The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Kevin
New member
Freak,
Umm... I DO focus on Him. THAT's why I am adament that obedience to Him is necessary for salvation. I know I know Christ because I obey His commandments:
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.
People who focus on Christ OBEY Him, that don't just beliieve. People who don't obey His commandments are liars and the truth is NOT in them. They won't be in Heaven. That right there proves that you have to have more that faith 'only'. Faith saves us ONLY if it leads to obedience to His commandments... otherwise we don't know Him.
That's what's so sad about you... I'm focusing on Him because I'm keeping His commandments, which includes baptism, and your so blind you don't even realize it. How funny you should ask "why not focus on Christ?". I can tell you this... if I didn't obey His commandments, I wouldn't be focused on Him, would I?
By the way, are you ever going to answer my question? Is repentence necessary for salvation? Yes or No?
What is it Freak? Blindness? Deafness? Both? Pride? You need to seriously wake up. The fact that you can't answer Bibically based questions should tell you something is wrong with your theological beliefs. The only way it wouldn't tell you something is wrong is if you're too blind, deaf, and/or prideful to admit it. :down:
Umm... I DO focus on Him. THAT's why I am adament that obedience to Him is necessary for salvation. I know I know Christ because I obey His commandments:
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.
People who focus on Christ OBEY Him, that don't just beliieve. People who don't obey His commandments are liars and the truth is NOT in them. They won't be in Heaven. That right there proves that you have to have more that faith 'only'. Faith saves us ONLY if it leads to obedience to His commandments... otherwise we don't know Him.
That's what's so sad about you... I'm focusing on Him because I'm keeping His commandments, which includes baptism, and your so blind you don't even realize it. How funny you should ask "why not focus on Christ?". I can tell you this... if I didn't obey His commandments, I wouldn't be focused on Him, would I?
By the way, are you ever going to answer my question? Is repentence necessary for salvation? Yes or No?
What is it Freak? Blindness? Deafness? Both? Pride? You need to seriously wake up. The fact that you can't answer Bibically based questions should tell you something is wrong with your theological beliefs. The only way it wouldn't tell you something is wrong is if you're too blind, deaf, and/or prideful to admit it. :down:
c.moore
New member
Quote: c.moore
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 .
Also it`s not about this happening everytime but it is legal and is a well of God and it has happen first, which nobody can say salvation or the spiritual baptism doesn´t come first and never has came first because a person has to be water baptized first.
You must also remember we Christians today belong to the gentiles as well.
The reason for asking the people about why shouldn`t they be baptized by water like he was baptized by John the baptist baptism is because the people at that time knew how important the tradition John water baptism was to to be practised.
Praise God!
Quote by Kevinc
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.
Quote c.moore
First question you must think about is were these people baptized at anytime??
Also what is the bible suppose to say in a John water baptism Be baptized in the name of satan, or in the name of Paul or peter, or the person name who is getting baptized????
I am getting a hint you are from those people who believe only a baptism in the wording of saying in the name of the Lord is the new baptism doctrine is this true?
You know there is only one faith, belief , and one baptism , but according to your belief some how there is another new baptism.
If this is true about another new baptism why don`t you also baptized for the dead??
If we claim the spiritual baptism as the one baptism that counts for God we will all be in one accord and one faith, and same baptism even if we latter get water baptism the water baptism is the symbol of the spiritual baptism.
It´s like the wind itself is the spiritual , and the effect after the winds which you see like the trees moving, and you feeling the breeze is the after effects of the main thing that counts is the wind, and that is a principle law, so also is the spiritual baptism is the principle law then the natural baptism.
Quote kevin
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?
Quote c.moore
I told you to learn to divide the Word of God correctly , and to show how you take thing out of context to try to make the bible fit your dotrine, let me break it down for you so you and anyone else that is blind see, so let go back to Sunday school kevin.
Lesson 1. In verse 5 we see together that this was in Samaria, so now we have the place this verse and what comes after taken placed, AMEN!
Lesson 2.Now from verse 6-8 we see the power of God with Philip working still in that same city, so are you with me? Say AMEN!
Lesson 3. Now in verse 9-13 we see the people in Samaria thought Simon was great untill philip came along, and had greater powers and we read this in verse12, and even Simon believed. Notice that they first believed and then was baptized, but no water mention, and do you think a sorceries Simon was water baptized before by John the baptist? Let me help you Kevin I don`t think so, not likely.Now if you read acts in contexts which I see you don´t want to do that, you will see how the Holy ghost has fill on people to believe and be filled with the Holy ghost and this was there baptism, and this same spiritual baptism has came on the people and Simon there like in Ac:11:14: Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Ac:11:15: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Ac:11:16: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Lesson 4. Now this might hurt your religious spirit , but it will heal your errors, and give you biblical understanding.
Now let look together at verse 14 , we see this is another place, which is called Kevin Jerusalem , and other people involved here praise God. These people have heard or better to say they have heard the testimony of what happen in Samaria , that it was so great what Philip did it reaches Jerusalem, and the people in Jerusalem asked if Peter and John could come to them that they will received this Spiritual baptism as the those in samaria, and in verse 15 we see the proof that it was the receiving the Holy Ghost not a water baptism or a in the name of the Lord or name of Jesus baptism Kevin.
Lesson 5. Now keep reading the bible in order, and in context we see in verse 16 this is still talking about the people in Jerusalem not samaria, but the people in Jerusalem , yes was water baptized already in the name of Jesus because Jesus was nailed to the cross, so the water baptism had to be in the name of Jesus for those baptized after Jesus death. By knowing which baptism is water or spiritual you must do it in context and not just because of wording. Like for instance god or Jesus would call someone sleeping when other say they are dead, so we must understand what is the bible really saying.
Now please don`t try to say simon was in samaria when they layed hand on the people and they received, trying to find a way out your error to show that the Samaria people were baptized in the name of the Lord like the people in Jerusalem, that would be a nice try for you Kevin but sorry it won`t work biblically for you because in this lesson 5 I need to show you verse 13 again because the bible said simon continue or traveled with Philip meaning that they were not at that same place , so different folks , different stroke.
So what you quoted above is totally out of context and you are mixing two completely different place to be the same samaria place.
Let me show everybody your quote again to let everybody on the internet see how a doctrine can be so corrupt, and missleading , and discieving.
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
Now right here as you quoted in verse 17 is the people in Jerusalem not samaria, do you see your error Kevin yet?????
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?
So my answer is yes they, were spiritually baptized kevin , and if the apostles didn´t go to jerusalem , and philip didn`t travel with Simoin then you might have a leg to stand on, and you might have prove a good point, but I have gave you a lesson and step by step I show the error you made and quoted, and sorry to say believe and have faith in what a shame.
Let`s continue to your next lesson.
Quote kevin
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.
Quote c.moore
Lesson 1. Now let`s take a deeper look at this.
First of all Paul found diciples, not just normal unsaved people , no these were believers or teachers, Jesus witnesses , can you see this Kevin in verse 1?, AMEN!
Lesson 2. Now Paul is still talking to the disciples and he asked them questions about the Holy spirit in verse 2, but they aditted they never heard of receiving the Holy Ghost.
In verse 3 we now come to the understanding they were baptized by water already.
Lesson 3. Now Paul admitted the water baptism by John, but Paul made it clear that they should believe on the Holy ghost baptism from Christ Jesus, which is mention in John 1:33 which is the baptism even John tha baptist bared record of and spoke about.
In verse 6 they were baptized not by a water baptism again , or in John baptism but this time INTO that Holy Ghost baptism John spoke about into the name of Jesus spiritual Holy Ghost baptism, and now they had powers and not just believing, because even demons believe in Christ, but these diciples now had that which was in acts1:8.
I will continue on another post my response to you post .
Part 1
God Bless
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 .
Also it`s not about this happening everytime but it is legal and is a well of God and it has happen first, which nobody can say salvation or the spiritual baptism doesn´t come first and never has came first because a person has to be water baptized first.
You must also remember we Christians today belong to the gentiles as well.
The reason for asking the people about why shouldn`t they be baptized by water like he was baptized by John the baptist baptism is because the people at that time knew how important the tradition John water baptism was to to be practised.
Praise God!
Quote by Kevinc
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.
Quote c.moore
First question you must think about is were these people baptized at anytime??
Also what is the bible suppose to say in a John water baptism Be baptized in the name of satan, or in the name of Paul or peter, or the person name who is getting baptized????
I am getting a hint you are from those people who believe only a baptism in the wording of saying in the name of the Lord is the new baptism doctrine is this true?
You know there is only one faith, belief , and one baptism , but according to your belief some how there is another new baptism.
If this is true about another new baptism why don`t you also baptized for the dead??
If we claim the spiritual baptism as the one baptism that counts for God we will all be in one accord and one faith, and same baptism even if we latter get water baptism the water baptism is the symbol of the spiritual baptism.
It´s like the wind itself is the spiritual , and the effect after the winds which you see like the trees moving, and you feeling the breeze is the after effects of the main thing that counts is the wind, and that is a principle law, so also is the spiritual baptism is the principle law then the natural baptism.
Quote kevin
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?
Quote c.moore
I told you to learn to divide the Word of God correctly , and to show how you take thing out of context to try to make the bible fit your dotrine, let me break it down for you so you and anyone else that is blind see, so let go back to Sunday school kevin.
Lesson 1. In verse 5 we see together that this was in Samaria, so now we have the place this verse and what comes after taken placed, AMEN!
Lesson 2.Now from verse 6-8 we see the power of God with Philip working still in that same city, so are you with me? Say AMEN!
Lesson 3. Now in verse 9-13 we see the people in Samaria thought Simon was great untill philip came along, and had greater powers and we read this in verse12, and even Simon believed. Notice that they first believed and then was baptized, but no water mention, and do you think a sorceries Simon was water baptized before by John the baptist? Let me help you Kevin I don`t think so, not likely.Now if you read acts in contexts which I see you don´t want to do that, you will see how the Holy ghost has fill on people to believe and be filled with the Holy ghost and this was there baptism, and this same spiritual baptism has came on the people and Simon there like in Ac:11:14: Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Ac:11:15: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Ac:11:16: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Lesson 4. Now this might hurt your religious spirit , but it will heal your errors, and give you biblical understanding.
Now let look together at verse 14 , we see this is another place, which is called Kevin Jerusalem , and other people involved here praise God. These people have heard or better to say they have heard the testimony of what happen in Samaria , that it was so great what Philip did it reaches Jerusalem, and the people in Jerusalem asked if Peter and John could come to them that they will received this Spiritual baptism as the those in samaria, and in verse 15 we see the proof that it was the receiving the Holy Ghost not a water baptism or a in the name of the Lord or name of Jesus baptism Kevin.
Lesson 5. Now keep reading the bible in order, and in context we see in verse 16 this is still talking about the people in Jerusalem not samaria, but the people in Jerusalem , yes was water baptized already in the name of Jesus because Jesus was nailed to the cross, so the water baptism had to be in the name of Jesus for those baptized after Jesus death. By knowing which baptism is water or spiritual you must do it in context and not just because of wording. Like for instance god or Jesus would call someone sleeping when other say they are dead, so we must understand what is the bible really saying.
Now please don`t try to say simon was in samaria when they layed hand on the people and they received, trying to find a way out your error to show that the Samaria people were baptized in the name of the Lord like the people in Jerusalem, that would be a nice try for you Kevin but sorry it won`t work biblically for you because in this lesson 5 I need to show you verse 13 again because the bible said simon continue or traveled with Philip meaning that they were not at that same place , so different folks , different stroke.
So what you quoted above is totally out of context and you are mixing two completely different place to be the same samaria place.
Let me show everybody your quote again to let everybody on the internet see how a doctrine can be so corrupt, and missleading , and discieving.
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
Now right here as you quoted in verse 17 is the people in Jerusalem not samaria, do you see your error Kevin yet?????
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?
So my answer is yes they, were spiritually baptized kevin , and if the apostles didn´t go to jerusalem , and philip didn`t travel with Simoin then you might have a leg to stand on, and you might have prove a good point, but I have gave you a lesson and step by step I show the error you made and quoted, and sorry to say believe and have faith in what a shame.
Let`s continue to your next lesson.
Quote kevin
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.
Quote c.moore
Lesson 1. Now let`s take a deeper look at this.
First of all Paul found diciples, not just normal unsaved people , no these were believers or teachers, Jesus witnesses , can you see this Kevin in verse 1?, AMEN!
Lesson 2. Now Paul is still talking to the disciples and he asked them questions about the Holy spirit in verse 2, but they aditted they never heard of receiving the Holy Ghost.
In verse 3 we now come to the understanding they were baptized by water already.
Lesson 3. Now Paul admitted the water baptism by John, but Paul made it clear that they should believe on the Holy ghost baptism from Christ Jesus, which is mention in John 1:33 which is the baptism even John tha baptist bared record of and spoke about.
In verse 6 they were baptized not by a water baptism again , or in John baptism but this time INTO that Holy Ghost baptism John spoke about into the name of Jesus spiritual Holy Ghost baptism, and now they had powers and not just believing, because even demons believe in Christ, but these diciples now had that which was in acts1:8.
I will continue on another post my response to you post .
Part 1
God Bless
Last edited:
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
You mean before they were Spirit baptized in verse 44? Who knows.
What the heck are you talking about??
I'll try to make myself clear on this matter. We have Biblical authorization and commandment to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We see this being carried out when the apostles baptized people in the name of the Lord.
And yes, this it the baptism of the new covenent, for it was commanded after the death on the cross, and it is the ONE baptism spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:5, because it was the one that Paul himself practiced (see Acts 19:4-5).
