PDA

View Full Version : 'Baptizing Them In The Name Of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost'



Firstfruits
May 2nd 2009, 12:57 PM
With regards to the following scriptures, knowing that Christ has all authority from the Father, are we rejecting Christ by not doing as he has commanded?

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

If we therefore fail to teach as Christ has commanded, would the following apply?

1 Tim 6:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
May 2nd 2009, 03:04 PM
Are we witnesses for Christ, if so what are we waiting for?

Acts 22:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Acts 22:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=22&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, And be baptized, And wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Kahtar
May 2nd 2009, 03:46 PM
With regards to the following scriptures, knowing that Christ has all authority from the Father, are we rejecting Christ by not doing as he has commanded?

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

If we therefore fail to teach as Christ has commanded, would the following apply?

1 Tim 6:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

God bless you!

FirstfruitsVery interesting point, FF. It begs the question, what exactly WERE the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and what are all those things He commanded that we are to observe?
Here are a few of His words:
Matthew 5:16-20 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

crossnote
May 3rd 2009, 06:48 AM
With regards to the following scriptures, knowing that Christ has all authority from the Father, are we rejecting Christ by not doing as he has commanded?

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

If we therefore fail to teach as Christ has commanded, would the following apply?

1 Tim 6:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

It is interesting that when an ambassador represents his country in a foreign land he goes 'in the name of...his country' So everything he says and does 'in the name of his country' is as good as if that country was there saying and doing it. So is it not the same in Baptism? "In the name of "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' is as good as if God Himself was baptizing thru the hands of the minister.

Firstfruits
May 3rd 2009, 09:57 AM
Very interesting point, FF. It begs the question, what exactly WERE the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and what are all those things He commanded that we are to observe?
Here are a few of His words:
Matthew 5:16-20 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


For all the teaching of the law, unless you can show otherwise, there is no teaching regarding baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as Christ has commanded in the gospel we have received.

Is Christs teaching concerning baptism therefore according to the law?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
May 3rd 2009, 10:03 AM
It is interesting that when an ambassador represents his country in a foreign land he goes 'in the name of...his country' So everything he says and does 'in the name of his country' is as good as if that country was there saying and doing it. So is it not the same in Baptism? "In the name of "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' is as good as if God Himself was baptizing thru the hands of the minister.

Thanks Crossnote,

If we are ambassadors of Christ are we being disobedient to Christ if we do not teach baptism as He has commanded it to be done?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Kahtar
May 3rd 2009, 11:50 AM
For all the teaching of the law, unless you can show otherwise, there is no teaching regarding baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as Christ has commanded in the gospel we have received.

Is Christs teaching concerning baptism therefore according to the law?

God bless you!

FirstfruitsChrist=God, Christ=Word, Word=law(instruction). Yes, Christ's teaching about baptism is according to law.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe IS the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

kay-gee
May 3rd 2009, 11:56 AM
With regards to the following scriptures, knowing that Christ has all authority from the Father, are we rejecting Christ by not doing as he has commanded?

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

If we therefore fail to teach as Christ has commanded, would the following apply?

1 Tim 6:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

God bless you!

Firstfruits
I firmly believe so, yes!

all the best...

kay-gee
May 3rd 2009, 11:59 AM
Thanks Crossnote,

If we are ambassadors of Christ are we being disobedient to Christ if we do not teach baptism as He has commanded it to be done?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

I firmly believe so, yes!

kay-gee
May 3rd 2009, 12:08 PM
The Christian faith is so beautiful in it's simplicity. Christ only gave two commandments to the Church that may be viewed as "sacramental ordinances". Water baptism, as a one time event for the believer (Matt 28:19) and the Lords Supper, which is an ongoing celebration of remembrance of Him (1st Cor11:26).

Think about it...of all the worlds religions, it doesn't get any easier than that.

all the best...

David2
May 3rd 2009, 01:40 PM
With all due respect (yes, I respect your point of view).

But, if you are so quick to confirm that all Christians must obey Christ's last marching orders at the end of the Gospels, then I assume that you are not going to be selective in these commands and that you are going to take them all:

1. How are you going to baptise? Mark explains: " He who believes and is baptised will be saved" If you follow this command to baptise, then you must teach that salvation follows baptism (also confirmed in Acts. 2:38 "for the remission of sins")

2. Then you will also preach that people thus baptised, can drink poison and they will not die, will speak in tongues and they will lay hand on the sick and they will recover.

3. You must preach repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47 - without any mention of the mediatory work of Christ on the cross). Is this our message today or is it perhaps faith in the completed atonement on the cross?

4. They had to preach to all the nations but start in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. They had to start with the Jews. God's people had to hear the message first, because according to the model of the whole old covenant, Israel would be Gods arm to reach the world, to be a blessing for all the nations. This is clearly not the case anymore.

5. Then He breathed on them saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" This fits in the RK theology and they quote it to prove their case. Fact is, this is what the Bible says. In those days, the apostles had this kind of authority. They could even point out the sin of Ananias an Saphira and let them drop dead. Do we forgive peoples sins? Do we retain peoples sins? I doubt it.

If you are strictly dogmatic that we have to obey the command to baptise with water at the end of the Gospels, then you have not yet taken notice of all the other commands in the very same context.

Grace to you all

Eben
May 3rd 2009, 06:40 PM
I understand that the disciples received the Holy Spirit That means they had the knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and they surely had the words of Christ. So they were given the instructions :
Mat 28:19 Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
We read in Acts:
Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.
So what changed why did Peter disobay Christs instruction?
This baptism that Peter used was the same as the one John the Baptist used. Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins.

How could he do that? Because the message of the Blood of Christ was not preached instead Peter presented the Kingdom to the Israelites and not the Body of Christ.
Act 3:19 RepentG3340 ye therefore,G3767 andG2532 be converted,G1994 that yourG5216 sinsG266 may be blotted out,G1813 whenG3704 the timesG2540 of refreshingG403 shall comeG2064 G302 fromG575 the presenceG4383 of theG3588 Lord;G2962
Act 3:20 AndG2532 he shall sendG649 JesusG2424 Christ,G5547 which before was preachedG4296 unto you:G5213
Act 3:21 WhomG3739 the heavenG3772 mustG1163(G3303) receiveG1209 untilG891 the timesG5550 of restitutionG605 of all things,G3956 whichG3739 GodG2316 hath spokenG2980 byG1223 the mouthG4750 of allG3956 hisG848 holyG40 prophetsG4396 since the world began.G575 G165

Peter said to them they must repent and He will be back to take up His Kingdom. The thing is Israel as a nation had to repent and not only the few thousand that believed, it had to be the leaders.
Now I ask if the water baptism was so important
why did Paul say in 1 Cor1:
1Co 1:14 I thankG2168 GodG2316 thatG3754 I baptizedG907 noneG3762 of you,G5216 butG1508 CrispusG2921 andG2532 Gaius;G1050
1Co 1:15 LestG3363 anyG5100 should sayG2036 thatG3754 I had baptizedG907 inG1519 mine ownG1699 name.G3686
1Co 1:16 AndG1161 I baptizedG907 alsoG2532 theG3588 householdG3624 of Stephanas:G4734 besides,G3063 I knowG1492 notG3756 whether I baptized anyG1536 G907 other.G243
1Co 1:17 ForG1063 ChristG5547 sentG649 meG3165 notG3756 to baptize,G907 butG235 to preach the gospel:G2097 notG3756 withG1722 wisdomG4678 of words,G3056 lestG3363 theG3588 crossG4716 of ChristG5547 should be made of none effect.G2758
1Co 1:18 ForG1063 theG3588 preachingG3056 of(G3588) theG3588 crossG4716 isG2076 to them that perishG622(G3303) foolishness;G3472 butG1161 unto usG2254 whichG3588 are savedG4982 it isG2076 the powerG1411 of God.G2316

I know the argument that Paul is merely saying that he was not sent to baptise but that the other apostles did baptise. I maintain that if baptism was important Paul would have used other language.

In the love of Christ

kay-gee
May 4th 2009, 12:24 AM
With all due respect (yes, I respect your point of view).

But, if you are so quick to confirm that all Christians must obey Christ's last marching orders at the end of the Gospels, then I assume that you are not going to be selective in these commands and that you are going to take them all:

1. How are you going to baptise? Mark explains: " He who believes and is baptised will be saved" If you follow this command to baptise, then you must teach that salvation follows baptism (also confirmed in Acts. 2:38 "for the remission of sins")

2. Then you will also preach that people thus baptised, can drink poison and they will not die, will speak in tongues and they will lay hand on the sick and they will recover.

3. You must preach repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47 - without any mention of the mediatory work of Christ on the cross). Is this our message today or is it perhaps faith in the completed atonement on the cross?


4. They had to preach to all the nations but start in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. They had to start with the Jews. God's people had to hear the message first, because according to the model of the whole old covenant, Israel would be Gods arm to reach the world, to be a blessing for all the nations. This is clearly not the case anymore.

5. Then He breathed on them saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" This fits in the RK theology and they quote it to prove their case. Fact is, this is what the Bible says. In those days, the apostles had this kind of authority. They could even point out the sin of Ananias an Saphira and let them drop dead. Do we forgive peoples sins? Do we retain peoples sins? I doubt it.

If you are strictly dogmatic that we have to obey the command to baptise with water at the end of the Gospels, then you have not yet taken notice of all the other commands in the very same context.

Grace to you all

Kay-gee responds...1. yes that is what we preach! 2. These did occur during the aposolic Age. Healings, Serpent bites etc... However Acts 2:39 tells us that the method of salvation (baptism for the remission of sins) is forever. We are not promised this about the miraculous powers. In fact 1st Corintians 13 tells us we can expect them to end with the close of the apostolic age. 3. We preach baptism is where the convert comes into contact with the blood of Christ, and the new walk begins. Romans 6:3-8. 4. This is exactly how it went down. The Spirit falling on the house of Cornelius was the indication that salvation was now open to the Gentiles as well. Judea and Jerusalem was preached first. 5. You are correct. The apostles indeed had that authority, We Don't!

By your reasoning, why be dogmatic about anything in scripture? Just choose the commandments that appeal to you and obey them, I guess!

all the best...

Watchmen
May 4th 2009, 02:01 AM
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe IS the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?Is anyone willing to answer this question?

crossnote
May 4th 2009, 05:06 AM
Is anyone willing to answer this question?

I thought my post addressed that. "in the name of" means one is sent by the authority of..in this case one could say "I baptize you in the authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Firstfruits
May 4th 2009, 11:59 AM
Christ=God, Christ=Word, Word=law(instruction). Yes, Christ's teaching about baptism is according to law.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe IS the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Thanks Kahtar,

Can you provide the scriptures from the law concerning Christs teaching of baptism.

God has many names, I call generally call Him Father.

Jesus has many names, according to scripture it is written ye shall call His name Jesus.

The Holy Spirit has many names, again it depends, even Jesus used different name for the Holy Spirit.

Henceforth we have Christs commandment;

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Kahtar
May 4th 2009, 12:09 PM
Thanks Kahtar,
God has many names, I call generally call Him Father.'Father' isn't a name, its a title.

Jesus has many names, according to scripture it is written ye shall call His name Jesus.Yes, Jesus is His Name, or Yeshua if you prefer...

The Holy Spirit has many names, again it depends, even Jesus used different name for the Holy Spirit.Didn't answer the question.

Have you noticed that nowhere in the NT is there a mention of an apostle baptizing 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'? They all simply baptized 'in the name of Jesus'.

Firstfruits
May 4th 2009, 12:33 PM
With all due respect (yes, I respect your point of view).

But, if you are so quick to confirm that all Christians must obey Christ's last marching orders at the end of the Gospels, then I assume that you are not going to be selective in these commands and that you are going to take them all:

1. How are you going to baptise? Mark explains: " He who believes and is baptised will be saved" If you follow this command to baptise, then you must teach that salvation follows baptism (also confirmed in Acts. 2:38 "for the remission of sins")

2. Then you will also preach that people thus baptised, can drink poison and they will not die, will speak in tongues and they will lay hand on the sick and they will recover.

3. You must preach repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47 - without any mention of the mediatory work of Christ on the cross). Is this our message today or is it perhaps faith in the completed atonement on the cross?

4. They had to preach to all the nations but start in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. They had to start with the Jews. God's people had to hear the message first, because according to the model of the whole old covenant, Israel would be Gods arm to reach the world, to be a blessing for all the nations. This is clearly not the case anymore.

5. Then He breathed on them saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" This fits in the RK theology and they quote it to prove their case. Fact is, this is what the Bible says. In those days, the apostles had this kind of authority. They could even point out the sin of Ananias an Saphira and let them drop dead. Do we forgive peoples sins? Do we retain peoples sins? I doubt it.

If you are strictly dogmatic that we have to obey the command to baptise with water at the end of the Gospels, then you have not yet taken notice of all the other commands in the very same context.

Grace to you all

But, if you are so quick to confirm that all Christians must obey Christ's last marching orders at the end of the Gospels, then I assume that you are not going to be selective in these commands and that you are going to take them all:

Are you saying we should not obey Christ commandment concerning baptism?

1. How are you going to baptise? Mark explains: " He who believes and is baptised will be saved" If you follow this command to baptise, then you must teach that salvation follows baptism (also confirmed in Acts. 2:38 "for the remission of sins")

The command is repent first, then be baptised.

Acts 2:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance And remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


2. Then you will also preach that people thus baptised, can drink poison and they will not die, will speak in tongues and they will lay hand on the sick and they will recover.

Should we not have faith in Christ concerning His promises?

Mk 16:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

3. You must preach repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47 - without any mention of the mediatory work of Christ on the cross). Is this our message today or is it perhaps faith in the completed atonement on the cross?

Are you saying that Paul was teaching the wrong things?

Acts 26:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Acts 26:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Lk 24:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

4. They had to preach to all the nations but start in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. They had to start with the Jews. God's people had to hear the message first, because according to the model of the whole old covenant, Israel would be Gods arm to reach the world, to be a blessing for all the nations. This is clearly not the case anymore.

It did start at God people but Gods people did not accept it and therefore it came to the Gentiles :pp

If you are strictly dogmatic that we have to obey the command to baptise with water at the end of the Gospels, then you have not yet taken notice of all the other commands in the very same context.

Is being obedient to Christ being dogmatic?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
May 4th 2009, 12:42 PM
'Father' isn't a name, its a title.
Yes, Jesus is His Name, or Yeshua if you prefer...
Didn't answer the question.

Have you noticed that nowhere in the NT is there a mention of an apostle baptizing 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'? They all simply baptized 'in the name of Jesus'.

As I said God has many names which there are It depends on which one you choose. Remember when Moses asked who was sending him;

Ex 3:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=2&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Teke
May 4th 2009, 08:16 PM
Have you noticed that nowhere in the NT is there a mention of an apostle baptizing 'in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'?
They all simply baptized 'in the name of Jesus'.

1Cr 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them [which are of the house] of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

There was some confusion about the matter. Good thing Jesus left us with His Church Body to clarify things for us. :)

Eben
May 4th 2009, 08:45 PM
No, Paul was saying what he has heard from Christ after crucification and ascension and that is that ther is only one baptism. You must make a choice between the spiritual and the water. Paul is showing us in Ephesians and Collosians and Phillipians that the old things is gone past and we are made part of the Body of Christ by the Baptism by the Holy spirit into the Body.(1Cor.12:13) Water, tongues and wonders are of the past.That is why Paul left Trophimus in Melituss when he was sick.(2Tim4:20) Paul! who had all the gifts? Please read all the posts on this thread and think again about what the difference is between water, Holy Spirit,Israel and the Body of Christ.

kay-gee
May 5th 2009, 03:48 AM
No, Paul was saying what he has heard from Christ after crucification and ascension and that is that ther is only one baptism. You must make a choice between the spiritual and the water. Paul is showing us in Ephesians and Collosians and Phillipians that the old things is gone past and we are made part of the Body of Christ by the Baptism by the Holy spirit into the Body.(1Cor.12:13) Water, tongues and wonders are of the past.That is why Paul left Trophimus in Melituss when he was sick.(2Tim4:20) Paul! who had all the gifts? Please read all the posts on this thread and think again about what the difference is between water, Holy Spirit,Israel and the Body of Christ.

One Baptism. I choose water! and I say so on the authority of scripture!

all the best...

Firstfruits
May 5th 2009, 06:53 AM
No, Paul was saying what he has heard from Christ after crucification and ascension and that is that ther is only one baptism. You must make a choice between the spiritual and the water. Paul is showing us in Ephesians and Collosians and Phillipians that the old things is gone past and we are made part of the Body of Christ by the Baptism by the Holy spirit into the Body.(1Cor.12:13) Water, tongues and wonders are of the past.That is why Paul left Trophimus in Melituss when he was sick.(2Tim4:20) Paul! who had all the gifts? Please read all the posts on this thread and think again about what the difference is between water, Holy Spirit,Israel and the Body of Christ.

