptism.
Now when you look at the heading in John 1 , you will see the old testament baptism John the baptist on the top of the page so we all know this is a baptism of john and water.
I think I revealedenough of the truth on this issue, and if you still don`t believe i am correct on this then let me see your view on Acts 2, and you point out step by step in context the water baptism in this please , but let stay in acts together so we can break thing down to it`s roots.
God Bless
Berean Todd
New member
Keep the faith going Freak!
Sorry but baptism a requirement for salvation is ridiculous. Let's look at a few scriptures.
So here Paul clearly taught that salvation was through faith alone, how about elsewhere in the Bible?
Seems pretty clear to me. How about some more?
Need I continue? There are many, many more that speak to this truth of the Gospel - that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. Baptism is something that comes out of salvation, it is a response to salvation, not a cause of salvation.
Ok Kevin, let me work around this one. I will answer your specific question here in a bit, but I am late in coming to this conversation so let me work to it. Earlier you used some argument from James, regarding works. However false teaching and misunderstanding of the Bible almost always comes from taking Scripture out of context.
Yes, James speaks largely of the importance of works - yet look at Galatians and Ephesians and all that you see is grace and faith. So, why is that? Are there 2 Gospels? SHould we maybe remove some of these books? Maybe they aren't Biblical ... but NO, may it never be.
The fact is that the author was writting to a specific audience, and was writting with a specific intent. Take Galatians. The Galatians were legalists - they were 'Kevins', and they were teaching that you had to keep all the old laws, and that you could lose salvation, and all sorts of works-righteousness mumbo-jumbo. So Paul stressed to them the need to understand what was worked. They were saved by grace, through faith. Period. Works are important, but they follow salvation, they are not a requirement for it. You are saved to[ works not by works.
Now James was writting to the tribes, and his audience was the opposite. They were taking grace too far, doing as Paul warned in Romans and "sinning that grace may abound." They were extremely liscenteous, following all the desires of the hearts. "We are saved we can sin all we want" seemed to be their motto. So James' stress to them is "Is faith without works really faith?" and that "you show me your faith without any works and I'll show you MY faith by my works."
So, in answer to your question, if someone claims faith but keeps not the commandments of the Lord, then I would question the sincerity of that man's salvation. However, let's say someone comes to faith in Christ. He drives down to church to speak with a Pastor, but on the way dies in a car wreck, an unbaptized man. That man is still saved, for he came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now should someone who BECOMES saved be faithful to be baptized? Absolutely. Must someone be baptized to be saved? Absolutely NOT
Sorry but baptism a requirement for salvation is ridiculous. Let's look at a few scriptures.
So here Paul clearly taught that salvation was through faith alone, how about elsewhere in the Bible?
Seems pretty clear to me. How about some more?
Need I continue? There are many, many more that speak to this truth of the Gospel - that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone. Baptism is something that comes out of salvation, it is a response to salvation, not a cause of salvation.
Ok Kevin, let me work around this one. I will answer your specific question here in a bit, but I am late in coming to this conversation so let me work to it. Earlier you used some argument from James, regarding works. However false teaching and misunderstanding of the Bible almost always comes from taking Scripture out of context.
Yes, James speaks largely of the importance of works - yet look at Galatians and Ephesians and all that you see is grace and faith. So, why is that? Are there 2 Gospels? SHould we maybe remove some of these books? Maybe they aren't Biblical ... but NO, may it never be.
The fact is that the author was writting to a specific audience, and was writting with a specific intent. Take Galatians. The Galatians were legalists - they were 'Kevins', and they were teaching that you had to keep all the old laws, and that you could lose salvation, and all sorts of works-righteousness mumbo-jumbo. So Paul stressed to them the need to understand what was worked. They were saved by grace, through faith. Period. Works are important, but they follow salvation, they are not a requirement for it. You are saved to[ works not by works.
Now James was writting to the tribes, and his audience was the opposite. They were taking grace too far, doing as Paul warned in Romans and "sinning that grace may abound." They were extremely liscenteous, following all the desires of the hearts. "We are saved we can sin all we want" seemed to be their motto. So James' stress to them is "Is faith without works really faith?" and that "you show me your faith without any works and I'll show you MY faith by my works."
So, in answer to your question, if someone claims faith but keeps not the commandments of the Lord, then I would question the sincerity of that man's salvation. However, let's say someone comes to faith in Christ. He drives down to church to speak with a Pastor, but on the way dies in a car wreck, an unbaptized man. That man is still saved, for he came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now should someone who BECOMES saved be faithful to be baptized? Absolutely. Must someone be baptized to be saved? Absolutely NOT
Kevin
New member
I've already address this...
I've already address this...
c.moore,
I'm sorry that you went to all that trouble, I have already given you clear evidence to show that Acts 2:38 is speaking of water baptism, which I received NO response on.
Here it is, again:
This was a few pages back.
I've already address this...
c.moore,
I'm sorry that you went to all that trouble, I have already given you clear evidence to show that Acts 2:38 is speaking of water baptism, which I received NO response on.
Here it is, again:
This was a few pages back.
Kevin
New member
You'll have to do better than that...
You'll have to do better than that...
Berean Todd,
No, what it rediculous is when you select a few verses that deal with salvation and make an entire doctrine out of them while not giving the same credence to other verses that speak of salvation matters, which include other factors.
First of all, I agre wholeheartedly with the verses you quoted. However, you make the SAME mistake as others (Freak, C.Moore). You are yet another pick and choose verses while ignoring others guy. You are using an argument of omission. You logic relies on the fact that baptism isn't mentioned in those verses. This is a very unwise approach in logic when trying to prove your position of what the Bible says on salvation.
For instance, in EVERY one of those verses you quoted, there was NO mention of repentence required for salavation. Is that no longer necessary for salvation, since they were not mentioned in those verses, just as baptism is not mentioned?
Yes, you do, because you left out quite a bit. Let me help you:
Let's see Paul's take is on baptism, and how it relates to salvation:
Romans 6:1-11 (KJV)
1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.]
Key points made by Paul about baptism:
So, are you going to tell me that dying with Christ so that our old man of sin can be crucified as well so we can be free from sin and alive to God - that that has nothing to do with our salvation?
Indeed:
2Timothy 2:11 (KJV)
11) It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
This is a conditional statement. It says that we will live with Christ IF we have died with Him. I've already shown in Romans 6 that it is through baptism that we die with Christ. Can you show me another way we die with Christ?
Now, moving on to other verses that deal with salvation that you didn't mention:
Luke 13:3 (KJV)
3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Repentence is necessary. Didn't see it your your verses... I thought faith only was enough. What happened?
John 3:5 (KJV)
5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Another verse that deals with salvation... no mention of faith there. Does that mean that faith is not required? Of course not. Are you going to try and use that weak argument that this is speaking of natural birth?
1Peter 3:21 (KJV)
21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Hmm... baptism now saves us... go figure! Your logic is in question... that which you claim has nothing to do with our salvation.... now saves us according to Peter.
Heb 5:9 (KJV)
9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Here we clearly see that Chris is salvation to those who obey Him, not just believe. Faith only saves? Not even.
Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)
37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38) 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.
When the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, Peter responded with repentence, and yes, baptism for the remission of sins. Why didn't Peter just tell them to believe and go their way?
Mar 16:16 (KJV)
16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Who will be saved? Christ says it will be those who believe AND are baptized. Are you going to make the same mistake as others and emphasize the part of the verse that deals with condemnation rather than the part that deals with salvation?
1John 2:3-4 (KJV)
3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Clearly, John states that keeping Christ's commandments is essential for salvation. For those who don't keep them are liars, and the truth is not in them. This is further backed by:
Rev 22:14 (KJV)
14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It is those who do His commandments who will have rights to the tree of life.
How true that is. Context is alway important.
No, there's not 2 gospels, and no, James and Paul have not contradictions. James is not saying at all that we are save by our works, but rather, that faith without works is a dead faith. James knew that faith is what saves a person, but he also knew what kind of a faith it was that saves - a faith that is alive with works of obedience (remember all those verses above about obedience)? James illustrates that what saving faith is:
James 2:22 (MKJV)
22) Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
James clearly shows that works working together with faith perfects faith, and it is by that kind of faith that we are saved.
Well of course, just as Paul wrote his epistles to specific audiences with specfic intents.