See above. The one baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism that he practiced after preaching the gospel, baptism in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5). And again, baptism in the name of the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). Baptism in the name of the Lord is the one baptism, because it was the one commanded by Christ in Matt. 28:19-20. It's not another new baptism, it was the baptism commanded by Christ for the new covenenent.
Because we are not commanded to do so. Christ said to go out and preach the gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the baptism we have commandment of us to do from Chrsit. Christ didn't command that we baptize dead people.
Show me where we are commanded to be Spirit baptized. Being baptized in the name of the Son, Father and Holy Spirit is a far cry from being baptized with the Holy Spirit.
And show me where it says that water baptism is symbolic of Spirit baptism.
How did I take it out of context? I quoted Acts 8: 5-17 and showed you the order of events that took place. How did I not rightly divide the word of God.
Ok.
Amen.
You were doing so good... and then you blew it. Simon was impressed by the miracles performed by Philip through the Holy Spirit. He believed also, and was baptized, and he continued to see many miracles afterwards, but he couldn't do them. Why is that, c.moore? The answer is in verses 16, the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon ANY of them, for they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus, which IS done with water (Acts 10:47-48). The HS had NOT fallen upon any of them, so they were NOT Spirit baptized. If the HS had not fallen upon ANY of them, how can you say these people were Spirit baptized instead of water baptized? Your logic is falling apart...
Then we see in verse 17, that apostles, who came from Jerusalem, laid their hands upon the so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. Why would the apostles travel up from Jersusalem and lay their hands upon them so they could receive the Holy Spirit, if they SUPPOSEDLY (as you say) HAD ALREADY BEEN SPIRIT BAPTIZED?
It is you who is in dire need of help, c.moore.
Your context is not in context of those passages. See above.
So you are trying to use Peter's accuont of Acts 11 to try and explain Philips account in Acts 8? I thought you claimed to know how to divide the word of God. Peter said what he did in Acts 11:16 because he was recalling that scripture because he saw that the Christ had baptized the Jews with the HS. He went on to say "Who am I to prevent God?" So realizing that the Gentiles were also part of the new covenent, he baptized them in the name of the Lord. I then showed you some accounts to show that Spirit baptism doesn't alway happen upon believing the gospel, where water baptism came first. But you're too blind to see it.
You are trying to take Acts 10:44 and turn it into an entire doctrine that says that everybody is Spirit baptized first and then water baptism. I went through and showed you WHY they were Spirit baptized, and then showed you examples where people were not Spirit baptized first, but were water baptized in the name of the Lord.
"Kevin Jerusalem"? Regarding verse 14, the "other people" involved here were Peter and John, who came from Jerusalem to Samaria so that the Samaritans who had been water baptized in the name of the Lord, could receive the Holy Spirit. Those Samaritans had already been baptized, and it wasn't Spirit baptism, or othewise why would the apostles come up and lay their hands upon them that they would receive the Holy Spirit? People who are Spirit baptized don't need the apostles to come up from Jerusalem to give them what they already have - the Holy Spirit.
But my point is that they were water baptized before the people apostles laid hands on them. They were baptized in water in verse 12. How do I know it was water baptism? Look at verse 16, is speaks that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of them, for the were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).
Facts about this conversion:
Again, if those people were Spirit baptized first, which they weren't, there would have been NO need for Peter and James to come and lay hands upon them. It clearly says that it had fallen upon NONE of them, even though they had already been baptized, which shows that it's NOT Spirit baptism.
Your "Lessons" need serious work. Verse 16 is speaking about the fact that the Holy Spirt had not fallen upon "them", the Samaritans, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This is not speaking of Peter and John who came up from Jerusalem. Are you trying to tell me that Peter and John had not had the Holy Spirit fall upon them? I hope not... because the Holy Spirt fell upon Peter and the rest of the apostles way back in Acts 2:3-4!!
It then goes on in verse 17 to say that they (Peter and John) laid their hands upon them (the Samaritans), for as of yet, the HS hadn't fallen upon them, they were only water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which happened in verse 12.
You are one confused individual. I really think you need to re-read the whole thing again. Seriously.
I've stayed completely in context. You've gone so far off the deep end that you're not even making sense.
So your telling me that the people in Jerusalem (Peter and John), were not Spirit baptized? :kookoo: It's either them or the Samaritans, and context clearly points to the Samaritans. Are you seriously so desperate that you are going to argue that it was the people from Jerusalem who needed to Spirit baptzed (Peter and John)? Your lessons are very, very inaccurate.
I think anybody following this thread can easily see that the apostles had to come up to Samaria and lay their hands on them so that they (the Samaritans) could receive the Holy Spirit.
Well, let's hope it's better than your other one.
I'm not too sure what you are tyring to say. What Acts 19:1 says is that Paul came accross disciples from Ephesus.
Yup.
Yes, they were water baptized into John's baptism.
Once again, you just blew your lesson. :down: Let's look at what Paul made clear to them:
Acts 19:4 (MKJV)
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.
Here, Paul says to belive in Him coming after John, who is Jesus. Paul makes NO mention that they should believe on Spirit baptism.
After the disciples heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord, the exact SAME baptism found in Acts 10:47-48, which is done with WATER.
Now, AFTER, yes AFTER they were water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (verse 5), THEN in verse 6 Paul laid hands upon them and they were Spirit baptized.
You need more time to prepare your "lessons".
You mean before they were Spirit baptized in verse 44? Who knows.
What the heck are you talking about??
I'll try to make myself clear on this matter. We have Biblical authorization and commandment to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We see this being carried out when the apostles baptized people in the name of the Lord.
And yes, this it the baptism of the new covenent, for it was commanded after the death on the cross, and it is the ONE baptism spoken of by Paul in Ephesians 4:5, because it was the one that Paul himself practiced (see Acts 19:4-5).
See above. The one baptism that Paul is referring to is the baptism that he practiced after preaching the gospel, baptism in the name of the Lord (Acts 19:5). And again, baptism in the name of the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). Baptism in the name of the Lord is the one baptism, because it was the one commanded by Christ in Matt. 28:19-20. It's not another new baptism, it was the baptism commanded by Christ for the new covenenent.
Because we are not commanded to do so. Christ said to go out and preach the gospel, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the baptism we have commandment of us to do from Chrsit. Christ didn't command that we baptize dead people.
Show me where we are commanded to be Spirit baptized. Being baptized in the name of the Son, Father and Holy Spirit is a far cry from being baptized with the Holy Spirit.
And show me where it says that water baptism is symbolic of Spirit baptism.
How did I take it out of context? I quoted Acts 8: 5-17 and showed you the order of events that took place. How did I not rightly divide the word of God.
Ok.
Amen.
You were doing so good... and then you blew it. Simon was impressed by the miracles performed by Philip through the Holy Spirit. He believed also, and was baptized, and he continued to see many miracles afterwards, but he couldn't do them. Why is that, c.moore? The answer is in verses 16, the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon ANY of them, for they were baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus, which IS done with water (Acts 10:47-48). The HS had NOT fallen upon any of them, so they were NOT Spirit baptized. If the HS had not fallen upon ANY of them, how can you say these people were Spirit baptized instead of water baptized? Your logic is falling apart...
Then we see in verse 17, that apostles, who came from Jerusalem, laid their hands upon the so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. Why would the apostles travel up from Jersusalem and lay their hands upon them so they could receive the Holy Spirit, if they SUPPOSEDLY (as you say) HAD ALREADY BEEN SPIRIT BAPTIZED?
It is you who is in dire need of help, c.moore.
Your context is not in context of those passages. See above.
So you are trying to use Peter's accuont of Acts 11 to try and explain Philips account in Acts 8? I thought you claimed to know how to divide the word of God. Peter said what he did in Acts 11:16 because he was recalling that scripture because he saw that the Christ had baptized the Jews with the HS. He went on to say "Who am I to prevent God?" So realizing that the Gentiles were also part of the new covenent, he baptized them in the name of the Lord. I then showed you some accounts to show that Spirit baptism doesn't alway happen upon believing the gospel, where water baptism came first. But you're too blind to see it.
You are trying to take Acts 10:44 and turn it into an entire doctrine that says that everybody is Spirit baptized first and then water baptism. I went through and showed you WHY they were Spirit baptized, and then showed you examples where people were not Spirit baptized first, but were water baptized in the name of the Lord.
"Kevin Jerusalem"? Regarding verse 14, the "other people" involved here were Peter and John, who came from Jerusalem to Samaria so that the Samaritans who had been water baptized in the name of the Lord, could receive the Holy Spirit. Those Samaritans had already been baptized, and it wasn't Spirit baptism, or othewise why would the apostles come up and lay their hands upon them that they would receive the Holy Spirit? People who are Spirit baptized don't need the apostles to come up from Jerusalem to give them what they already have - the Holy Spirit.
But my point is that they were water baptized before the people apostles laid hands on them. They were baptized in water in verse 12. How do I know it was water baptism? Look at verse 16, is speaks that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of them, for the were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Baptism in the name of the Lord is done with water (Acts 10:47-48).
Facts about this conversion:
- Philip preached (verse 5)
- People believed and were baptized (verse 12)
- Upon hearing this, Peter and John came from Jerusalem and laid hand upon them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit (verse 15), for it had not fallen upon them, they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord (verse 16)
Again, if those people were Spirit baptized first, which they weren't, there would have been NO need for Peter and James to come and lay hands upon them. It clearly says that it had fallen upon NONE of them, even though they had already been baptized, which shows that it's NOT Spirit baptism.
Your "Lessons" need serious work. Verse 16 is speaking about the fact that the Holy Spirt had not fallen upon "them", the Samaritans, for they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. This is not speaking of Peter and John who came up from Jerusalem. Are you trying to tell me that Peter and John had not had the Holy Spirit fall upon them? I hope not... because the Holy Spirt fell upon Peter and the rest of the apostles way back in Acts 2:3-4!!
It then goes on in verse 17 to say that they (Peter and John) laid their hands upon them (the Samaritans), for as of yet, the HS hadn't fallen upon them, they were only water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which happened in verse 12.
You are one confused individual. I really think you need to re-read the whole thing again. Seriously.
I've stayed completely in context. You've gone so far off the deep end that you're not even making sense.
So your telling me that the people in Jerusalem (Peter and John), were not Spirit baptized? :kookoo: It's either them or the Samaritans, and context clearly points to the Samaritans. Are you seriously so desperate that you are going to argue that it was the people from Jerusalem who needed to Spirit baptzed (Peter and John)? Your lessons are very, very inaccurate.
I think anybody following this thread can easily see that the apostles had to come up to Samaria and lay their hands on them so that they (the Samaritans) could receive the Holy Spirit.
Well, let's hope it's better than your other one.
I'm not too sure what you are tyring to say. What Acts 19:1 says is that Paul came accross disciples from Ephesus.
Yup.
Yes, they were water baptized into John's baptism.
Once again, you just blew your lesson. :down: Let's look at what Paul made clear to them:
Acts 19:4 (MKJV)
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.
Here, Paul says to belive in Him coming after John, who is Jesus. Paul makes NO mention that they should believe on Spirit baptism.
After the disciples heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord, the exact SAME baptism found in Acts 10:47-48, which is done with WATER.
Now, AFTER, yes AFTER they were water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (verse 5), THEN in verse 6 Paul laid hands upon them and they were Spirit baptized.
You need more time to prepare your "lessons".
After having skimmed through quite a large chunk of this thread, it seems to me to come down to one simple issue. (Most of the more common theological disputes in the body today can be boiled down to this same issue)....
Is your relationship with God (your salvation) based on a set of rules?
All false religions are basically a set of rules! One of the primary tools used for spotting false teaching is simply asking the question. "Is this teaching placing me under a set of rules?"
Christianity is about loving God! NOT FOLLOWING RULES! Allowing HIM to do a work in you so that good works flow from who you are (who He is in you) not from a set of rules!
This includes water baptism! If you get baptised you've not done some great evil thing. But if you've done it in order to satify an ordinance (rule) then you have placed yourself under law and done your relationship with Christ a great disservice!
Is your relationship with God (your salvation) based on a set of rules?
All false religions are basically a set of rules! One of the primary tools used for spotting false teaching is simply asking the question. "Is this teaching placing me under a set of rules?"
Christianity is about loving God! NOT FOLLOWING RULES! Allowing HIM to do a work in you so that good works flow from who you are (who He is in you) not from a set of rules!
This includes water baptism! If you get baptised you've not done some great evil thing. But if you've done it in order to satify an ordinance (rule) then you have placed yourself under law and done your relationship with Christ a great disservice!
c.moore
New member
Quote by Kevin
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?
Quote by c.moore
Yes, of course the people was baptized in the name of the Lord or in Jesus Christ, because the good new gospel was about Jesus Christ , and not about a law or ritual,or any other name but in the name of Jesus.
The using the in the name of Jesus is used when I lay hands on people for healing, I might say be healed in the name of the Lord Jesus, but just because I used that name didn`t mean water baptism it meant healing or can be for casting out demons out of somebody in the name of Jesus,because everybody and thing must bow before the name of the Lord.
This is why you need to read the whole chapter to stay in context and don`t just pull out wordings in a sentence to mean a certain thing only.
Baptism is not salvation it is the repentance and the blood of Jesus that make us saved by faith.
Take a look at this Kevin.
http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Baptism/D6.htm
Also because I see you hang ups on the using the words in the name of the Lord please take a look at this because this is what I`ve been saying about your belief on water baptism is done according to use of wordss.
Which Formula Of Words?
MATTHEW 28:19 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,
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.
Some people place great importance on certain words being spoken when a person is baptized in water. This is all religious tradition with no real meaning whatsoever.