If water baptism, and the gifts of the Spirit are invalid, then what is the point of the Holy Spirit, when the Spirit opens your eyes to the truth of the gospel is that not a wonder? When the Sprit seals you, is that not a miracle?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Teke
May 5th 2009, 01:18 PM
No, Paul was saying what he has heard from Christ after crucification and ascension and that is that ther is only one baptism. You must make a choice between the spiritual and the water. Paul is showing us in Ephesians and Collosians and Phillipians that the old things is gone past and we are made part of the Body of Christ by the Baptism by the Holy spirit into the Body.(1Cor.12:13) Water, tongues and wonders are of the past.That is why Paul left Trophimus in Melituss when he was sick.(2Tim4:20) Paul! who had all the gifts? Please read all the posts on this thread and think again about what the difference is between water, Holy Spirit,Israel and the Body of Christ.

Eben, I don't know that we can fully understand all the implications of water. I do know that water is essential for life. And so it has been the element used in scripture for us who are created and make use of created things. If God relates to us that it is essential, then it must be.

There is no difference between water, Holy Spirit, Israel and the Body of Christ. Just as Israel passing through the waters of the sea is a baptism by water of God, so is the church's baptism. We must be buried in Christ to be Resurrected in Him.

David2
May 5th 2009, 02:09 PM
Kay-gee responds...1. yes that is what we preach! 2. These did occur during the aposolic Age. Healings, Serpent bites etc... However Acts 2:39 tells us that the method of salvation (baptism for the remission of sins) is forever. We are not promised this about the miraculous powers. In fact 1st Corintians 13 tells us we can expect them to end with the close of the apostolic age. 3. We preach baptism is where the convert comes into contact with the blood of Christ, and the new walk begins. Romans 6:3-8. 4. This is exactly how it went down. The Spirit falling on the house of Cornelius was the indication that salvation was now open to the Gentiles as well. Judea and Jerusalem was preached first. 5. You are correct. The apostles indeed had that authority, We Don't!

By your reasoning, why be dogmatic about anything in scripture? Just choose the commandments that appeal to you and obey them, I guess!

all the best...

By my reasoning we must take ALL the commandments during Christ's last instructions or we must admit that if some of them have in fact changed, then all of them could have changed.

We can't be dogmatic about one instruction (to baptize with water) and at the same time say: "No, most of the other last instructions does not apply any more. That does not make sense.

In fact, we have all the reason to believe that a change did in fact came with baptism in water. They baptised in water because they did not understand the grounds of our salvation. After the announcement of the mystery, we were baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and only one baptism was since then given to us (Ef. 4:5).

David2
May 5th 2009, 02:32 PM
But, if you are so quick to confirm that all Christians must obey Christ's last marching orders at the end of the Gospels, then I assume that you are not going to be selective in these commands and that you are going to take them all:

Are you saying we should not obey Christ commandment concerning baptism?
Yes, I am. Because we can't in any way obey all Christ's last orders. Those were physical (fleshy ordinances) and baptism was part of those ordinances (Hebr. 9:9,10.) We can't forgive people's sins or retain their sins for example.

1. How are you going to baptise? Mark explains: " He who believes and is baptised will be saved" If you follow this command to baptise, then you must teach that salvation follows baptism (also confirmed in Acts. 2:38 "for the remission of sins")

The command is repent first, then be baptised.
Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins. Baptism had to do with the remission of sins. No one can argue against that, But today we have ONLY ONE MEDIATOR and only one hope for the remission of sins and this one hope certainly have nothing to do with water or with a ritual in a Church.

Acts 2:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance And remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


2. Then you will also preach that people thus baptised, can drink poison and they will not die, will speak in tongues and they will lay hand on the sick and they will recover.

Should we not have faith in Christ concerning His promises?
There are many promises in the Bible, many of which were given to the nation of Israel on their way to the earthly kingdom. Does that apply to us? Just because a promise stand in the Bible does not mean that it is meant for us.

Mk 16:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

3. You must preach repentance and remission of sins (Luke 24:47 - without any mention of the mediatory work of Christ on the cross). Is this our message today or is it perhaps faith in the completed atonement on the cross?

Are you saying that Paul was teaching the wrong things?
No, I am not. Paul did not follow the last instructions. In the time of Paul, the whole truth about the cross was revealed and preached, but with the last instructions and at Pentecost we find nothing about die central message of the Church for today which of course is the message of the cross. How can we follow comands and rituals from 'n time when the cross was not preached? It is impossable.

Acts 26:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Acts 26:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Lk 24:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

4. They had to preach to all the nations but start in Jerusalem. Luke 24:47. They had to start with the Jews. God's people had to hear the message first, because according to the model of the whole old covenant, Israel would be Gods arm to reach the world, to be a blessing for all the nations. This is clearly not the case anymore.

It did start at God people but Gods people did not accept it and therefore it came to the Gentiles :pp

If you are strictly dogmatic that we have to obey the command to baptise with water at the end of the Gospels, then you have not yet taken notice of all the other commands in the very same context.

Is being obedient to Christ being dogmatic?
You don't get my point. I am trying to say that you are NOT obedient to Christ if you select just one or two of the last instructions at the end of the Gospels (baptism) and leave all the others alone.

Teke
May 5th 2009, 02:32 PM
By my reasoning we must take ALL the commandments during Christ's last instructions or we must admit that if some of them have in fact changed, then all of them could have changed.

We can't be dogmatic about one instruction (to baptize with water) and at the same time say: "No, most of the other last instructions does not apply any more. That does not make sense.

In fact, we have all the reason to believe that a change did in fact came with baptism in water. They baptised in water because they did not understand the grounds of our salvation. After the announcement of the mystery, we were baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and only one baptism was since then given to us (Ef. 4:5).

David, they did understand. I am not sure how you are misunderstanding this. The book of Acts covers some 40yrs, are you saying that in all that time they didn't understand, especially after Pentecost.

The church has always been dogmatic about the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not separate from the Father and the Son. That Father, Son and Holy Spirit is used for baptism, solidifies the dogma of the Apostolic churches and what they believe.

Do you agree or disagree with the Trinity? Or is some prepositional matter confusing you?

Kahtar
May 5th 2009, 02:34 PM
In fact, we have all the reason to believe that a change did in fact came with baptism in water. They baptised in water because they did not understand the grounds of our salvation. After the announcement of the mystery, we were baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and only one baptism was since then given to us (Ef. 4:5).
How then would you explain the following?
And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 10:47-48

Firstfruits
May 5th 2009, 02:39 PM
By my reasoning we must take ALL the commandments during Christ's last instructions or we must admit that if some of them have in fact changed, then all of them could have changed.

We can't be dogmatic about one instruction (to baptize with water) and at the same time say: "No, most of the other last instructions does not apply any more. That does not make sense.

In fact, we have all the reason to believe that a change did in fact came with baptism in water. They baptised in water because they did not understand the grounds of our salvation. After the announcement of the mystery, we were baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and only one baptism was since then given to us (Ef. 4:5).

Can we baptize others with the Holy Spirit, with regards to Christs commandment?

Can we give others Jesus?

Can we give others the Father?

Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Preaching is not baptizing, so how can we fulfil the commandment?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
May 5th 2009, 02:41 PM
How then would you explain the following?
And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 10:47-48


Thanks Kahtar,

You have shown something that is very important here. Even though the Eunuch believed, he saw the need for baptism.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

David2
May 5th 2009, 03:39 PM
How then would you explain the following?
And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 10:47-48

Kathar

Did you notice that I said "after the annoucement of the mystery".

God had a special revelation is store for the Church. It is called the mystery. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that He still wanted to tell them, but the time was not right. He obviously refered to the revelation of the mystery.

Ef.3 tells us what the mystery was all about. It had to do with the equality of Jew and Gentile. But why could Jesus not tell them that? Because Jesus was in the ministry of the nation of Israel (Rom. 15:8 - even the Gentile woman from Canaan knew that - Matt. 15:24-27). Jes, Jesus ministered the nation of Israel and wanted to bring them in a position where they would be able to receive the promises of the kingdom as it was given to them in the OT.

So, In that ministry the message of "Grace to all" was hidden. Israel first had to be brought to the point of decision (after Christ departed) and then one apostle was chosen with a new command to go with a message of Grace to all the nations irrespective. At that point Israel lost their position as a priestly or mediatory nation. And also at that point the message of the cross was revealed as the only way of salvation en reconcilliation. Fleshy ordinances and rituals ceased (Galatians, Colossians 2, Hebrews 9 etc.) Shadows made place for the wonderful reality of Christ and His cross. And, yes, after the mystery was announced, there was just one baptism. What do you say? flesh or spirit? I vote for spirit!

So, yes, the case of Acts 8 and the the Etheopian was clearly before the mystery was announced. In fact, the apostle of all the nations only started with his work in Acts 13.

Grace to you all

David2
May 5th 2009, 03:47 PM
No, Paul was saying what he has heard from Christ after crucification and ascension and that is that ther is only one baptism. You must make a choice between the spiritual and the water. Paul is showing us in Ephesians and Collosians and Phillipians that the old things is gone past and we are made part of the Body of Christ by the Baptism by the Holy spirit into the Body.(1Cor.12:13) Water, tongues and wonders are of the past.That is why Paul left Trophimus in Melituss when he was sick.(2Tim4:20) Paul! who had all the gifts? Please read all the posts on this thread and think again about what the difference is between water, Holy Spirit,Israel and the Body of Christ.


Thank you Eben
Wonderful to see how you understand the transision from Law to Grace
From ordinances to the new law of the Spirit.
From the kingdom message for Israel, to the heavenly message for the Church.

God bless!

kay-gee
May 5th 2009, 04:59 PM
By my reasoning we must take ALL the commandments during Christ's last instructions or we must admit that if some of them have in fact changed, then all of them could have changed.

We can't be dogmatic about one instruction (to baptize with water) and at the same time say: "No, most of the other last instructions does not apply any more. That does not make sense.

In fact, we have all the reason to believe that a change did in fact came with baptism in water. They baptised in water because they did not understand the grounds of our salvation. After the announcement of the mystery, we were baptised by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ and only one baptism was since then given to us (Ef. 4:5).

The trouble with that is...the mystery was revealed prior to the first commandment of water baptism on Pentecost. Read Acts 2 16 thru 36.
If the people present at Pentecost had no understanding of what it was all about, then how could they be converted by SPIRIT either?

Acts 2:39 tells us that the commandment is forever! (to the end of the church age) which we are in now by the way!


all the best...

Kahtar
May 5th 2009, 07:27 PM
Kathar

Did you notice that I said "after the annoucement of the mystery".

God had a special revelation is store for the Church. It is called the mystery. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that He still wanted to tell them, but the time was not right. He obviously refered to the revelation of the mystery.

Ef.3 tells us what the mystery was all about. It had to do with the equality of Jew and Gentile. But why could Jesus not tell them that? Because Jesus was in the ministry of the nation of Israel (Rom. 15:8 - even the Gentile woman from Canaan knew that - Matt. 15:24-27). Jes, Jesus ministered the nation of Israel and wanted to bring them in a position where they would be able to receive the promises of the kingdom as it was given to them in the OT.

So, In that ministry the message of "Grace to all" was hidden. Israel first had to be brought to the point of decision (after Christ departed) and then one apostle was chosen with a new command to go with a message of Grace to all the nations irrespective. At that point Israel lost their position as a priestly or mediatory nation. And also at that point the message of the cross was revealed as the only way of salvation en reconcilliation. Fleshy ordinances and rituals ceased (Galatians, Colossians 2, Hebrews 9 etc.) Shadows made place for the wonderful reality of Christ and His cross. And, yes, after the mystery was announced, there was just one baptism. What do you say? flesh or spirit? I vote for spirit!

So, yes, the case of Acts 8 and the the Etheopian was clearly before the mystery was announced. In fact, the apostle of all the nations only started with his work in Acts 13.

Grace to you all Well, I guess I did ask..................:lol:

Teke
May 5th 2009, 10:52 PM
Kathar

Did you notice that I said "after the annoucement of the mystery".

God had a special revelation is store for the Church. It is called the mystery. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that He still wanted to tell them, but the time was not right. He obviously refered to the revelation of the mystery.

Ef.3 tells us what the mystery was all about. It had to do with the equality of Jew and Gentile. But why could Jesus not tell them that? Because Jesus was in the ministry of the nation of Israel (Rom. 15:8 - even the Gentile woman from Canaan knew that - Matt. 15:24-27). Jes, Jesus ministered the nation of Israel and wanted to bring them in a position where they would be able to receive the promises of the kingdom as it was given to them in the OT.

So, In that ministry the message of "Grace to all" was hidden. Israel first had to be brought to the point of decision (after Christ departed) and then one apostle was chosen with a new command to go with a message of Grace to all the nations irrespective. At that point Israel lost their position as a priestly or mediatory nation. And also at that point the message of the cross was revealed as the only way of salvation en reconcilliation. Fleshy ordinances and rituals ceased (Galatians, Colossians 2, Hebrews 9 etc.) Shadows made place for the wonderful reality of Christ and His cross. And, yes, after the mystery was announced, there was just one baptism. What do you say? flesh or spirit? I vote for spirit!

So, yes, the case of Acts 8 and the the Etheopian was clearly before the mystery was announced. In fact, the apostle of all the nations only started with his work in Acts 13.

Grace to you all

David......what are you talking about?
Jesus said the mystery was the kingdom of God. ie. Mk. 4:11

David2
May 6th 2009, 02:22 AM
David......what are you talking about?
Jesus said the mystery was the kingdom of God. ie. Mk. 4:11

As explained above, I am talking about the mystery revealed with the calling of the apostle Paul, the mystery about equality between all nations before God and that physical ordinances have been done away. This did not start at Pentecost because it was a ministry exclusive to Jews and proselyts who came to celebrate a Jewish festival in Jerusalem.

About the mystery and Pauls new Gentile ministry: Read Gal. 1:13-16; 1 Cor. 2:6-10; Col. 1:24-27; Eph 3:1-6; Rom. 16:25.

Firstfruits
May 6th 2009, 07:57 AM
Kathar

Did you notice that I said "after the annoucement of the mystery".

God had a special revelation is store for the Church. It is called the mystery. Jesus Himself said that there were many things that He still wanted to tell them, but the time was not right. He obviously refered to the revelation of the mystery.

Ef.3 tells us what the mystery was all about. It had to do with the equality of Jew and Gentile. But why could Jesus not tell them that? Because Jesus was in the ministry of the nation of Israel (Rom. 15:8 - even the Gentile woman from Canaan knew that - Matt. 15:24-27). Jes, Jesus ministered the nation of Israel and wanted to bring them in a position where they would be able to receive the promises of the kingdom as it was given to them in the OT.

So, In that ministry the message of "Grace to all" was hidden. Israel first had to be brought to the point of decision (after Christ departed) and then one apostle was chosen with a new command to go with a message of Grace to all the nations irrespective. At that point Israel lost their position as a priestly or mediatory nation. And also at that point the message of the cross was revealed as the only way of salvation en reconcilliation. Fleshy ordinances and rituals ceased (Galatians, Colossians 2, Hebrews 9 etc.) Shadows made place for the wonderful reality of Christ and His cross. And, yes, after the mystery was announced, there was just one baptism. What do you say? flesh or spirit? I vote for spirit!

So, yes, the case of Acts 8 and the the Etheopian was clearly before the mystery was announced. In fact, the apostle of all the nations only started with his work in Acts 13.

Grace to you all

How does this relate to Christs command/commission to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Has Christs commandment/commission changed?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Teke
May 6th 2009, 12:44 PM
As explained above, I am talking about the mystery revealed with the calling of the apostle Paul, the mystery about equality between all nations before God and that physical ordinances have been done away. This did not start at Pentecost because it was a ministry exclusive to Jews and proselyts who came to celebrate a Jewish festival in Jerusalem.

About the mystery and Pauls new Gentile ministry: Read Gal. 1:13-16; 1 Cor. 2:6-10; Col. 1:24-27; Eph 3:1-6; Rom. 16:25.

It's no mystery that the Jews were to receive the Messiah first. Nor is it a mystery that all people/nations would be blessed with salvation through Him, beginning with the Jews. God told Abraham this in Genesis. Aka "the promise".

David2
May 7th 2009, 03:31 PM
How does this relate to Christs command/commission to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Has Christs commandment/commission changed?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Yes, this command have changed, as did many other commands and practices of the era of Christ's earthly ministry. Many of these changes I have already pointed out above and there are more. Christ Himself, the apostles and all the disciples (male) were circumcised, but after the revelation of the mystery Paul announced that cicumcision was now a heresy. All the apostles and the disciples attended the temple and adhered to all Jewish rituals and ordinances. Jesus never said a word to stop any of that. But after the revelation of the mystery Paul did - and very emphatically as well.