They were "Kevins". Thanks for the laugh. And no, you have Galatians wrong. They were not legalists teaching that the old law is what saves (at least not all of them). On the contrary, they had come to know Christ, however, there were Jews who began putting pressure on them to become circumsized, and unfortunately, some were indeed turning away from Him who called them into grace. Because of this, Paul wrote them a letter warning them not to become yoked in a dead law in which there was no salvation.
Getting back to James, if you think that just because it was addressed to the 12 tribes, that it doesn't have application beyond that, you a very mistaken. Take a look at what's going to happen on Judgement Day:
Mat 25:41-46 (KJV)
25) Then He also shall say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.
42) For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me no drink;
43) I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; I was naked, and you did not clothe Me; I was sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44) Then they will also answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to You?
45) Then He shall answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.
46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Clearly, these people were condemned to HELL because the did not administer good works to mankind. But what is the root of their problem? They had a dead faith, just as spoken of in James. This proves James statement that works working together with faith perfects faith, and it is by THAT kind of faith that people are saved.
Absolutely, but the kind of faith that is being spoken of here is NOT a dead faith unto itself. If faith does not included obedience, it's a dead faith. Look again at 1 John 2:3, it shows HOW we know whether or not we know Christ. It says we know Christ IF we keep His commandments. Our faith is usless without obedience.
Paul himself, who wrote that we are saved by grace through faith, said this about the commandments of God:
1Cor. 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Try telling that to the people I quoted in Matt. 25:41-46.
We are saved by faith that is alive in the sight of God. If faith *only* was enough, there would be no need to repent. Just believe and conitnue living a life of sin.... Repentence is a seperate thing from belief, and if you conceed that repentence is necessary for salvation, then that right there kills the faith *only* saves theory.
Oh, and I wanted to comment on one of the verses you cited for salvation:
Do you realize that confession with the mouth is a WORK (something that WE have to do), and you even bolded it to emphasize it's necessity for salvation? Confessing with the mouth is vocalizing your faith that Christ is Lord. Don't you just have to believe? I thought faith *only* was enough. You're killing your own argument.
Now why would you question his salvation if all he as to do is have faith *only*? If all you needed was faith *only* for salvation, keeping Christ's commandments wouldn't matter and would have no bearing on one's salvation... but yet you would question his salvation... hmmm. Faith only doesn't cut it.
You could be right, God will judge all. But these "what if" scenarios does not change one word in the Bible, and that Christ commanded baptism for the remission of our sins. Using a rare case scenario like that to try and justify your case is a very weak argument. When we all stand before God, we will each give an acocunt for our life. And I wouldn't wan't to be in the shoes of a person who's account God of why he didn't get baptized relies on rare case what if scenarios, when the VAST majority of people are pecfectly capable of being baptized.
I could say "what if" a person died while hearing the gospel, but died before he got a chance to believe. What if scenarios are rediculous, and changes nothing that God expects from us.
I don't believe one is saved before baptism, for how is one who is alive to sin and dead to God "saved"? But anyway, why "should" a person be baptized.... and back it with scripture.
Unproven assertion. You'll have to do better than that.
You'll have to do better than that...
Berean Todd,
No, what it rediculous is when you select a few verses that deal with salvation and make an entire doctrine out of them while not giving the same credence to other verses that speak of salvation matters, which include other factors.
First of all, I agre wholeheartedly with the verses you quoted. However, you make the SAME mistake as others (Freak, C.Moore). You are yet another pick and choose verses while ignoring others guy. You are using an argument of omission. You logic relies on the fact that baptism isn't mentioned in those verses. This is a very unwise approach in logic when trying to prove your position of what the Bible says on salvation.
For instance, in EVERY one of those verses you quoted, there was NO mention of repentence required for salavation. Is that no longer necessary for salvation, since they were not mentioned in those verses, just as baptism is not mentioned?
Yes, you do, because you left out quite a bit. Let me help you:
Let's see Paul's take is on baptism, and how it relates to salvation:
Romans 6:1-11 (KJV)
1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.]
Key points made by Paul about baptism:
- When we are baptized, we are baptized into death (verse 4)
- It is through baptism that we crucify our old man, that we are no longer slaves to sin (verse 6)
- It is those who have died (conditional statement) who have been freed from sin (verse 7). Again, we die through baptism (verse 4)
- Because we have become dead to sin through baptism, we are then alive to God through Christ (verse 11)
So, are you going to tell me that dying with Christ so that our old man of sin can be crucified as well so we can be free from sin and alive to God - that that has nothing to do with our salvation?
Indeed:
2Timothy 2:11 (KJV)
11) It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
This is a conditional statement. It says that we will live with Christ IF we have died with Him. I've already shown in Romans 6 that it is through baptism that we die with Christ. Can you show me another way we die with Christ?
Now, moving on to other verses that deal with salvation that you didn't mention:
Luke 13:3 (KJV)
3) I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Repentence is necessary. Didn't see it your your verses... I thought faith only was enough. What happened?
John 3:5 (KJV)
5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Another verse that deals with salvation... no mention of faith there. Does that mean that faith is not required? Of course not. Are you going to try and use that weak argument that this is speaking of natural birth?
1Peter 3:21 (KJV)
21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Hmm... baptism now saves us... go figure! Your logic is in question... that which you claim has nothing to do with our salvation.... now saves us according to Peter.
Heb 5:9 (KJV)
9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Here we clearly see that Chris is salvation to those who obey Him, not just believe. Faith only saves? Not even.
Acts 2:37-38 (KJV)
37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38) 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.
When the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, Peter responded with repentence, and yes, baptism for the remission of sins. Why didn't Peter just tell them to believe and go their way?
Mar 16:16 (KJV)
16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Who will be saved? Christ says it will be those who believe AND are baptized. Are you going to make the same mistake as others and emphasize the part of the verse that deals with condemnation rather than the part that deals with salvation?
1John 2:3-4 (KJV)
3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Clearly, John states that keeping Christ's commandments is essential for salvation. For those who don't keep them are liars, and the truth is not in them. This is further backed by:
Rev 22:14 (KJV)
14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It is those who do His commandments who will have rights to the tree of life.
How true that is. Context is alway important.
No, there's not 2 gospels, and no, James and Paul have not contradictions. James is not saying at all that we are save by our works, but rather, that faith without works is a dead faith. James knew that faith is what saves a person, but he also knew what kind of a faith it was that saves - a faith that is alive with works of obedience (remember all those verses above about obedience)? James illustrates that what saving faith is:
James 2:22 (MKJV)
22) Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
James clearly shows that works working together with faith perfects faith, and it is by that kind of faith that we are saved.
Well of course, just as Paul wrote his epistles to specific audiences with specfic intents.
They were "Kevins".
Thanks for the laugh. And no, you have Galatians wrong. They were not legalists teaching that the old law is what saves (at least not all of them). On the contrary, they had come to know Christ, however, there were Jews who began putting pressure on them to become circumsized, and unfortunately, some were indeed turning away from Him who called them into grace. Because of this, Paul wrote them a letter warning them not to become yoked in a dead law in which there was no salvation.Getting back to James, if you think that just because it was addressed to the 12 tribes, that it doesn't have application beyond that, you a very mistaken. Take a look at what's going to happen on Judgement Day:
Mat 25:41-46 (KJV)
25) Then He also shall say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.
42) For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me no drink;
43) I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; I was naked, and you did not clothe Me; I was sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.
44) Then they will also answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to You?
45) Then He shall answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.
46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Clearly, these people were condemned to HELL because the did not administer good works to mankind. But what is the root of their problem? They had a dead faith, just as spoken of in James. This proves James statement that works working together with faith perfects faith, and it is by THAT kind of faith that people are saved.
Absolutely, but the kind of faith that is being spoken of here is NOT a dead faith unto itself. If faith does not included obedience, it's a dead faith. Look again at 1 John 2:3, it shows HOW we know whether or not we know Christ. It says we know Christ IF we keep His commandments. Our faith is usless without obedience.
Paul himself, who wrote that we are saved by grace through faith, said this about the commandments of God:
1Cor. 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Try telling that to the people I quoted in Matt. 25:41-46.
We are saved by faith that is alive in the sight of God. If faith *only* was enough, there would be no need to repent. Just believe and conitnue living a life of sin.... Repentence is a seperate thing from belief, and if you conceed that repentence is necessary for salvation, then that right there kills the faith *only* saves theory.
