The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
itsjustdave1988
Member
I said...[B/]
The point being, the canon of scripture was not decided upon authoritatively until the Catholic Church declared the canon at the end of the fourth century.
Evangelion asked:[B/]
If this is true (and I don't believe it for a minute), then why did the Catholic Church "decide the canon authoritatively" all over again, in 1545?
A couple of reasons ...[B/]
1) If you read through each of the documents of the Ecumenical Councils, you will find a pattern of re-affirming what previous councils had decided. Especially in light of a new heresy.
2) What was the new heresy? Luther and others took liberties with his Canon, omitting 7 books of the OT and these NT books he considered non-canonical: Epistle of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations. After about 100 years, Lutherans came to accept all the same NT books as canonical, however the OT deuterocanonical books (they call them Apocraphyl) are still omitted from most Protestant bibles.
(see http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html )
3) Also, the Council of Rome (AD 382) and the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the others were not Ecumenical Councils but local Councils. Florence in 1441 is the first Ecumenical Council which lists the canon. Why so late? Nobody questioned the canon until then.
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Here's a quick synopsis (see http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm )
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time
All Christians now agree as to what books constitute the New Testament Books. However, the same canons listed the Old Testament Books which include the 7 books rejected by Luther and most other Protestants. Jerome himself (gave us the Latin Vulgate) had been accused of doubting the inspiration of the 7 OT deuterocanonicals, however, they were included in his Bible translation. Take a look at his defense of his early statements of doubt about the 7 deutorocanonical books (see below). (ref. C:\My Documents\Religion\Apologetics\02 Scripture & Tradition\The Old Testament Canon.htm)
Council of Rome [B/]
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo [B/]
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III [B/]
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Augustine [B/]
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Jerome [B/]
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I [B/]
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).
Dave
The point being, the canon of scripture was not decided upon authoritatively until the Catholic Church declared the canon at the end of the fourth century.
Evangelion asked:[B/]
If this is true (and I don't believe it for a minute), then why did the Catholic Church "decide the canon authoritatively" all over again, in 1545?
A couple of reasons ...[B/]
1) If you read through each of the documents of the Ecumenical Councils, you will find a pattern of re-affirming what previous councils had decided. Especially in light of a new heresy.
2) What was the new heresy? Luther and others took liberties with his Canon, omitting 7 books of the OT and these NT books he considered non-canonical: Epistle of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations. After about 100 years, Lutherans came to accept all the same NT books as canonical, however the OT deuterocanonical books (they call them Apocraphyl) are still omitted from most Protestant bibles.
(see http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html )
3) Also, the Council of Rome (AD 382) and the Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the others were not Ecumenical Councils but local Councils. Florence in 1441 is the first Ecumenical Council which lists the canon. Why so late? Nobody questioned the canon until then.
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.
Here's a quick synopsis (see http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm )
Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.
The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon.
Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.
Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.
The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time
All Christians now agree as to what books constitute the New Testament Books. However, the same canons listed the Old Testament Books which include the 7 books rejected by Luther and most other Protestants. Jerome himself (gave us the Latin Vulgate) had been accused of doubting the inspiration of the 7 OT deuterocanonicals, however, they were included in his Bible translation. Take a look at his defense of his early statements of doubt about the 7 deutorocanonical books (see below). (ref. C:\My Documents\Religion\Apologetics\02 Scripture & Tradition\The Old Testament Canon.htm)
Council of Rome [B/]
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo [B/]
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III [B/]
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Augustine [B/]
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Jerome [B/]
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I [B/]
"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).
Dave
Evangelion
New member
I'm terribly sorry, but none of this actually answers my question. 
Let's talk about "sloppy"...
Let's talk about "sloppy"...
agape -
In reference to Acts 10:47-48 -"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?" you insulted mankind with...
LOL !!
You must be studying out of the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon.
Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!!
Let's talk about "sloppy"...
agape -
In reference to Acts 10:47-48 -"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?" you insulted mankind with...
LOL !!!! WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT did Peter mean, what was Peter saying when he said "Can any man forbid water?" Forbid water for WHAT??