Therefore, to take a command about any physical ritual, including water baptism, from the time before the revelation of the mystery and disregarding the total change that was brought about when the real ground of our salvation was announced and when the complete cessation of physical ordinances were announced, would be very irresponsible.

With grace

David2
May 7th 2009, 03:36 PM
It's no mystery that the Jews were to receive the Messiah first. Nor is it a mystery that all people/nations would be blessed with salvation through Him, beginning with the Jews. God told Abraham this in Genesis. Aka "the promise".

I think it is: Read Eph. 3:3-6

EPH 3:3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,

EPH 3:4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;

EPH 3:5 which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

EPH 3:6 `to wit', that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

Firstfruits
May 7th 2009, 06:32 PM
Yes, this command have changed, as did many other commands and practices of the era of Christ's earthly ministry. Many of these changes I have already pointed out above and there are more. Christ Himself, the apostles and all the disciples (male) were circumcised, but after the revelation of the mystery Paul announced that cicumcision was now a heresy. All the apostles and the disciples attended the temple and adhered to all Jewish rituals and ordinances. Jesus never said a word to stop any of that. But after the revelation of the mystery Paul did - and very emphatically as well.

Therefore, to take a command about any physical ritual, including water baptism, from the time before the revelation of the mystery and disregarding the total change that was brought about when the real ground of our salvation was announced and when the complete cessation of physical ordinances were announced, would be very irresponsible.

With grace

Can you supply scripture to show that the Gospel of Christ has changed, knowing that baptism is included in His gospel?

Firstfruits

Kahtar
May 7th 2009, 06:53 PM
Many of these changes I have already pointed out above and there are more. Christ Himself, the apostles and all the disciples (male) were circumcised, but after the revelation of the mystery Paul announced that cicumcision was now a heresy. So circumcision became a heresy? Why then did Paul have Timotheus circumcized? Did he cause him to commit a heresy? And if so, the Paul cannot be trusted.
Acts 16:1-3 Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek: 2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

one_lost_coin
May 7th 2009, 07:06 PM
I understand that the disciples received the Holy Spirit That means they had the knowledge and understanding of the scriptures and they surely had the words of Christ. So they were given the instructions :
Mat 28:19 Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
We read in Acts:
Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.
So what changed why did Peter disobay Christs instruction?
This baptism that Peter used was the same as the one John the Baptist used. Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins.

I am not so sure as the actual baptism the hearers received is not being described here. I would wonder and I have to wonder because it is not explicitly said that when the time came for the actual baptism the words Jesus told them were invoked and the baptized did hear in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I have heard it said and it seems resonable that in St. Peters sermon he may be using this terminology to draw attention to the fact that this baptism is different from St. John the Baptist a baptism that may have been fresh on thier minds of the listeners and may have been a cause of confussion. Emphasizing that we are being Baptised into the life death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Note also that the Holy Spirit is presented in the same verse as a promised gift through baptism and the Father is mentioned just a verses earlier in this same sermon the Father is clearly taught as the one who sent His son and raised Him up.

I see the Trinitarian God just as clearly presented before the baptism of these first converts as I do at our Lords baptism. I for one have little doubt the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were said at the actual baptism as clearly as they are spoken in the sermon.

Teke
May 7th 2009, 07:44 PM
I think it is: Read Eph. 3:3-6

EPH 3:3 how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words,

EPH 3:4 whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ;

EPH 3:5 which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;

EPH 3:6 `to wit', that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

It is a mystery of God how the gospel has called all men to salvation. That both Jews and Gentiles would be fellow heirs was likely a mystery to Paul, him being a Jew would not think of such a thing.

I suppose it depends on who and how it's read.

kay-gee
May 7th 2009, 08:32 PM
Yes, this command have changed, as did many other commands and practices of the era of Christ's earthly ministry. Many of these changes I have already pointed out above and there are more. Christ Himself, the apostles and all the disciples (male) were circumcised, but after the revelation of the mystery Paul announced that cicumcision was now a heresy. All the apostles and the disciples attended the temple and adhered to all Jewish rituals and ordinances. Jesus never said a word to stop any of that. But after the revelation of the mystery Paul did - and very emphatically as well.

Therefore, to take a command about any physical ritual, including water baptism, from the time before the revelation of the mystery and disregarding the total change that was brought about when the real ground of our salvation was announced and when the complete cessation of physical ordinances were announced, would be very irresponsible.

With grace

Wow, you could not be more off if you tried!

Please explain Acts 2:39

all the best...

David2
May 8th 2009, 04:32 AM
Kay-gee wrote:


Wow, you could not be more off if you tried!

Please explain Acts 2:39

all the best...


You don't understand when the change was brought about. Read my posts above about the mystery revealed to the apostle Paul. Read also the context of Acts 2 and you will see that the real grounds of our salvation had not been revealed at Pentecost. In stead, they were given something (water baptism) to hold on to for the remission of sins. After the revelation of the mystery we don't go to water for the remission of sins. We now understand the grounds of our salvation perfectly. To continue under these circumstances to trust a physical ritual, would mean, in the words of Paul, to make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Grace to you

kay-gee
May 8th 2009, 05:22 AM
Kay-gee wrote:




You don't understand when the change was brought about. Read my posts above about the mystery revealed to the apostle Paul. Read also the context of Acts 2 and you will see that the real grounds of our salvation had not been revealed at Pentecost. In stead, they were given something (water baptism) to hold on to for the remission of sins. After the revelation of the mystery we don't go to water for the remission of sins. We now understand the grounds of our salvation perfectly. To continue under these circumstances to trust a physical ritual, would mean, in the words of Paul, to make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Grace to you
Sorry David2...You are totally wrong! Big time. What part of Acts 2:39 are you not getting? When Peter says the promise, that is the full revelation needed for the rest of the time until th Lord returns.

I'm not sure what group you are with that is teaching you those things, but my advice is RUN!

all the best...

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 08:21 AM
Kay-gee wrote:




You don't understand when the change was brought about. Read my posts above about the mystery revealed to the apostle Paul. Read also the context of Acts 2 and you will see that the real grounds of our salvation had not been revealed at Pentecost. In stead, they were given something (water baptism) to hold on to for the remission of sins. After the revelation of the mystery we don't go to water for the remission of sins. We now understand the grounds of our salvation perfectly. To continue under these circumstances to trust a physical ritual, would mean, in the words of Paul, to make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Grace to you

With regards to the following scriptures what is the mystery of the gospel that has been revealed?

Mk 4:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Rom 11:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Col 1:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 1:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

1 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What is the mystery that you believe that Paul has other than that of Christ?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

David2
May 8th 2009, 11:12 AM
With regards to the following scriptures what is the mystery of the gospel that has been revealed?

Mk 4:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Rom 11:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 16:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Col 1:26 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=26) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 1:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=51&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

1 Tim 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

What is the mystery that you believe that Paul has other than that of Christ?

God bless you!

Firstfruits


We might need a new thread to discuss the mystery. In the mean time, the mystery revealed by Christ in the Gospels, was about the kingdom. There were certain aspects of the kingdom that was not revealed in the OT and was therefore a mystery. This included the fact that the leaders of the nation would not accept the offer of the kingdom. Just because they were Israel did not mean that the kingdom was automatically their's.

But the mystery revealed by Paul was something totally different. It had to do with the nation of Israel loosing their position as God's favoured nation and also with the the message of the cross.

In grace

David2
May 8th 2009, 11:16 AM
Sorry David2...You are totally wrong! Big time. What part of Acts 2:39 are you not getting? When Peter says the promise, that is the full revelation needed for the rest of the time until th Lord returns.

I'm not sure what group you are with that is teaching you those things, but my advice is RUN!

all the best...
If you choose to ignore the big difference brought about by the calling of the apostle Paul, some of these differences I have mentioned above, then I suppose that you would think that I am dead wrong and that I must run.

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 11:29 AM
We might need a new thread to discuss the mystery. In the mean time, the mystery revealed by Christ in the Gospels, was about the kingdom. There were certain aspects of the kingdom that was not revealed in the OT and was therefore a mystery. This included the fact that the leaders of the nation would not accept the offer of the kingdom. Just because they were Israel did not mean that the kingdom was automatically their's.

But the mystery revealed by Paul was something totally different. It had to do with the nation of Israel loosing their position as God's favoured nation and also with the the message of the cross.

In grace

I do not know how you came to the conclusion that Israel has lost their position of favour with God as being the mystery of Paul, but this is what is written;

Rom 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Firstfruits

David2
May 8th 2009, 11:49 AM
I do not know how you came to the conclusion that Israel has lost their position of favour with God as being the mystery of Paul, but this is what is written;

Rom 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Firstfruits
Lets read further in the same chapter:

ROM 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

ROM 11:8 according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.

ROM 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:

ROM 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always.

ROM 11:11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation `is come' unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy.

Please take note what these verses say: Israel DID stumble and they DID fall. There fall lead to the riches of the nations.

Take note, however, that I will not argue with you about Israel's future status. The prophetic restoration of Israel is a fact of the Bible. I believe it as much as anyone else. But presently there is only one body, made up of all the nations of the world without distinction. Therefore, for the time being, for this dispensation, Israel did loose their position as the favoured nation.

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 12:21 PM
Lets read further in the same chapter:

ROM 11:7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

ROM 11:8 according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day.

ROM 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:

ROM 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always.

ROM 11:11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation `is come' unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy.

Please take note what these verses say: Israel DID stumble and they DID fall. There fall lead to the riches of the nations.

Take note, however, that I will not argue with you about Israel's future status. The prophetic restoration of Israel is a fact of the Bible. I believe it as much as anyone else. But presently there is only one body, made up of all the nations of the world without distinction. Therefore, for the time being, for this dispensation, Israel did loose their position as the favoured nation.

So the scripture agrees that God has not cast away Israel.

Rom 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

What then may I ask does this have to do with being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 8th 2009, 12:40 PM
Hi David2...I don't want to go off on a tangent about Israel. I want to hear how Paul has some mystery that is suppose nullify Acts 2:38.

According to Acts2:39 the standard is set (water baptism for remission of sins) for the children and their children and as many far off as the Lord shall call. That includes us. Are you suggesting Paul and Peter are out of sync?

Is someone teaching yu this? RUN David2 RUN...get as far from them as possible!

all the best...

David2
May 8th 2009, 01:37 PM
So the scripture agrees that God has not cast away Israel.

Rom 11:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

What then may I ask does this have to do with being baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?

Firstfruits

I was given Acts 2:39 as prooof that the command to baptise with water has never changed. My responce to that was that water baptism did not change up to Acts 2:39 and a few later as well. In the early parts of Acts, the earthly ministry exclusive to the nation of Israel was still continuing AND the real foundation of our faith was still hidden. In that siuation, the command to baptise with water was OK. People had none other to hold on to for salvation.

But since Israel was set aside, the body of Christ made up of all nations without distinction started, AND the full knowledge of the message of the cross preached, we don't hold on to shadows anymore.

Grace to you

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 01:43 PM
I was given Acts 2:39 as prooof that the command to baptise with water has never changed. My responce to that was that water baptism did not change up to Acts 2:39 and a few later as well. In the early parts of Acts, the earthly ministry exclusive to the nation of Israel was still continuing AND the real foundation of our faith was still hidden. In that siuation, the command to baptise with water was OK. People had none other to hold on to for salvation.

But since Israel was set aside, the body of Christ made up of all nations without distinction started, AND the full knowledge of the message of the cross preached, we don't hold on to shadows anymore.

Grace to you

It was Christ that gave the commandment for all to follow, so unless Christ has changed his commandment then what Christ has commanded must still stand.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

David2
May 8th 2009, 02:05 PM
Hi David2...I don't want to go off on a tangent about Israel. I want to hear how Paul has some mystery that is suppose nullify Acts 2:38.

According to Acts2:39 the standard is set (water baptism for remission of sins) for the children and their children and as many far off as the Lord shall call. That includes us. Are you suggesting Paul and Peter are out of sync?

Is someone teaching yu this? RUN David2 RUN...get as far from them as possible!

all the best...

No, I won't run. I am a fundamentalist and I have no other intention but to believe the fundamentals of the Word of God.

According to you Acts 2:39 sets out an unchangable principal that water baptism must for ever be our remedy or antidote for the remission of sins.

Wel, clearly, according to Scriptures, it is not.

ROM 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

ROM 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

The foundation of our redemption en remission is now Jesus Christ and NOTHING else.

ROM 3:25 whom God set forth `to be' a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

I say this is NOW the foundation of our faith. OK, it has always been, but people did not know it, it was not revealed to them. Rom. 3:25 makes it clear that Christ and His cross is now a propitiation THROUGH FAITH (not through water - my insert) and it also acts to pass over sins done aforetime. What aforetime is he taking about? Of course, he talks about the time when the real foundation of our faith was not known and when people got remission through obedience to the Law, through the system of offerings in the temple and through water baptism.

But now (Rom. 3:21 - "but now") - the real rightousness of God not through shadows, but directly through faith in His Son.

Since I have found the real foundation of my faith and redemption, I will most definitely not run away from it back to the shadows of "aforetime". Not even if you ask me a thousand times to do so.

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 02:19 PM
No, I won't run. I am a fundamentalist and I have no other intention but to believe the fundamentals of the Word of God.

According to you Acts 2:39 sets out an unchangable principal that water baptism must for ever be our remedy or antidote for the remission of sins.

Wel, clearly, according to Scriptures, it is not.

ROM 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;

ROM 3:24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

The foundation of our redemption en remission is now Jesus Christ and NOTHING else.

ROM 3:25 whom God set forth `to be' a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God;

I say this is NOW the foundation of our faith. OK, it has always been, but people did not know it, it was not revealed to them. Rom. 3:25 makes it clear that Christ and His cross is now a propitiation THROUGH FAITH (not through water - my insert) and it also acts to pass over sins done aforetime. What aforetime is he taking about? Of course, he talks about the time when the real foundation of our faith was not known and when people got remission through obedience to the Law, through the system of offerings in the temple and through water baptism.

Bur now (Rom. 3:21 - "but now") - the real rightousness of God not through shadows, but directly through faith in His Son.

Since I have found the real foundation of my faith and redemption, I will most definitely not run away from it back to the shadows of "aforetime". Not even if you ask my a thousand times to do so.

Acts 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.
Acts 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Acts 2:41 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Has the Apostles doctrine changed?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Firstfruits

David2
May 8th 2009, 02:43 PM
It was Christ that gave the commandment for all to follow, so unless Christ has changed his commandment then what Christ has commanded must still stand.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

God created the world through Jesus Christ (Col. 1:16,17). Therefore, Jesus Christ is part of everything in the Bible, right from the beginning. He gave the Law, instructed, Moses to build the tabernacle and Solomon the temple. Did those things change? Yes it did. So, just because Jesus said something doesn't mean that it can never change. Even in the New Testament He said many things that have changed. I have refered to some above. He instructed the 70 and the 12 to go only to Jews when they preached the gospel. Does that still apply? No! Yet, Jesus Himself said so. He also gave instruction to the 12 to retain or to foregive sins. Does that still apply? No! Yet, Jesus Himself said so. By the way, the gospel he instructed them to preach is not the same that we preach today. They new nothing, and I mean NOTHING about the cross as redemption. So, even the gospel have changed.

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 02:52 PM
God created the world through Jesus Christ (Col. 1:16,17). Therefore, Jesus Christ is part of everything in the Bible, right from the beginning. He gave the Law, instructed, Moses to build the tabernacle and Solomon the temple. Did those things change? Yes it did. So, just because Jesus said something doesn't mean that it can never change. Even in the New Testament He said many things that have changed. I have refered to some above. He instructed the 70 and the 12 to go only to Jews when they preached the gospel. Does that still apply? No! Yet, Jesus Himself said so. He also gave instruction to the 12 to retain or to foregive sins. Does that still apply? No! Yet, Jesus Himself said so. By the way, the gospel he instructed them to preach is not the same that we preach today. They new nothing, and I mean NOTHING about the cross as redemption. So, even the gospel have changed.

With what commanded the Apostles, and what they did according to Christs command, and knowing that those that followed were steadfast in their doctrine when did Christ change His command?

Acts 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.
Acts 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Acts 2:41 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Has the Apostles doctrine changed?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Firstfruits

David2
May 8th 2009, 07:01 PM
Up to Acts 8 the "gospel of the grace of god" or "the preaching of the cross" faith in Christ's finished attonement was never preached. It was only the kingdom message and it was for Jews only. Jewish ordinances, the temple, circumcision et all was the normal modus, also for those that believed in Christ. Christianity as we know it, did not exist in those days.

It was only with the start of Paul's ministry that the movement began to leave Israel and all their shadows and ordinances behind. From then on, salvation was, for the first time, only through the finished work of Christ and by faith - nothing else, certainly not water.