"In the name of Jesus" can mean by the authority and command of Jesus. Colossians 3:17 tells us our every word and deed should be in the name of the Lord Jesus. Certainly, Colossians 3:17 does not mean we have to continually say, "I do this, or say this, in the name of Jesus."
Claiming that certain words must be said at the time of water baptism, or that only certain special people can truly baptize you in water, makes water baptism into a magical rite -- a work of man trying to be right with God.
The words spoken by the person baptizing you in water will not save you, or condemn you. Water baptism is not some magic ritual which makes you right with God. Water baptism is a testimony and picture-sermon of what God did in you.
Even if no words are spoken over you during your water baptism, it is still a picture of burial and resurrection. Specific words are not what is important, but the attitudes and faith of the people involved are what matters.
When baptizing new believers, saying something like, "In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is probably best. Then the devil cannot tempt them to think they were not baptized in the right name.
This information was found here.
http://www.believers.org/believe/bel190.htm
Another good resource to show that water baptism has no effect, and it is only a belief to Jesus Christ , and that He saves, not the water .
It is the repentance and the blood of Christ that saves, which püeople like Freak and myself try to show you.
Texts Often Used to Advance this Error
In Matthew 28:19-20, the commission is to first "teach all nations. The term rendered "teach " in its root meaning is clearly distinguished to simply mean "to make disciples." And how does one become a disciple? By having the Gospel of Christ preached unto him and having that message received by faith (note John 1:12). These new disciples are then baptized after salvation, and taught in the way of truth. The same holds true for the parallel portion in Mark 16:15-16. Once again, believing makes a disciple and the disciple is baptized afterward. It is he who does not believe (and is, therefore, not a disciple) who shall be damned. He that believeth and is baptized is the normal sequence. Studying the doctrine of regeneration in its Biblical context makes it plain that baptism is "after the fact" of believing unto salvation.
Acts 2:38 is another text which is often twisted to refute the Biblical teaching of salvation by faith alone. But once again we notice that "repentance" precedes baptism. "Repentance" as used with respect to salvation is a wonderfully descriptive complement to the kind of saving faith that is essential for the salvation of the sinner. Here, repentance is that change of mind whereby the individual is no longer trusting in anything other than the full and free salvation provided in Christ alone.
This belief is not just "head belief," but a heartfelt faith which results in a turning from confidence in self, religion, or anything else to Jesus Christ Who alone can save to the uttermost. It is the inward work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44; 16:7-11) whereby the sinner is convicted of his own inability to do anything to save himself, and convinced of the Saviour's perfect provision. He turns from faith in all else, to unconditional trust and wholehearted reliance upon the finished work of Christ.
It needs to be noted here also that being baptized "for the remission of sins" is not in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, but rather being baptized "unto" or "in respect to" the remission of sins. Baptism is always intended for the regenerated, forgiven believer. The Ethiopian eunuch was permitted water baptism only after the proper response to the evangelist's inquiry, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. "Don't get the "cart before the horse" for the cart alone doesn't have the power to get us anywhere.
Did Ananias supply Saul (later known as the apostle Paul) with essential information concerning the Gospel which was in addition to that which he had received previously on the road to Damascus? Was Ananias' instruction for Paul to be baptized, "...and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:12-16) to be a part of the Gospel he was to preach from there on? No! As mentioned above, Christian baptism was administered to those who had already received the Good News of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ. The subsequent rite of baptism, therefore, bore testimony to that fact. This is what Paul did.
Read carefully what the apostle actually had revealed to him when he met the glorified Christ in the way, when he received by direct revelation the Gospel message itself (Gal. 1:11-12 cf. Acts 26:13- 18). He most certainly did not receive any part of the message from man (this rules out what Ananias had to add), and he states the Gospel in a nutshell when he testified before king Agrippa. The message Christ Jesus gave him on the road that day was the whole Gospel of saving grace. It was the Good News which would enable the one who hears and believes it to "...receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. " (Acts 26: 18) . The Gospel does not require water baptism as a condition for the New Birth.
1 Peter 3:21 is another verse often used by the baptismal regenerationist. But notice carefully the actual wording and the context. Noah and his family were not saved by the water, but from the water of judgment. Their salvation came by being inside the ark, the ark being a figure or a type of the believer's salvation from judgment by being in Christ. In the 21st verse it says: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." Baptism is here used to illustrate by way of a figure of speech the operation of God which takes place inwardly upon believing. The "figure" (baptism) speaks of our identification with Christ who has saved us-He was the "ark" of Noah's salvation. The salvation the sinner is afforded comes through His saving grace. The rest of the verse bears this truth out; it's not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (through ceremonial washings-a reference to Old Testament ritual), but the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is always heartfelt faith in the shed blood of the Lamb and in His glorious, bodily resurrection that renders the sinner justified before an all Holy God! Rom. 10:9; Heb. 9:14.
Another text which is consistently twisted to infer baptismal regeneration is John 3:1-8. But rather than teaching the need for baptism, it actually affirms the operation of God whereby the Holy Spirit works in concert with the Word of the Gospel to bring to pass the regeneration of the sinner from on high. The two essentials for being born again are "water" and the "Spirit" (John 3:5). The operation of the Spirit is obviously essential in the spiritual new birth of the believing sinner. But what about the "water"? Is this baptism? Definitely not! "Water" is typical of the cleansing agent of the Word (Eph. 5:26). The Gospel as presented in the Word of God is integrally linked to the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration within the heart of the one who believes. Also, the "new birth" assumes the fact that there was an initial human, natural birth, and many believe the "water" in this particular text refers to the natural birth-"That which is born of the flesh. . . "; ". . . Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" The "Spirit," on the other hand, refers to the spiritual new birth. In either case, "water" cannot be interpreted as baptism and, therefore, required in God's miraculous work of regeneration. God administers the new birth, not man.
The "washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3:5 speaks of the twofold function of the Holy Spirit of God using the Gospel message contained in the Word to bring a lost sinner to the place where he understands his desperate need as a sinner, and then accepts-by faith-God's glorious salvation in Christ to meet that need. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my WORD, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life" (John 5:24). Here, again, we see God doing the "washing" at the moment of regeneration, in exactly the same way as detailed in Acts 15:7-9 as mentioned previously, where God saved the first Gentile converts, ". .. purifying their hearts by faith." Faith, not baptism, is God's means of cleansing all sin.
By no stretch of the imagination can ritual baptism be equated to the term "water" used by itself in texts in the Bible relating to the new birth; nowhere is there found a direct connection which brings these two terms-"water" and "baptism"- together. For instance, in Eph. 5:26 and in 1 Pet. 1:23 the obvious connection is made between water and the sanctifying-or cleansing-property of the Word of God. Again in James 1:18 we have direct identification with the function of the Word in the miracle of the new birth: "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth." The power of God is manifest when a lost sinner trusts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, a miraculous regeneration which God accomplishes apart from any ceremony (John 1:12).
What should be the response of believers today when "baptismal regeneration" is taught or tolerated by so many different religious groups? The only response to those who hold to this dangerous error must be to present them with the pure Gospel of God's saving grace. Then pray that the Holy Spirit will so work in their hearts and minds that they will indeed understand what it means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone and be saved. Acts 16:31; Heb. 7:25. Preach that Gospel! Separate from all those who proclaim any other! "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).
I found this at this web site.
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm
Born of the Spirit, Baptised in the Spirit
Every true Christian is born of the Spirit. As such they have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in a number of important ways. These ways include but are not limited to: conviction, regeneration and the witness of the Spirit in our lives that we are children of God. However, the dimension of power that God wants for His children can only be reached through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39). Even though some Christians achieve results without the actual baptism in the Holy Spirit, they would achieve more if they yielded to God so as to receive the Baptism in the Spirit. It is possible for a Christian to recognise many aspects of the Holy Spirit's work and enjoy a measure of His blessing in life and ministry, without ever being baptised in the Spirit in the Biblical way.
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.
We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition - even "evangelical tradition" - to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.
Biblical proof that these are Separate Works
Although the Bible does give examples of people who were baptised in the Spirit at the same time as their regeneration, we will see that this is not always what happens. The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although all part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time. It is interesting to note that in Acts, where the Baptism in the Spirit happens to believers at the time of their conversion, the Bible puts emphasis on the fact that the apostles knew they were baptised in the Spirit "for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46; Acts 11:15- 16). We certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, we can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It is important to state that every true born again Christian has the Holy Spirit. "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is given by God "to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). To receive Christ is an act of obedience by which the person submits to the work of the cross and becomes a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The Holy Spirit enters our human spirit when we are born again of the Spirit of God (John 3). Jesus comes into us by his Spirit (John 1:12). As we grow in Christ we produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22,23).
However, there is an empowering by the Holy Spirit which is distinct from being born of God. We get authority (exousia) to be sons of God at the new birth (John 1:12), but we receive power (dunamis) after the Holy Spirit comes upon us and we are filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8)
The apostles received the Holy Spirit in regeneration before the ascension when Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22). They were born again of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1Peter 1:3) at that time. But this was before the day of Pentecost. Jesus told them later to wait for the Promise of the Father in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after they had received the Spirit in regeneration. Therefore in the case of the apostles, the Baptism in the Spirit and being born of the Spirit were two separate events. They were born of the Spirit in John 20:22 before the ascension, but were baptised in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost after the ascension. And it is important to note that only then was the promise of Mark 16:17 fulfilled in the lives of the believers then, for beginning at Pentecost "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4).
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
Some point out that no record is made of speaking in tongues in this Biblical account. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Some early church writers said it did. But what we should learn from this account is that no matter how wonderful our salvation experience of turning to the Lord was, we should not be satisfied with that, but we should go on in God until we receive the Spirit in mighty demonstration and power.
Further proof that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not always or even usually occur at the moment of repentance and faith can be seen in the life of Paul (formerly Saul). Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and confessed Him as Lord, which meant he was converted (Acts 9:3-8; Rom. 10:9). But God knew that was not all that Paul needed, Three days later, God had Ananias lay hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). But did Paul speak in tongues then? Let Paul himself speak here. In writing to the Corinthians he said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." (1 Corinthians 14:18). Not so much in church, of course, but outside the meetings in private so as to build himself up. In this way, his preaching was both understadable and powerful (1 Corinthians 14:19; 2:1-4).
Cornelius' household and close friends were baptised in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion. How did Peter know this? "For he heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." (Acts 10:46). These people received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles (Acts 10:47). Peter realised that they were not only born again, but also baptised in the Holy Spirit, at that time (Acts 11:15,16). Why? "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnifying God" (Acts 10:46). That settled the issue for Peter. In the Bible, the speaking in unknown tongues is a Biblical sign of the true New Testament baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Mark 16:17). Let us remember that God did not trust the writing of the New Testament to anyone who did not speak in tongues. And people who despise tongues because their churches don't believe in it make the same kind of mistake as those in formal traditionalistic churches who reject the idea of regeneration by the Spirit at the moment of repentance and faith because it contradicts the long-held dogmas of the church. The Bible must settle the issue - not our traditions, theologies and lack of experience. And the Bible says, "Desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:39).
The Ephesian believers in Acts 19 were not true Christians in the full sense of the word when Paul met them. They only knew the John's baptism of repentance. They did not even know there was given a Holy Spirit. After Paul explained to them about Jesus "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19:5,6). Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. He showed them their need to be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit. Once again, speaking in tongues is revealed to have accompanied this initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the believers.
To add to the testimony of the Scriptures, there are, scattered throughout church history, and especially in this 20th century, there are many thousands and now tens of millions of people who have testified to having received this power from God some time after their initial conversion to Christ.
In summary then, the Scripture shows that being born of God is not always happening at the same time as being baptised in the Spirit. The Scripture further shows that it is always desirable and God's will for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be clothed with the power of God and to speak with other tongues. (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 14:5a). All this and much more is promised to the believer who earnestly seeks a relationship of submission to the Word of God and to the Holy Spirit.
So this last part is about the spiritual baptism , and where I mention about the Spiritual baptism in acts is included here, only I think I took it step by step more deeper, but this web site has good information and facts.
I have found this here if you what to research on this.
http://christian-bible-studies.com/holy_spirit_baptism/Holy-Spirit.html#born_or_baptised
God Bless
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?
Quote by c.moore
Yes, of course the people was baptized in the name of the Lord or in Jesus Christ, because the good new gospel was about Jesus Christ , and not about a law or ritual,or any other name but in the name of Jesus.
The using the in the name of Jesus is used when I lay hands on people for healing, I might say be healed in the name of the Lord Jesus, but just because I used that name didn`t mean water baptism it meant healing or can be for casting out demons out of somebody in the name of Jesus,because everybody and thing must bow before the name of the Lord.
This is why you need to read the whole chapter to stay in context and don`t just pull out wordings in a sentence to mean a certain thing only.
Baptism is not salvation it is the repentance and the blood of Jesus that make us saved by faith.
Take a look at this Kevin.
http://www.acns.com/~mm9n/Baptism/D6.htm
Also because I see you hang ups on the using the words in the name of the Lord please take a look at this because this is what I`ve been saying about your belief on water baptism is done according to use of wordss.
Which Formula Of Words?
MATTHEW 28:19 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,
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.
Some people place great importance on certain words being spoken when a person is baptized in water. This is all religious tradition with no real meaning whatsoever.
"In the name of Jesus" can mean by the authority and command of Jesus. Colossians 3:17 tells us our every word and deed should be in the name of the Lord Jesus. Certainly, Colossians 3:17 does not mean we have to continually say, "I do this, or say this, in the name of Jesus."
Claiming that certain words must be said at the time of water baptism, or that only certain special people can truly baptize you in water, makes water baptism into a magical rite -- a work of man trying to be right with God.