LOL !!
You must be studying out of the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon.
Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!!
agape
New member
Hey thanks. I thought it was very interesting too! It does give very special insight into spirit baptism. It's a good thing too that Peter remembered the words of Jesus Christ. "For John truly baptized with water BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED "WITH THE HOLY GHOST...". Wow...I can imagine how excited he must have been. The new birth!...to the Gentiles...dogs...of all people! What a day that must have been. But let's overlook all that and get back to the redundant water baptism.
But Peter had it all figured out. Duh...hey guess what no more water. Jesus said we are to be baptized with the HOLY SPIRIT. Nah...he was only kidding...let's dunk them in water anyways...it can't hurt them. YEAH...Right...way to go Evangelion.
agape
New member
Re: Let's talk about "sloppy"...
Re: Let's talk about "sloppy"...
LOL !!!! WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT did JESUS mean, what was JESUS SAYING??? WHEN HE SAID "BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE???" DUH...THEN PETER SAID WHO SHALL FORBID WATER!!???...DUH... PETER MUST HAVE REAL STUPID...DUH....DUNCE HAT PLEASE....LOL...LOL !!
YOU MUST BE STUDYING OUT MOE, LARRY AND CURLEY LEXICON, APOLLOS...DUH...
Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!!..
Re: Let's talk about "sloppy"...
LOL...and I guess Jesus Christ insulted mankind when he so clearly and without any question (except for those who can't think) stated "For John truly baptized with water BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST...."
LOL !!!! WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT did JESUS mean, what was JESUS SAYING??? WHEN HE SAID "BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE???" DUH...THEN PETER SAID WHO SHALL FORBID WATER!!???...DUH... PETER MUST HAVE REAL STUPID...DUH....DUNCE HAT PLEASE....LOL...LOL !!
YOU MUST BE STUDYING OUT MOE, LARRY AND CURLEY LEXICON, APOLLOS...DUH...
Too funny! Thanks for the laugh!!..
Evangelion
New member
Ummm... where does Peter say "guess what, no more water"?
Evangelion
New member
See? You present a flawed interpretation, and make no attempt to defend it. Instead, you try to distract us by talking about another passage of Scripture entirely.
That's pretty lame, Agape. :down:
That's pretty lame, Agape. :down:
agape
New member
I rely on what the Apostles say in the Bible because God said they were moved by the Spirit. They did not privately interpret anything. They spoke or wrote what God told them to speak and write. As for the early church fathers...well...if they contradict the Apostle Peter or Paul...ect, I have to put a question mark next to Clement or Augustine or any of them. I don't go changing what's written in Bible to match what they say.
I really have no interest in the rest of what you posted because it does not prove anything and to be quite frank, I don't trust any of it. You can keep the tables too. I'll stick with the Bible. Genesis to Revelation fits perfectly together and we can have God's original Word when we take all the necessary time needed in working His Word...in doing II Timothy 2:15...so that there are no contradiction and we can have "thus saith the Lord." I believe this with all my heart and I believe Jesus Christ when he said: "For John truly baptized with water, BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE."
There are some Christians here laughing their faces off at what both Jesus and John proclaimed concerning baptism. But that won't change the truth of God's Word. It won't change, "thus saith the Lord." And praise God it doesn't! God, Paul, Peter and others found in the Bible, never taught water baptism after the new birth became available on the day of Pentecost and following. The only reason Apollos taught water baptism was because the Word says he only knew John' baptism...BUT...Aquila and Priscilla expounded the Word to him and he believed THROUGH the grace of God and was born again. Later, Paul corrected the error or wrong teaching concerning baptism and they, the disciples in Ephesus believed and they were baptized and spoke the wonderful works of God. Therefore I don't teach we need to be water baptized and no one else should teach it either if they want to remain honest with God's Word. This is what I believe and this is where I stand.
agape
New member
Duh...could it be when he said he remembered what Jesus said. "...BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST...." In case you are having a difficult time understanding this verse, Evangelion...let me explain.Originally posted by Evangelion
Ummm... where does Peter say "guess what, no more water"?