ROM 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

ROM 4:13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.

And now you want to bring in a new law of righteosness through water. No, you can't. Righteusness is by faith only.

ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes, it is a free gift from God, not in water, but in Jesus Christ our Lord.

ROM 8:4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

In our time, we fulfil the ordinances not through the flesh any more (baptism is an ordinance of the flesh), but through the Spirit.

ROM 8:10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.

If we are in Christ, the flesh does not matter any more. Life is through the Spirit.

GAL 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

A very pertinent question.

GAL 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

GAL 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.

The law was still in place for the first part of Acts. The first announcement that the law was done away, came through Paul. From then on, you would NEVER again find water baptism for the remission of sins.

GAL 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

What is this verse trying to say? Does it say that every person that went into the holy water is saved? Not at all! We know that is not true. This is not water at all. Those that were baptised into Christ, are the ones that accepted Christ through faith. Indeed, faith is now the only way to put on Christ. The real meaning of the word "baptism" in this context as in most other occurrences, is "identification".

Grace to you all, not through water, but through faith in Jesus Christ

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 09:31 PM
Up to Acts 8 the "gospel of the grace of god" or "the preaching of the cross" faith in Christ's finished attonement was never preached. It was only the kingdom message and it was for Jews only. Jewish ordinances, the temple, circumcision et all was the normal modus, also for those that believed in Christ. Christianity as we know it, did not exist in those days.

It was only with the start of Paul's ministry that the movement began to leave Israel and all their shadows and ordinances behind. From then on, salvation was, for the first time, only through the finished work of Christ and by faith - nothing else, certainly not water.

ROM 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

ROM 4:13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.

And now you want to bring in a new law of righteosness through water. No, you can't. Righteusness is by faith only.

ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes, it is a free gift from God, not in water, but in Jesus Christ our Lord.

ROM 8:4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

In our time, we fulfil the ordinances not through the flesh any more (baptism is an ordinance of the flesh), but through the Spirit.

ROM 8:10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.

If we are in Christ, the flesh does not matter any more. Life is through the Spirit.

GAL 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

A very pertinent question.

GAL 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

GAL 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.

The law was still in place for the first part of Acts. The first announcement that the law was done away, came through Paul. From then on, you would NEVER again find water baptism for the remission of sins.

GAL 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

What is this verse trying to say? Does it say that every person that went into the holy water is saved? Not at all! We know that is not true. This is not water at all. Those that were baptised into Christ, are the ones that accepted Christ through faith. Indeed, faith is now the only way to put on Christ. The real meaning of the word "baptism" in this context as in most other occurrences, is "identification".

Grace to you all, not through water, but through faith in Jesus Christ


If it is not by water then The disciples cannot baptize anyone since only Jesus can baptize with the Spirit, unless nyou are saying that preaching the gospel is baptizing.

The disciples cannot baptise with faith, they cannot baptize with God. So how then are we baptized into Christ?

Firstfruits

John146
May 8th 2009, 09:34 PM
If it is not by water then The disciples cannot baptize anyone since only Jesus can baptize with the Spirit, unless nyou are saying that preaching the gospel is baptizing.

The disciples cannot baptise with faith, they cannot baptize with God. So how then are we baptized into Christ?

FirstfruitsNot with water.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You seem to not understand the difference between water baptism and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Which one places us into the body of Christ according to 1 Cor 12:13?

Please note that I'm not saying we shouldn't be baptized in water. I'm trying to show you which baptism actually saves us as opposed to the one that is for the purpose of publicly displaying what has already taken place on the inside of us.

Firstfruits
May 8th 2009, 10:11 PM
Not with water.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You seem to not understand the difference between water baptism and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Which one places us into the body of Christ according to 1 Cor 12:13?

Please note that I'm not saying we shouldn't be baptized in water. I'm trying to show you which baptism actually saves us as opposed to the one that is for the purpose of publicly displaying what has already taken place on the inside of us.

I believed we were saved before the Holy Spirit is given as the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unholy temple.

Jn 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Acts 2:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Jn 3:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jn 3:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) 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.

Jn 3:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jn 3:36 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jn 5:24 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

If we therefore believe and are saved before the either baptism why does Jesus say we need to have them?

God bless you!

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 9th 2009, 12:53 AM
Up to Acts 8 the "gospel of the grace of god" or "the preaching of the cross" faith in Christ's finished attonement was never preached. It was only the kingdom message and it was for Jews only. Jewish ordinances, the temple, circumcision et all was the normal modus, also for those that believed in Christ. Christianity as we know it, did not exist in those days.

It was only with the start of Paul's ministry that the movement began to leave Israel and all their shadows and ordinances behind. From then on, salvation was, for the first time, only through the finished work of Christ and by faith - nothing else, certainly not water.

ROM 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.

ROM 4:13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith.

And now you want to bring in a new law of righteosness through water. No, you can't. Righteusness is by faith only.

ROM 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes, it is a free gift from God, not in water, but in Jesus Christ our Lord.

ROM 8:4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

In our time, we fulfil the ordinances not through the flesh any more (baptism is an ordinance of the flesh), but through the Spirit.

ROM 8:10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.

If we are in Christ, the flesh does not matter any more. Life is through the Spirit.

GAL 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?

A very pertinent question.

GAL 3:25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

GAL 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.

The law was still in place for the first part of Acts. The first announcement that the law was done away, came through Paul. From then on, you would NEVER again find water baptism for the remission of sins.

GAL 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

What is this verse trying to say? Does it say that every person that went into the holy water is saved? Not at all! We know that is not true. This is not water at all. Those that were baptised into Christ, are the ones that accepted Christ through faith. Indeed, faith is now the only way to put on Christ. The real meaning of the word "baptism" in this context as in most other occurrences, is "identification".

Grace to you all, not through water, but through faith in Jesus Christ


Boy, fundamentalism ain't what it used to be!

Nice verses there David2. Unfortunately not one of them negates the Acts 2:38 command and the 2:39 promise.

The word baptism does not mean identification. Blatantly False!

It means to dip, submerge, immerse. It is one of only a few words that they left in its own from the greek. Look it up!

So back to Acts 2:39 Has God finished calling people?

all the best...

kay-gee
May 9th 2009, 12:59 AM
Not with water.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You seem to not understand the difference between water baptism and the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Which one places us into the body of Christ according to 1 Cor 12:13?

Please note that I'm not saying we shouldn't be baptized in water. I'm trying to show you which baptism actually saves us as opposed to the one that is for the purpose of publicly displaying what has already taken place on the inside of us.

What about there being the One Baptism Eph 4. Either it is water or else to baptize in water is breaking scripture. Which is it?

all the best...

ChristJesusSaves
May 9th 2009, 05:32 AM
Kay-gee wrote:


You don't understand when the change was brought about. Read my posts above about the mystery revealed to the apostle Paul. Read also the context of Acts 2 and you will see that the real grounds of our salvation had not been revealed at Pentecost. In stead, they were given something (water baptism) to hold on to for the remission of sins. After the revelation of the mystery we don't go to water for the remission of sins. We now understand the grounds of our salvation perfectly. To continue under these circumstances to trust a physical ritual, would mean, in the words of Paul, to make the cross of Christ of no effect.

Grace to you

Hi David,

I did try to read the whole thread and it seems you're telling the community there is a change something about God's Holy Words? Is that what you mean?

If that what you mean then how would you explain this verse in relation to what you believe? Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Mario Sr.

Firstfruits
May 9th 2009, 10:44 AM
What about there being the One Baptism Eph 4. Either it is water or else to baptize in water is breaking scripture. Which is it?

all the best...

Eph 4:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) One Lord, One faith, One baptism,
Eph 4:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=49&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

It is one baptism wherein when we repent and and are baptized then Holy Spirit is given.

Heb 6:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Heb 6:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 9th 2009, 12:16 PM
If the ONE baptism spoken of in this verse is not Water baptism but something else, then there is no need to follow up with water baptism. We are actually breaking scripture adding a baptism to baptism if there is only ONE baptism. Water baptism then becomes a worthless ritual. Is anyone here going to suggest that Christ institutes wortless rituals?

Conclusion: Since we know with absolute certainty that they baptized in water ACTS 2:41, 8:16, 8:38, 8:18, 10:47, 16:15,16:33, 18:8, 19:5,
22:16, The ONE Baptism referred to in Eph 4:5 must be water baptism.

all th best...

Firstfruits
May 9th 2009, 01:11 PM
If the ONE baptism spoken of in this verse is not Water baptism but something else, then there is no need to follow up with water baptism. We are actually breaking scripture adding a baptism to baptism if there is only ONE baptism. Water baptism then becomes a worthless ritual. Is anyone here going to suggest that Christ institutes wortless rituals?

Conclusion: Since we know with absolute certainty that they baptized in water ACTS 2:41, 8:16, 8:38, 8:18, 10:47, 16:15,16:33, 18:8, 19:5,
22:16, The ONE Baptism referred to in Eph 4:5 must be water baptism.

all th best...

In the following scriptures we see that although they had been "baptized" they had not yet received the Holy Spirit;

Acts 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

After Paul laid his hands on them, that is when they received the Holy Spirit.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 10th 2009, 12:55 AM
In the following scriptures we see that although they had been "baptized" they had not yet received the Holy Spirit;

Acts 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

After Paul laid his hands on them, that is when they received the Holy Spirit.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

True. Those that were baptized in the name of Jesus were saved. The passing on of the spirit by the hands of the apostle is referring to the miraculous powers.

all the best...

BroRog
May 10th 2009, 01:15 AM
If the ONE baptism spoken of in this verse is not Water baptism but something else, then there is no need to follow up with water baptism.

Exactly.


We are actually breaking scripture adding a baptism to baptism if there is only ONE baptism. Water baptism then becomes a worthless ritual. Is anyone here going to suggest that Christ institutes worthless rituals?

Not necessarily. I think Paul is thinking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Ephesians passage, when he talks about "one baptism." But even so, this would not render water baptism as being insignificant, meaningless, or worthless. If it is true, as I think it is, that the novice Christian accepted the water baptism ritual as a means to openly and publicly renounce his former life, repent, appeal to God for a new life, promise to become Jesus' disciple, confess his sins, and announce his simpatico with other believers, this to me is a very significant and meaningful, if not beautiful act. There is nothing worthless or insignificant about that religious form.

I wish more people did it with sincerity and honest, humble personal conviction. And more power to those who have. :)

kay-gee
May 10th 2009, 02:27 AM
Exactly.



[QUOTE]Not necessarily. I think Paul is thinking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Ephesians passage, when he talks about "one baptism." But even so, this would not render water baptism as being insignificant,

Paul is not likely talking about the Spirit when he says baptism because he has already said One Spirit in the list. (verse 4)

As for te beauty of water baptism, I agree 100%

all the best...

David2
May 10th 2009, 02:55 AM
If the ONE baptism spoken of in this verse is not Water baptism but something else, then there is no need to follow up with water baptism. We are actually breaking scripture adding a baptism to baptism if there is only ONE baptism. Water baptism then becomes a worthless ritual. Is anyone here going to suggest that Christ institutes wortless rituals?

Conclusion: Since we know with absolute certainty that they baptized in water ACTS 2:41, 8:16, 8:38, 8:18, 10:47, 16:15,16:33, 18:8, 19:5,
22:16, The ONE Baptism referred to in Eph 4:5 must be water baptism.

all th best...

No Christ did not institute worthless rituals. He did something immensely valuable. He stopped the shadowy rituals of the law and in the place of that, He placed the real truth of how we are being saved - By faith in Him and His fully accomplished work on the cross. Rom. 3:28,30; Rom. 4:5,9,11; Rom. 5:1,2; Rom. 9:30.

After this announcement of the real foundations of or salvation, no one would ever be saved again, or even get remission of sins through performance of a ritual. It would be by faith only. Therefore, all ritualistic shadows had to go. Circumcision now not physical but spiritual (Col. 2:11). Baptism now not physical, but spirtual (Col. 2:12). And those that did not come from Judaism and were dead because of their uncircumcision, were transformed to the spiritual realm by their union to Christ (Col. 2:13). At that point the institutes of the law were fully done away with so that the cross only would be of significance after that(Col. 2:14).

Ritualistic Churches read the book of Galatians as follows: "The law and circumcision is not in place any more. In the place of circumcision you must now baptise in water." (But unfortunately, Galatians does not say that ...).

What is the real message of Galatians? It is: "No more circumcision because in the place of circumcision came the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ which is not obtained through physical ordinances, but through faith alone."

Conclusion: Since we know with absolute certainty that ritualistic shadows of the law were in place before "the faith" came (Gal. 3:25), we also know with just as much certainty that after "the faith" came, faith in Christ and His cross took all the place in the mind of the Christian (1 Cor. 2:2), and that we could most certainly not go back to fleshy ordinances after being transformed to the spirit and the Spirit (Gal. 3:1-3).

David2
May 10th 2009, 03:41 AM
Hi David,

I did try to read the whole thread and it seems you're telling the community there is a change something about God's Holy Words? Is that what you mean?

If that what you mean then how would you explain this verse in relation to what you believe? Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Mario Sr.

I fully agree with you that Christ is the same and that he will never change. His ministry however, did change. If you deny that, you deny Scriptures itself. Christ was present right from the start. He was present at creation and He approved of the giving of the law to Israel. He approved Israel's exclusive calling in the OT. He came to Jerusalem and ministered to Israel (Rom. 15:8; Matt. 15:24). Then Christ called the apostle Paul to go to all nations without distinction (a massive change). He sent him to announce that Israel lost their position of elected favoured nation (Rom. 11 - massive change). He also told Paul to announce the preaching of the cross and to phase out all shadows, first principals and fleshy ordinances of the law (this is an unbelievable big change). Didn't you recognise this?

As to the other verses that you quote. Well I don't know. Do you always quote these kind of verses (suggesting that people are not in the faith) to people you disagree with?

Grace to you

Firstfruits
May 10th 2009, 10:27 AM
True. Those that were baptized in the name of Jesus were saved. The passing on of the spirit by the hands of the apostle is referring to the miraculous powers.

all the best...

If they already had the Spirit at the time of their baptism why would it say they had not yet received it, can we they they had the Spirit but no power, or that they had Christ but no salvation?

It states clearly that the Spirit had not yet come on them not just the power.

Acts 8:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Acts 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 10th 2009, 11:52 AM
No Christ did not institute worthless rituals. He did something immensely valuable. He stopped the shadowy rituals of the law and in the place of that, He placed the real truth of how we are being saved - By faith in Him and His fully accomplished work on the cross. Rom. 3:28,30; Rom. 4:5,9,11; Rom. 5:1,2; Rom. 9:30.

After this announcement of the real foundations of or salvation, no one would ever be saved again, or even get remission of sins through performance of a ritual. It would be by faith only. Therefore, all ritualistic shadows had to go. Circumcision now not physical but spiritual (Col. 2:11). Baptism now not physical, but spirtual (Col. 2:12). And those that did not come from Judaism and were dead because of their uncircumcision, were transformed to the spiritual realm by their union to Christ (Col. 2:13). At that point the institutes of the law were fully done away with so that the cross only would be of significance after that(Col. 2:14).

Ritualistic Churches read the book of Galatians as follows: "The law and circumcision is not in place any more. In the place of circumcision you must now baptise in water." (But unfortunately, Galatians does not say that ...).

What is the real message of Galatians? It is: "No more circumcision because in the place of circumcision came the spiritual presence of Jesus Christ which is not obtained through physical ordinances, but through faith alone."

Conclusion: Since we know with absolute certainty that ritualistic shadows of the law were in place before "the faith" came (Gal. 3:25), we also know with just as much certainty that after "the faith" came, faith in Christ and His cross took all the place in the mind of the Christian (1 Cor. 2:2), and that we could most certainly not go back to fleshy ordinances after being transformed to the spirit and the Spirit (Gal. 3:1-3).

The trouble there Davis2 is...Water Baptism is not under the "law". It was instituted AFTER the cross. Clearly a commandment of Christ. Although we are not under the LAW, we are certainly under the LAW OF CHRIST (1Cor 9:21). That certainly includes keeping His commandments.

Still waiting for your explanation of Acts 2:39

all the best...

kay-gee
May 10th 2009, 12:05 PM
If they already had the Spirit at the time of their baptism why would it say they had not yet received it, can we they they had the Spirit but no power, or that they had Christ but no salvation?

It states clearly that the Spirit had not yet come on them not just the power.

Acts 8:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Acts 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

FF my friend....Be careful not to fall into the same error as John146 and some of the others. You are not differentiating The various manifestations of the Spirit and it is becoming a stumbling block to you.
The Spirit we recieve at Baptism (Acts 2:38) is the indwelling spirit (Rom 8:11) (Rom 8:16) Make no mistake...those baptized believers were SAVED. If not then we cannot trust Acts 2:38.
The power passed on via the apostles hands were the "gifts" of the spirit. Healings, tongues etc...If these equal salvation, then we are in a bad situation because there are no apostles today to lays hands on us.

all the best...