Oh, and I wanted to comment on one of the verses you cited for salvation:
Do you realize that confession with the mouth is a WORK (something that WE have to do), and you even bolded it to emphasize it's necessity for salvation? Confessing with the mouth is vocalizing your faith that Christ is Lord. Don't you just have to believe? I thought faith *only* was enough. You're killing your own argument.
Now why would you question his salvation if all he as to do is have faith *only*? If all you needed was faith *only* for salvation, keeping Christ's commandments wouldn't matter and would have no bearing on one's salvation... but yet you would question his salvation... hmmm. Faith only doesn't cut it.
You could be right, God will judge all. But these "what if" scenarios does not change one word in the Bible, and that Christ commanded baptism for the remission of our sins. Using a rare case scenario like that to try and justify your case is a very weak argument. When we all stand before God, we will each give an acocunt for our life. And I wouldn't wan't to be in the shoes of a person who's account God of why he didn't get baptized relies on rare case what if scenarios, when the VAST majority of people are pecfectly capable of being baptized.
I could say "what if" a person died while hearing the gospel, but died before he got a chance to believe. What if scenarios are rediculous, and changes nothing that God expects from us.
I don't believe one is saved before baptism, for how is one who is alive to sin and dead to God "saved"? But anyway, why "should" a person be baptized.... and back it with scripture.
Unproven assertion. You'll have to do better than that.
Last edited:
c.moore
New member
Kevin said:
Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that Acts 10:47-48 shows that baptism in the name of the Lord, the same baptism as the one in Acts 2:38, is done with water? Both accounts show people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and Acts 10:47-48 clearly shows this to be done with water.
Quote c.moore
Now , I ask you before how do you know if a water baptism is being talked about or a spiritual, and in act 10:47 this verse is about a water baptism but not Acts 2, and if you read the context in chapter 10 you can see the Spirtual baptism in verse 45 in Acts 10 and the water baptism in verse 47.
Now Clearly show me water in Act 2:38 like the bible said in verse 47, can you do this please???
God Bless
Oh really? Then how do you explain the fact that Acts 10:47-48 shows that baptism in the name of the Lord, the same baptism as the one in Acts 2:38, is done with water? Both accounts show people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and Acts 10:47-48 clearly shows this to be done with water.
Quote c.moore
Now , I ask you before how do you know if a water baptism is being talked about or a spiritual, and in act 10:47 this verse is about a water baptism but not Acts 2, and if you read the context in chapter 10 you can see the Spirtual baptism in verse 45 in Acts 10 and the water baptism in verse 47.
Now Clearly show me water in Act 2:38 like the bible said in verse 47, can you do this please???
God Bless
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Somehow I doubt that no matter what I say, that it will change your opinion much... just because of the fact that I'm saying it. When HopeofGlory agreed that Acts 2:38 was speaking of water baptism, that became your understanding of Acts 2:38. Then freelight chimes in and starts empasizing Spirit baptism, and then your view changed on Acts 2:38.
Nevertheless, I will do my best to show you that Acts 2:38 is indeed speaking of water baptism.
First of all, I want to make a point about the Great Commission that I've mentioned in the past. Hopefully you will see what I'm getting at. Let's look the Great Commission again:
Matthew 28:19,20 (NKJ)
19) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
This is where the apsostles got the authority from Christ to baptize people in the name of the Lord. Now, what I would like to point out is that Jesus is speaking to MAN. Christ commanded MAN to go out and baptize people of the world. Why the emphasis on man? Simple - man cannot perform Spirit baptism, which only leaves water baptism.
So to sum up:
Keep this in mind as we conintue.
The only way to answer your question is to find out how, from scripture, baptism in the name of the Lord is performed. This is why I pointed out Acts 10:47-48 - it shows how baptism in the name of the Lord is done. I'm going to quote it again, but this time, I'm going to include the when they were Spirit baptized:
Acts 10:44-48 (NKJ)
44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45) And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46) For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,"
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.
The reason I included more this time was to show you that baptism in the name of the Lord is DIFFERENT from Spirit baptism. Baptism in the name of the Lord cannot be Spirit baptism, because they had already been Spirit baptized by the time they were commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord. The Gentiles were Spirit baptized in verse 44. After Peter saw this, he (a man, who cannot perform Spirit baptism) commanded them to be water baptized in the name of the Lord in verses 47-48.
Now, let's look at Acts 2:38:
Acts 2:38 (NKJ)
38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Here we see people being baptized in the name of the Lord, just as those people in Acts 10:47-48 were baptized in the name of the Lord, in water. Peter, a MAN (who cannot perform Spirit baptism), commanded this, in accordance with Christ's command in the Great Commission.
Now if you still feel that Acts 2:38 is speaking of Spirit baptism, consider the following:
And here is OTHER scriptures to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is NOT Spirit baptism:
Acts 8: 14-17 (MKJV)
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
This shows, again, a clear difference between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord, which was the baptism performed at Acts 2:38. Baptism in the name of the Lord use WATER, and this is what the apostles practiced... and it was done for the remission of sins.
And then there's:
Acts 19:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Another case where baptism in the name of the Lord is shown to be different from Spirit baptism.
Now, I think I've shown you overwhelming Biblical evidence that baptism in the name of the Lord, which is what was performed in Acts 2:38, is different from Spirit baptism. The question is, can you see the difference?
Somehow I doubt that no matter what I say, that it will change your opinion much... just because of the fact that I'm saying it. When HopeofGlory agreed that Acts 2:38 was speaking of water baptism, that became your understanding of Acts 2:38. Then freelight chimes in and starts empasizing Spirit baptism, and then your view changed on Acts 2:38.
Nevertheless, I will do my best to show you that Acts 2:38 is indeed speaking of water baptism.
First of all, I want to make a point about the Great Commission that I've mentioned in the past. Hopefully you will see what I'm getting at. Let's look the Great Commission again:
Matthew 28:19,20 (NKJ)
19) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
This is where the apsostles got the authority from Christ to baptize people in the name of the Lord. Now, what I would like to point out is that Jesus is speaking to MAN. Christ commanded MAN to go out and baptize people of the world. Why the emphasis on man? Simple - man cannot perform Spirit baptism, which only leaves water baptism.
So to sum up:
- Christ commanded MAN to baptize in His name
- Man cannot perform Spirit baptism
- That leaves water baptism, which man can and did perform throughout the New Testament
Keep this in mind as we conintue.
The only way to answer your question is to find out how, from scripture, baptism in the name of the Lord is performed. This is why I pointed out Acts 10:47-48 - it shows how baptism in the name of the Lord is done. I'm going to quote it again, but this time, I'm going to include the when they were Spirit baptized:
Acts 10:44-48 (NKJ)
44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45) And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46) For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,"
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.
The reason I included more this time was to show you that baptism in the name of the Lord is DIFFERENT from Spirit baptism. Baptism in the name of the Lord cannot be Spirit baptism, because they had already been Spirit baptized by the time they were commanded to be baptized in the name of the Lord. The Gentiles were Spirit baptized in verse 44. After Peter saw this, he (a man, who cannot perform Spirit baptism) commanded them to be water baptized in the name of the Lord in verses 47-48.
Now, let's look at Acts 2:38:
Acts 2:38 (NKJ)
38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Here we see people being baptized in the name of the Lord, just as those people in Acts 10:47-48 were baptized in the name of the Lord, in water. Peter, a MAN (who cannot perform Spirit baptism), commanded this, in accordance with Christ's command in the Great Commission.
Now if you still feel that Acts 2:38 is speaking of Spirit baptism, consider the following:
- In both cases (Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:47-48), Peter commanded people to be baptized in the name of the Lord
- That being said, why would Peter baptize people in the name of the Lord with water in Acts 10:47-48, but not use water in Acts 2:38, when Peter commanded baptism in the name of the Lord?
- Are there 2 ways to perform the SAME baptism? Why would Peter switch?
- Baptism in the name of the Lord was commanded by Christ for man to perform, who cannot perform Spirit baptism. Could Peter, being a man, command Spirit baptism?
And here is OTHER scriptures to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is NOT Spirit baptism:
Acts 8: 14-17 (MKJV)
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
This shows, again, a clear difference between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord, which was the baptism performed at Acts 2:38. Baptism in the name of the Lord use WATER, and this is what the apostles practiced... and it was done for the remission of sins.
And then there's:
Acts 19:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And hearing, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Another case where baptism in the name of the Lord is shown to be different from Spirit baptism.