John did baptize with water but Jesus Christ told his apostles before his ascension that the day is coming...not many days hence....when you shall be baptized...NOT WITH WATER...BUT WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT. Now if you put the same kind of thinking, logic as you do with Jesus Christ is not God, to the rest of the scriptures, you might just figure it all out.
Also, it might help you to understand more fully if you read and do Acts 17:11 + II Timothy 2:15 on what I had recently posted to Dave on water baptism (7-13, 8:12 pm).
You hold the "copyright" on the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon...
You hold the "copyright" on the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon...
agape -
The more you answer, the less you say. Now you sound like a parrot!
Was that an answer?
WHAT did Peter mean when he said: "Can any man forbid water..." agape's reply - Clueless!!
Anyway, I am glad you had a good hard laugh... at yourself!
You hold the "copyright" on the Moe/Larry/Curly Lexicon...
agape -
The more you answer, the less you say. Now you sound like a parrot!
Was that an answer?
WHAT did Peter mean when he said: "Can any man forbid water..." agape's reply - Clueless!!
Anyway, I am glad you had a good hard laugh... at yourself!
Context: HS baptism was promised... to the apostles.
Context: HS baptism was promised... to the apostles.
The CONTEXT of Acts Chapter One – (emphasis mine)
1:1 “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
2 until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:
4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [said he], ye heard from me:
5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey off.” – ASV
There are those who mistakenly think that Jesus promised the baptism of the HS to each and everybody in the entire world. Those individuals, of necessity, must ignore the context of this passage.
Please allow me to invite these individuals to purvey the “former treatise” of Luke, particularly the 24th Chapter where the context is of Jesus speaking to the APOSTLES and promising them the baptism of the HS is further established.
Then comes from them the rank thinking on Mark 1:8…
“I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.”
To WHOM was John speaking? Did ALL those who heard John receive HS baptism? That would be quite an assumption to make - like the assumption they make with Acts 1:5! To keep the CONTEXT of John’s remark, one can take note that John was announcing the FACT of coming HS baptism, but John was not announcing exactly WHO would get it! The WHO was later defined by Jesus Himself!
Then John 1:33 is offered. But this passage tells us only that which we already knew – that is, it would be Jesus that baptizes with the HS. But this passage also, does not tell us WHO would be receiving it. But Acts 1 and Luke 24 does tell us WHO would receive it, as already shown above in Acts 1!!
Context: HS baptism was promised... to the apostles.
The CONTEXT of Acts Chapter One – (emphasis mine)
1:1 “The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
2 until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:
4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [said he], ye heard from me:
5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey off.” – ASV
There are those who mistakenly think that Jesus promised the baptism of the HS to each and everybody in the entire world. Those individuals, of necessity, must ignore the context of this passage.
Please allow me to invite these individuals to purvey the “former treatise” of Luke, particularly the 24th Chapter where the context is of Jesus speaking to the APOSTLES and promising them the baptism of the HS is further established.
Then comes from them the rank thinking on Mark 1:8…
“I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.”
To WHOM was John speaking? Did ALL those who heard John receive HS baptism? That would be quite an assumption to make - like the assumption they make with Acts 1:5! To keep the CONTEXT of John’s remark, one can take note that John was announcing the FACT of coming HS baptism, but John was not announcing exactly WHO would get it! The WHO was later defined by Jesus Himself!
Then John 1:33 is offered. But this passage tells us only that which we already knew – that is, it would be Jesus that baptizes with the HS. But this passage also, does not tell us WHO would be receiving it. But Acts 1 and Luke 24 does tell us WHO would receive it, as already shown above in Acts 1!!
Last edited:
Evangelion
New member
Agape -
*snip*
Don't give me your "could it be"s. I'm not interested in speculation.
Peter mentions water, and he mentions baptism. He also says that these people who have already received the Holy Spirit, should now be baptised, and he makes it clear that water is necessary for this "baptism" of which he now speaks.
This would make no sense at all if (a) water baptism was no longer necessary, and (b) those who had received "Spirit baptism" did not require water baptism.