Eben
May 10th 2009, 03:37 PM
When we say that the message of Paul differs from Peter and Jesus on Earth we are not saying that Jesus or God has changed. We are saying that the administration has changed. There are new rules but the leadership are still the same. Jesus has shown it Himself in Matt 15.

Mat 15:22 A Canaanite woman who lived in that region came to him. "Son of David!" she cried out. "Have mercy on me, sir! My daughter has a demon and is in a terrible condition."
Mat 15:23 But Jesus did not say a word to her. His disciples came to him and begged him, "Send her away! She is following us and making all this noise!"
Mat 15:24 Then Jesus replied, "I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel."
Mat 15:25 At this the woman came and fell at his feet. "Help me, sir!" she said.
Mat 15:26 Jesus answered, "It isn't right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."
Mat 15:27 "That's true, sir," she answered, "but even the dogs eat the leftovers that fall from their masters' table."
Mat 15:28 So Jesus answered her, "You are a woman of great faith! What you want will be done for you." And at that very moment her daughter was healed.

Here Jesus shows that Israel was the object of His ministry on earth and not the Gentiles. Yes He eventually healed the woman's daughter, but the message is clear, the Gentiles were not His main concern at that stage.

The administration changed when Paul said to the Jews in Acts 13:
Act 13:46 But Paul and Barnabas spoke out even more boldly: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we will leave you and go to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For this is the commandment that the Lord has given us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, so that all the world may be saved.' "
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the Lord's message; and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers.

This is the beginning of a new administration. The Jews has been set aside and now the Gentiles can be saved without going through Israel. This is where the new rules are starting to being implemented. Remember the promises to Abraham that his children will become a holy nation of priests? Now because they rejected Christ this promise was set aside so Israel was not the channel for the Gentiles anymore. But this will change se Rom11
Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
Rom 11:30 As for you Gentiles, you disobeyed God in the past; but now you have received God's mercy because the Jews were disobedient.
Rom 11:31 In the same way, because of the mercy that you have received, the Jews now disobey God, in order that they also may now receive God's mercy.
So that is why we dont baptise with water but are being baptised by the Holy Spirit. It is a New Administration!

Firstfruits
May 10th 2009, 08:52 PM
FF my friend....Be careful not to fall into the same error as John146 and some of the others. You are not differentiating The various manifestations of the Spirit and it is becoming a stumbling block to you.
The Spirit we recieve at Baptism (Acts 2:38) is the indwelling spirit (Rom 8:11) (Rom 8:16) Make no mistake...those baptized believers were SAVED. If not then we cannot trust Acts 2:38.
The power passed on via the apostles hands were the "gifts" of the spirit. Healings, tongues etc...If these equal salvation, then we are in a bad situation because there are no apostles today to lays hands on us.

all the best...

If the Holy Ghost was not yet given then it is obvious the the gifts cannot be given, again it says the Holy Ghost was not yet given.

Acts 8:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Acts 8:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 19:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=19&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


Why would they pray for the Holy Ghost that they already had?

When Paul laid his hands on them the "Holy Ghost" came on them and when he came on them they spake with tongues.

When the disciples received the Holy Ghost that was when the spake in tongues.

No Holy Ghost, no gifts of the Spirit.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
May 10th 2009, 08:55 PM
When we say that the message of Paul differs from Peter and Jesus on Earth we are not saying that Jesus or God has changed. We are saying that the administration has changed. There are new rules but the leadership are still the same. Jesus has shown it Himself in Matt 15.

Mat 15:22 A Canaanite woman who lived in that region came to him. "Son of David!" she cried out. "Have mercy on me, sir! My daughter has a demon and is in a terrible condition."
Mat 15:23 But Jesus did not say a word to her. His disciples came to him and begged him, "Send her away! She is following us and making all this noise!"
Mat 15:24 Then Jesus replied, "I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel."
Mat 15:25 At this the woman came and fell at his feet. "Help me, sir!" she said.
Mat 15:26 Jesus answered, "It isn't right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."
Mat 15:27 "That's true, sir," she answered, "but even the dogs eat the leftovers that fall from their masters' table."
Mat 15:28 So Jesus answered her, "You are a woman of great faith! What you want will be done for you." And at that very moment her daughter was healed.

Here Jesus shows that Israel was the object of His ministry on earth and not the Gentiles. Yes He eventually healed the woman's daughter, but the message is clear, the Gentiles were not His main concern at that stage.

The administration changed when Paul said to the Jews in Acts 13:
Act 13:46 But Paul and Barnabas spoke out even more boldly: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we will leave you and go to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For this is the commandment that the Lord has given us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, so that all the world may be saved.' "
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the Lord's message; and those who had been chosen for eternal life became believers.

This is the beginning of a new administration. The Jews has been set aside and now the Gentiles can be saved without going through Israel. This is where the new rules are starting to being implemented. Remember the promises to Abraham that his children will become a holy nation of priests? Now because they rejected Christ this promise was set aside so Israel was not the channel for the Gentiles anymore. But this will change se Rom11
Rom 11:28 Because they reject the Good News, the Jews are God's enemies for the sake of you Gentiles. But because of God's choice, they are his friends because of their ancestors.
Rom 11:29 For God does not change his mind about whom he chooses and blesses.
Rom 11:30 As for you Gentiles, you disobeyed God in the past; but now you have received God's mercy because the Jews were disobedient.
Rom 11:31 In the same way, because of the mercy that you have received, the Jews now disobey God, in order that they also may now receive God's mercy.
So that is why we dont baptise with water but are being baptised by the Holy Spirit. It is a New Administration!

When did Christs administration regarding baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost change?

Can you please supply the scriptures?

Firstfruits

David2
May 11th 2009, 03:50 AM
The trouble there Davis2 is...Water Baptism is not under the "law". It was instituted AFTER the cross. Clearly a commandment of Christ. Although we are not under the LAW, we are certainly under the LAW OF CHRIST (1Cor 9:21). That certainly includes keeping His commandments.

Still waiting for your explanation of Acts 2:39

all the best...
Pentecost was most certainly under the law. Christ on earth did never announce that the law was done away with. Nor did Peter on the day of Pentecost. In fact, the very existance of the day of Pentecost was part of the law of Israel. The first announcement in the Bible that the law has run its course and is replaced by the faith in the Jesus Christ and His mediatory work on the cross is in the letters of Paul (Romans, Galatians and Colossians). In the early chapters of Acts there was just Israel, its law and its temple. Yes, they new about the cross and the resurrection, but what that means, they did not know as yet.

I have answered your question about Acts 2:39 many times. Christianity as we know it did not exist then. The cross was not preached. Faith in Christ and His work on the crross was not known, let alone preached. It was only Israel and it's physical ordinances. Water baptism perfectly fitted into that. In fact, water baptism comes from Exodus and Deuteronmy. The new spiritual baptism with the power to save and which came only after "the faith" came (Gal. 3:25-27), was not part of the water baptism in Acts 2:39.

Eben have shown it very clearly in the verses he quoted above where the change of administration started. The early parts of Acts were part of ISRAEL AND THE LAW. The announcement in Acts 13 (quoted by Eben) shows clearly that a new direction has started. 1. Paul was called by God to go to the Gentiles. He announces that in Acts 13 and tells Israel that they are going to left behind. 2. He preaches righteusness that does not come from the law of Moses, but by faith in Christ.

Grace to you

kay-gee
May 11th 2009, 04:29 AM
David David David2 my friend. You are really mixed up! What do you mean the cross was not preached at Pentecost? Read all of Acts chapter 2. Focus on verses 23, 24, 32, 36,

all the best...

David2
May 11th 2009, 01:34 PM
David David David2 my friend. You are really mixed up! What do you mean the cross was not preached at Pentecost? Read all of Acts chapter 2. Focus on verses 23, 24, 32, 36,

all the best...

kay-gee
I think you must rather read those verses. You don't seem to understand what the preaching of the cross mean. Do you find in the whole of Acts 2 one single offer of salvation and remission of sins based on the merits of the cross? If you do, then I would like to know about that.

In grace

Teke
May 11th 2009, 02:21 PM
He preaches righteusness that does not come from the law of Moses, but by faith in Christ.

Grace to you

This is true David. But "faith in Christ" means to participate with Christ. And Jesus said "none is good", meaning man's intellect or perception of good, which includes the idea of good works.

While we cannot fully explain baptism, the church believes it is essential to follow Christ's example, because since He is God, He must know what He is doing.

So to hold to a full view of Christ, all of Him, which includes His examples, must be followed. To say otherwise would be saying that He didn't know what He was doing to institute a new covenant, which He left a testament to.

In the church, baptism is another testament of Christ.

Eben
May 11th 2009, 02:47 PM
First we must reckognise that Peter at Pentacost also did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. He baptised with Johns baptism which means that the time was not ready for Israel to have become the holy nation of Priests, they will first have to repent as a nation before that can happen, then they will be baptised with the baptism of Matt 28.
Concerning the new administration of Paul read Acts 13 again then read 1Cor12 verse 13 and also 1Cor 1 verse 17. Then I ask like I have been asking so many times in my other posts, if the baptism of Matt 28 was so important how could Paul say what he said in 1Cor1 verse 17 etc. I know the reasoning of some that say all Paul is saying is that he was not sent to baptise. My answer is still if it was so important how could he say what he said. Read further in verse 17 to 18 :
1Co 1:17 Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.
The KJV says it very nice but e sword has a lot of ref numbers which makes it difficult to read.
So Paul is saying that he does not baptise because he does not want to hinder the cross?
In Christ

Teke
May 11th 2009, 03:23 PM
First we must reckognise that Peter at Pentacost also did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. He baptised with Johns baptism which means that the time was not ready for Israel to have become the holy nation of Priests, they will first have to repent as a nation before that can happen, then they will be baptised with the baptism of Matt 28.
Concerning the new administration of Paul read Acts 13 again then read 1Cor12 verse 13 and also 1Cor 1 verse 17. Then I ask like I have been asking so many times in my other posts, if the baptism of Matt 28 was so important how could Paul say what he said in 1Cor1 verse 17 etc. I know the reasoning of some that say all Paul is saying is that he was not sent to baptise. My answer is still if it was so important how could he say what he said. Read further in verse 17 to 18 :
1Co 1:17 Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.
The KJV says it very nice but e sword has a lot of ref numbers which makes it difficult to read.
So Paul is saying that he does not baptise because he does not want to hinder the cross?
In Christ

Hi Eben,
Paul's denial doesn't degrade baptism; he is simply emphasizing that baptism is not his primary role. As an apostle, Paul's primary role is to "preach the gospel", teaching those who seek God to be baptized. The one who performs a baptism is God's instrument; the converts loyalty must be to God alone.

I believe that is the context there.

In peace,
Eve

Firstfruits
May 11th 2009, 03:25 PM
First we must reckognise that Peter at Pentacost also did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. He baptised with Johns baptism which means that the time was not ready for Israel to have become the holy nation of Priests, they will first have to repent as a nation before that can happen, then they will be baptised with the baptism of Matt 28.
Concerning the new administration of Paul read Acts 13 again then read 1Cor12 verse 13 and also 1Cor 1 verse 17. Then I ask like I have been asking so many times in my other posts, if the baptism of Matt 28 was so important how could Paul say what he said in 1Cor1 verse 17 etc. I know the reasoning of some that say all Paul is saying is that he was not sent to baptise. My answer is still if it was so important how could he say what he said. Read further in verse 17 to 18 :
1Co 1:17 Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power.
The KJV says it very nice but e sword has a lot of ref numbers which makes it difficult to read.
So Paul is saying that he does not baptise because he does not want to hinder the cross?
In Christ

Are you saying that Paul did not baptize?

Was Paul not baptized after his encounter with Christ?

Firstfruits

David2
May 11th 2009, 03:35 PM
This is true David. But "faith in Christ" means to participate with Christ. And Jesus said "none is good", meaning man's intellect or perception of good, which includes the idea of good works.

While we cannot fully explain baptism, the church believes it is essential to follow Christ's example, because since He is God, He must know what He is doing.

So to hold to a full view of Christ, all of Him, which includes His examples, must be followed. To say otherwise would be saying that He didn't know what He was doing to institute a new covenant, which He left a testament to.

In the church, baptism is another testament of Christ.

Teke
I don't think I insult Christ if I don't follow Him in baptism. Fact is that we are now under the administration of grace. And please remember that works and grace are mutually exclusive. If I had to follow Christ in baptism, then I also had to follow the reasons for water baptism like: "Shall be saved" (Mark) or "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2). Well, this I can not do, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Since "the faith" has come Gal. 3:25-27; Rom. 3:21-26, salvation and the remission of sins is through faith in Christ ALONE and not any more through water. I fully go along with Paul when he says that to continue with water baptism now, would make the cross of Christ of no effect. The cross, grace, fath is now on the throne, and in my faith and conduct I will most certainly reflect that. I will not go back to fleshy ordinances of the time before the cross was preached.

In grace

Teke
May 11th 2009, 06:04 PM
Teke
I don't think I insult Christ if I don't follow Him in baptism. Fact is that we are now under the administration of grace. And please remember that works and grace are mutually exclusive. If I had to follow Christ in baptism, then I also had to follow the reasons for water baptism like: "Shall be saved" (Mark) or "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2). Well, this I can not do, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

It is only by grace that any work is done. And scripture says that faith without works is dead faith.

Grace works with faith. So to say that grace and works is "mutually exclusive" is like saying that God didn't have grace when He created all things. Him creating is a "work".

You are on a slippery slope. I don't think you've considered everything to come to your conclusion. This is not only a literary matter, but a theological one.



I fully go along with Paul when he says that to continue with water baptism now, would make the cross of Christ of no effect.

You mean you fully go along with how you interpret Paul's words.


The cross, grace, fath is now on the throne, and in my faith and conduct I will most certainly reflect that. I will not go back to fleshy ordinances of the time before the cross was preached.

In grace

Scripture doesn't say the cross, grace or faith is on the throne.
You also contradict yourself in saying you will not go back to fleshly ordinances. Are you not of flesh and blood still? Have you not in your flesh set up an ordinance in denying baptism by water?

You might want to rethink this. Both grace and faith are uncreated. So how does your created flesh relate to that, by your fleshly mind.....a conundrum for you.

David2
May 11th 2009, 06:55 PM
Grace works with faith. So to say that grace and works is "mutually exclusive" is like saying that God didn't have grace when He created all things. Him creating is a "work"
You seem to confuse Gods works and man's works. "By grace are we saved, and not by the works of the law." Rom. 4:4 says if works are involved, it is not by grace.


You mean you fully go along with how you interpret Paul's words.

No, just how I read it. "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect".


Scripture doesn't say the cross, grace or faith is on the throne.
ROM 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, `even' Jesus Christ.


You also contradict yourself in saying you will not go back to fleshly ordinances. Are you not of flesh and blood still? Have you not in your flesh set up an ordinance in denying baptism by water?

No, I don't deny baptism by water. I just believe the gospel that says salvation is by grace and through faith alone. I also believe that all we can posses as Christians is spiritual. I also believe the warning in Gal. 3:3 which says don't start in the Spirit and then go back and end in the flesh again. This is clearly a warning against fleshy ordinances.

Eben
May 11th 2009, 07:50 PM
Hi Teke,
This is exactly what I said the mainstream will say. I still want to know how could Paul say what he did if baptism with water was so important. Surely he could have or rather should have said something else to keep the importance of baptism. If we read verse 18 he says he only preach the Cross and nothing that will compromise the Cross. That means to me that baptism is one of those things.
In Christ

Eben
May 11th 2009, 08:01 PM
Hi Firstfruits,
Yes Paul did baptise but that was before Acts 13. After he received the message of the mystery (Eph.3) he did not baptise again. He only preached the message of Grace through faith.
The Bible is an account of things that has happened was busy happening at the time of writing and of things still in the future. It was not written as a Book of rules only, I think it is called progressive revelation.
In Christ.

Teke
May 11th 2009, 10:01 PM
You seem to confuse Gods works and man's works. "By grace are we saved, and not by the works of the law." Rom. 4:4 says if works are involved, it is not by grace.

We can play the scriptures like cards if you like. I'll trump that with ...

Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

So it is not through the "works of the law".

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.


No, just how I read it. "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect".

You can confirm that with two more scriptures that agree with your understanding that Paul is degrading baptism.


ROM 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, `even' Jesus Christ.


None of the things you posted are in that verse. (cross, faith, grace) Though I would say grace must be there with God there.


No, I don't deny baptism by water. I just believe the gospel that says salvation is by grace and through faith alone.

And no one disagrees with this.


I also believe that all we can posses as Christians is spiritual. I also believe the warning in Gal. 3:3 which says don't start in the Spirit and then go back and end in the flesh again. This is clearly a warning against fleshy ordinances.