The words spoken by the person baptizing you in water will not save you, or condemn you. Water baptism is not some magic ritual which makes you right with God. Water baptism is a testimony and picture-sermon of what God did in you.
Even if no words are spoken over you during your water baptism, it is still a picture of burial and resurrection. Specific words are not what is important, but the attitudes and faith of the people involved are what matters.
When baptizing new believers, saying something like, "In the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is probably best. Then the devil cannot tempt them to think they were not baptized in the right name.
This information was found here.
http://www.believers.org/believe/bel190.htm
Another good resource to show that water baptism has no effect, and it is only a belief to Jesus Christ , and that He saves, not the water .
It is the repentance and the blood of Christ that saves, which püeople like Freak and myself try to show you.
Texts Often Used to Advance this Error
In Matthew 28:19-20, the commission is to first "teach all nations. The term rendered "teach " in its root meaning is clearly distinguished to simply mean "to make disciples." And how does one become a disciple? By having the Gospel of Christ preached unto him and having that message received by faith (note John 1:12). These new disciples are then baptized after salvation, and taught in the way of truth. The same holds true for the parallel portion in Mark 16:15-16. Once again, believing makes a disciple and the disciple is baptized afterward. It is he who does not believe (and is, therefore, not a disciple) who shall be damned. He that believeth and is baptized is the normal sequence. Studying the doctrine of regeneration in its Biblical context makes it plain that baptism is "after the fact" of believing unto salvation.
Acts 2:38 is another text which is often twisted to refute the Biblical teaching of salvation by faith alone. But once again we notice that "repentance" precedes baptism. "Repentance" as used with respect to salvation is a wonderfully descriptive complement to the kind of saving faith that is essential for the salvation of the sinner. Here, repentance is that change of mind whereby the individual is no longer trusting in anything other than the full and free salvation provided in Christ alone.
This belief is not just "head belief," but a heartfelt faith which results in a turning from confidence in self, religion, or anything else to Jesus Christ Who alone can save to the uttermost. It is the inward work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44; 16:7-11) whereby the sinner is convicted of his own inability to do anything to save himself, and convinced of the Saviour's perfect provision. He turns from faith in all else, to unconditional trust and wholehearted reliance upon the finished work of Christ.
It needs to be noted here also that being baptized "for the remission of sins" is not in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, but rather being baptized "unto" or "in respect to" the remission of sins. Baptism is always intended for the regenerated, forgiven believer. The Ethiopian eunuch was permitted water baptism only after the proper response to the evangelist's inquiry, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. "Don't get the "cart before the horse" for the cart alone doesn't have the power to get us anywhere.
Did Ananias supply Saul (later known as the apostle Paul) with essential information concerning the Gospel which was in addition to that which he had received previously on the road to Damascus? Was Ananias' instruction for Paul to be baptized, "...and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:12-16) to be a part of the Gospel he was to preach from there on? No! As mentioned above, Christian baptism was administered to those who had already received the Good News of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ. The subsequent rite of baptism, therefore, bore testimony to that fact. This is what Paul did.
Read carefully what the apostle actually had revealed to him when he met the glorified Christ in the way, when he received by direct revelation the Gospel message itself (Gal. 1:11-12 cf. Acts 26:13- 18). He most certainly did not receive any part of the message from man (this rules out what Ananias had to add), and he states the Gospel in a nutshell when he testified before king Agrippa. The message Christ Jesus gave him on the road that day was the whole Gospel of saving grace. It was the Good News which would enable the one who hears and believes it to "...receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. " (Acts 26: 18) . The Gospel does not require water baptism as a condition for the New Birth.
1 Peter 3:21 is another verse often used by the baptismal regenerationist. But notice carefully the actual wording and the context. Noah and his family were not saved by the water, but from the water of judgment. Their salvation came by being inside the ark, the ark being a figure or a type of the believer's salvation from judgment by being in Christ. In the 21st verse it says: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." Baptism is here used to illustrate by way of a figure of speech the operation of God which takes place inwardly upon believing. The "figure" (baptism) speaks of our identification with Christ who has saved us-He was the "ark" of Noah's salvation. The salvation the sinner is afforded comes through His saving grace. The rest of the verse bears this truth out; it's not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (through ceremonial washings-a reference to Old Testament ritual), but the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is always heartfelt faith in the shed blood of the Lamb and in His glorious, bodily resurrection that renders the sinner justified before an all Holy God! Rom. 10:9; Heb. 9:14.
Another text which is consistently twisted to infer baptismal regeneration is John 3:1-8. But rather than teaching the need for baptism, it actually affirms the operation of God whereby the Holy Spirit works in concert with the Word of the Gospel to bring to pass the regeneration of the sinner from on high. The two essentials for being born again are "water" and the "Spirit" (John 3:5). The operation of the Spirit is obviously essential in the spiritual new birth of the believing sinner. But what about the "water"? Is this baptism? Definitely not! "Water" is typical of the cleansing agent of the Word (Eph. 5:26). The Gospel as presented in the Word of God is integrally linked to the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration within the heart of the one who believes. Also, the "new birth" assumes the fact that there was an initial human, natural birth, and many believe the "water" in this particular text refers to the natural birth-"That which is born of the flesh. . . "; ". . . Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" The "Spirit," on the other hand, refers to the spiritual new birth. In either case, "water" cannot be interpreted as baptism and, therefore, required in God's miraculous work of regeneration. God administers the new birth, not man.
The "washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" in Titus 3:5 speaks of the twofold function of the Holy Spirit of God using the Gospel message contained in the Word to bring a lost sinner to the place where he understands his desperate need as a sinner, and then accepts-by faith-God's glorious salvation in Christ to meet that need. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my WORD, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life" (John 5:24). Here, again, we see God doing the "washing" at the moment of regeneration, in exactly the same way as detailed in Acts 15:7-9 as mentioned previously, where God saved the first Gentile converts, ". .. purifying their hearts by faith." Faith, not baptism, is God's means of cleansing all sin.
By no stretch of the imagination can ritual baptism be equated to the term "water" used by itself in texts in the Bible relating to the new birth; nowhere is there found a direct connection which brings these two terms-"water" and "baptism"- together. For instance, in Eph. 5:26 and in 1 Pet. 1:23 the obvious connection is made between water and the sanctifying-or cleansing-property of the Word of God. Again in James 1:18 we have direct identification with the function of the Word in the miracle of the new birth: "Of his own will begat He us with the word of truth." The power of God is manifest when a lost sinner trusts Jesus Christ as his Saviour, a miraculous regeneration which God accomplishes apart from any ceremony (John 1:12).
What should be the response of believers today when "baptismal regeneration" is taught or tolerated by so many different religious groups? The only response to those who hold to this dangerous error must be to present them with the pure Gospel of God's saving grace. Then pray that the Holy Spirit will so work in their hearts and minds that they will indeed understand what it means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone and be saved. Acts 16:31; Heb. 7:25. Preach that Gospel! Separate from all those who proclaim any other! "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).
I found this at this web site.
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm
Born of the Spirit, Baptised in the Spirit
Every true Christian is born of the Spirit. As such they have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in a number of important ways. These ways include but are not limited to: conviction, regeneration and the witness of the Spirit in our lives that we are children of God. However, the dimension of power that God wants for His children can only be reached through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39). Even though some Christians achieve results without the actual baptism in the Holy Spirit, they would achieve more if they yielded to God so as to receive the Baptism in the Spirit. It is possible for a Christian to recognise many aspects of the Holy Spirit's work and enjoy a measure of His blessing in life and ministry, without ever being baptised in the Spirit in the Biblical way.
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.
We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition - even "evangelical tradition" - to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.
Biblical proof that these are Separate Works
Although the Bible does give examples of people who were baptised in the Spirit at the same time as their regeneration, we will see that this is not always what happens. The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although all part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time. It is interesting to note that in Acts, where the Baptism in the Spirit happens to believers at the time of their conversion, the Bible puts emphasis on the fact that the apostles knew they were baptised in the Spirit "for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46; Acts 11:15- 16). We certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, we can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It is important to state that every true born again Christian has the Holy Spirit. "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is given by God "to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). To receive Christ is an act of obedience by which the person submits to the work of the cross and becomes a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The Holy Spirit enters our human spirit when we are born again of the Spirit of God (John 3). Jesus comes into us by his Spirit (John 1:12). As we grow in Christ we produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22,23).
However, there is an empowering by the Holy Spirit which is distinct from being born of God. We get authority (exousia) to be sons of God at the new birth (John 1:12), but we receive power (dunamis) after the Holy Spirit comes upon us and we are filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8)
The apostles received the Holy Spirit in regeneration before the ascension when Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22). They were born again of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1Peter 1:3) at that time. But this was before the day of Pentecost. Jesus told them later to wait for the Promise of the Father in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after they had received the Spirit in regeneration. Therefore in the case of the apostles, the Baptism in the Spirit and being born of the Spirit were two separate events. They were born of the Spirit in John 20:22 before the ascension, but were baptised in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost after the ascension. And it is important to note that only then was the promise of Mark 16:17 fulfilled in the lives of the believers then, for beginning at Pentecost "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4).
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
Some point out that no record is made of speaking in tongues in this Biblical account. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Some early church writers said it did. But what we should learn from this account is that no matter how wonderful our salvation experience of turning to the Lord was, we should not be satisfied with that, but we should go on in God until we receive the Spirit in mighty demonstration and power.
Further proof that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not always or even usually occur at the moment of repentance and faith can be seen in the life of Paul (formerly Saul). Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and confessed Him as Lord, which meant he was converted (Acts 9:3-8; Rom. 10:9). But God knew that was not all that Paul needed, Three days later, God had Ananias lay hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). But did Paul speak in tongues then? Let Paul himself speak here. In writing to the Corinthians he said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." (1 Corinthians 14:18). Not so much in church, of course, but outside the meetings in private so as to build himself up. In this way, his preaching was both understadable and powerful (1 Corinthians 14:19; 2:1-4).
Cornelius' household and close friends were baptised in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion. How did Peter know this? "For he heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." (Acts 10:46). These people received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles (Acts 10:47). Peter realised that they were not only born again, but also baptised in the Holy Spirit, at that time (Acts 11:15,16). Why? "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnifying God" (Acts 10:46). That settled the issue for Peter. In the Bible, the speaking in unknown tongues is a Biblical sign of the true New Testament baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Mark 16:17). Let us remember that God did not trust the writing of the New Testament to anyone who did not speak in tongues. And people who despise tongues because their churches don't believe in it make the same kind of mistake as those in formal traditionalistic churches who reject the idea of regeneration by the Spirit at the moment of repentance and faith because it contradicts the long-held dogmas of the church. The Bible must settle the issue - not our traditions, theologies and lack of experience. And the Bible says, "Desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:39).
The Ephesian believers in Acts 19 were not true Christians in the full sense of the word when Paul met them. They only knew the John's baptism of repentance. They did not even know there was given a Holy Spirit. After Paul explained to them about Jesus "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19:5,6). Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. He showed them their need to be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit. Once again, speaking in tongues is revealed to have accompanied this initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the believers.
To add to the testimony of the Scriptures, there are, scattered throughout church history, and especially in this 20th century, there are many thousands and now tens of millions of people who have testified to having received this power from God some time after their initial conversion to Christ.
In summary then, the Scripture shows that being born of God is not always happening at the same time as being baptised in the Spirit. The Scripture further shows that it is always desirable and God's will for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be clothed with the power of God and to speak with other tongues. (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 14:5a). All this and much more is promised to the believer who earnestly seeks a relationship of submission to the Word of God and to the Holy Spirit.
So this last part is about the spiritual baptism , and where I mention about the Spiritual baptism in acts is included here, only I think I took it step by step more deeper, but this web site has good information and facts.
I have found this here if you what to research on this.
http://christian-bible-studies.com/holy_spirit_baptism/Holy-Spirit.html#born_or_baptised
God Bless
Last edited:
Come on!!!
Who wants to read all that!
At least try to make your own argument. Any body can copy and paste someone elses rantings! It would have been better to sum up what was said on these web sites and then given the links. That way we can decide if we want to read THE ENTIRE THING or not! As it is, I for one am not reading it!
Say more with fewer words!
God Bless!
Who wants to read all that!
At least try to make your own argument. Any body can copy and paste someone elses rantings! It would have been better to sum up what was said on these web sites and then given the links. That way we can decide if we want to read THE ENTIRE THING or not! As it is, I for one am not reading it!
Say more with fewer words!
God Bless!
c.moore
New member
Hello kevin
Let me break it down again more in colors so you can see your errors.
I thought i could give you some food by the lessons, so sense that didn´t work let me give you the milk bottle,
Ac:8:5: Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
So admitted you seen this Amen
Ac:8:6: And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
you see here is Philip , not John and Peter AMEM!
Ac:8:7: For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
Ac:8:8: And there was great joy in that city.
Can you see this is still happening in Samaria???
AMEN!
Ac:8:9: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
Now simon comes into the picture, and he is not an believer yet also this is still in the same city Samaria.
Are you with me and the bible????
AMEN!
Ac:8:10: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Ac:8:11: And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
Taking about Simon here can you see that in the same city Samaria
Ac:8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Now we are back to Philip, not John or Peter.
The people here heard the good news and about Jesus death burial resurrection the name of Jesus Christ , they got spiritual baptized at that moment.
this is still in Samaria same place same people.
Amen!
Ac:8:13: Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now Simon believed also , and he was spiritual baptized as well, but Simon wanted the powers, like Philip with signs and wounders,
But notice the words here in this verse he continued with Philip, meaning they traveled and was not at the same city they left Samaria together.
Amen!