Now, I think I've shown you overwhelming Biblical evidence that baptism in the name of the Lord, which is what was performed in Acts 2:38, is different from Spirit baptism. The question is, can you see the difference?
Last edited:
c.moore
New member
Quote Kevin
First of all, I want to make a point about the Great Commission that I've mentioned in the past. Hopefully you will see what I'm getting at. Let's look the Great Commission again:
Matthew 28:19,20 (NKJ)
19) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
Quote c.moore
I know that Jesus said this and was the Holy Ghost there at that time for people to recieve??
No man is the Holy Spirit, but you did bring to my attention how man can show other how to recieve the Holy Spirit and how they can lay hand on people and they are baptized in this manner according to the scripture you used in Ac:8:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Ac:8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
I can see here how also the Spiritual baptism is recieved , and when it was recieved.
The question I must ask you according to the order of the baptisms it was the Holy spirit baptism that came first , then the water baptism, can you see this???
Just for GP is the Wording in the name of the LOrd very important for water baptism??
When a scripture say`s these exact words is that your sign that it is a water baptism???
First of all, I want to make a point about the Great Commission that I've mentioned in the past. Hopefully you will see what I'm getting at. Let's look the Great Commission again:
Matthew 28:19,20 (NKJ)
19) "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20) teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
Quote c.moore
I know that Jesus said this and was the Holy Ghost there at that time for people to recieve??
No man is the Holy Spirit, but you did bring to my attention how man can show other how to recieve the Holy Spirit and how they can lay hand on people and they are baptized in this manner according to the scripture you used in Ac:8:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Ac:8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
I can see here how also the Spiritual baptism is recieved , and when it was recieved.
The question I must ask you according to the order of the baptisms it was the Holy spirit baptism that came first , then the water baptism, can you see this???
Just for GP is the Wording in the name of the LOrd very important for water baptism??
When a scripture say`s these exact words is that your sign that it is a water baptism???
Acts 2:38
38) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Here we see people being baptized in the name of the Lord, just as those people in Acts 10:47-48 were baptized in the name of the Lord, in water. Peter, a MAN (who cannot perform Spirit baptism), commanded this, in accordance with Christ's command in the Great Commission.
QUOTE]
Why is it in verse 38 it say`s in the name of Jesus Christ , and not like you always quote the water baptism is being used when said in the name of the Lord???
Also why didn`t Peter say being saved after the baptism like in Mark 16:16??
But I see this baptism was about recieving the gift of the Holy spirit, which you need to be spiritual baptized to recieve this gift or be filled or the out pouring of the Holy sprit is on a person first.
This is another reason this can`t be a water baptism which I didn`t research before and seen.
I thank the Holy Spirit for this revelation, and a deeper understanding of the Word of God, praise God.
Sorry but I only seen in the name of the Lord in acts 10 unless you are adding to the Word of God.:nono:
Because in Acts 2 the topic is about that what the people was waiting for and the new baptism was there and that was the Holy Ghost baptism in Act 2, look at the topic or heading in your bible , it`s about the pentecostal Holy Ghost baptism.
In Acts 10 Peter first ask a question in verse 47 and the people knew about John the baptist water baptism tradition , but when you think of the people at that time this was to be included as taught everyone should be water baptism, but peter in a way was saying we know they are baptized by the Spirit, but we shouldn`t just stop there let`s do the traditional baptism also as many knew, and should not be stoped just because the Spiritual baptism had power, and a gift included, so he did baptized them with water after the Holy Ghost baptism they recieved.
no, but there is a Spiritual baptism and there is a get wet baptism.
There is a inside baptism , and A outside baptism.
Theré is a inside baptism and A tradition baptism or ritual baptism.
Yes , I think this is done by giving instruction , Just like he gave command to repent even though he is not the one who the people repent to for there sins, and the same command he gave to be baptzed by the Holy Spirit.
In verse 15 here I see that if there is prayer this one way for a person to get baptized in the Holy Ghost.
Second I see in verse 17 the recieving or getting someone Spiritual baptized can be done by laying on of hands.
So why did you say a man can`t get someone spiritual baptized?
NO, i have proved to you biblically that Acts 2 can`t be a water baptism as you think.
But if somebody read acts 2 out of context and not precept on precepts, and not rightly divide the Word of God then I think this could be sought out to be a water baptism, but some one searching understanding , and has a meek spirit can see this is not a water baptism, it is the baptism that really count between God and man so we can be strong spiritual filled anointed sons and daughters of God.
God Bless
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
No, he told the apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit. I was just pointing out that Christ told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The is the baptism that Christ commanded, and it's either Spirit Baptism, or it's not. It's not Spirit baptism because the HS comes from God, so HOW could man baptize people with the HS? That only leaves water baptism, as pointed out in Acts 10:47-48.
Yes, the apostles could lay hands upon people and pray to God that they would receive the Holy Spirit. Now, did the apostle baptize with the HS, or did God, who the apostle prayed to that they might receive the HS? If man could baptize with the HS, then there would be no need to pray to God to that He would give that person the HS.
Yeah, I can see that they were Spirit baptized first. So? My point was to show you the difference between Spirit baptism and being baptized in the name of the Lord, which uses WATER (verses 47-48).
Yes, this is what I've been trying to get accross to you. Being baptized in the name of the Lord is the baptism that Christ commanded in the Great Commission. We know that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water thanks to Acts 10:47-48. This is why I went on to show you many examples of how baptism in the name of the Lord is different from Spirit baptism.
You CAN'T be serious. C.Moore, either you truly are against anything that I type just because it's coming from me, or, you have some kind of comprehension problem, and I don't mean that as an insult.
Are you trying to tell me that being baptized in the name of the "Lord" and baptized in the name of "Jesus Christ" are referring to two different people?! Is not Jesus Christ our LORD? :doh: Go ask your friend Freak who Jesus Christ is, maybe you'll beleive him because he said it.
I can't believe you are that blind, c.moore. Do I need to list out verses to prove that Jesus Christ is our Lord?
Ummm.... they did believe and were baptized, and they were added to the church in verse 41. How were those people not in a state of salvation? The obeyed the gospel. Are you trying to imply that when the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, that Peter would tell them something that wouldn't save them?
You do realize that they receieved the gift of the HS AFTER they were baptized, right? When a person is Spirit baptized, it is an immediate thing (Acts 10:44) and happens at GOD's choosing. There's not ONE time when the apsotles commanded people to be Spirit baptized because it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to baptize poeple with something that comes from GOD.
That's one of the reasons I showed you Acts 10:44-48, to show you the DIFFERENCE between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Tell me, when the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 had the HS fall upon them, was it because Peter commanded it?? No, because he can't command people to have something that comes from God, but he can certainly command people to be baptized in water, just as he did AFTER the Spirit baptism.
:doh: Just who do you think Jesus Christ is?! I cannot believe that your are that blinded. Do I need to start a thread asking people who our Lord is?
The only people who were commanded to wait were the apostles, so that they would receive the HS. This took place in Acts 2:2-4. Christ told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for the HS.
I can assure you that the people that Peter preached to were not waiting to be baptized by the HS. They had NO idea what Peter was going to say or command.
Where's your evidence to show that water baptism in the name of the Lord is John's baptism? They are different. Just look at Acts 19:1-5, people of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord, which is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).
No, Peter didn't have them baptized in the name of the Lord because it was tradition. He had them baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgivenss of sins, which is shown in Acts 2:38. I realize that you have a problem not seeing that Jesus Christ is our LORD, but He is. I still can't believe that you think that being baptized in the name of the Lord is not the same as being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. That has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.
You are still missing my point that Peter baptized two groups in the name of the Lord (JESUS CHRIST - believe it or not), and there is no reason or authority to change methods.
How can man "command" people to be baptized with the HS when He comes from God? If I command you to be baptized with the HS, are you how are you going to do that? Did Peter command Spirit baptism in Acts 10:44, or did it just fall upon them? It just fell upon them as he was speaking. The HS came from God, and is not something that man can "command" to happen. They can pray to God to have the HS given to somebody, but the HS still comes from God.
The apostles did Sprit baptize them, GOD did. Why do you think the apostles prayed to God for this to happen. If the apostles coudl Spirit baptize then they would have just done it. Again, why do you think they prayed for them, that they might receive the HS? Because the HS was not theirs to give.