The Galatians warning is more for Judaizers.

We can't take "fleshly ordianances" to an extreme. Surely there is a right way to worship and a wrong way to worship. Or we wind up with no worship.

Teke
May 11th 2009, 10:08 PM
Hi Teke,
This is exactly what I said the mainstream will say. I still want to know how could Paul say what he did if baptism with water was so important. Surely he could have or rather should have said something else to keep the importance of baptism. If we read verse 18 he says he only preach the Cross and nothing that will compromise the Cross. That means to me that baptism is one of those things.
In Christ

Kewl.:D
Cause there is no recorded history that teaches otherwise. Even St Andrew the Apostle used a literal cross to teach about Jesus to those who could not read or write (the Slavs). ]ref. the three bar cross of the eastern church, aka St Andrew's cross.

The Apostles taught the church that baptism was necessary.

kay-gee
May 11th 2009, 10:29 PM
[QUOTE]First we must reckognise that Peter at Pentacost also did not baptise in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. He baptised with Johns baptism which means that the time was not ready for Israel to have become the holy nation of Priests,

How do you know that? Book chapter verse please?



they will first have to repent as a nation before that can happen, then they will be baptised with the baptism of Matt 28.


Totally idiotic! How will the apostles be able to do what they were told to do? They've been dead for 2000 years?!!!

Concerning the new administration of Paul read Acts 13 again
I don't see any administration change

So
Paul is saying that he does not baptise because he does not want to hinder the cross?

But Paul did baptize...read verses 14 and 16. So what you are saying can't be true.

all the best...

David2
May 12th 2009, 07:38 PM
We can play the scriptures like cards if you like. I'll trump that with ...

Jhn 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

I don't believe in playing the Bible like a pack of cards. If there are seeming confusions or contradictions, then there will always by a Biblical and consistent explanation for it. Yes. there are many "works" verses and just as many "faith and grace" verses. So what is it now, works or grace?

The answer is of course: Both. When you talk about the way of salvation, how to be reconciled with God, it is by grace, through faith alone. If you talk about your daily walk as a Christian, your calling in this world, the way to maintain your communion with Christ, then works are essential and indispensable.

So, don't confuse the two. Your status as Christian is by God's grace only. Your practical stand and communion with the saviour depends on your obedience and works of faith.

In His grace

Eben
May 12th 2009, 07:55 PM
Totally idiotic! How will the apostles be able to do what they were told to do? They've been dead for 2000 years?!!!

Please think again. Who is going to fulfill the promisses to the fathers of Israel? Surely not the 12 apostles that are metioned in the Bible. There will be others that will be called of God to fulfill His will. Although the 12 Apostles will have a role to play in the millinium, read Revelations. Just another thought for you there are twelve apostles 1 for each tribe of Israel, what about Paul?



How do you know that? Book chapter verse please?

Mat 3:2 "Turn away from your sins," he said, "because the Kingdom of heaven is near!"
This is Johns baptism. Repent the Kingdom is at hand.

Now Peter says
Act 2:30 He was a prophet, and he knew what God had promised him: God had made a vow that he would make one of David's descendants a king, just as David was.
This is the Kingdom he is speaking of. Jesus must reign as King in Jerusalem, the millinium.

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For God's promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away---all whom the Lord our God calls to himself.



If you cant see here that this is the same baptism as that of John I dont know what to say further.
By the way what promise is Peter speaking of here?




I don't see any administration change

All I can ask is read it as it stand:
Act 13:46 But Paul and Barnabas spoke out even more boldly: "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. But since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we will leave you and go to the Gentiles.


Here Paul says they are going to the Gentiles. Since this time Paul concentrated on the Gentiles and finally he stopped talking to the Jews as a nation in Acts 28:28.

Act 28:27 because this people's minds are dull, and they have stopped up their ears and closed their eyes. Otherwise, their eyes would see, their ears would hear, their minds would understand, and they would turn to me, says God, and I would heal them.' "
Act 28:28 And Paul concluded: "You are to know, then, that God's message of salvation has been sent to the Gentiles. They will listen!"



But Paul did baptize...read verses 14 and 16. So what you are saying can't be true.



I will just quote scripture


1Co 1:14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius.
1Co 1:15 No one can say, then, that you were baptized as my disciples.
1Co 1:16 (Oh yes, I also baptized Stephanas and his family; but I can't remember whether I baptized anyone else.)
1Co 1:17 Christ did not send me to baptize. He sent me to tell the Good News, and to tell it without using the language of human wisdom, in order to make sure that Christ's death on the cross is not robbed of its power.

He is thanking God he only baptised.....


In Christ

kay-gee
May 13th 2009, 04:37 AM
You seem to confuse Gods works and man's works. "By grace are we saved, and not by the works of the law." Rom. 4:4 says if works are involved, it is not by grace.


That is your stumbling block right there! Your mis-use of this scripture. You are not alone though. It is a favourite of the anti-water people. This verse has nothing to do with baptism. Paul here is drawing a comparison between the new covenant (grace) and the old (law) which was basically a religion of works. Baptism IS NOT A WORK. It is submission to Gods command. God does all the work. You do nothing! The Lord tells you do a very simple thing, and you try to out philosophize it every which way to Sunday. What there is about Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 that you people aren't getting?


No, just how I read it. "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect".


But you said that he never baptized because it was a new administration or something. He DID baptize. These verse say so. There were capable men in the Corinthian church to do the actual baptizing, While Paul preached, but he certainly would baptize when the oppurtunity arose. He was Paul the Apostle , not Paul the Baptist. I'm OK with that, but these verses do not negate baptism. Not a bit!



No, I don't deny baptism by water. I just believe the gospel that says salvation is by grace and through faith alone. I also believe that all we can posses as Christians is spiritual. I also believe the warning in Gal. 3:3 which says don't start in the Spirit and then go back and end in the flesh again. This is clearly a warning against fleshy ordinances.

The demons BELIEVE... so what? there is more to it than that.

all the best...

kay-gee
May 13th 2009, 04:50 AM
Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Each one of you must turn away from your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven; and you will receive God's gift, the Holy Spirit.
Act 2:39 For God's promise was made to you and your children, and to all who are far away---all whom the Lord our God calls to himself.


You are good at quoting scripture. Very good. Now work on your understanding of scripture

all the best...

Eben
May 13th 2009, 04:54 AM
Once again I will quote scripture:
2Ti 2:15 StudyG4704 to shewG3936 thyselfG4572 approvedG1384 unto God,G2316 a workmanG2040 that needeth not to be ashamed,G422 rightly dividingG3718 theG3588 wordG3056 of truth.G225
2Ti 2:16 ButG1161 shunG4026 profaneG952 and vain babblings:G2757 forG1063 they will increaseG4298 untoG1909 moreG4119 ungodliness.G763

kay-gee
May 13th 2009, 12:03 PM
Great!...but tell you what....Let's just deal with Acts 2:38 and 39 for now.

Another ploy of the anti-waters is to dance all over the Bible and never dealing with the scriptures that are specific to Baptism.

all the best...

Firstfruits
May 13th 2009, 12:48 PM
Great!...but tell you what....Let's just deal with Acts 2:38 and 39 for now.

Another ploy of the anti-waters is to dance all over the Bible and never dealing with the scriptures that are specific to Baptism.

all the best...

There is one very important point we seem to be overlooking and it is this, what Jesus has said in the following is His commandment.

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mt 17:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Can we ignore Gods commandment?

Firstfruits

Teke
May 13th 2009, 02:22 PM
I don't believe in playing the Bible like a pack of cards. If there are seeming confusions or contradictions, then there will always by a Biblical and consistent explanation for it. Yes. there are many "works" verses and just as many "faith and grace" verses. So what is it now, works or grace?

The answer is of course: Both. When you talk about the way of salvation, how to be reconciled with God, it is by grace, through faith alone. If you talk about your daily walk as a Christian, your calling in this world, the way to maintain your communion with Christ, then works are essential and indispensable.

So, don't confuse the two. Your status as Christian is by God's grace only. Your practical stand and communion with the saviour depends on your obedience and works of faith.

In His grace

Col 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.

Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

IOW walk your talk. I'd agree with that. Such agrees with baptism. :)

In peace,
Eve

Firstfruits
May 13th 2009, 05:16 PM
Christs command is for all nations to be taught and to be baptized, it is for Jew and Gentile.

Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Christs command remains, there is no change. All nations means all nations.

God bless!

Firstfruits

David2
May 13th 2009, 06:24 PM
In summary the reasons why I believe the command to baptise with water in Matt. 28 has been phase out.

1. The cross as way of salvation was not known in Matt. 28, therefore, a ordinance with water was in place to hold on to. Today we have the full knowledge of the foundations of salvation - all spititual - and we can not go back to fleshy ordinances (Gal. 3:3)

2, Christ's command to baptise with water at the end of the gospels goes together with the command to retain peoples sins or forgive them their sins (JN 20:23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever `sins' ye retain, they are retained.) Like water baptism, this command is not in effect any more.

3. Some say we baptise just to obey Christ's command. Yes, we have to obey, but can we obey everything in the Bible? Now. Dispensations have changed. We are not under the shadows of the first covenant any more but in the light of Christ's full revelation of reconciliation through the cross. To obey water baptism is impossible because it was for the remission of sins and with the promise of "shall be saved". The gospel of today don't carry any hint of salvation by water.

4. Christianity did not exist in the days of Matt. 28 and Acts 2. All believers were Jews under the law. All attended temple ceremonies and were under the ordinances of the law. These ordinances are now called "shadows or first principals that have been done away with (Galatians, Col. 2, Hebrews.)

5. Where do we go in Gods word to find the commands for the Church? Do we go to a period of time before Christianity existed, before the cross was preached and while people were under the covenant of Israel and the law?

6. We now have only one way of salvation (spiritual) and only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Since we are today saved by the working of the Holy Spirit, our baptism is also the spiritual one (1 Cor. 12:13), refering back to Christ's baptism in His death which was also not water.

7. Paul was not called to baptise. If baptism was still for the remission of sins and for salvation as indicated, then Paul would most certainly not have been called to leave baptism behind. But now, this clear announcement in 1 Cor. 1:17 links perfectly with the gospel of salvation through faith alone preached by him.

Firstfruits
May 13th 2009, 07:18 PM
Were the disciples not witnesses to the cross, and were they not to teach what they had seen and heard of christ according to his teachings and commandments?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

Lk 24:46 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=46) And said unto them, Thus it is written, and Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Lk 24:48 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=48) And ye are witnesses of these things.

The message of Christ, the gospel of Christ is still the same, what Christ taught and commanded is unchanged.

The message of the Cross lives on.

Firstfruits

Teke
May 13th 2009, 09:16 PM
In summary the reasons why I believe the command to baptise with water in Matt. 28 has been phase out.

1. The cross as way of salvation was not known in Matt. 28, therefore, a ordinance with water was in place to hold on to. Today we have the full knowledge of the foundations of salvation - all spititual - and we can not go back to fleshy ordinances (Gal. 3:3)

2, Christ's command to baptise with water at the end of the gospels goes together with the command to retain peoples sins or forgive them their sins (JN 20:23 whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever `sins' ye retain, they are retained.) Like water baptism, this command is not in effect any more.

3. Some say we baptise just to obey Christ's command. Yes, we have to obey, but can we obey everything in the Bible? Now. Dispensations have changed. We are not under the shadows of the first covenant any more but in the light of Christ's full revelation of reconciliation through the cross. To obey water baptism is impossible because it was for the remission of sins and with the promise of "shall be saved". The gospel of today don't carry any hint of salvation by water.

4. Christianity did not exist in the days of Matt. 28 and Acts 2. All believers were Jews under the law. All attended temple ceremonies and were under the ordinances of the law. These ordinances are now called "shadows or first principals that have been done away with (Galatians, Col. 2, Hebrews.)

5. Where do we go in Gods word to find the commands for the Church? Do we go to a period of time before Christianity existed, before the cross was preached and while people were under the covenant of Israel and the law?

6. We now have only one way of salvation (spiritual) and only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). Since we are today saved by the working of the Holy Spirit, our baptism is also the spiritual one (1 Cor. 12:13), refering back to Christ's baptism in His death which was also not water.

7. Paul was not called to baptise. If baptism was still for the remission of sins and for salvation as indicated, then Paul would most certainly not have been called to leave baptism behind. But now, this clear announcement in 1 Cor. 1:17 links perfectly with the gospel of salvation through faith alone preached by him.




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

"Baptism.....for the remission of sins"(literally in Greek "to let go" of sins) is a major part of John's preparation of the people for Jesus coming. Later, in Christian baptism, God not only fogives our sins, letting them go, but He also brings us into union with Christ (see Rom. 6:5)

++++++++++

Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit means that only Christ, the Son of God, fully possesses and gives the Spirit. So to receive the Spirit we must be baptized in Christ and adopted as children of God (see Gal. 3:27, Eph. 1:5). In adoption, Christians become anointed ones; it was of these God said, "Do not touch My anointed ones" (Ps. 105:15).

++++++++++++++

Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

By saying that He came up from the water, Mark suggests Jesus was immersed in water. Christ's rising from the water is symbolic of His Ascension, since the same Greek verb (anabaino) is used to refer to that event.

Also see John 3:13, Acts 2:34 and note in Eph. 4:8-10, Paul's rabbinic way of intertwining the Ascension of Christ, (He ascended), with the the descent of the Spirit (gave gifts) reveals the relationship between the Body of Christ and the gifts of the Spirit.

The early fathers taught that in coming up, He lifts the whole world with Him. The Spirit descending upon Him foreshadows the Spirit's descent upon the first Christians at Pentecost.

Firstfruits
May 15th 2009, 10:46 AM
Were the disciples not witnesses to the cross, and were they not to teach what they had seen and heard of christ according to his teachings and commandments?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

Acts 2:41 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Has their doctrine/teaching they recieved from Christ changed?

Firsfruits

David2
May 15th 2009, 12:28 PM
Were the disciples not witnesses to the cross, and were they not to teach what they had seen and heard of christ according to his teachings and commandments?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

Acts 2:41 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=41) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Has their doctrine/teaching they recieved from Christ changed?

Of course their doctrine have changed. I have Indicated this repeatedly. They did not have the slightest idea of what the preaching of the cross means. Salvation through the merits of Christ on the cross was totally hidden for them. They had no idea that there would be complete equality between Jew and Gentile. In Acts. 2 they were part of the one exclusive Jewish faith and did not even have an idea of what it means to be part of the body of Christ, a new creation of God where Jewish ordinances did not exist and were Jews did not have any prority or priestly/ mediatory role at all.

Grace to you

Firstfruits
May 15th 2009, 12:56 PM
Of course their doctrine have changed. I have Indicated this repeatedly. They did not have the slightest idea of what the preaching of the cross means. Salvation through the merits of Christ on the cross was totally hidden for them. They had no idea that there would be complete equality between Jew and Gentile. In Acts. 2 they were part of the one exclusive Jewish faith and did not even have an idea of what it means to be part of the body of Christ, a new creation of God where Jewish ordinances did not exist and were Jews did not have any prority or priestly/ mediatory role at all.

Grace to you

With regards to the following scripture, who changed it?

Gal 1:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal 1:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) 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 1:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Gal 2:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Firstfruits

David2
May 15th 2009, 01:17 PM
With regards to the following scripture, who changed it?

Gal 1:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal 1:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) 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 1:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Gal 2:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Firstfruits

Gal. 1:6-11: Man changed it according to their own ideas. They changed it back to a physical gospel of ordinances.

Gal. 2:2 : This is the real change that was brought about by God. When Paul received the revelation of the gospel among the Gentiles, he had to go to Jerusalem to explain this to the Jewish apostles.

Firstfruits
May 15th 2009, 01:23 PM
Gal. 1:6-11: Man changed to according to their own ideas. They changed it back to a physical gospel of ordinances.

Gal. 2:2 : This is the real change that was brought about by God. When Paul received the revelation of the gospel among the Gentiles, he had to go to Jerusalem to explain this to the Jewish apostles.

Who was it that Changed Christs commandment regarding baptism, knowing that although Jesus did not command Paul to baptize yet there is nowhere where he changed or took away his commandment as Paul did baptize?

Firstfruits

David2
May 15th 2009, 02:33 PM
Who was it that Changed Christs commandment regarding baptism, knowing that although Jesus did not command Paul to baptize yet there is nowhere where he changed or took away his commandment as Paul did baptize?

Firstfruits

What we need to understand first is that the body of Christ is a new creation by God (Eph. 2:15). Therefore, the body of Christ is NOT the same as the body of Jewish believers that existed around Acts 2. The regulations and practices of the Acts 2 era does not automatically carry over to the body of Christ. Numerous changes took place. The Jews required signs, but signs have stopped (1 Cor. 1).