No matter which way you twist it, you can't avoid the fact that these people who had already received the Holy Spirit, were now about to be baptised in water. Tell me, Agape - why did Peter call for water? Why did he want to baptise these people in water?
*snip*
Don't give me your "could it be"s. I'm not interested in speculation.
Peter mentions water, and he mentions baptism. He also says that these people who have already received the Holy Spirit, should now be baptised, and he makes it clear that water is necessary for this "baptism" of which he now speaks.
This would make no sense at all if (a) water baptism was no longer necessary, and (b) those who had received "Spirit baptism" did not require water baptism.
No matter which way you twist it, you can't avoid the fact that these people who had already received the Holy Spirit, were now about to be baptised in water. Tell me, Agape - why did Peter call for water? Why did he want to baptise these people in water?
HopeofGlory
New member
Eternal life!
Eternal life!
The so called "Great Commission" is the doctrine of men and it can not be found within the holy bible. The instructions of Christ after the cross were part of the new testament which was in force after the cross (Heb. 9:17) and are not to be confused with John the Baptist‘s testimony of water baptism for remission before the cross. It can be clearly seen that Jesus instructed the apostles to teach and that teaching will baptize all that believe. He did not command them to do the baptizing in water yet the apostles continued preaching the doctrine of the Baptist which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The apostles message at Pentecost is completely void of the new testament for remission so they failed to obey these words of Christ....Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20 (KJV)
The greatest message every to be delivered to the world (Matt 26:28) was not part of the apostles doctrine at Pentecost and the silence of it is deafening.
When asked... What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (John 6:28)
Jesus said...This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29 (KJV)
Simple message but few even today have received it. There is no work needed but faith in the Son of God.
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life... John 6:40 (KJV)
The message of eternal life is believe in Christ nothing more is needed unless you do not believe.
Let's look at each account before Christ ascended in what He commissioned the apostles and heed God’s warning by not "adding" the word “water”.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev. 22:18 (KJV)
This commission must be understood in the light of the “new” testament “for” remission of sins (Matt. 26:28).
The apostles were commanded to preach the word and the truth reveal in the word by the Spirit would baptize them.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
Why would Christ send Paul NOT to baptize if the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize? There is no rhyme to this type of reasoning. Man’s doctrine teaches water baptism was commanded by Jesus in “the great commission” but this is not biblical terminology.
#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)
It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the "spirit" that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV). The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed. The new testament is a new testimony with a greater witness (John 5:33-36) for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) as opposed to the old testimony for remission (Mark 1:4).
The new testament is not a series of books starting with the four gospels but is a greater witness given by Christ and was not in force until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this Spirit baptism is performed by Christ when we believe His words.
The contrast of the baptism in water and the baptism in the word is revealed by Jesus with these words...For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)
#2
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)
Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word. This baptism (quickening) is received the moment one believes this "spirit" word of Christ and they are born again. Compare these words spoken to Nicodemus...That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). Jesus delivered this eternal message to Nicodemus and to the apostles...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Nicodemus did not believe this message and Jesus said:
We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) witness. John 3:11 (KJV)
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12 (KJV)
This word of the gospel of Christ is spirit and life eternal in the new testament made possible only by His shed blood.
Jesus said....Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
The disciples responded....This is an hard saying; who can hear (believe) it? John 6:60 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
#3
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)
Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed. Christ is clearly explaining how remission of sins would be received and referring to Isaiah 53 where “it is written” He was to suffer. These scriptures not once mention water baptism.
#4
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)
Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit! The contrast was further revealed in that the death of Christ for remission of sins superceded water baptism....But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)
By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.
Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission of sins but because of their unbelief (Roms 11:19-21)they taught the "old" testament of water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize after He gave the NEW TESTAMENT for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to deliver Christ's eternal message of remission through His shed blood.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through """faith in his blood""", to declare his righteousness """for the remission of sins""" that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)
To declare, I say, """at this time""" his righteousness: that he might be just, and the """justifier of him which believeth in Jesus""". Rom. 3:26 (KJV)
Receive not the doctrine of men but believe the words of the Lord Jesus and receive His offer of everlasting life.