See above.
Really? Where? I've shown that being baptized in the name of the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). But you seem to think that being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is different from being baptized in the name of the Lord. That's a staggering, weak argument. Do you not know Who your Lord is?
No, he told the apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit. I was just pointing out that Christ told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The is the baptism that Christ commanded, and it's either Spirit Baptism, or it's not. It's not Spirit baptism because the HS comes from God, so HOW could man baptize people with the HS? That only leaves water baptism, as pointed out in Acts 10:47-48.
Yes, the apostles could lay hands upon people and pray to God that they would receive the Holy Spirit. Now, did the apostle baptize with the HS, or did God, who the apostle prayed to that they might receive the HS? If man could baptize with the HS, then there would be no need to pray to God to that He would give that person the HS.
Yeah, I can see that they were Spirit baptized first. So? My point was to show you the difference between Spirit baptism and being baptized in the name of the Lord, which uses WATER (verses 47-48).
Yes, this is what I've been trying to get accross to you. Being baptized in the name of the Lord is the baptism that Christ commanded in the Great Commission. We know that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water thanks to Acts 10:47-48. This is why I went on to show you many examples of how baptism in the name of the Lord is different from Spirit baptism.
You CAN'T be serious. C.Moore, either you truly are against anything that I type just because it's coming from me, or, you have some kind of comprehension problem, and I don't mean that as an insult.
Are you trying to tell me that being baptized in the name of the "Lord" and baptized in the name of "Jesus Christ" are referring to two different people?! Is not Jesus Christ our LORD? :doh: Go ask your friend Freak who Jesus Christ is, maybe you'll beleive him because he said it.
I can't believe you are that blind, c.moore. Do I need to list out verses to prove that Jesus Christ is our Lord?
Ummm.... they did believe and were baptized, and they were added to the church in verse 41. How were those people not in a state of salvation? The obeyed the gospel. Are you trying to imply that when the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, that Peter would tell them something that wouldn't save them?
You do realize that they receieved the gift of the HS AFTER they were baptized, right? When a person is Spirit baptized, it is an immediate thing (Acts 10:44) and happens at GOD's choosing. There's not ONE time when the apsotles commanded people to be Spirit baptized because it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to baptize poeple with something that comes from GOD.
That's one of the reasons I showed you Acts 10:44-48, to show you the DIFFERENCE between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Tell me, when the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 had the HS fall upon them, was it because Peter commanded it?? No, because he can't command people to have something that comes from God, but he can certainly command people to be baptized in water, just as he did AFTER the Spirit baptism.
:doh: Just who do you think Jesus Christ is?! I cannot believe that your are that blinded. Do I need to start a thread asking people who our Lord is?
The only people who were commanded to wait were the apostles, so that they would receive the HS. This took place in Acts 2:2-4. Christ told them to go to Jerusalem and wait for the HS.
I can assure you that the people that Peter preached to were not waiting to be baptized by the HS. They had NO idea what Peter was going to say or command.
Where's your evidence to show that water baptism in the name of the Lord is John's baptism? They are different. Just look at Acts 19:1-5, people of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord, which is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).
No, Peter didn't have them baptized in the name of the Lord because it was tradition. He had them baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgivenss of sins, which is shown in Acts 2:38. I realize that you have a problem not seeing that Jesus Christ is our LORD, but He is. I still can't believe that you think that being baptized in the name of the Lord is not the same as being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. That has got to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.
You are still missing my point that Peter baptized two groups in the name of the Lord (JESUS CHRIST - believe it or not), and there is no reason or authority to change methods.
How can man "command" people to be baptized with the HS when He comes from God? If I command you to be baptized with the HS, are you how are you going to do that? Did Peter command Spirit baptism in Acts 10:44, or did it just fall upon them? It just fell upon them as he was speaking. The HS came from God, and is not something that man can "command" to happen. They can pray to God to have the HS given to somebody, but the HS still comes from God.
The apostles did Sprit baptize them, GOD did. Why do you think the apostles prayed to God for this to happen. If the apostles coudl Spirit baptize then they would have just done it. Again, why do you think they prayed for them, that they might receive the HS? Because the HS was not theirs to give.
See above.
Really? Where? I've shown that being baptized in the name of the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). But you seem to think that being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is different from being baptized in the name of the Lord. That's a staggering, weak argument. Do you not know Who your Lord is?
Take a break and read this
Take a break and read this
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3.5). This is the word of our Lord to Nicodemus.
When Paul wrote to the saints in Rome he inquired, "Are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Paul then continues with these words: "We were buried therefore with him through baptism itno death: that like as Christ was raised from teh dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have b ecome united with him likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6.3-5). Both the Lord Jesus and Paul speak of the reality of baptism.
But some people look at this matter of baptism from the physical point of view. Their eyes see only the water. Hence they insist on baptismal regeneration. They have not touched spiritual reality. Other people try to approach this question mentally. They maintain that water cannot regenerate people. Accordingly, they explain that with some people baptism is real and inward while with others it is false and outward. The first group can enter into the kingdom of God but those in the second category are excluded. They too have not touched spiritual reality in this matter.
The baptism of which the Lord told Nicodemus is a reality. Paul also sees reality in baptism: burial with the Lord for newness of life. He told the saints in Colossae, “Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him” (Col. 2.12). To him baptism and burial are one and the same thing; so too are baptism and resurrection. He knows what it meant to be buried with the Lord and also what is meant by being raised with the Lord. He does not see the water of baptism only, nor does he view some as being truly baptized while some others are not. He communicates to others the reality of that baptism which he has touched.
Brothers and sisters, if you have seen baptism as a reality you naturally know what it is. The question of its being true or false, inward or outward, simply does not exist, because you see that to be baptized is to be buried and raised up together with Christ. Having seen this reality, can you refrain from proclaiming that baptism is indeed so big, so real, and so inclusive? As soon as a person is shown the reality, then that which is false can no longer exist. Suppose someone should say: “Now that I have been baptized, I hope I may be buried and then raised together with Jesus.” The one who could utter such a statement has not touched reality, since to him baptism is one thing and burial and resurrection are quite another. But that person who perceives spiritual reality knows what burial and resurrection. Baptism is burial, baptism is also resurrection are. They are one and the same thing.
Do you realize, brothers and sisters, that no one can ever perceive spiritual things with his eyes fixed on the material, that no one can ever think through to the spiritual with his brain? All spiritual matters have their realities. He who has touched reality questions no more.(W.Nee)
Take a break and read this
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3.5). This is the word of our Lord to Nicodemus.
When Paul wrote to the saints in Rome he inquired, "Are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Paul then continues with these words: "We were buried therefore with him through baptism itno death: that like as Christ was raised from teh dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have b ecome united with him likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6.3-5). Both the Lord Jesus and Paul speak of the reality of baptism.
But some people look at this matter of baptism from the physical point of view. Their eyes see only the water. Hence they insist on baptismal regeneration. They have not touched spiritual reality. Other people try to approach this question mentally. They maintain that water cannot regenerate people. Accordingly, they explain that with some people baptism is real and inward while with others it is false and outward. The first group can enter into the kingdom of God but those in the second category are excluded. They too have not touched spiritual reality in this matter.
The baptism of which the Lord told Nicodemus is a reality. Paul also sees reality in baptism: burial with the Lord for newness of life. He told the saints in Colossae, “Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him” (Col. 2.12). To him baptism and burial are one and the same thing; so too are baptism and resurrection. He knows what it meant to be buried with the Lord and also what is meant by being raised with the Lord. He does not see the water of baptism only, nor does he view some as being truly baptized while some others are not. He communicates to others the reality of that baptism which he has touched.
Brothers and sisters, if you have seen baptism as a reality you naturally know what it is. The question of its being true or false, inward or outward, simply does not exist, because you see that to be baptized is to be buried and raised up together with Christ. Having seen this reality, can you refrain from proclaiming that baptism is indeed so big, so real, and so inclusive? As soon as a person is shown the reality, then that which is false can no longer exist. Suppose someone should say: “Now that I have been baptized, I hope I may be buried and then raised together with Jesus.” The one who could utter such a statement has not touched reality, since to him baptism is one thing and burial and resurrection are quite another. But that person who perceives spiritual reality knows what burial and resurrection. Baptism is burial, baptism is also resurrection are. They are one and the same thing.