Ac:8:14: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Now I hope you see your error here .
because you keep claiming the apostle John and peter went to samaria and baptized the Samaria people , but let drink some milk here.
apostles which were at Jerusalem
Now kevin what does this mean to you?
Does this mean the Apostle in Samaria???
Notice it was the Word recieve that was also important in Samaria, but the people want this word and spiritual baptism like the Samarians.
That why the apostle in Jerusalem sent for Peter and John to come to Jerusalem.
they sent unto them Peter and John:
Jerusalem heard that Samaria
Now if it was the other way around that samaria had heard of jerusalem you might have been close to being correct .
Ac:8:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
now we see that Peter and John arrived in Jerusalem, can you see that or do you need glasses???
The first thing they did is come to recieve the Holy spirit baptism not a in the name of the Lord water baptism.
you must also remember the apostle ask for them to come so they can have the same baptism as the people in Samaria so this is proof of the new Spirtual baptism .
Ac:8:16: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
so the Holy spirit has not fallen on none of who Kevin??
Remember where John and Peter is at in Jereusalem not Samaria, and the Holy spirit baptism was truly there because Peter , and John was baptised before like you mention but the Holy Spirit was not recieved in Jesrusalem yet, just like some diciple were baptized by water and never even heard of a Holy spirit, but that doesn´t mean it didn´t come, only it didn`t fall on certain places or people , and believers yet.
I don`t know why you don`t see that these are two different places , and different people , but this is important to know in your christian growth.
For as yet he was fallen upon none of them
Ac:8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Here we see the laying of hand the people of Jerusalem recieving the Holy spirit baptism in that city not Samaria.
God Bless
Let me break it down again more in colors so you can see your errors.
I thought i could give you some food by the lessons, so sense that didn´t work let me give you the milk bottle,
Ac:8:5: Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
So admitted you seen this Amen
Ac:8:6: And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
you see here is Philip , not John and Peter AMEM!
Ac:8:7: For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
Ac:8:8: And there was great joy in that city.
Can you see this is still happening in Samaria???
AMEN!
Ac:8:9: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
Now simon comes into the picture, and he is not an believer yet also this is still in the same city Samaria.
Are you with me and the bible????
AMEN!
Ac:8:10: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Ac:8:11: And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
Taking about Simon here can you see that in the same city Samaria
Ac:8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Now we are back to Philip, not John or Peter.
The people here heard the good news and about Jesus death burial resurrection the name of Jesus Christ , they got spiritual baptized at that moment.
this is still in Samaria same place same people.
Amen!
Ac:8:13: Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now Simon believed also , and he was spiritual baptized as well, but Simon wanted the powers, like Philip with signs and wounders,
But notice the words here in this verse he continued with Philip, meaning they traveled and was not at the same city they left Samaria together.
Amen!
Ac:8:14: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Now I hope you see your error here .
because you keep claiming the apostle John and peter went to samaria and baptized the Samaria people , but let drink some milk here.
apostles which were at Jerusalem
Now kevin what does this mean to you?
Does this mean the Apostle in Samaria???
Notice it was the Word recieve that was also important in Samaria, but the people want this word and spiritual baptism like the Samarians.
That why the apostle in Jerusalem sent for Peter and John to come to Jerusalem.
they sent unto them Peter and John:
Jerusalem heard that Samaria
Now if it was the other way around that samaria had heard of jerusalem you might have been close to being correct .
Ac:8:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
now we see that Peter and John arrived in Jerusalem, can you see that or do you need glasses???
The first thing they did is come to recieve the Holy spirit baptism not a in the name of the Lord water baptism.
you must also remember the apostle ask for them to come so they can have the same baptism as the people in Samaria so this is proof of the new Spirtual baptism .
Ac:8:16: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
so the Holy spirit has not fallen on none of who Kevin??
Remember where John and Peter is at in Jereusalem not Samaria, and the Holy spirit baptism was truly there because Peter , and John was baptised before like you mention but the Holy Spirit was not recieved in Jesrusalem yet, just like some diciple were baptized by water and never even heard of a Holy spirit, but that doesn´t mean it didn´t come, only it didn`t fall on certain places or people , and believers yet.
I don`t know why you don`t see that these are two different places , and different people , but this is important to know in your christian growth.
For as yet he was fallen upon none of them
Ac:8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Here we see the laying of hand the people of Jerusalem recieving the Holy spirit baptism in that city not Samaria.
God Bless
c.moore
New member
I did some it up and if you look at the top of the post you will see my quote , and then i copy and paste just in case anybody say`s the links didn`t work , and I didn´t copy all of the web site only the points i mention before in my last post before this one to Kevin, about Acts 2, and 10 which he has taken out of contexts.
I know you are not a reader as you mention , but thanks for the advice you meant well, praise God.
For people really looking for the truth would read it specially when they are doing researches on a topic.
God bless
I beg your pardon, but what would a person who was "not a reader" be doing on this web site!
Unless I misunderstand the purpose, this is supposed to be a discussion, not a disertation or research paper.
I'm happy to read and to follow your points and respond in kind. I just don't think it necessary to be so long winded. You'll be far more persuasive if you don't glaze everybodies eyes over with voluminous posts!
That is all beside the point anyway. I would love to see a response to my original post concerning following rules. We are saved by faith alone. No works of anykind figure into it, including water baptism!
If you get water baptiised in order to establish, maintain, improve, or modify your relationship with Christ then you are attempting to add to the work done at Calvary and are saying, in effect, that what Christ did at the cross was great and all but I'm going to do this (get baptised, tythe, go to church EVERY Sunday, not smoke, not drink, or what ever) to round out the package.
Its very close to blasphemy! Don't you think?
c.moore
New member
I agree whole hearted with you my friend.:thumb:
We do see thing eye to eye here ,but don´t tell kevin that , because these water diving people think they must do good works first to be accepted or win salvation.
Like Kevin say`s first obey and then maybe you might get accepted , and this wasexplained in those paste and copy how hereitic and demonic this is to ghet salvation by good works, and rituals.
Keep up the good work , and i praise God you know about the good new and the free gift, and grace of God.
Be blessed
Shalom
Kevin
New member
Clete Pfeiffer,
That's the problem with skimming. Many things are overlooked when one skims. I've laid down solid Biblical agruments to show indeed that obedience to Christ is vital to our salvation, and not faith "only". You have not addressed a single one of them.
Based upon a set of rules? No. It's based on faith. Where the differences lie between people such as yourself, Freak, and C.Moore is what kind of faith is being spoken of hear. My positioin is that it's faith that produces obedience to Christ's commandments that saves a person. You guys say that faith "only" is enough to save.
Since you skimmed I'll bring a couple of my arguments to illustrate my points:
1 John 2:3-4 (MKJV)
3) And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
4) He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Now, this clearly shows how we know whether or not we know Christ - if we keep His commandments. This passage makes it quite clear that people who don't keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is NOT in them. Liars won't be in Heaven. There is no way that a person can make it to heaven by faith only, for if they have faith only, and don't keep his commandments, they are liars (see above) and have a dead faith (James 2).
This alludes to the scripture:
Hebrews 5:9 (MKJV)
9) And being perfected, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,
and...
Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
Loving God and obeying His commandments go hand in hand. If you leave out obedience, you do NOT love Him:
John 14:15 (MKJV)
15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.
If you don't keep His commandments, you don't love Him, and the truth is not in you (1 John 2:3-4).
Well, I'm glad to see that water baptism isn't a great evil thing. However when people defend it's necessity for salvation, it is NOT doing Christ a disservice, because Christ is the One Who commanded it in Matt. 28:19-20.
Why do you think Christ commanded that we be baptized? I can show that it's for the remission of sins, and by baptism we crucify the old man that we may no longer be slaves of sin, but alive to God through Christ (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-11).
Having your sins forgiven is absolutely nessesary for salvation, which is why He commanded baptism. Baptism is the means by which we have our sins forgiven. By performing this act, we are washed clean by His blood.
Amen and Amen. He's done that in the past too.
Oh, don't worry, I won't ignore your arguments like some have ignored mine. I wouldn't let your post go unanswered.
Yes, we are saved by faith, but not by faith only. Again, where we disagree is what kind of faith is being spoken of, as I explained above. Here's something else to show that works plays a part in our salvation:
Matt. 25: 41-46 (MKJV)
41) 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.
It's quite clear that Christ sent these people to Hell for their lack of good works. The root of the problem is their faith - it didn't include obedience to Chist's commandments, which in this case, was to love one another. If they truly loved one another, they would have administered to those people with good works on not been cast into hell. Faith produces good works, because we have faith in Him and we love Him. But the Bible makes it quite clear that if you love Chrsit, then He expects you to keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that he who claims to know Christ and does not keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:3-4). This goes hand in hand with what the apostle James speaks of in chapter 2 - that faith without works is dead. Faith only doesn't cut the mustard.
I would hardly call what Christ commanded (Matt. 28:19-20), what Christ included in the requirements for salvation (Mark 16:16), and what the apostles obeyed by baptizing people in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), blasphemy. :down: Not even close.
That's the problem with skimming. Many things are overlooked when one skims. I've laid down solid Biblical agruments to show indeed that obedience to Christ is vital to our salvation, and not faith "only". You have not addressed a single one of them.
Based upon a set of rules? No. It's based on faith. Where the differences lie between people such as yourself, Freak, and C.Moore is what kind of faith is being spoken of hear. My positioin is that it's faith that produces obedience to Christ's commandments that saves a person. You guys say that faith "only" is enough to save.
Since you skimmed I'll bring a couple of my arguments to illustrate my points:
1 John 2:3-4 (MKJV)
3) And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments.
4) He who says, I have known Him, and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Now, this clearly shows how we know whether or not we know Christ - if we keep His commandments. This passage makes it quite clear that people who don't keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is NOT in them. Liars won't be in Heaven. There is no way that a person can make it to heaven by faith only, for if they have faith only, and don't keep his commandments, they are liars (see above) and have a dead faith (James 2).
This alludes to the scripture:
Hebrews 5:9 (MKJV)
9) And being perfected, He became the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him,
and...
Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
Loving God and obeying His commandments go hand in hand. If you leave out obedience, you do NOT love Him:
John 14:15 (MKJV)
15) If you love Me, keep My commandments.
If you don't keep His commandments, you don't love Him, and the truth is not in you (1 John 2:3-4).
Well, I'm glad to see that water baptism isn't a great evil thing. However when people defend it's necessity for salvation, it is NOT doing Christ a disservice, because Christ is the One Who commanded it in Matt. 28:19-20.
Why do you think Christ commanded that we be baptized? I can show that it's for the remission of sins, and by baptism we crucify the old man that we may no longer be slaves of sin, but alive to God through Christ (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-11).
Having your sins forgiven is absolutely nessesary for salvation, which is why He commanded baptism. Baptism is the means by which we have our sins forgiven. By performing this act, we are washed clean by His blood.
Amen and Amen. He's done that in the past too.
Oh, don't worry, I won't ignore your arguments like some have ignored mine. I wouldn't let your post go unanswered.
Yes, we are saved by faith, but not by faith only. Again, where we disagree is what kind of faith is being spoken of, as I explained above. Here's something else to show that works plays a part in our salvation:
Matt. 25: 41-46 (MKJV)
41) 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.
It's quite clear that Christ sent these people to Hell for their lack of good works. The root of the problem is their faith - it didn't include obedience to Chist's commandments, which in this case, was to love one another. If they truly loved one another, they would have administered to those people with good works on not been cast into hell. Faith produces good works, because we have faith in Him and we love Him. But the Bible makes it quite clear that if you love Chrsit, then He expects you to keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that he who claims to know Christ and does not keep His commandments are liars, and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:3-4). This goes hand in hand with what the apostle James speaks of in chapter 2 - that faith without works is dead. Faith only doesn't cut the mustard.
I would hardly call what Christ commanded (Matt. 28:19-20), what Christ included in the requirements for salvation (Mark 16:16), and what the apostles obeyed by baptizing people in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), blasphemy. :down: Not even close.
Kevin,
Excellent response to my post!
I disagree with you however.
All of the scripture you quote is saying exactly what you say its saying! The problem is that its not saying it to you! You are not a member of the nation of Israel. You are a member of the Body of Christ!
Confusing this issue is the primary cause of virtually every doctrinal debate in the church today!
Paul lays down a gospel that is about faith ONLY.
Romans 4:4-5 "4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,"
Peter, James, and John preach the gospel of the Kingdom (which was in effect when they where called) to their converts. It is the same Gopsel that Jesus preached "repent and be baptised" and "obey...commandments" etc.
James 2:14,2 "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" "24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
With out an understanding of not only what is being said but who it is being said to, these two scripture references are irreconcilable!
Both sections of scripture are talking about salvation and what that salvation is based upon. The only way they both say what they seem to say is if Gal. 2:9 is applied to them.
Gal. 2:9 "and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Circumcised."
Excellent response to my post!
I disagree with you however.
All of the scripture you quote is saying exactly what you say its saying! The problem is that its not saying it to you! You are not a member of the nation of Israel. You are a member of the Body of Christ!
Confusing this issue is the primary cause of virtually every doctrinal debate in the church today!
Paul lays down a gospel that is about faith ONLY.
Romans 4:4-5 "4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,"
Peter, James, and John preach the gospel of the Kingdom (which was in effect when they where called) to their converts. It is the same Gopsel that Jesus preached "repent and be baptised" and "obey...commandments" etc.
James 2:14,2 "14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" "24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."
With out an understanding of not only what is being said but who it is being said to, these two scripture references are irreconcilable!
Both sections of scripture are talking about salvation and what that salvation is based upon. The only way they both say what they seem to say is if Gal. 2:9 is applied to them.