In Christ
Craig
Eternal life!
The so called "Great Commission" is the doctrine of men and it can not be found within the holy bible. The instructions of Christ after the cross were part of the new testament which was in force after the cross (Heb. 9:17) and are not to be confused with John the Baptist‘s testimony of water baptism for remission before the cross. It can be clearly seen that Jesus instructed the apostles to teach and that teaching will baptize all that believe. He did not command them to do the baptizing in water yet the apostles continued preaching the doctrine of the Baptist which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The apostles message at Pentecost is completely void of the new testament for remission so they failed to obey these words of Christ....Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20 (KJV)
The greatest message every to be delivered to the world (Matt 26:28) was not part of the apostles doctrine at Pentecost and the silence of it is deafening.
When asked... What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (John 6:28)
Jesus said...This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. John 6:29 (KJV)
Simple message but few even today have received it. There is no work needed but faith in the Son of God.
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life... John 6:40 (KJV)
The message of eternal life is believe in Christ nothing more is needed unless you do not believe.
Let's look at each account before Christ ascended in what He commissioned the apostles and heed God’s warning by not "adding" the word “water”.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev. 22:18 (KJV)
This commission must be understood in the light of the “new” testament “for” remission of sins (Matt. 26:28).
The apostles were commanded to preach the word and the truth reveal in the word by the Spirit would baptize them.
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
Why would Christ send Paul NOT to baptize if the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize? There is no rhyme to this type of reasoning. Man’s doctrine teaches water baptism was commanded by Jesus in “the great commission” but this is not biblical terminology.
#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)
It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the "spirit" that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV). The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed. The new testament is a new testimony with a greater witness (John 5:33-36) for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) as opposed to the old testimony for remission (Mark 1:4).
The new testament is not a series of books starting with the four gospels but is a greater witness given by Christ and was not in force until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this Spirit baptism is performed by Christ when we believe His words.
The contrast of the baptism in water and the baptism in the word is revealed by Jesus with these words...For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)
#2
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)
Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word. This baptism (quickening) is received the moment one believes this "spirit" word of Christ and they are born again. Compare these words spoken to Nicodemus...That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6). Jesus delivered this eternal message to Nicodemus and to the apostles...For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). Nicodemus did not believe this message and Jesus said:
We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) witness. John 3:11 (KJV)
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12 (KJV)
This word of the gospel of Christ is spirit and life eternal in the new testament made possible only by His shed blood.
Jesus said....Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)
The disciples responded....This is an hard saying; who can hear (believe) it? John 6:60 (KJV)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
#3
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)
Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed. Christ is clearly explaining how remission of sins would be received and referring to Isaiah 53 where “it is written” He was to suffer. These scriptures not once mention water baptism.
#4
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)
Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit! The contrast was further revealed in that the death of Christ for remission of sins superceded water baptism....But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)
By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.
Jesus instructed the apostles in the "new" testament for remission of sins but because of their unbelief (Roms 11:19-21)they taught the "old" testament of water baptism for remission of sins at Pentecost. Christ Jesus did “NOT” commission the apostles to “WATER” baptize after He gave the NEW TESTAMENT for remission of sins. Paul was the first man to deliver Christ's eternal message of remission through His shed blood.
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through """faith in his blood""", to declare his righteousness """for the remission of sins""" that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)
To declare, I say, """at this time""" his righteousness: that he might be just, and the """justifier of him which believeth in Jesus""". Rom. 3:26 (KJV)
Receive not the doctrine of men but believe the words of the Lord Jesus and receive His offer of everlasting life.
In Christ
Craig
Last edited:
Evangelion
New member
HopeOfGlory -
Not even in Matthew 28?
Not even in Matthew 28?
The commission is great because Christ gave it to everyone !!!
The commission is great because Christ gave it to everyone !!!
Craig -
Matthew 28:19 - “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
The Great Commission – It is for everybody, everywhere, TODAY !!!
The commission is great because Christ gave it to everyone !!!