Do you realize, brothers and sisters, that no one can ever perceive spiritual things with his eyes fixed on the material, that no one can ever think through to the spiritual with his brain? All spiritual matters have their realities. He who has touched reality questions no more.(W.Nee)
c.moore
New member
Quote Kevin
No, he told the apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit. I was just pointing out that Christ told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The is the baptism that Christ commanded, and it's either Spirit Baptism, or it's not. It's not Spirit baptism because the HS comes from God, so HOW could man baptize people with the HS? That only leaves water baptism, as pointed out in Acts 10:47-48.
Quote c.moore
I am glad to see that at least you say that Jesus said that the disciple is suppose to tarry for the Holy Spirit , and not wait and tarry for a water baptism, I am amazed the water baptism doctrine hasn`t changed that yet.
John did talk about his water baptism in John 1, but John said Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost, after John, and John didn`t keep this a secret about the Holy Ghost baptism , he even told the Pharisees about this ,so yes people were waiting as well for the spiritual baptism which was new and powerful .
The gift and the good thing about Spiritual baptism is it isn`t from man it is direct from Jesus, so it is a perfect baptism to God,and from God thank God it`s not from man like John the baptist water baptism.
Yes ,God baptized , and that the good new of the jesus baptism is that the Spiritual baptism is not a man water baptism , it is a God directed baptism, from God, and he controls not the man in a water baptism ritual baptism for the outward man.
The Spiritual baptism is about the inward man, like the heart is inside, and the mind and thinking is inside, the trusting is done on the inside, the believing is done on the inside, and the inside of what happens to a man is important to God.
Some where in the bible it say`s put no confidence in flesh , and the water baptism is a fleshly outward baptism.
I believe also that having faith is having confidence in Christ and His Word.
I am glad you see this now that spiritual baptism is first because i have augue with you in the pass about this and you said the opposit, that a spiritual baptism come after the water baptism and only can be after the water baptism.
You gave me the example that jesus came out the water and then He the Holy Spirit fell on Jesus , and so it is done with us the same way.
Thank God you change your analogy and doctrine on this order, I guess I need to log this in.
Now we need to get you to see that water doesn`t save, and that water is only a symbol of the spiritual , but prayers will help , and I see our prayers are going through specially when I see you make quote like the Spiritual baptism is first .
Praise God! :up:
Quote Kevin
You CAN'T be serious. C.Moore, either you truly are against anything that I type just because it's coming from me, or, you have some kind of comprehension problem, and I don't mean that as an insult.
Are you trying to tell me that being baptized in the name of the "Lord" and baptized in the name of "Jesus Christ" are referring to two different people?! Is not Jesus Christ our LORD? Go ask your friend Freak who Jesus Christ is, maybe you'll beleive him because he said it.
I can't believe you are that blind, c.moore. Do I need to list out verses to prove that Jesus Christ is our Lord?
Quote c.moore
No, I have ask this because I know there are churches like the one I got baptized in believe that only using this the wording form in the name of the LOrd is the legal water baptism and no other way is accepted.
I was just checking if maybe if you came from this same kind of church or have this doctrine.
I do know with no doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord.
No, because Peter said to repent and this is the salvational act to be saved.
Quote Kevin
You do realize that they receieved the gift of the HS AFTER they were baptized, right? When a person is Spirit baptized, it is an immediate thing (Acts 10:44) and happens at GOD's choosing. There's not ONE time when the apsotles commanded people to be Spirit baptized because it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to baptize poeple with something that comes from GOD.
That's one of the reasons I showed you Acts 10:44-48, to show you the DIFFERENCE between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Tell me, when the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 had the HS fall upon them, was it because Peter commanded it?? No, because he can't command people to have something that comes from God, but he can certainly command people to be baptized in water, just as he did AFTER the Spirit baptism.
Quote c.moore
Now see how you contradict yourself, you admit and said the Holy Spirit baptism comes first , and now you counter attack and ask me if I `m thinking the Holy Ghost baptism is after the water baptism.
So who is confussed here???:doh:
Now I hope you took up math in school, but 44 comes before 48, and just so you can see your error yourself and you might want to repent , is let take a look at verse 47 to prove that the Spiritual baptism came first.
Ac:10:47: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized , which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Notice another thing is that he just commanded or said, but in either way the Spiritual or the water baptism can man make anything happen.
In water baptism man can only be a help and dunk people under and lift them up in the water, so if the inside of that person is not right like I was in my water baptism the whole baptism is for nothing except taking a bath, and coming out a wet sinner.
now the Spiritual baptism is a baptism you can`t fool God with, God see`s if the hearts and soul is really baptism in Him praise God.
Quote c.moore
"Well" let me ask you this brother Kevin, sense the Lord is the same and we should be baptized in the name of the Lord.
So it is the same when we say in a water baptism , we baptized a person in the name of God is this ok????
In the name of the HOly Spirit a person is baptized is this ok???
In the name of the Son of God is this ok to say only in a water baptism???
So if you don`t have this belief like the church i was baptized in believing the true water baptism is only in the name of the Lord , then I see it not about the form or wording that counts, and I then know a little more what you understand and believe.
But they were hungry for the spiritual baptism after hearing about it.
Acts 11:15.16
When I see you make such quotes you are showing me it is not really about the water baptism but it is about using the wording of the name of the Lord is the words that baptize.
i was thinking :think: why you just don´t say all the time just baptism.
Then you shouldn`t have a problem when somebody say`s in the name of God they are baptized, or just say in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Don`t you believe in the trinity????
no , it is a spirtual
god bless
No, he told the apostles to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit. I was just pointing out that Christ told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The is the baptism that Christ commanded, and it's either Spirit Baptism, or it's not. It's not Spirit baptism because the HS comes from God, so HOW could man baptize people with the HS? That only leaves water baptism, as pointed out in Acts 10:47-48.
Quote c.moore
I am glad to see that at least you say that Jesus said that the disciple is suppose to tarry for the Holy Spirit , and not wait and tarry for a water baptism, I am amazed the water baptism doctrine hasn`t changed that yet.
John did talk about his water baptism in John 1, but John said Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost, after John, and John didn`t keep this a secret about the Holy Ghost baptism , he even told the Pharisees about this ,so yes people were waiting as well for the spiritual baptism which was new and powerful .
The gift and the good thing about Spiritual baptism is it isn`t from man it is direct from Jesus, so it is a perfect baptism to God,and from God thank God it`s not from man like John the baptist water baptism.
Yes ,God baptized , and that the good new of the jesus baptism is that the Spiritual baptism is not a man water baptism , it is a God directed baptism, from God, and he controls not the man in a water baptism ritual baptism for the outward man.
The Spiritual baptism is about the inward man, like the heart is inside, and the mind and thinking is inside, the trusting is done on the inside, the believing is done on the inside, and the inside of what happens to a man is important to God.
Some where in the bible it say`s put no confidence in flesh , and the water baptism is a fleshly outward baptism.
I believe also that having faith is having confidence in Christ and His Word.
I am glad you see this now that spiritual baptism is first because i have augue with you in the pass about this and you said the opposit, that a spiritual baptism come after the water baptism and only can be after the water baptism.
You gave me the example that jesus came out the water and then He the Holy Spirit fell on Jesus , and so it is done with us the same way.
Thank God you change your analogy and doctrine on this order, I guess I need to log this in.
Now we need to get you to see that water doesn`t save, and that water is only a symbol of the spiritual , but prayers will help , and I see our prayers are going through specially when I see you make quote like the Spiritual baptism is first .
Praise God!
:up: Quote Kevin
You CAN'T be serious. C.Moore, either you truly are against anything that I type just because it's coming from me, or, you have some kind of comprehension problem, and I don't mean that as an insult.
Are you trying to tell me that being baptized in the name of the "Lord" and baptized in the name of "Jesus Christ" are referring to two different people?! Is not Jesus Christ our LORD? Go ask your friend Freak who Jesus Christ is, maybe you'll beleive him because he said it.
I can't believe you are that blind, c.moore. Do I need to list out verses to prove that Jesus Christ is our Lord?
Quote c.moore
No, I have ask this because I know there are churches like the one I got baptized in believe that only using this the wording form in the name of the LOrd is the legal water baptism and no other way is accepted.
I was just checking if maybe if you came from this same kind of church or have this doctrine.
I do know with no doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord.
No, because Peter said to repent and this is the salvational act to be saved.