Gal. 2:9 "and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Circumcised."
Last edited:
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Well that's because I found your "food" to be rotten, and not good for consumption... just like your faith only doctrine. I'm guessing your milk will be spoiled too, but we'll see.
Yup.
Well of course.
Yup.
Yup. Still there.
Yup.
Ac:8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Well of course... John and Peter haven't even been entered into the scene! And I noticed that you inserted that the people of Samaria were "Spirit" baptized. It doesn't say that, it only says they were baptized. So all we have to do is find out what baptism is being spoken of here. I can already smell your milk, and it smells sour and spoiled, similar to your "meat".
Again, you are asserting that Simon and the rest of the Samaritans were Spirit baptized, which you have no proof of.
Put your rotten milk away open your ears, please. First of all, there were no apostles in Samaria. Philip was not an apostle, he was selected by the apostles to help serve in Acts 6:
Acts 6:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And the saying pleased all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch.
6) They set these before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid hands on them.
Philip what chosen and the apostles laid hands on him, so he received the HS. That's why he was able to do the miracles in front of the Samaritan in Acts 8.
Now, getting back to Acts 8. You asked what verse 14 mean to me. It means that the apostles in Jerusalem got word that there were those in Samaria that had received the faith, so they sent Peter and John. Why were Peter and John sent? The very next verse answers that:
Acts 8:15 (MKJV)
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Who had come down? Verse 14 says that it was Peter and John, sent from Jerusalem. Show me proof that Samaria sent someone to Jerusalem, or anywhere else.
So, when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, they prayed and laid hands upon THEM that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Who is "them"? It's either the Samaritans, or the apostles who were sent from Jerusalem. Which one, c.moore?
I say that it was the Samaritans, for it clearly says that Jerusalem sent Peter and John down to them to pray for THEM that they might receive the HS. If you think it's Peter and John who need to be Spirit baptized, you're in a world of hurt, for they had already been Spirit baptized in the beginning of Acts 2!
So you think that Peter and John were sent TO Jerusalem, and not FROM Jerusalem?! :doh: Please, stop drinking your milk and look again:
Acts 8:14 (MKJV)
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
Who heard that Samaria had receieved the word of God? The apostles IN JERUSALEM. What did they do when they heard that Samaria had received the word? They, the apostles IN JERUSALEM, sent Peter and John to them - the Samaritans who had received the word of God!!! Can't you see that?! It clearly says that the apostles IN JERUSALEM sent Peter and John to "them" when they found out that the SAMARITANS had received the word of God! How far will you go to pervert what is plainly written?!
Again, the apostles IN JERUSALEM sent Peter and John BECAUSE the apostles IN JERUSALEM heard that Samaria had received the word.
Peter and John were sent by the apostles IN JERUSALEM. Why would they send Peter and John to Jerusalem when they were already there? You need some SERIOUS help. That's just sad that you are so opposed to the truth that you can't see where Peter and John came from. Sad. Ask your friends... read commentary on that verse... do something.... WAKE UP!
So you're saying the apsotles in Jerusalem needed to be Spirit baptized?!!!! Do yourself a FAVOR and read the beginning of Acts 2! They had already been Spirit baptized!
The "people of Jerusalem" that is spoken of in Acts 8 are the apostles, and you think THEY needed to be Spirit baptized?! What a desperate, ludicrous arguement. You seriously need to clean out your refrigerator of your meat and milk... it's rotten and useless. Wake c.moore, wake up!
Well that's because I found your "food" to be rotten, and not good for consumption... just like your faith only doctrine. I'm guessing your milk will be spoiled too, but we'll see.
Yup.
Well of course.
Yup.
Yup. Still there.
Yup.
Ac:8:12: But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Well of course... John and Peter haven't even been entered into the scene! And I noticed that you inserted that the people of Samaria were "Spirit" baptized. It doesn't say that, it only says they were baptized. So all we have to do is find out what baptism is being spoken of here. I can already smell your milk, and it smells sour and spoiled, similar to your "meat".
Again, you are asserting that Simon and the rest of the Samaritans were Spirit baptized, which you have no proof of.
Put your rotten milk away open your ears, please. First of all, there were no apostles in Samaria. Philip was not an apostle, he was selected by the apostles to help serve in Acts 6:
Acts 6:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And the saying pleased all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch.
6) They set these before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid hands on them.
Philip what chosen and the apostles laid hands on him, so he received the HS. That's why he was able to do the miracles in front of the Samaritan in Acts 8.
Now, getting back to Acts 8. You asked what verse 14 mean to me. It means that the apostles in Jerusalem got word that there were those in Samaria that had received the faith, so they sent Peter and John. Why were Peter and John sent? The very next verse answers that:
Acts 8:15 (MKJV)
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Who had come down? Verse 14 says that it was Peter and John, sent from Jerusalem. Show me proof that Samaria sent someone to Jerusalem, or anywhere else.
So, when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, they prayed and laid hands upon THEM that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Who is "them"? It's either the Samaritans, or the apostles who were sent from Jerusalem. Which one, c.moore?
I say that it was the Samaritans, for it clearly says that Jerusalem sent Peter and John down to them to pray for THEM that they might receive the HS. If you think it's Peter and John who need to be Spirit baptized, you're in a world of hurt, for they had already been Spirit baptized in the beginning of Acts 2!
So you think that Peter and John were sent TO Jerusalem, and not FROM Jerusalem?! :doh: Please, stop drinking your milk and look again:
Acts 8:14 (MKJV)
14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
Who heard that Samaria had receieved the word of God? The apostles IN JERUSALEM. What did they do when they heard that Samaria had received the word? They, the apostles IN JERUSALEM, sent Peter and John to them - the Samaritans who had received the word of God!!! Can't you see that?! It clearly says that the apostles IN JERUSALEM sent Peter and John to "them" when they found out that the SAMARITANS had received the word of God! How far will you go to pervert what is plainly written?!
Again, the apostles IN JERUSALEM sent Peter and John BECAUSE the apostles IN JERUSALEM heard that Samaria had received the word.
Peter and John were sent by the apostles IN JERUSALEM. Why would they send Peter and John to Jerusalem when they were already there? You need some SERIOUS help. That's just sad that you are so opposed to the truth that you can't see where Peter and John came from. Sad. Ask your friends... read commentary on that verse... do something.... WAKE UP!
So you're saying the apsotles in Jerusalem needed to be Spirit baptized?!!!! Do yourself a FAVOR and read the beginning of Acts 2! They had already been Spirit baptized!
The "people of Jerusalem" that is spoken of in Acts 8 are the apostles, and you think THEY needed to be Spirit baptized?! What a desperate, ludicrous arguement. You seriously need to clean out your refrigerator of your meat and milk... it's rotten and useless. Wake c.moore, wake up!
Kevin
New member
Clete Pfeiffer,
Thank you for your compliment. I will continue to do my best to give you direct, clear, Biblically backed agruments.
As far as you disagreeing, heh, we are in the perfect place for disagreements - a debate forum.
Thank you, you don't know what that means to me. Some of my other opponents refuse to see what is plainly written before their eyes. Freak won't answer a simple question(s) and C.Moore is REALLY confused... he doesn't even realize that in (Acts 8: 14) that the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria (see above).
Ah yes... the dispy (dispensationalist) agrument. You are what some would call a "Paulist". As you disagree with me, I disagree with you that there were 2 dispensations after the death on the cross.
Actually, nowhere does Paul say that the gospel is about faith "only". You guys like to add the word "only", but it just isn't there. The question is, what kind of faith is Paul speaking of? Take the account of Abraham, in which both Paul and James mention Abraham, and how his faith justified him in the eyes of God:
Paul's account:
Romans 4:3 (MKJV)
3) For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."
James account:
James 2:21-23 (MKJV)
21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22) Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
23) And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God."
Now, both James and Paul, who you assert taught different gospels, both give an acount of the same person (Abraham). Now, for your position to be true, one of these accounts has to be heresy, because Paul says Abraham's justification comes by faith, and James says that Abraham's justification came by faith and works.
So either James or Paul is wrong on their account of Abraham, OR, the kind of faith Paul is speaking of is faith that has works, which James says that works perfects faith.
Remember, Abraham was justified when he lived, so the accountance of him being justfied would be according to that moment. What I'm getting at is that Abraham wasn't justifed by faith AND works as James says, and then when Paul came along supposedly preaching a different gospel, God would not change the way Abraham was justified.
The only way to reconcile this is that Abraham was justified by faith and works, which perfected his faith, making him a friend of God. That's the kind of faith that Paul speaks of, not faith "only".
In fact look at what Paul told the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Paul clearly states here that keeping the commandments of God is what's important. This goes right in line with my first post to you, and Paul's saying this too.
Regarding your reference to Romans 4:4-5, Paul is simply saying that justification does not come by works, but rather faith. That's because if you work, but don't have faith in Christ, your work is counted as debt. Faith and works is true faith, and justifies you in the sight of God. Paul is not saying that obedience to commandments is not needed, or that it will be counted as debt, for look at the scripture that I just showed you where Paul says what matter is keeping the commandments of God!
Also, when I referenced Matt. 25: 41-48 in my last post, which you said you agreed with, do you not realize that this is speaking of Judgement Day, which includes ALL nations (Gentiles)? It starts in verse 32. All the nations were gathered and judged (Gentiles included), and those people who did not do good works to mankind were thrown into hell. Again, it was because they failed to keep the commandments of Christ, in that case - love one another. They had a dead faith. This just bolsters what James is saying - that faith without works is dead. Dead faith doesn't save, as seen in this account.
This is not to say that there are two gospels being spoken of here, but rather it's the same good news (gospel) for two different groups of people with different backgrouds. Obviously the way the gospel was presented to both groups were different in approach, but they spoke about the same gospel.
Then there's the book of Revelation, which was recorded by John, but yet had messages for Gentile churches! Why wasn't Paul commissioned to do this? Also, the book of Revelation is quite clear that we are judged by our works and that those who do His commandments will have rights to the tree of life:
Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.
Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
Obedience has always been expected by God. The disobedient will never inherit the kingdom of God, and you cannot be obedient to God without keeping His commandments.
Thank you for your compliment. I will continue to do my best to give you direct, clear, Biblically backed agruments.
As far as you disagreeing, heh, we are in the perfect place for disagreements - a debate forum.
Thank you, you don't know what that means to me. Some of my other opponents refuse to see what is plainly written before their eyes. Freak won't answer a simple question(s) and C.Moore is REALLY confused... he doesn't even realize that in (Acts 8: 14) that the apostles in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to Samaria (see above).
Ah yes... the dispy (dispensationalist) agrument. You are what some would call a "Paulist". As you disagree with me, I disagree with you that there were 2 dispensations after the death on the cross.
Actually, nowhere does Paul say that the gospel is about faith "only". You guys like to add the word "only", but it just isn't there. The question is, what kind of faith is Paul speaking of? Take the account of Abraham, in which both Paul and James mention Abraham, and how his faith justified him in the eyes of God:
Paul's account:
Romans 4:3 (MKJV)
3) For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness."
James account:
James 2:21-23 (MKJV)
21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22) Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
23) And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God."
Now, both James and Paul, who you assert taught different gospels, both give an acount of the same person (Abraham). Now, for your position to be true, one of these accounts has to be heresy, because Paul says Abraham's justification comes by faith, and James says that Abraham's justification came by faith and works.
So either James or Paul is wrong on their account of Abraham, OR, the kind of faith Paul is speaking of is faith that has works, which James says that works perfects faith.
Remember, Abraham was justified when he lived, so the accountance of him being justfied would be according to that moment. What I'm getting at is that Abraham wasn't justifed by faith AND works as James says, and then when Paul came along supposedly preaching a different gospel, God would not change the way Abraham was justified.
The only way to reconcile this is that Abraham was justified by faith and works, which perfected his faith, making him a friend of God. That's the kind of faith that Paul speaks of, not faith "only".
In fact look at what Paul told the Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 7:19 (KJV)
19) Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Paul clearly states here that keeping the commandments of God is what's important. This goes right in line with my first post to you, and Paul's saying this too.
Regarding your reference to Romans 4:4-5, Paul is simply saying that justification does not come by works, but rather faith. That's because if you work, but don't have faith in Christ, your work is counted as debt. Faith and works is true faith, and justifies you in the sight of God. Paul is not saying that obedience to commandments is not needed, or that it will be counted as debt, for look at the scripture that I just showed you where Paul says what matter is keeping the commandments of God!
Also, when I referenced Matt. 25: 41-48 in my last post, which you said you agreed with, do you not realize that this is speaking of Judgement Day, which includes ALL nations (Gentiles)? It starts in verse 32. All the nations were gathered and judged (Gentiles included), and those people who did not do good works to mankind were thrown into hell. Again, it was because they failed to keep the commandments of Christ, in that case - love one another. They had a dead faith. This just bolsters what James is saying - that faith without works is dead. Dead faith doesn't save, as seen in this account.
This is not to say that there are two gospels being spoken of here, but rather it's the same good news (gospel) for two different groups of people with different backgrouds. Obviously the way the gospel was presented to both groups were different in approach, but they spoke about the same gospel.
Then there's the book of Revelation, which was recorded by John, but yet had messages for Gentile churches! Why wasn't Paul commissioned to do this? Also, the book of Revelation is quite clear that we are judged by our works and that those who do His commandments will have rights to the tree of life:
Revelation 20:12-13 (MKJV)
12) And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13) And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works.
Revelation 22:14 (MKJV)
14) Blessed are they who do His commandments, that their authority will be over the Tree of Life, and they may enter in by the gates into the city.
Obedience has always been expected by God. The disobedient will never inherit the kingdom of God, and you cannot be obedient to God without keeping His commandments.