Craig -
I find it in Matthew 28:18f.
So true! Christ authorized HIS own baptism after the cross in “the name of the F/Son/HS” which had never BEFORE been given. This was for ALL nations and we see the disciples putting this WATER baptism (by His authority) into practice throughout the book of Acts!!
I see, they were under the guidance of the HS YET taught error, conflict & confusion. Often, the only way to preserve & teach error is to blame some matters on the shortcomings of Deity &/or the word of God.
Baloney! Luke 24:47 –“… repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Methinks you missed something BIG Craig!!
Oh Craig, the HS let them down…AGAIN!!.
Oh, but it WAS indeed!! Acts 2:39 – “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The PROMISE of salvation was for ALL nations!! Although the apostles did not comprehend all that they said (which was under the direction of the HS) the HS DID know what He was doing and followed through with inerrant teaching and guidance for the apostles!! Acts 1:8 confirms this – “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. ALL nations!! The Great Commission was under way and it was fully supported by the HS !!!
The passage you gave said nothing about “faith only”. And “faith” is a comprehensive word in most applications of the Bible. “Faith” involves more than mental ascent or just mental acceptance. (Btw, where does repentance and confession fit in for you?? You should take heed to NOT ADD the word “only” with faith!!))
Accurately put, Jesus’ blood made possible the ratification of a new covenant by which remission of sins was made possible.
But Paul DID baptize people, including the Corinthians, the Ephesians, Lydia, and even the jailor. And Apollos (my favorite!) and Cephas were baptizing people too! Oh yes, and Philip was baptizing people also!! You think so many under the direction HS were in error??? Hardly! They were following the GREAT COMMISSION !!!
Matthew 28:19 - “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”
The Great Commission – It is for everybody, everywhere, TODAY !!!
Kevin
New member
Agape,
That's the pathetic part... you don't realize that it's your logic that is being made to look ridiculous, because it is.
Try going up to some people and tell them that you are going to tell them something "with the mouth", and then say absolutely nothing with your mouth, and see what kind of reaction you get. I doubt you would do this, because you know perfectly well that you would look like a fool.
I point out these examples in an attempt to show just how pathetic your logic is, and that we are seeing nothing more than pride. This is proven by the fact that you don't answer my simple questions. You can't do so without destroying your ridiculous "with the mouth actually mean inward - not using the mouth" theory. How pitiful.
That's the pathetic part... you don't realize that it's your logic that is being made to look ridiculous, because it is.
Try going up to some people and tell them that you are going to tell them something "with the mouth", and then say absolutely nothing with your mouth, and see what kind of reaction you get. I doubt you would do this, because you know perfectly well that you would look like a fool.
I point out these examples in an attempt to show just how pathetic your logic is, and that we are seeing nothing more than pride. This is proven by the fact that you don't answer my simple questions. You can't do so without destroying your ridiculous "with the mouth actually mean inward - not using the mouth" theory. How pitiful.
Kevin
New member
Agape,
I realize the OT and NT are obviously different. But the Spirit spoken of is the SAME and the results were the SAME (miraculous abilities), which doesn't put anybody into Chrst, which is why Peter commanded baptism AFTER the HS had already fallen upon the Gentiles.
Yes HE DID. Philip baptized eunuch in water after being preached Jesus, and there would be NO reason whatsoever for Peter to do it any differently after preaching Jesus to the Gentiles!
No evidence.
If they were born again as a result of the HS falling upon them, then why did Peter command baptism in the name of the Lord AFTER the the HS had already fallen upon them?!
Because they were NOT born again, that's why.
Can anyone forbid WATER that these should not be _________. The subject of water baptism came up alright, and it's clear as day to people who have logic that understands that doing something "with the mouth" means that is uses the mouth. If you can't grasp that, then how can you possibly grasp Acts 10:47? Your "PI" won't allow you to see what is plainly written - baptism in water in the name of the Lord. Nor will your "PI" allow you to connect this to the recorded example of the baptism of the eunuch, which also used water.