Quote Kevin
You do realize that they receieved the gift of the HS AFTER they were baptized, right? When a person is Spirit baptized, it is an immediate thing (Acts 10:44) and happens at GOD's choosing. There's not ONE time when the apsotles commanded people to be Spirit baptized because it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to baptize poeple with something that comes from GOD.
That's one of the reasons I showed you Acts 10:44-48, to show you the DIFFERENCE between Spirit baptism and baptism in the name of the Lord. Tell me, when the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 had the HS fall upon them, was it because Peter commanded it?? No, because he can't command people to have something that comes from God, but he can certainly command people to be baptized in water, just as he did AFTER the Spirit baptism.
Quote c.moore
Now see how you contradict yourself, you admit and said the Holy Spirit baptism comes first , and now you counter attack and ask me if I `m thinking the Holy Ghost baptism is after the water baptism.
So who is confussed here???:doh:
Now I hope you took up math in school, but 44 comes before 48, and just so you can see your error yourself and you might want to repent , is let take a look at verse 47 to prove that the Spiritual baptism came first.
Ac:10:47: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized , which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Notice another thing is that he just commanded or said, but in either way the Spiritual or the water baptism can man make anything happen.
In water baptism man can only be a help and dunk people under and lift them up in the water, so if the inside of that person is not right like I was in my water baptism the whole baptism is for nothing except taking a bath, and coming out a wet sinner.
now the Spiritual baptism is a baptism you can`t fool God with, God see`s if the hearts and soul is really baptism in Him praise God.
Quote c.moore
"Well" let me ask you this brother Kevin, sense the Lord is the same and we should be baptized in the name of the Lord.
So it is the same when we say in a water baptism , we baptized a person in the name of God is this ok????
In the name of the HOly Spirit a person is baptized is this ok???
In the name of the Son of God is this ok to say only in a water baptism???
So if you don`t have this belief like the church i was baptized in believing the true water baptism is only in the name of the Lord , then I see it not about the form or wording that counts, and I then know a little more what you understand and believe.
But they were hungry for the spiritual baptism after hearing about it.
Acts 11:15.16
When I see you make such quotes you are showing me it is not really about the water baptism but it is about using the wording of the name of the Lord is the words that baptize.
i was thinking :think: why you just don´t say all the time just baptism.
Then you shouldn`t have a problem when somebody say`s in the name of God they are baptized, or just say in the name of the Holy Spirit.
Don`t you believe in the trinity????
no , it is a spirtual
god bless
Kevin
New member
Freak,
I don't know why I should bother answering this, since it goes through one ear and out the other. If you read what I'm trying to get accross, I'm simply trying to say that faith in Christ without obedience to His commandments is a dead faith. One could hardly call faith without obedience, true faith.
I've never said that water perfects our faith. That's absurd. Christ perfects our faith, but how can Christ perfect our faith if we aren't even obedient to Him. Can we say we have faith in Him? Do we really know Him? 1John 2:3-4 says that we don't know Him if we don't keep His commandments.
The only reason that I'm defending water baptism so vehemently is because you say that those who teach what Christ commanded for the remission of sins for salvation, are heretics. I'm simply defending what Christ said, and what the apostles say about baptism, and you are calling me a heretic for it.
I don't know why I should bother answering this, since it goes through one ear and out the other. If you read what I'm trying to get accross, I'm simply trying to say that faith in Christ without obedience to His commandments is a dead faith. One could hardly call faith without obedience, true faith.
I've never said that water perfects our faith. That's absurd. Christ perfects our faith, but how can Christ perfect our faith if we aren't even obedient to Him. Can we say we have faith in Him? Do we really know Him? 1John 2:3-4 says that we don't know Him if we don't keep His commandments.
The only reason that I'm defending water baptism so vehemently is because you say that those who teach what Christ commanded for the remission of sins for salvation, are heretics. I'm simply defending what Christ said, and what the apostles say about baptism, and you are calling me a heretic for it.
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Well of course it was Spirit baptism that the apostles were instruected to wait for in Jerusalem. I've never contended otherwise. Notice that they were Spirit baptize from God, and not from some man, for man cannot baptize with the HS.
Ok, so if you knew that it Spirit baptism comes from God, and not man, then why did you ask my in your last post "So why did you say a man can`t get someone spiritual baptized?"? You made it sound as if man could baptize with the HS, which they cannot.
You act as if this happens at every occasion of being converted, that the HS falls upon people first and then they are water baptized. This is not so. God baptized the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 for a special purpose - to show Peter and the rest of the Jews that the Gentiles were part of the New Covenent, which is why Peter turned to the Jews and asked - Can anyone forbid water water that these should not be baptized who have receieved the HS just as we have (verse 47)? Why do you think he asked them this qeustion? Because the Jews still thought that Gentiles were not equal to them, for the were "astonished" to see that the gift of the HS had been poured upon the Gentiles (verse 45). Why do you think the Jews were "astonished"?
What I'm getting at is that God did not pour out the HS on them to save them or to show that this is the order that happens during conversion (which I will prove later), but rather He poured out His Spirit on the Gentiles to prove to them that God was with the Gentiles as well as the Jews. If you read Acts 11, you would see this. This is why Peter (in Acts 11), when he defended that he baptpized the Gentiles in the name of the Lord, said in verse 17:
Acts 11:17 (MKJV)
17) If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?
See... Peter saw that God poured out the gift of the HS upon the Gentiles and said "who was I to prevent God?" Prevent God from what, c.moore? From being baptized into Christ, which is what happened in Acts 10: 47-48.
Now, to show what I said I would do earlier, that being Spirit baptized before water baptism is not how conversion is normally done.
Just look at Acts 8:5-17 when Philip preached Christ to the Samarians:
Acts 8:5-17 (MKJV)
5) And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed Christ to them.
6) And the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the many miracles which he did.
7) For out of those having unclean spirits, many came out, crying with loud voice. And many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed.
8) And there was great joy in that city.
9) But a certain man called Simon had long been conjuring in the city, and amazing the nation of Samaria, claiming himself to be some great one.
10) All gave heed to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, This one is the great power of God.
11) And they were paying attention to him, because for a long time he had amazed them with conjuring.
12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Notice in verse 12 that the Samarians believed the gospel and were baptized. Yet we know that they weren't Spirit baptized because that didn't happen until verse 17 when the apostles came, prayed, and laid hands upon them that they might receive it.
So right here, we have an account where people were water baptized (verse 12), and then they receieved the HS in verse 17. What happened? Why weren't they Spirit baptized first, as you claim should be the order in conversion?
And another account of water baptism coming first:
Acts 19:1-6 (MKJV)
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.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Here again, we have people who was preached the gospel. They were then water baptized in the name of the Lord (verse 5), which we know uses water from Acts 10:47-48. Then AFTER that, the apostles laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit, speaking with tongues and prophesying.
So, again, we have an account were people were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is water baptism, and THEN the apostles laid hands them that they would receive.
So your notion that I somehow realized that Spirit baptism comes before water baptism in conversion is false, as demonstrated above. Acts 10:44 had a specific reason that the HS fell as Peter was speaking, as I explained.
Well, if you know that Jesus Christ is Lord, then in Acts 2:38, people were indeed baptized in the name of the Lord, correct? Therefore, since Acts 10:47-48 says that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, the baptism in Acts 2:38 is done with water, for they were baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
If you disagree, then you are saying that there is more than one way to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and I await your scriptures to show this. I have scripture to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48). That is the example we have of people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and who are you, or anybodyelse, to say that it can be done differently when we have no example of such?
You just subtracted from the word of God. When the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, Peter did not say repent only. He clearly said repent AND be baptized. You cannot take away what is joined by the word "and". Both commands (repent and baptism) were given with equal authority and equal urgency. But you only want to look at repentence, and leave out the rest of what Peter said. Bad move.
How have I contradicted myself. Your the one that says that Spirit baptism comes first in conversion, not me. I clearly acknowledged that Spirit baptism happened first in Acts 10:44, but as I said earlier, there was a specific reason for this, and it wasn't to show that Spirit baptism comes first in conversion. That's why I showed you the other accounts where water baptism came FIRST and then they received the HS by the apostles laying on of hands. Why didn't the HS fall upon those two examples of conversion as it did in Acts 10:44, c.moore? Was God asleep or something? Either Spirit baptism comes first in conversion or it doesn't, and I've showed you two where Spirit baptism didn't happen until AFTER they were water baptized in the name of the Lord.