Kevin,
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel as the Twelve then what was the point of bringing him into the picture to begin with. Peter, James and John were specifically told by Christ to go and preach the Gospel to the whole world. They didn’t do it though. Instead they decided it would be better for them to stay in Jerusalem and preach to the circumcision believers and they sent Paul to the rest of the world.
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why did God reveal it to him personally. Why didn’t the twelve teach it to him? All twelve (including Matthias) had the Holy Spirit come upon them in Acts 2, so any one of them would certainly have been able to convey the Gospel to Paul but instead Paul makes a very big deal out of the fact that he was not from the twelve or any one else but from God!
Galatians 1:11-12 & 15-20 “11 But I certify you, brethren that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”… 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why didn’t Peter get it?
Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why did he call it “My Gospel” instead of “the Gospel”, and why would he say things like “follow me as I follow Christ”? The twelve are never recorded as saying such things as “follow us”. We are never exhorted to follow Peter, or James, or John, or any Apostle except Paul. Why Paul?
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then he was unnecessary and redundant, serving more to confuse than anything else.
I could go on and on like this for quite some time, but I think the point has been made.
As for Abraham…
I make it a practice not to post lengthy quotes from other people’s work in order to make my points but I am going to make an exception here because the following quote is both clearer and shorter than what I would write on my own. It also addresses the rest of your post except for the Revelation part which I’ll get to.
From: THE PLOT by Bob Enyart (Let me just insert here that I have taken the liberty of quoting this author’s work without permission! If the author sees or hears of this quotation and would rather I not do so in the future please let me know and I will of course comply.)
Abraham Is the Father of Two Groups
The two methods for justification, faith plus works and faith alone, are illustrated in Abraham who is the father of both groups of believers, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision (Rom. 4: 11-12). If someone is justified after he is circumcised (as a religious ritual), Paul writes that such justification is a result of works and not faith only.
God must impute righteousness to a person for him to obtain salvation. Describing this process, Paul uses Abraham as an illustration of how to obtain righteousness. Paul quoted the Old Testament:
“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Rom. 4:3 from Gen. 15:6
Paul emphasizes that Abraham believed (only) and it was accounted to him for righteousness. However, was this before or after Abraham was circumcised? Paul points out this question as a vital matter. For if Abraham was already circumcised, then Paul’s point about him being justified by faith alone would fail. The point would fail because circumcision was a work God required. Without the work of circumcision, God would judge and not justify a man (Gen. 17.14).
That is why Paul brings up the question:
“How then was it (righteousness) accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.” Rom. 4:10
For, Paul writes, Abraham is:
“….the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also…..Rom. 4:11
Further, Abraham is also:
“the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still circumcised.” Rom. 4:12
Notice that those of the circumcision both do works and have faith. Justification goes to both, those of the law, and those of faith, just as Abraham is father of both, those of the law, and those of faith. Therefore, both groups are secure in their position before God:
“…so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all…” Rom. 4:16
Notice there is a promise to two groups! There is the first group: “…those... of the law” and there is the second group: “…those… of the faith.” Both groups were in existence at the time of Paul’s writing. The Twelve and their converts who are “of the law” and Paul and his converts who are “of the faith.” As to the two groups being in existence at the time of Paul’s writing:
“…Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman… which things are symbolic. For these are two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children… Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.” Gal. 4:22-29
So it was at the time Paul wrote because sadly, some Circumcision Christians from Jerusalem would attempt to put members of the Body of Christ under the law, persecuting them and treating those who resisted like heathens.
God told Abraham he would have many descendants (Gen. 15:5). Abraham believed God that he would have a great posterity (Gen. 15:6). Therefore, God imputed righteousness to him, through faith alone.
Paul uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith alone. To give that example, Paul uses an episode before Abraham’s circumcision (Gen 15:6). James, on the other hand, uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith plus works. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the alter?” (James 2:21). James looked at an episode after Abraham’s circumcision. For Genesis twenty-two follows Genesis seventeen.
To impute righteousness to someone, God requires that person to obey Him, whether he command is simply to believe, or to believe and do.
Eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3). A good relationship involves trusting and believing one another. If someone knows God, he will trust and obey Him. Hence, if someone believes God, he knows God, and therefore has eternal life. On the other hand, if God tells someone to circumcise (a work of the flesh) and that person refuses, it is easy to see that person does not believe or trust God, and therefore, that person is headed for hellfire. Not that a work of the flesh could save anyone, but that God required it before He would impute righteousness.
For members of the Body of Christ, however, God requires no work whatsoever, but faith only:
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…” Rom. 4:5
Okay now on to Revelation…
1. The book of Revelation was written by John who agreed to limit his ministry along with the rest of the twelve to Israel. (Gal. 2:9).
2. It was written not to Gentile churches but to Jewish ones. (Rev. 2:9, & 3:9)
3. The context is clearly in keeping with the law and the kingdom principles of the nation of Israel.
4. The teaching and warnings given by Christ are very much in keeping with that of the synoptic gospels, and the circumcision epistles. But are in open conflict with that taught by Paul. All seven letters to the seven churches start with “I know your works…”
I’ve been intentionally brief with regards to the book of Revelation because it has been my experience that when people bring up Revelation the conversation tends to veer off into wacko land and I want to avoid that.
God Bless You!
Clete
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel as the Twelve then what was the point of bringing him into the picture to begin with. Peter, James and John were specifically told by Christ to go and preach the Gospel to the whole world. They didn’t do it though. Instead they decided it would be better for them to stay in Jerusalem and preach to the circumcision believers and they sent Paul to the rest of the world.
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why did God reveal it to him personally. Why didn’t the twelve teach it to him? All twelve (including Matthias) had the Holy Spirit come upon them in Acts 2, so any one of them would certainly have been able to convey the Gospel to Paul but instead Paul makes a very big deal out of the fact that he was not from the twelve or any one else but from God!
Galatians 1:11-12 & 15-20 “11 But I certify you, brethren that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”… 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why didn’t Peter get it?
Galatians 2:11-14 “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then why did he call it “My Gospel” instead of “the Gospel”, and why would he say things like “follow me as I follow Christ”? The twelve are never recorded as saying such things as “follow us”. We are never exhorted to follow Peter, or James, or John, or any Apostle except Paul. Why Paul?
If Paul was preaching the same Gospel then he was unnecessary and redundant, serving more to confuse than anything else.
I could go on and on like this for quite some time, but I think the point has been made.
As for Abraham…
I make it a practice not to post lengthy quotes from other people’s work in order to make my points but I am going to make an exception here because the following quote is both clearer and shorter than what I would write on my own. It also addresses the rest of your post except for the Revelation part which I’ll get to.
From: THE PLOT by Bob Enyart (Let me just insert here that I have taken the liberty of quoting this author’s work without permission! If the author sees or hears of this quotation and would rather I not do so in the future please let me know and I will of course comply.)
Abraham Is the Father of Two Groups
The two methods for justification, faith plus works and faith alone, are illustrated in Abraham who is the father of both groups of believers, the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision (Rom. 4: 11-12). If someone is justified after he is circumcised (as a religious ritual), Paul writes that such justification is a result of works and not faith only.
God must impute righteousness to a person for him to obtain salvation. Describing this process, Paul uses Abraham as an illustration of how to obtain righteousness. Paul quoted the Old Testament:
“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Rom. 4:3 from Gen. 15:6
Paul emphasizes that Abraham believed (only) and it was accounted to him for righteousness. However, was this before or after Abraham was circumcised? Paul points out this question as a vital matter. For if Abraham was already circumcised, then Paul’s point about him being justified by faith alone would fail. The point would fail because circumcision was a work God required. Without the work of circumcision, God would judge and not justify a man (Gen. 17.14).
That is why Paul brings up the question:
“How then was it (righteousness) accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.” Rom. 4:10
For, Paul writes, Abraham is:
“….the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also…..Rom. 4:11
Further, Abraham is also:
“the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still circumcised.” Rom. 4:12
Notice that those of the circumcision both do works and have faith. Justification goes to both, those of the law, and those of faith, just as Abraham is father of both, those of the law, and those of faith. Therefore, both groups are secure in their position before God:
“…so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all…” Rom. 4:16
Notice there is a promise to two groups! There is the first group: “…those... of the law” and there is the second group: “…those… of the faith.” Both groups were in existence at the time of Paul’s writing. The Twelve and their converts who are “of the law” and Paul and his converts who are “of the faith.” As to the two groups being in existence at the time of Paul’s writing:
“…Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman… which things are symbolic. For these are two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children… Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.” Gal. 4:22-29
So it was at the time Paul wrote because sadly, some Circumcision Christians from Jerusalem would attempt to put members of the Body of Christ under the law, persecuting them and treating those who resisted like heathens.
God told Abraham he would have many descendants (Gen. 15:5). Abraham believed God that he would have a great posterity (Gen. 15:6). Therefore, God imputed righteousness to him, through faith alone.
Paul uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith alone. To give that example, Paul uses an episode before Abraham’s circumcision (Gen 15:6). James, on the other hand, uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith plus works. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the alter?” (James 2:21). James looked at an episode after Abraham’s circumcision. For Genesis twenty-two follows Genesis seventeen.
To impute righteousness to someone, God requires that person to obey Him, whether he command is simply to believe, or to believe and do.
Eternal life is knowing God (John 17:3). A good relationship involves trusting and believing one another. If someone knows God, he will trust and obey Him. Hence, if someone believes God, he knows God, and therefore has eternal life. On the other hand, if God tells someone to circumcise (a work of the flesh) and that person refuses, it is easy to see that person does not believe or trust God, and therefore, that person is headed for hellfire. Not that a work of the flesh could save anyone, but that God required it before He would impute righteousness.
For members of the Body of Christ, however, God requires no work whatsoever, but faith only:
“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness…” Rom. 4:5
Okay now on to Revelation…
1. The book of Revelation was written by John who agreed to limit his ministry along with the rest of the twelve to Israel. (Gal. 2:9).
2. It was written not to Gentile churches but to Jewish ones. (Rev. 2:9, & 3:9)
3. The context is clearly in keeping with the law and the kingdom principles of the nation of Israel.
4. The teaching and warnings given by Christ are very much in keeping with that of the synoptic gospels, and the circumcision epistles. But are in open conflict with that taught by Paul. All seven letters to the seven churches start with “I know your works…”
I’ve been intentionally brief with regards to the book of Revelation because it has been my experience that when people bring up Revelation the conversation tends to veer off into wacko land and I want to avoid that.
God Bless You!
Clete
c.moore
New member
Kevin Quoted
Put your rotten milk away open your ears, please. First of all, there were no apostles in Samaria. Philip was not an apostle, he was selected by the apostles to help serve in Acts 6:
Acts 6:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And the saying pleased all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch.
6) They set these before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid hands on them.
Philip what chosen and the apostles laid hands on him, so he received the HS. That's why he was able to do the miracles in front of the Samaritan in Acts 8.
Now, getting back to Acts 8. You asked what verse 14 mean to me. It means that the apostles in Jerusalem got word that there were those in Samaria that had received the faith, so they sent Peter and John. Why were Peter and John sent? The very next verse answers that:
Acts 8:15 (MKJV)
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Who had come down? Verse 14 says that it was Peter and John, sent from Jerusalem. Show me proof that Samaria sent someone to Jerusalem, or anywhere else.
So, when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, they prayed and laid hands upon THEM that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Who is "them"? It's either the Samaritans, or the apostles who were sent from Jerusalem. Which one, c.moore?
I say that it was the Samaritans, for it clearly says that Jerusalem sent Peter and John down to them to pray for THEM that they might receive the HS. If you think it's Peter and John who need to be Spirit baptized, you're in a world of hurt, for they had already been Spirit baptized in the beginning of Acts 2!
Quote c.moore
I woll ask my pastor how does he see this and I will gét backto you , maybe he has another way explainning.
IIf I am wrong I have not problem repenting, but I believe I am correct with the spiritual baptism, and that you putting water baptism in the name of Lord is out of context, but I will be back soon.
Hold you mules Kevin!
But do me a favor just read this throuigh becuase it talks about Act 2, and acts 8, and Mark 16.
Born of the Spirit, Baptised in the Spirit
Every true Christian is born of the Spirit. As such they have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in a number of important ways. These ways include but are not limited to: conviction, regeneration and the witness of the Spirit in our lives that we are children of God. However, the dimension of power that God wants for His children can only be reached through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39). Even though some Christians achieve results without the actual baptism in the Holy Spirit, they would achieve more if they yielded to God so as to receive the Baptism in the Spirit. It is possible for a Christian to recognise many aspects of the Holy Spirit's work and enjoy a measure of His blessing in life and ministry, without ever being baptised in the Spirit in the Biblical way.
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.
We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition - even "evangelical tradition" - to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.
Biblical proof that these are Separate Works
Although the Bible does give examples of people who were baptised in the Spirit at the same time as their regeneration, we will see that this is not always what happens. The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although all part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time. It is interesting to note that in Acts, where the Baptism in the Spirit happens to believers at the time of their conversion, the Bible puts emphasis on the fact that the apostles knew they were baptised in the Spirit "for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46; Acts 11:15- 16). We certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, we can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It is important to state that every true born again Christian has the Holy Spirit. "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is given by God "to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). To receive Christ is an act of obedience by which the person submits to the work of the cross and becomes a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The Holy Spirit enters our human spirit when we are born again of the Spirit of God (John 3). Jesus comes into us by his Spirit (John 1:12). As we grow in Christ we produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22,23).