Perhaps if you didn't cut Peter's words off, you could answer your own question. Peter said "Can anyone forbid water (now keep reading) that these should not be BAPTIZED who had recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Peter, being a Jew, said this because who was he to deny baptism to the Gentiles after witnessing the fact that the HS had been poured out onto the Gentiles? Why do you think the Jews were "astonished" in Acts 10:45? Because the gift of the HS had been poured out onto the Gentiles. This was proof to the Peter and the other Jews that God also had a relationship with the Gentiles now.
So, not to withstand God, Peter turned to the Jews and asked the question "Who can forbid WATER that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Why do you think he said "Can anyone forbid..."?
But why did Peter command baptism AFTER this event had already taken place?
Again, I realize the OT and NT are two totally different dispensations. But the Spirit in those two dispensations is the SAME Spirit and it had the SAME effect upon both parties (miraculous abilities).
The effect in Numbers was the ability to prophecy. The effect in Acts was the speaking in tongues. Are not both of these miraculous abilities? YES. Are not both of these instances a result of the SAME Spirit resting upon their heads? YES.
Actually, it's written in Matt. 28:19-20. Are you saying that Christ commanded a baptism that wouldn't put a person into Himself? LOL! Here we have another example of your ridiculous logic.
More ridiculous reasoning on your part. The question at hand is "How can one be born again". This question requires the answer is relevent to being born again - after already being born from the womb! We are born of the womb the FIST time, which as nothing to do with being born AGAIN - AFTER THE womb!
You make this too easy for me. Just where do you think the eunuch got the idea from? From Philip, who just finished preaching Jesus to him!!! This is more evidence to show that water baptism was practiced. The eunuch was WATER baptized as a direct result of Philip's teaching, which falls right in line with the baptism that Jesus commanded of all nations. Why would Philip practice any other baptism but the one that Jesus commanded? He wouldn't.
I realize the OT and NT are obviously different. But the Spirit spoken of is the SAME and the results were the SAME (miraculous abilities), which doesn't put anybody into Chrst, which is why Peter commanded baptism AFTER the HS had already fallen upon the Gentiles.
Yes HE DID. Philip baptized eunuch in water after being preached Jesus, and there would be NO reason whatsoever for Peter to do it any differently after preaching Jesus to the Gentiles!
No evidence.
If they were born again as a result of the HS falling upon them, then why did Peter command baptism in the name of the Lord AFTER the the HS had already fallen upon them?!
Because they were NOT born again, that's why.
Can anyone forbid WATER that these should not be _________. The subject of water baptism came up alright, and it's clear as day to people who have logic that understands that doing something "with the mouth" means that is uses the mouth. If you can't grasp that, then how can you possibly grasp Acts 10:47? Your "PI" won't allow you to see what is plainly written - baptism in water in the name of the Lord. Nor will your "PI" allow you to connect this to the recorded example of the baptism of the eunuch, which also used water.
Perhaps if you didn't cut Peter's words off, you could answer your own question. Peter said "Can anyone forbid water (now keep reading) that these should not be BAPTIZED who had recieved the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Peter, being a Jew, said this because who was he to deny baptism to the Gentiles after witnessing the fact that the HS had been poured out onto the Gentiles? Why do you think the Jews were "astonished" in Acts 10:45? Because the gift of the HS had been poured out onto the Gentiles. This was proof to the Peter and the other Jews that God also had a relationship with the Gentiles now.
So, not to withstand God, Peter turned to the Jews and asked the question "Who can forbid WATER that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Why do you think he said "Can anyone forbid..."?
But why did Peter command baptism AFTER this event had already taken place?
Again, I realize the OT and NT are two totally different dispensations. But the Spirit in those two dispensations is the SAME Spirit and it had the SAME effect upon both parties (miraculous abilities).
The effect in Numbers was the ability to prophecy. The effect in Acts was the speaking in tongues. Are not both of these miraculous abilities? YES. Are not both of these instances a result of the SAME Spirit resting upon their heads? YES.
Actually, it's written in Matt. 28:19-20. Are you saying that Christ commanded a baptism that wouldn't put a person into Himself? LOL! Here we have another example of your ridiculous logic.