I can assure you that I'm not the one who is confused. You are. You take Acts 10:44 and try to apply that as doctrine instead of reading your Bible and figuring out what the purpose of those Gentiles being Spririt baptized.
You are preaching to the choir. I know Spirit baptism came first in Acts 10:44, but as I said, there is specific reasoning for that. Now, when I showed you those two other examples of conversion where Spirit baptism did NOT come first, your math and logic falls apart.
If somebody baptized somebody in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that would be just fine for me. I place emphasis on "baptism in the name of the Lord" because that's the terminology that the apostles used when they baptized people into Christ.
It makes sense though, why the apostles used the term "baptism in the name of the Lord". Look at Luke 24: 46-47:
Luke 24:46-47 (MKJV)
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 says that forgivness of sins were to be proclaimed in "His name" to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, where people were baptized "in His name for the remission of sins". That's why the apostles baptized in His name. But again, I think it would be just fine if somebody baptized people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost... after all, that's how Matt. 28:19-20 states it.
I don't like to say just baptism because that's not very specific. For example, there is a difference between being baptized in the name of the Lord and being baptized into John's baptism. Acts 19:1-5 shows this difference. People of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord.
This is something that I have tossed and turned in my head. I would say for the most part that I'm in favor of the Trinity. That being said, there is some doubt about it as well. I don't know if I'll ever reach a conclusion on this. :think:
As mentioned above, if you know that Jesus Christ is Lord, then in Acts 2:38, people were indeed baptized in the name of the Lord, correct? Therefore, since Acts 10:47-48 says that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, the baptism in Acts 2:38 is done with water, for they were baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
If you disagree, then you are saying that there is more than one way to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and I await your scriptures to show this. I have scripture to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48). That is the example we have of people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and who are you, or anybodyelse, to say that it can be done differently when we have no example of such?
Well of course it was Spirit baptism that the apostles were instruected to wait for in Jerusalem. I've never contended otherwise. Notice that they were Spirit baptize from God, and not from some man, for man cannot baptize with the HS.
Ok, so if you knew that it Spirit baptism comes from God, and not man, then why did you ask my in your last post "So why did you say a man can`t get someone spiritual baptized?"? You made it sound as if man could baptize with the HS, which they cannot.
You act as if this happens at every occasion of being converted, that the HS falls upon people first and then they are water baptized. This is not so. God baptized the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 for a special purpose - to show Peter and the rest of the Jews that the Gentiles were part of the New Covenent, which is why Peter turned to the Jews and asked - Can anyone forbid water water that these should not be baptized who have receieved the HS just as we have (verse 47)? Why do you think he asked them this qeustion? Because the Jews still thought that Gentiles were not equal to them, for the were "astonished" to see that the gift of the HS had been poured upon the Gentiles (verse 45). Why do you think the Jews were "astonished"?
What I'm getting at is that God did not pour out the HS on them to save them or to show that this is the order that happens during conversion (which I will prove later), but rather He poured out His Spirit on the Gentiles to prove to them that God was with the Gentiles as well as the Jews. If you read Acts 11, you would see this. This is why Peter (in Acts 11), when he defended that he baptpized the Gentiles in the name of the Lord, said in verse 17:
Acts 11:17 (MKJV)
17) If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?
See... Peter saw that God poured out the gift of the HS upon the Gentiles and said "who was I to prevent God?" Prevent God from what, c.moore? From being baptized into Christ, which is what happened in Acts 10: 47-48.
Now, to show what I said I would do earlier, that being Spirit baptized before water baptism is not how conversion is normally done.
Just look at Acts 8:5-17 when Philip preached Christ to the Samarians:
Acts 8:5-17 (MKJV)
5) And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed Christ to them.
6) And the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the many miracles which he did.
7) For out of those having unclean spirits, many came out, crying with loud voice. And many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed.
8) And there was great joy in that city.
9) But a certain man called Simon had long been conjuring in the city, and amazing the nation of Samaria, claiming himself to be some great one.
10) All gave heed to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, This one is the great power of God.
11) And they were paying attention to him, because for a long time he had amazed them with conjuring.
12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Notice in verse 12 that the Samarians believed the gospel and were baptized. Yet we know that they weren't Spirit baptized because that didn't happen until verse 17 when the apostles came, prayed, and laid hands upon them that they might receive it.
So right here, we have an account where people were water baptized (verse 12), and then they receieved the HS in verse 17. What happened? Why weren't they Spirit baptized first, as you claim should be the order in conversion?
And another account of water baptism coming first:
Acts 19:1-6 (MKJV)
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.
6) And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
Here again, we have people who was preached the gospel. They were then water baptized in the name of the Lord (verse 5), which we know uses water from Acts 10:47-48. Then AFTER that, the apostles laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit, speaking with tongues and prophesying.
So, again, we have an account were people were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is water baptism, and THEN the apostles laid hands them that they would receive.
So your notion that I somehow realized that Spirit baptism comes before water baptism in conversion is false, as demonstrated above. Acts 10:44 had a specific reason that the HS fell as Peter was speaking, as I explained.
Well, if you know that Jesus Christ is Lord, then in Acts 2:38, people were indeed baptized in the name of the Lord, correct? Therefore, since Acts 10:47-48 says that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, the baptism in Acts 2:38 is done with water, for they were baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
If you disagree, then you are saying that there is more than one way to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and I await your scriptures to show this. I have scripture to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48). That is the example we have of people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and who are you, or anybodyelse, to say that it can be done differently when we have no example of such?
You just subtracted from the word of God. When the Jews asked what they must do to be saved, Peter did not say repent only. He clearly said repent AND be baptized. You cannot take away what is joined by the word "and". Both commands (repent and baptism) were given with equal authority and equal urgency. But you only want to look at repentence, and leave out the rest of what Peter said. Bad move.
How have I contradicted myself. Your the one that says that Spirit baptism comes first in conversion, not me. I clearly acknowledged that Spirit baptism happened first in Acts 10:44, but as I said earlier, there was a specific reason for this, and it wasn't to show that Spirit baptism comes first in conversion. That's why I showed you the other accounts where water baptism came FIRST and then they received the HS by the apostles laying on of hands. Why didn't the HS fall upon those two examples of conversion as it did in Acts 10:44, c.moore? Was God asleep or something? Either Spirit baptism comes first in conversion or it doesn't, and I've showed you two where Spirit baptism didn't happen until AFTER they were water baptized in the name of the Lord.
I can assure you that I'm not the one who is confused. You are. You take Acts 10:44 and try to apply that as doctrine instead of reading your Bible and figuring out what the purpose of those Gentiles being Spririt baptized.
You are preaching to the choir. I know Spirit baptism came first in Acts 10:44, but as I said, there is specific reasoning for that. Now, when I showed you those two other examples of conversion where Spirit baptism did NOT come first, your math and logic falls apart.
If somebody baptized somebody in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that would be just fine for me. I place emphasis on "baptism in the name of the Lord" because that's the terminology that the apostles used when they baptized people into Christ.
It makes sense though, why the apostles used the term "baptism in the name of the Lord". Look at Luke 24: 46-47:
Luke 24:46-47 (MKJV)
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 says that forgivness of sins were to be proclaimed in "His name" to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, where people were baptized "in His name for the remission of sins". That's why the apostles baptized in His name. But again, I think it would be just fine if somebody baptized people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost... after all, that's how Matt. 28:19-20 states it.
I don't like to say just baptism because that's not very specific. For example, there is a difference between being baptized in the name of the Lord and being baptized into John's baptism. Acts 19:1-5 shows this difference. People of John's baptism were rebaptized in the name of the Lord.
This is something that I have tossed and turned in my head. I would say for the most part that I'm in favor of the Trinity. That being said, there is some doubt about it as well. I don't know if I'll ever reach a conclusion on this. :think:
As mentioned above, if you know that Jesus Christ is Lord, then in Acts 2:38, people were indeed baptized in the name of the Lord, correct? Therefore, since Acts 10:47-48 says that baptism in the name of the Lord uses water, the baptism in Acts 2:38 is done with water, for they were baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
If you disagree, then you are saying that there is more than one way to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and I await your scriptures to show this. I have scripture to show that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48). That is the example we have of people being baptized in the name of the Lord, and who are you, or anybodyelse, to say that it can be done differently when we have no example of such?