Rater than looking at fleshy commands from the Jewish body and then asking "where did it change", we should rather ask: Since water baptism was clearly "for the remission of sins" and "to be saved", while now that the merits of the cross is openly preached, we are saved and forgiven by grace through faith ONLY. So, rather ask this question: Does water baptism still have a place? Do we find a command to continue with water baptism after the message of the cross was preached? I don't know of any. I only know that Paul was not called to baptise, but IN STEAD, to preach the message of the cross. It is very clear in 1 Cor, 1 that the preaching of the cross took the place of the importance of water baptism.

And then, of course, there is Hebrews 9. Baptising (the Greek word "baptismois"), is grouped together with all the other fleshy ordinances of the Jews, and all of that was phased out (Hebr. 9:10,11). Also here in Hebrews 9 we clearly find WHAT was brought in in the place of these baptisms and ordinances (Heb. 9:11). In the place of physical ordinances DID NOT COME other physical ordinances but only the once and for all spiritual reality of Christ and His offering on the cross.

Grace to you

Firstfruits
May 15th 2009, 02:34 PM
Gal. 1:6-11: Man changed it according to their own ideas. They changed it back to a physical gospel of ordinances.

Gal. 2:2 : This is the real change that was brought about by God. When Paul received the revelation of the gospel among the Gentiles, he had to go to Jerusalem to explain this to the Jewish apostles.

With regards to what Jesus commanded his apostles where has it changed?

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 9:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 20:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 2620-23
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The message of Paul is the same as that of the apostles, there is no change.

There is one gospel.

Firstfruits

David2
May 15th 2009, 02:40 PM
With regards to what Jesus commanded his apostles where has it changed?

My answer to this question is still the same as in my last post.


What we need to understand first is that the body of Christ is a new creation by God (Eph. 2:15). Therefore, the body of Christ is NOT the same as the body of Jewish believers that existed around Acts 2. The regulations and practices of the Acts 2 era does not automatically carry over to the body of Christ. Numerous changes took place. The Jews required signs, but signs have stopped (1 Cor. 1).

Rater than looking at fleshy commands from the Jewish body and then asking "where did it change", we should rather ask: Since water baptism was clearly "for the remission of sins" and "to be saved", while now that the merits of the cross is openly preached, we are saved and forgiven by grace through faith ONLY. So, rather ask this question: Does water baptism still have a place? Do we find a command to continue with water baptism after the message of the cross was preached? I don't know of any. I only know that Paul was not called to baptise, but IN STEAD, to preach the message of the cross. It is very clear in 1 Cor, 1 that the preaching of the cross took the place of the importance of water baptism.

And then, of course, there is Hebrews 9. Baptising (the Greek word "baptismois"), is grouped together with all the other fleshy ordinances of the Jews, and all of that was phased out (Hebr. 9:10,11). Also here in Hebrews 9 we clearly find WHAT was brought in in the place of these baptisms and ordinances (Heb. 9:11). In the place of physical ordinances DID NOT COME other physical ordinances but only the once and for all spiritual reality of Christ and His offering on the cross.

Grace to you

Firstfruits
May 15th 2009, 02:48 PM
My answer to this question is still the same as in my last post.

You are saying that something has changed when according to the scriptures they have not changed, Pauls message is the same as the message that Christ gave his disciples.

Christ to the Disciples
Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Christ to Paul
Acts 9:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Acts 20:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 26: 20-23
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The message and teaching is the same.

Firstfruits

David2
May 15th 2009, 06:06 PM
You are saying that something has changed when according to the scriptures they have not changed, Pauls message is the same as the message that Christ gave his disciples.

Christ to the Disciples
Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Christ to Paul
Acts 9:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Acts 20:21 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=20&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=21) Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 26: 20-23
20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

The message and teaching is the same.

Firstfruits

You try to say there is no change.

Do you deny that remission of sins used to be by water baptism but from Paul it was through faith in the merits of the cross?

RabbiKnife
May 15th 2009, 06:11 PM
Remission of sins has never ever been by water baptism.

Teke
May 15th 2009, 06:57 PM
Remission of sins has never ever been by water baptism.
Excuse me Rabbi, is this your Christology.

In the traditional church for two thousand years, baptism does provide remission of former sins. However it does not excuse you from further sins. Repentance with confession does that.

In baptism we die and are resurrected in Christ, how can we have sin when Christ is sinless.

Teke
May 15th 2009, 07:01 PM
Do you deny that Do you deny that remission of sins used to be by water baptism but from Paul it wat throug faith in the merits of the cross?

How is it that you see baptism seperate from the cross? A person dies and is buried in baptism, that is a re-presenting of the message of the cross.

I do not see why you paint the water baptized Christian as some sort of sychophant. I do not believe that glorifies our Lord.

Firstfruits
May 16th 2009, 10:41 AM
You try to say there is no change.

Do you deny that remission of sins used to be by water baptism but from Paul it was through faith in the merits of the cross?


Forgivness/Remission of sin according to the teaching/doctrine of Christ has never been by baptism. Baptism can never forgive sins.

Mt 26:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mk 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:43 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

The gospel/commission of Christ regarding remission/forgiveness of sin is as it has always been prophesied before Christ gave his commission.

Jer 31:34 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jer 36:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=36&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.

Only Christ can forgive, this is Christs doctrine, it is Gods Command.

The message has not changed.

Firstfruits

David2
May 16th 2009, 11:21 AM
Yes, only Christ can forgive. You are so right.
But before people knew it, before it was preached as gospel, they had water baptism to hold on to. That was their anchor or "handle" on the grace of God while they did not know the real grounds of remission for sins in the cross.

So you also rightly quoted that John preached baptism for the remission of sins:


Mk 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

MK 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

ACTS 2:38 And Peter `said' unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the early part of Acts you never find the remission of sins preached on the grounds of what happened on the cross. BUT: After the real gospel of our salvation was made known, baptism was never again offered for salvation or the remission of sins.

Yes, I admit that Matt. 26:28 does say something about the blood of Christ for the remission of sins. But please take note: How often do you really find the blood of Christ for the remission of sins in Scriptures before the start of Paul's ministry? Very or even extremely seldom indeed. How can it be possible that the most important message in the Bible (redemption through the cross) hardly ever appear in the Bible before Acts 13?. This one instance in Matt. 26 is not proof at all that this was a known doctrine at that time. It was just an isolated pronouncement made by Christ that was not at all understood by the disciples at that time. Just read Luke 18:34 carefully.

LK 18:33 and they shall scourge and kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

LK 18:34 And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said.

Three times repeated that they knew nothing, but nothing at all that Christ was about to die on the cross, let alone a gospel that was built around the cross. Peter had a massive opportunity to preach to multitudes on the big Pentecost festival. Would he not have preached salvation through faith in the blood and the cross if he knew it? Of course he would, but he did not.

In His grace

Firstfruits
May 16th 2009, 11:29 AM
Yes, only Christ can forgive. You are so right.
But before people knew it, before it was preached as gospel, they had water baptism to hold on to. That was their anchor or "handle" on the grace of God while they did not know the real grounds of remission for sins in the cross.

So you also rightly quoted that John preached baptism for the remission of sins:


Mk 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

ACTS 2:38 And Peter `said' unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the early part of Acts you never find the remission of sins preached on the grounds of what happened on the cross. BUT: After the real gospel of our salvation was made known, baptism was never again offered for salvation or the remission of sins.

Yes, I admit that Matt. 26:28 does say something about the blood of Christ for the remission of sins. But please take note: How often do you really find the blood of Christ for the remission of sins in Scriptures before the start of Paul's ministry? Very or even extremely seldom indeed. How can it be possible that the most important message in the Bible (redemption through the cross) hardly ever appear in the Bible before Acts 13?. This one instance in Matt. 26 is not proof at all that this was a known doctine at that time. It was just an isolated pronouncement made by Christ that was not at all understood by the disciples. Just read Luke 18:34.

LK 18:34 And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said.

Three times repeated that they knew nothing, but nothing at all about Christ about to die on the cross, let alose a gospel that was built around the cross. Peter had a massive opportunity to preach to multitudes on the big Pentecost festival. Would he not have preached salvation through faith in the blood and the cross if he knew it? Of course he would, but he did not.

The gospel message was remission of sins through Christ, as Christ commanded them;

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

How then can you say they did not know?

Pauls message is the same.

Acts 5:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 13:38 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=38) Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Acts 26:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Again I say the message and Christs commission has not Changed.

Firstfruits

David2
May 16th 2009, 12:42 PM
Before Paul the message of the cross was never preached at all. Before Paul water baptism was for the remission of sins and for salvation. That is what Scriptures clearly states. The message of the cross is now our normal everyday gospel, but it was never preached before Paul.

ROM 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath `of God' through him.

ROM 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with `him', that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;

ROM 6:10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

ROM 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?


1COR 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

1COR 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

GAL 6:14 But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

EPH 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

EPH 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

COL 1:20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, `I say', whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

COL 1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:

Shall we continue? There is so much more in Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus Timothy and Peter. The gospel of the cross, the messagege of salvation through faith in Christ and His cross is overwhelming in Pauls letters and thereafter, while we can see only glimpses of this message before that time. And, at the same time, where the cross was not preached, water baptism was offered as a handle of faith, a handle we most certainly don't need when we have the reality of Christ revealed to us.

Firstfruits
May 16th 2009, 02:20 PM
Before Paul the message of the cross was never preached at all. Before Paul water baptism was for the remission of sins and for salvation. That is what Scriptures clearly states. The message of the cross is now our normal everyday gospel, but it was never preached before Paul.

ROM 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath `of God' through him.

ROM 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with `him', that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;

ROM 6:10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

ROM 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?


1COR 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.

1COR 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

GAL 6:14 But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

EPH 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

EPH 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

COL 1:20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, `I say', whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

COL 1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:

Shall we continue? There is so much more in Colossians, Thessalonians, Titus Timothy and Peter. The gospel of the cross, the messagege of salvation through faith in Christ and His cross is overwhelming in Pauls letters and thereafter, while we can see only glimpses of this message before that time. And, at the same time, where the cross was not preached, water baptism was offered as a handle of faith, a handle we most certainly don't need when we have the reality of Christ revealed to us.


Paul was not there when Jesus said the following to the disciples;

Luke 24 24:44-48
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Are you saying that the disciples did not preach as Christ commanded them to?

Did Jesus not teach them about the cross to which they were witnesses?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

Were the disciples disobedient?

Why did they continue in the disciples doctrine, is the following Pauls teaching or Peters concerning the cross?

Acts 2:22-42
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Was the message given not complete? The cross, repentance, remission/forgiveness of sin, and baptism, according to Christ commission.

Firstfruits

David2
May 17th 2009, 05:12 AM
Paul was not there when Jesus said the following to the disciples;

Luke 24 24:44-48
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

Are you saying that the disciples did not preach as Christ commanded them to?

Did Jesus not teach them about the cross to which they were witnesses?

Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

Were the disciples disobedient?

Why did they continue in the disciples doctrine, is the following Pauls teaching or Peters concerning the cross?

Acts 2:22-42
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Was the message given not complete? The cross, repentance, remission/forgiveness of sin, and baptism, according to Christ commission.

Firstfruits

Lets quickly go through Acts 2:22-42 as you have quoted it.

v.22 Who are the people addressed in this message? It is the nation of Israel under the law and ordinances. Tie Church which is the body of Christ did not exit at all.

v. 23 Peter accuses the nation that they have crucified the Lord. This is a terrible accusation against them - and that is all it is. Most certainly not the preaching of salvation through the merits of Christ.

v. 24 God have raised Him from the dead. This is a historical fact and a wonderful work of the power of God. But does it say what the meaning of the resurrection is? Not at all. Does he offer them remission of sins and a new life on the grounds of the resurrection? Not at all. Read 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 6 for the preaching of the resurrection. Here in Acts 2 is nothing of that, only an indictment against Israel. Verse 24 must be read in conjunction with verse 23. Nothing of the spiritual merits are mentioned. He only tells Israel THY klilled Him, and then bring them a bit of bad news. He tells them that God have reased Him from the grave and therefore they can expect to be brought to book for there terrible act. Therefore, they had to REPENT to be able to receive remission of their sin - and that was at the time only through baptism.

v. 30 In the context of the audience (Israel), Christ is presented to them as the son of David. Israel had the promise that the son of David would come to restore the kingdom of the nation of Israel. Christ is never presented to the Church consisting of all nations in this way.

v. 31 Again, none of the spiritual fruits of the resurrection as we find it in 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 6. In this context, the resurection as preached here, was a confirmation of the promisses made to David that the Massah would come to usher in the kingdom for Israel. For this reason, He could not be kept in the grave. God raised Him up, and the conclusion is clear: He is comming to set up His kingdom and clearly according to prophecy, He will deal with His enemies when He comes for the kingdom. So Peter's hearers had to decide: Are we on His side, or are we His enemies?

v. 36 Again, this is for the house of Israel. Christianity did not yet come into existance.

v. 37 This is a crucial vere that we must understand. They were pricked in the heart. What pricked them in the heart? Was it the preaching of the cross? No, can't be. Salvation through faith in the blood, cross and resurrection was not preached at all. The only thing that pricked them in the heart was this terrable indictment against them. THEY have put Him to death. But unfortunately for them, this is not the end of the story. Through David and the promisses made to Him, there is a great plan with Him and God raised Him from the grave. What now? Israel had to choose: Are we with Him, or are we his enemies? Do we really dare to stand as His enemies when He return? This pricked them in the heart. But this is not at all the preaching of the cross as we know it and as it was given to the Church.

V. 38 They were pricked in the heart and asked "What can we do" What would we have told them if we would preach the message committed to us? Wouldn't we have said: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and the merits of the cross and you will be saved? Of course we would. But in stead, Peter gave the message committed to him at that stage BEFORE the gospel of the cross was known. He told them to be baptised for the remission of sins.

The message that was brought by Peter on the day of Pentecost was complete and perfect for that time, occasion and those hearers. It was Israel at a signifficant turning point in their history. Would they accept Christ as Messiah of the nation of Israel and all the kingdom promisses given to them through David, or would they dare to become the enemies of Christ? The Church of all the nations did not exist and the preaching of the cross as Gods way of salvation was not known at all.

Firstfruits
May 17th 2009, 10:23 AM
Lets quickly go through Acts 2:22-42 as you have quoted it.

v.22 Who are the people addressed in this message? It is the nation of Israel under the law and ordinances. Tie Church which is the body of Christ did not exit at all.

v. 23 Peter accuses the nation that they have crucified the Lord. This is a terrible accusation against them - and that is all it is. Most certainly not the preaching of salvation through the merits of Christ.

v. 24 God have raised Him from the dead. This is a historical fact and a wonderful work of the power of God. But does it say what the meaning of the resurrection is? Not at all. Does he offer them remission of sins and a new life on the grounds of the resurrection? Not at all. Read 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 6 for the preaching of the resurrection. Here in Acts 2 is nothing of that, only an indictment against Israel. Verse 24 must be read in conjunction with verse 23. Nothing of the spiritual merits are mentioned. He only tells Israel THY klilled Him, and then bring them a bit of bad news. He tells them that God have reased Him from the grave and therefore they can expect to be brought to book for there terrible act. Therefore, they had to REPENT to be able to receive remission of their sin - and that was at the time only through baptism.

v. 30 In the context of the audience (Israel), Christ is presented to them as the son of David. Israel had the promise that the son of David would come to restore the kingdom of the nation of Israel. Christ is never presented to the Church consisting of all nations in this way.

v. 31 Again, none of the spiritual fruits of the resurrection as we find it in 1 Cor. 15 and Rom. 6. In this context, the resurection as preached here, was a confirmation of the promisses made to David that the Massah would come to usher in the kingdom for Israel. For this reason, He could not be kept in the grave. God raised Him up, and the conclusion is clear: He is comming to set up His kingdom and clearly according to prophecy, He will deal with His enemies when He comes for the kingdom. So Peter's hearers had to decide: Are we on His side, or are we His enemies?

v. 36 Again, this is for the house of Israel. Christianity did not yet come into existance.

v. 37 This is a crucial vere that we must understand. They were pricked in the heart. What pricked them in the heart? Was it the preaching of the cross? No, can't be. Salvation through faith in the blood, cross and resurrection was not preached at all. The only thing that pricked them in the heart was this terrable indictment against them. THEY have put Him to death. But unfortunately for them, this is not the end of the story. Through David and the promisses made to Him, there is a great plan with Him and God raised Him from the grave. What now? Israel had to choose: Are we with Him, or are we his enemies? Do we really dare to stand as His enemies when He return? This pricked them in the heart. But this is not at all the preaching of the cross as we know it and as it was given to the Church.

V. 38 They were pricked in the heart and asked "What can we do" What would we have told them if we would preach the message committed to us? Wouldn't we have said: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and the merits of the cross and you will be saved? Of course we would. But in stead, Peter gave the message committed to him at that stage BEFORE the gospel of the cross was known. He told them to be baptised for the remission of sins.