However, there is an empowering by the Holy Spirit which is distinct from being born of God. We get authority (exousia) to be sons of God at the new birth (John 1:12), but we receive power (dunamis) after the Holy Spirit comes upon us and we are filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8)
The apostles received the Holy Spirit in regeneration before the ascension when Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22). They were born again of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1Peter 1:3) at that time. But this was before the day of Pentecost. Jesus told them later to wait for the Promise of the Father in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after they had received the Spirit in regeneration. Therefore in the case of the apostles, the Baptism in the Spirit and being born of the Spirit were two separate events. They were born of the Spirit in John 20:22 before the ascension, but were baptised in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost after the ascension. And it is important to note that only then was the promise of Mark 16:17 fulfilled in the lives of the believers then, for beginning at Pentecost "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4).
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
Some point out that no record is made of speaking in tongues in this Biblical account. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Some early church writers said it did. But what we should learn from this account is that no matter how wonderful our salvation experience of turning to the Lord was, we should not be satisfied with that, but we should go on in God until we receive the Spirit in mighty demonstration and power.
Further proof that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not always or even usually occur at the moment of repentance and faith can be seen in the life of Paul (formerly Saul). Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and confessed Him as Lord, which meant he was converted (Acts 9:3-8; Rom. 10:9). But God knew that was not all that Paul needed, Three days later, God had Ananias lay hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). But did Paul speak in tongues then? Let Paul himself speak here. In writing to the Corinthians he said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." (1 Corinthians 14:18). Not so much in church, of course, but outside the meetings in private so as to build himself up. In this way, his preaching was both understadable and powerful (1 Corinthians 14:19; 2:1-4).
Cornelius' household and close friends were baptised in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion. How did Peter know this? "For he heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." (Acts 10:46). These people received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles (Acts 10:47). Peter realised that they were not only born again, but also baptised in the Holy Spirit, at that time (Acts 11:15,16). Why? "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnifying God" (Acts 10:46). That settled the issue for Peter. In the Bible, the speaking in unknown tongues is a Biblical sign of the true New Testament baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Mark 16:17). Let us remember that God did not trust the writing of the New Testament to anyone who did not speak in tongues. And people who despise tongues because their churches don't believe in it make the same kind of mistake as those in formal traditionalistic churches who reject the idea of regeneration by the Spirit at the moment of repentance and faith because it contradicts the long-held dogmas of the church. The Bible must settle the issue - not our traditions, theologies and lack of experience. And the Bible says, "Desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:39).
The Ephesian believers in Acts 19 were not true Christians in the full sense of the word when Paul met them. They only knew the John's baptism of repentance. They did not even know there was given a Holy Spirit. After Paul explained to them about Jesus "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19:5,6). Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. He showed them their need to be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit. Once again, speaking in tongues is revealed to have accompanied this initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the believers.
To add to the testimony of the Scriptures, there are, scattered throughout church history, and especially in this 20th century, there are many thousands and now tens of millions of people who have testified to having received this power from God some time after their initial conversion to Christ.
In summary then, the Scripture shows that being born of God is not always happening at the same time as being baptised in the Spirit. The Scripture further shows that it is always desirable and God's will for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be clothed with the power of God and to speak with other tongues. (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 14:5a). All this and much more is promised to the believer who earnestly seeks a relationship of submission to the Word of God and to the Holy Spirit.
So this last part is about the spiritual baptism , and where I mention about the Spiritual baptism in acts is included here, only I think I took it step by step more deeper, but this web site has good information and facts.
I have found this here if you what to research on this.
http://christian-bible-studies.com/...orn_or_baptised
God Bless
Put your rotten milk away open your ears, please. First of all, there were no apostles in Samaria. Philip was not an apostle, he was selected by the apostles to help serve in Acts 6:
Acts 6:5-6 (MKJV)
5) And the saying pleased all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas, a proselyte of Antioch.
6) They set these before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid hands on them.
Philip what chosen and the apostles laid hands on him, so he received the HS. That's why he was able to do the miracles in front of the Samaritan in Acts 8.
Now, getting back to Acts 8. You asked what verse 14 mean to me. It means that the apostles in Jerusalem got word that there were those in Samaria that had received the faith, so they sent Peter and John. Why were Peter and John sent? The very next verse answers that:
Acts 8:15 (MKJV)
15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Who had come down? Verse 14 says that it was Peter and John, sent from Jerusalem. Show me proof that Samaria sent someone to Jerusalem, or anywhere else.
So, when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem, they prayed and laid hands upon THEM that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Who is "them"? It's either the Samaritans, or the apostles who were sent from Jerusalem. Which one, c.moore?
I say that it was the Samaritans, for it clearly says that Jerusalem sent Peter and John down to them to pray for THEM that they might receive the HS. If you think it's Peter and John who need to be Spirit baptized, you're in a world of hurt, for they had already been Spirit baptized in the beginning of Acts 2!
Quote c.moore
I woll ask my pastor how does he see this and I will gét backto you , maybe he has another way explainning.
IIf I am wrong I have not problem repenting, but I believe I am correct with the spiritual baptism, and that you putting water baptism in the name of Lord is out of context, but I will be back soon.
Hold you mules Kevin!
But do me a favor just read this throuigh becuase it talks about Act 2, and acts 8, and Mark 16.
Born of the Spirit, Baptised in the Spirit
Every true Christian is born of the Spirit. As such they have experienced the work of the Holy Spirit in a number of important ways. These ways include but are not limited to: conviction, regeneration and the witness of the Spirit in our lives that we are children of God. However, the dimension of power that God wants for His children can only be reached through the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is God's will that every Christian be baptised in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38,39). Even though some Christians achieve results without the actual baptism in the Holy Spirit, they would achieve more if they yielded to God so as to receive the Baptism in the Spirit. It is possible for a Christian to recognise many aspects of the Holy Spirit's work and enjoy a measure of His blessing in life and ministry, without ever being baptised in the Spirit in the Biblical way.
Some say that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit no longer exists today. Others take another approach and say that EVERY born again Christian was baptised in the Spirit at his conversion. Both kinds of teaching have the effect of robbing believers of something very important that Christ provided for them as part of their necessary inheritance in this life.
We will see from the Bible that the baptism in the Spirit is not the same as regeneration. It is important that we do not allow tradition - even "evangelical tradition" - to take a higher place than the Word of God in our doctrine and in our lives.
Biblical proof that these are Separate Works
Although the Bible does give examples of people who were baptised in the Spirit at the same time as their regeneration, we will see that this is not always what happens. The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, baptism in water and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although all part of our salvation package, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time. It is interesting to note that in Acts, where the Baptism in the Spirit happens to believers at the time of their conversion, the Bible puts emphasis on the fact that the apostles knew they were baptised in the Spirit "for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God" (Acts 10:46; Acts 11:15- 16). We certainly do not believe that speaking in tongues is the proof of being born again. However, we can see that consistently it is the sign accompanying the New Testament Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
It is important to state that every true born again Christian has the Holy Spirit. "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." (Romans 8:9). The Holy Spirit is given by God "to those who obey Him" (Acts 5:32). To receive Christ is an act of obedience by which the person submits to the work of the cross and becomes a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17).
The Holy Spirit enters our human spirit when we are born again of the Spirit of God (John 3). Jesus comes into us by his Spirit (John 1:12). As we grow in Christ we produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22,23).
However, there is an empowering by the Holy Spirit which is distinct from being born of God. We get authority (exousia) to be sons of God at the new birth (John 1:12), but we receive power (dunamis) after the Holy Spirit comes upon us and we are filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:8)
The apostles received the Holy Spirit in regeneration before the ascension when Jesus breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22). They were born again of the Spirit through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1Peter 1:3) at that time. But this was before the day of Pentecost. Jesus told them later to wait for the Promise of the Father in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5) after they had received the Spirit in regeneration. Therefore in the case of the apostles, the Baptism in the Spirit and being born of the Spirit were two separate events. They were born of the Spirit in John 20:22 before the ascension, but were baptised in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost after the ascension. And it is important to note that only then was the promise of Mark 16:17 fulfilled in the lives of the believers then, for beginning at Pentecost "they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:4).
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
Some point out that no record is made of speaking in tongues in this Biblical account. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Some early church writers said it did. But what we should learn from this account is that no matter how wonderful our salvation experience of turning to the Lord was, we should not be satisfied with that, but we should go on in God until we receive the Spirit in mighty demonstration and power.
Further proof that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not always or even usually occur at the moment of repentance and faith can be seen in the life of Paul (formerly Saul). Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus and confessed Him as Lord, which meant he was converted (Acts 9:3-8; Rom. 10:9). But God knew that was not all that Paul needed, Three days later, God had Ananias lay hands on Saul so that he would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). But did Paul speak in tongues then? Let Paul himself speak here. In writing to the Corinthians he said "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all." (1 Corinthians 14:18). Not so much in church, of course, but outside the meetings in private so as to build himself up. In this way, his preaching was both understadable and powerful (1 Corinthians 14:19; 2:1-4).
Cornelius' household and close friends were baptised in the Spirit at the moment of their conversion. How did Peter know this? "For he heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." (Acts 10:46). These people received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles (Acts 10:47). Peter realised that they were not only born again, but also baptised in the Holy Spirit, at that time (Acts 11:15,16). Why? "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnifying God" (Acts 10:46). That settled the issue for Peter. In the Bible, the speaking in unknown tongues is a Biblical sign of the true New Testament baptism in the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:4, Acts 19:6, Mark 16:17). Let us remember that God did not trust the writing of the New Testament to anyone who did not speak in tongues. And people who despise tongues because their churches don't believe in it make the same kind of mistake as those in formal traditionalistic churches who reject the idea of regeneration by the Spirit at the moment of repentance and faith because it contradicts the long-held dogmas of the church. The Bible must settle the issue - not our traditions, theologies and lack of experience. And the Bible says, "Desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:39).
The Ephesian believers in Acts 19 were not true Christians in the full sense of the word when Paul met them. They only knew the John's baptism of repentance. They did not even know there was given a Holy Spirit. After Paul explained to them about Jesus "they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19:5,6). Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. He showed them their need to be baptised in water and the Holy Spirit. Once again, speaking in tongues is revealed to have accompanied this initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the believers.
To add to the testimony of the Scriptures, there are, scattered throughout church history, and especially in this 20th century, there are many thousands and now tens of millions of people who have testified to having received this power from God some time after their initial conversion to Christ.
In summary then, the Scripture shows that being born of God is not always happening at the same time as being baptised in the Spirit. The Scripture further shows that it is always desirable and God's will for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be clothed with the power of God and to speak with other tongues. (Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 14:5a). All this and much more is promised to the believer who earnestly seeks a relationship of submission to the Word of God and to the Holy Spirit.
So this last part is about the spiritual baptism , and where I mention about the Spiritual baptism in acts is included here, only I think I took it step by step more deeper, but this web site has good information and facts.
I have found this here if you what to research on this.
http://christian-bible-studies.com/...orn_or_baptised
God Bless
c.moore
New member
Kevin
In that link I posted It ´said this about Samaria .
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
So this is why I said I will check because , it looks like you are correct and I need .:help: :think:
God Bless
In that link I posted It ´said this about Samaria .
The Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Many were healed and delivered. They were born again through repentance and faith in Christ, but it was obvious to Philip that something was missing in their experience. Under Philip's ministry the believers were not baptised in the Spirit. So later, Peter and John came down that these Samaritan believers might receive the Holy Spirit as they ought to receive Him (Acts 8:14-17). The power which the apostles released was so impressive that Simon the famous magician at that time wanted to buy the ability to release this power. Of course this was an evil and foolish desire. But he wanted to be able to impress people further with the same kind of power he was seeing accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit. The Scripture does not lead us to suppose that the reception of the Holy Spirit was some kind of quiet blessing.
So this is why I said I will check because , it looks like you are correct and I need .:help: :think:
God Bless
c.moore,
Please excuse me for interjecting my thoughts into your conversation with Kevin. I just read the excerpt from christian-bible-studies.com and found it interesting you would use this excerpt to support your position that water baptism is unnecessary:
The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, BAPTISM IN WATER and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although ALL PART OF OUR SALVATION PACKAGE, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time.
***snip***
Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. HE SHOWED THEM THEIR NEED TO BE BAPTISED IN WATER and the Holy Spirit.
How in the world do you see these statements as supporting your position that baptism in water is a heretical ritual and has no part in our salvation??? Clearly this author would support mine and Kevin's position that water baptism IS part of our salvation.
Yet this author also believes in Holy Spirit baptism, and acknowledges that it also is a part of our "salvation package", as this authors puts it, and as I would certainly agree.
Maybe you can study this authors works to understand how he or she can coalesce the need for water baptism AND Holy Spirit baptism...
God Bless,
Francisco
Please excuse me for interjecting my thoughts into your conversation with Kevin. I just read the excerpt from christian-bible-studies.com and found it interesting you would use this excerpt to support your position that water baptism is unnecessary:
The Book of Acts reveals that repentance, BAPTISM IN WATER and the baptism in the Holy Spirit, although ALL PART OF OUR SALVATION PACKAGE, do not necessarily happen in the same order all the time.
***snip***
Here we see that Paul was interested in these disciples' relationship with the Holy Spirit. HE SHOWED THEM THEIR NEED TO BE BAPTISED IN WATER and the Holy Spirit.
How in the world do you see these statements as supporting your position that baptism in water is a heretical ritual and has no part in our salvation??? Clearly this author would support mine and Kevin's position that water baptism IS part of our salvation.
Yet this author also believes in Holy Spirit baptism, and acknowledges that it also is a part of our "salvation package", as this authors puts it, and as I would certainly agree.
Maybe you can study this authors works to understand how he or she can coalesce the need for water baptism AND Holy Spirit baptism...
God Bless,
Francisco