More ridiculous reasoning on your part. The question at hand is "How can one be born again". This question requires the answer is relevent to being born again - after already being born from the womb! We are born of the womb the FIST time, which as nothing to do with being born AGAIN - AFTER THE womb!
You make this too easy for me. Just where do you think the eunuch got the idea from? From Philip, who just finished preaching Jesus to him!!! This is more evidence to show that water baptism was practiced. The eunuch was WATER baptized as a direct result of Philip's teaching, which falls right in line with the baptism that Jesus commanded of all nations. Why would Philip practice any other baptism but the one that Jesus commanded? He wouldn't.
Last edited:
agape
New member
Oh *SNIP*yourself...LOL. If you are not interested in speculation, then why do you give it??
NO, HE DOES NOT SAY THIS.
No he absolutely "DOES NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR." Are you reading Kevin's make-believe Bible?
Remember, we need to remain within the context and remoter context which includes Acts 11 and not to single out a word or verse and zoom in only on them. I know you know this is a principle in working the Word in order to make an accurate conclusion. So let's not play dumb. Don't you think it odd that Peter's response to those who were amazed that the Gentiles were baptized with the holy spirit and heard them speak in tongues, was "don't hinder them from water should mean water baptism?" Why should they even be water baptized AFTER they received the gift of holy spirit? Did water add to their being born again, saved and having eternal life? Did water add to the fullness of Christ in them, the hope of glory? Are you thinking, Evangelion??
As I have already stated: Peter responded with what was necessary to the reaction of those Judean believers who were with him: why are you so bewildered?? Surely none of you circumcised people, nor I myself, have the able power to hinder or block the water (spiritual water which is holy spirit-life) to cause these Gentiles to not be baptized in holy spirit? Are we going to hinder the purposes of God from these people - these people of the Gentile background whom we can hear speaking with tongues which is proof that they have received the same holy spirit-life and they now are able to manifest the promise of the Father which the Lord Jesus Christ foretold about, are we? No, of course we are not able to hinder God's will. According to Acts 11, while conveying to the believers in Jerusalem, he states:
Acts 11:15-17 - "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 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. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?"
He saw what Christ taught come to pass even for the Gentiles which is what the context is all about. Not being a respecter of people or nations. Even the Gentiles should be recipients to the new birth which is spirit baptism. So put chapter 10 & 11 together, Evangelion and you have the explanation to verses 47 and 48.
Water does not alway refer to water baptism...it is also referred to "spiritual water" or "living water." And, since the context is on the Gentiles being baptized with the holy spirit and manifesting that gift which they received, "spiritual water," which is holy-spirit life, fits in perfectly. If not, then the word "water" is a forgery altogether...which is very possible since, if it is as you say (water baptism), would be an illogical answer to give to the circumcised believers who were bewildered because the Gentiles too received the gift of holy spirit.
Acts 10:44-46:
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [apokrinomai - to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer; to begin to speak, but always where something has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer]. What preceded was not "water baptism" but that those who were with him were bewildered that they heard the Gentiles speak with tongues and manify God.
Verse 48 - He arranged towards them (God put or set in order, as verse 33; "Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.") towards these Gentiles to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "To be baptized" referred to their being immersed and surrounded within the name of Jesus Christ, not the name of Peter and not in physical water.
Peter did not disobey the commandment from Christ by having them water baptized because he knew what Jesus said to him not too long ago which was BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE." Then Cornelius and his household asked him to stay a little while longer. So simple, no contradictions and all flows perfectly together. So now who is doing the speculating? Certainly not me, which then leaves you.
It does not make any sense since Jesus told Peter BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE." This is why "water" here is not "water baptizm or John's baptism of water."
No matter which way you twist it, Evangelion, you cannot avoid that Peter remembered "thus saith the Lord,"...BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE and one cannot avoid this fact.
Seems like the water people only like to look at the first part of Acts 1:5 "For John truly baptized with water...." And avoid "BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST...." I wonder why that is?? Totally illogical.