The message that was brought by Peter on the day of Pentecost was complete and perfect for that time, occasion and those hearers. It was Israel at a signifficant turning point in their history. Would they accept Christ as Messiah of the nation of Israel and all the kingdom promisses given to them through David, or would they dare to become the enemies of Christ? The Church of all the nations did not exist and the preaching of the cross as Gods way of salvation was not known at all.

Are you saying that repentance, being baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins in order to recieve the Holy Ghost, and abiding in the apostles doctrine according to the following scripture is no longer valid for today, if so whose doctrine are we to follow?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

This message still holds true whether we are Jew or Gentile. 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.

There is no remission/forgiveness of sin without repentance, and there is only forgivness/remission of sin by faith in Christ.

Christ commission to His disciples still stands unless God himself has changed it. Gods commands do not get phased out, they either stand or they do not stand.

Firstfruits

chad
May 17th 2009, 10:57 AM
Hi David2,

Before Jesus died, John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. When Jesus died and was ressurected, the baptism of repentance was no longer needed, as Christ paid the price with his blood, through his sacrifice on the cross. There was a change in covenant as well as a change in priesthood. Therefore you would also expect a change in Baptism.

After Pentecost, the disciples were baptizing believers into the name of Jesus. It was through this baptism that we associate with Jesus death and ressurection.

Old Covenant - Law of Moses
(Baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.)

New Covenant - New Priesthood in the Order of Melchezidick
(Baptised into Jesus name + Baptism of the Holy spirit and with Fire).

We associate with Jesus Death and Ressurection through this Baptism. It was through Jesus death and ressurection that we recieve forgiveness of sins. Through this Baptism we also recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.



Yes, only Christ can forgive. You are so right.
But before people knew it, before it was preached as gospel, they had water baptism to hold on to. That was their anchor or "handle" on the grace of God while they did not know the real grounds of remission for sins in the cross.

So you also rightly quoted that John preached baptism for the remission of sins:


Mk 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

MK 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

ACTS 2:38 And Peter `said' unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the early part of Acts you never find the remission of sins preached on the grounds of what happened on the cross. BUT: After the real gospel of our salvation was made known, baptism was never again offered for salvation or the remission of sins.

Yes, I admit that Matt. 26:28 does say something about the blood of Christ for the remission of sins. But please take note: How often do you really find the blood of Christ for the remission of sins in Scriptures before the start of Paul's ministry? Very or even extremely seldom indeed. How can it be possible that the most important message in the Bible (redemption through the cross) hardly ever appear in the Bible before Acts 13?. This one instance in Matt. 26 is not proof at all that this was a known doctrine at that time. It was just an isolated pronouncement made by Christ that was not at all understood by the disciples at that time. Just read Luke 18:34 carefully.

LK 18:33 and they shall scourge and kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.

LK 18:34 And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said.

Three times repeated that they knew nothing, but nothing at all that Christ was about to die on the cross, let alone a gospel that was built around the cross. Peter had a massive opportunity to preach to multitudes on the big Pentecost festival. Would he not have preached salvation through faith in the blood and the cross if he knew it? Of course he would, but he did not.

In His grace

David2
May 17th 2009, 11:29 AM
Firstfruits

Gods commands do not get phased out, they either stand or they do not stand.
God's commands DO get phased out.
Do we still baptise for the remission of sins? No we don't. We believe in Christ's atonement for the remission of sins.
Do we still forgive peoples' sins or retain peoples' sins? Now we don't
Do we still circumcise? No
Do we still bring offerings to the temple?
Do we still tell the woman of Matt. 15 Christ did not come for her but only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?
Do we still tell the disciples and the multitudes that the Pharisees are in Moses seat and that they must do whatever the Pharisees tell them to do (Matt. 23)?
A man or a woman who is a medium, do we still stone then to death (Lev. 20:27)? Or people who worship other Gods, do we stone them (Deutr. 17:1-5)?

And there are many, many more commands of God that have been phased out.

Firstfruits
May 17th 2009, 02:16 PM
Firstfruits

God's commands DO get phased out.
Do we still baptise for the remission of sins? No we don't. We believe in Christ's atonement for the remission of sins.
Do we still forgive peoples' sins or retain peoples' sins? Now we don't
Do we still circumcise? No
Do we still bring offerings to the temple?
Do we still tell the woman of Matt. 15 Christ did not come for her but only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?
Do we still tell the disciples and the multitudes that the Pharisees are in Moses seat and that they must do whatever the Pharisees tell them to do (Matt. 23)?
A man or a woman who is a medium, do we still stone then to death (Lev. 20:27)? Or people who worship other Gods, do we stone them (Deutr. 17:1-5)?

And there are many, many more commands of God that have been phased out.

It has always been by the blood of Jesus that we have remission/forgiveness of sin. Where does it say that baptism has ever been able to forgive sin?

Are you saying that if someone does you wrong that you do not forgive them as Christ has commanded?

When did Christs commission command us to be circumcised?

When did Christs teaching/commission command us to bring offerings to the temple?

We live according to the gospel of Christ, and the doctrine of his apostles.

Which gospel are we to follow if the gospel of Christ has changed?

Is there therefore another gospel?

With the understanding that Christ has not changed his commission/gospel, who has changed it, and what does the bible teach us concerning those that teach another gospel?

Baptism can never forgive, it never has and never will, Remission/forgivenes by baptism is not scriptual. It is only by God and that power has been given to Christ.

If an angel from heaven or any man teach any other gospel??????

Firstfruits

Alaska
May 17th 2009, 08:24 PM
Do we still baptise for the remission of sins? No we don't.


Where did Peter appologize for his famous quote in Acts 2:38?
Of course baptism is for the remission of sins.
There is a difference between the verbal forgiveness of a debt granted by someone and the formal remission of that debt.

If a decree was made by the govt. that all those facing losing their homes due to the mortgage crisis are forgiven of all debt and the govt has set aside money to make all payments to the homeowners' creditors to ensure that these people keep their homes, yet these people need to go to their banks and sign the appropriate paperwork; this would be something similar showing the difference between forgiveness and remission. The verbal declaration is a cause for great joy, yet there is a need for response by the beneficiaries of this kindness to establish upon themselves that favour granted. Obviously their trip to the bank will be a joyous one; like the trip to become baptized should be.

What strange "Gospel" denies Peter's words that baptism is for remission of sins?

Such blatant disrespect to the authority of an Apostle placed by Jesus to establish his church is not to be taken lightly.

Come, let us reason together, what assumptions have been made that places one in the position to conclude that Peter's words are not valid?

Firstfruits
May 18th 2009, 11:51 AM
Where did Peter appologize for his famous quote in Acts 2:38?
Of course baptism is for the remission of sins.
There is a difference between the verbal forgiveness of a debt granted by someone and the formal remission of that debt.

If a decree was made by the govt. that all those facing losing their homes due to the mortgage crisis are forgiven of all debt and the govt has set aside money to make all payments to the homeowners' creditors to ensure that these people keep their homes, yet these people need to go to their banks and sign the appropriate paperwork; this would be something similar showing the difference between forgiveness and remission. The verbal declaration is a cause for great joy, yet there is a need for response by the beneficiaries of this kindness to establish upon themselves that favour granted. Obviously their trip to the bank will be a joyous one; like the trip to become baptized should be.

What strange "Gospel" denies Peter's words that baptism is for remission of sins?

Such blatant disrespect to the authority of an Apostle placed by Jesus to establish his church is not to be taken lightly.

Come, let us reason together, what assumptions have been made that places one in the position to conclude that Peter's words are not valid?


Thanks Alaska,

Well said, however I would point out that baptism of itself cannot forgive sin, that right is reserved only for Christ. Christ has commanded baptism to be done knowing that only he can forgive/wash away/cleanse us from sin.

Mt 26:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Lk 1:77 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Rom 3:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) 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;

God bless you!!!!

Firstfruits

Teke
May 18th 2009, 12:58 PM
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be of [His] resurrection,

Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [Him], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Rom 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Rom 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

Rom 6:10 For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God.

Rom 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Baptism is reality! It is not something that somehow 'stands for' reality. The cross is the power of God for overcoming sin (1 Cor. 1:18), and baptism is our cross.

If Christ was buried for us, how are we "buried with Him"? Through baptism. What Christ accomplished in the grave-an actual and real burial of sin-baptism is to us: an actual and real burial of sin.

To "walk in newness of life" means a life of faith.

Just as a physical body, once dead, has no more response to it's enviroment, so we who die with Christ in baptism ought not to respond to sin.

As Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, "there is an antitype which saves us-baptism". Through the water of baptism the resurrected Christ, having taken His place in heaven itslef, gives us a clean conscience.

Why do we need an antitype, because we are not all already sitting in heaven with Christ. Baptism is the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to His church the benefits of His mediation. [i]That is a paraphrase of the English Reformations Westminster catechism. According to the Reformed statement on sacraments, they are "sign" and "seal".

Firstfruits
May 18th 2009, 03:21 PM
Rom 6:3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be of [His] resurrection,

Rom 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [Him], that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

Rom 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Rom 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

Rom 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him.

Rom 6:10 For [the death] that He died, He died to sin once for all; but [the life] that He lives, He lives to God.

Rom 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Baptism is reality! It is not something that somehow 'stands for' reality. The cross is the power of God for overcoming sin (1 Cor. 1:18), and baptism is our cross.

If Christ was buried for us, how are we "buried with Him"? Through baptism. What Christ accomplished in the grave-an actual and real burial of sin-baptism is to us: an actual and real burial of sin.

To "walk in newness of life" means a life of faith.

Just as a physical body, once dead, has no more response to it's enviroment, so we who die with Christ in baptism ought not to respond to sin.

As Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21, "there is an antitype which saves us-baptism". Through the water of baptism the resurrected Christ, having taken His place in heaven itslef, gives us a clean conscience.

Why do we need an antitype, because we are not all already sitting in heaven with Christ. Baptism is the outward and ordinary means by which Christ communicates to His church the benefits of His mediation. [I]That is a paraphrase of the English Reformations Westminster catechism. According to the Reformed statement on sacraments, they are "sign" and "seal".

Thanks Teke,

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Alaska
May 19th 2009, 01:16 AM
Well said, however I would point out that baptism of itself cannot forgive sin, that right is reserved only for Christ. Christ has commanded baptism to be done knowing that only he can forgive/wash away/cleanse us from sin.

Mt 26:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=26&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Lk 1:77 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Lk 24:47 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=47) And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Rom 3:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) 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;

The questions remain,



What strange "Gospel" denies Peter's words that baptism is for remission of sins?
Such blatant disrespect to the authority of an Apostle placed by Jesus to establish his church is not to be taken lightly.
Come, let us reason together, what assumptions have been made that places one in the position to conclude that Peter's words are not valid?



Please explain the steps in your logic whereby the conclusion has been arrived at that what Peter said is not true. You are not communicating clearly.
Taking for granted that the baptism is being done to a genuine believer who has genuinely repented after genuinely correctly hearing and receiving the gospel: How is it then that this person taking Peter's word at face value and seeks to become baptized for the remission of sins is deceived?
This is a covenant, He has done His part and died for us and he requires that we be a part of that and enter into this covenant with an act representing his death for us and our commitment to the subsequent death to self as the result of his death.

God has every right to require a kind of signature to the deal.
Throwing out the revelation Peter makes known in Acts 2;38 is a victory for him who comes to steal, kill, and destroy.
It is like saying to Peter: Peter, you don't understand, see, Jesus' blood did it all, baptism doesn't really have anything to do with remission of sins; it is unnecessary.


[/quote] (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25)
Rom 3:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) 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; (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25)
(http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25)Since this is apparently being used to contradict Peter in Acts 2:38, your interpretation of this is therefore absolutely wrong.

Izdaari
May 19th 2009, 03:14 AM
With regards to the following scriptures, knowing that Christ has all authority from the Father, are we rejecting Christ by not doing as he has commanded?

Mt 28:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt 28:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) 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.

If we therefore fail to teach as Christ has commanded, would the following apply?

1 Tim 6:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1 Tim 6:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=54&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

God bless you!

FirstfruitsMy church (Assemblies of God) does baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That Christ said to do it that way is sufficient reason.

kay-gee
May 19th 2009, 04:26 AM
Where did Peter appologize for his famous quote in Acts 2:38?
Of course baptism is for the remission of sins.
There is a difference between the verbal forgiveness of a debt granted by someone and the formal remission of that debt.

If a decree was made by the govt. that all those facing losing their homes due to the mortgage crisis are forgiven of all debt and the govt has set aside money to make all payments to the homeowners' creditors to ensure that these people keep their homes, yet these people need to go to their banks and sign the appropriate paperwork; this would be something similar showing the difference between forgiveness and remission. The verbal declaration is a cause for great joy, yet there is a need for response by the beneficiaries of this kindness to establish upon themselves that favour granted. Obviously their trip to the bank will be a joyous one; like the trip to become baptized should be.

What strange "Gospel" denies Peter's words that baptism is for remission of sins?

Such blatant disrespect to the authority of an Apostle placed by Jesus to establish his church is not to be taken lightly.

Come, let us reason together, what assumptions have been made that places one in the position to conclude that Peter's words are not valid?

A huge Amen to that Alaska!!

all the best...

Firstfruits
May 19th 2009, 08:15 AM
The questions remain,



Please explain the steps in your logic whereby the conclusion has been arrived at that what Peter said is not true. You are not communicating clearly.
Taking for granted that the baptism is being done to a genuine believer who has genuinely repented after genuinely correctly hearing and receiving the gospel: How is it then that this person taking Peter's word at face value and seeks to become baptized for the remission of sins is deceived?
This is a covenant, He has done His part and died for us and he requires that we be a part of that and enter into this covenant with an act representing his death for us and our commitment to the subsequent death to self as the result of his death.

God has every right to require a kind of signature to the deal.
Throwing out the revelation Peter makes known in Acts 2;38 is a victory for him who comes to steal, kill, and destroy.
It is like saying to Peter: Peter, you don't understand, see, Jesus' blood did it all, baptism doesn't really have anything to do with remission of sins; it is unnecessary.


(http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25)
(http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25)Since this is apparently being used to contradict Peter in Acts 2:38, your interpretation of this is therefore absolutely wrong.[/quote]

There is no contradiction as we know that only Christ/God can forgive sin.

The scriptures give an order of believing and then being baptized. So your sins are forgiven as you repent of your sins by Christ, then you are baptized.

Mk 16:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Acts 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=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.

Acts 18:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, And were baptized.

Believe and be baptized.

I hope that explains that there is no contradiction, unless you can be saved by baptism without first believing and repenting.

Mt 3:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mt 3:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mk 1:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=41&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Lk 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

God bless you!

Firstfruits

kay-gee
May 19th 2009, 12:35 PM
Hi FirstFruits. I am probably the most water preaching guy you can ever meet, but even I would never suggest that water baptism can save without belief. How great it would be if this were so. I would simply set up a water pool somewhere in a busy area and start throwing people in as fast as I could catch them!

Belief and baptism are absolutely integral to one another.

Think of this. An urgent message says...The building is on fire! Those who leave immediately will not be harmed. Now first of all, to save harm to yourself, you must believe the message. Second you must act upon what you believe. To remain in the building is a testament of non-belief in the message. Part and parcel.

In Acts 2:37 the audience was pricked in their heart after hearing the message of the crucified ad risen saviour, and asked what shall we do?
(to be saved)

I am confident that they understood the imperative...by the results. 3000 were baptized in a single day!

Hope this helps a bit.

all the best...

Firstfruits
May 19th 2009, 01:05 PM
Hi FirstFruits. I am probably the most water preaching guy you can ever meet, but even I would never suggest that water baptism can save without belief. How great it would be if this were so. I would simply set up a water pool somewhere in a busy area and start throwing people in as fast as I could catch them!

Belief and baptism are absolutely integral to one another.

Think of this. An urgent message says...The building is on fire! Those who leave immediately will not be harmed. Now first of all, to save harm to yourself, you must believe the message. Second you must act upon what you believe. To remain in the building is a testament of non-belief in the message. Part and parcel.

In Acts 2:37 the audience was pricked in their heart after hearing the message of the crucified ad risen saviour, and asked what shall we do?
(to be saved)

I am confident that they understood the imperative...by the results. 3000 were baptized in a single day!

Hope this helps a bit.

all the best...

Thanks Kay-Gee,

Yes that does help, as I was wondering why even though Paul said baptism for the remission/repentance of sin that there was misunderstanding as to the method/operation.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Fred Anderson
May 19th 2009, 08:56 PM
Is anyone willing to answer this question?
His name is Jesus.
:kiss:

Firstfruits
May 20th 2009, 08:30 AM
His name is Jesus.
:kiss:

Welcome to the forum Fred Anderson,

Thanks for your imput, I hope you will enjoy the forum.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77