Page 38 of 47 FirstFirst ... 272829303132333435363738394041424344454647 LastLast
Results 556 to 570 of 701

Thread: How necessary Baptism?

  1. #556
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    455

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Does the bible show where someone has been washed from their sins without baptism ? Yes.

    Does baptism save ? No

    Paul was very clear about Jewish law being negated through the cross and how even circumcision itself was of no value anymore in the redemption process. How would replacing circumcision with baptism be of any profit since he has already made it abundantly clear to the Galatians that no work can save. That no ACTION by man, other than yielding in spiritual belief can save ? And even that in itself is not an action.

    You are replacing one law for another and the scriptures don't support your view. When you isolate scripture as you are doing, then isolate others and see how it works. For instance... Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all his possession's and follow Him to inherit the kingdom. Does that mean you must ? Jesus was speaking to that particular man because he knew his heart. His stronghold. Jesus told some to be baptized because He knew their heart and their stronghold. But genuine belief and submission will bring salvation, and if Christ desires that someone be baptized, surrender to ministry, and anything else, they will follow.
    Who's sins were washed away prior to baptism after Christ's ascension into Heaven?

    I agree that the Law (of Moses) was completed and nailed to the cross with Christ. We are no longer subject to it. I am not creating a new Law. I am reading Christ's commands. There are ACTIONS that must be taken. Repentance is an action; a change in thinking leading to a change in direction of our life. Confession of Jesus name is an action; a public verbal expression of our belief that Jesus is God. And these both are clearly required for us to receive salvation. Are they not?

    Did Jesus just tell some to be baptized? Or did He tell the Apostles, and us, to preach the Gospel and everyone who believes the Gospel and that Jesus is the Christ and is baptized will be saved? Thus a command to everyone everywhere.

  2. #557
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    455

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slug1 View Post
    It is not an invalid question. We know this because as Philip's example in the Bible shows us, a person cannot be baptized until AFTER they are redeemed by Christ. Thus the reason Philip asked the eunuch about his belief in Christ. Had the eunuch not professed Christ, Philip knew he could not baptize the man because Christ must FIRST redeem a person because they can accomplish their 1st faithful good work as a Christian.

    To answer your question: Yes because redemption/justification means a person has been reborn in Christ, His blood has washed them clean.

    Here is another reason why it is not an invalid question.

    How many people do you know who have testified about praying in repentance to God while alone on some road, at a rest stop, or in the kitchen of their home, or in a latrine in Hohenfels Germany, and while Christ made them born-again, they had not yet found someone to baptize them... would you tell "their" family/friends that their faith amounted to nothing and they are not in heaven because Jesus can't save until man submerges the believer in water??

    Repent and "BE" baptized is a "sign" of a heart that is reborn, thus why baptism is understood as a good work of faith OF one who is saved, not a work that saves (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 10:44+, ohhh, 1 Cor 1:14-17 (always a good one to point to what saves = Christ only)...) I can post more but I want to touch on something more specific in relation to your post/?.

    Buried with Christ, are you referring to this:

    Colossians 2:9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, 10 and you have been filled by him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. 11 You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, 12 when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him and forgave us all our trespasses. 14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and disgraced them publicly; he triumphed over them in him.[c]


    The scripture is specific, a person is first FILLED by Christ (redeemed/justified) and this is what saves a believer, not another believer baptizing them. The baptism is symbolic of the COMPLETED work that Christ has done (lived, died, resurrection) for man to be redeemed = His BLOOD:

    [B]Hebrews 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we can serve the living God?

    15 Therefore, he is the mediator of a new covenant,[c] so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

    Romans 5:6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For rarely will someone die for a just person—though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. 8 But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 How much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by his blood, will we be saved through him from wrath.

    Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace


    All understanding MUST point to and focus ON Christ. If a person is not saved until a man does a work, then the focus is not on the WORK Christ did for all of mankind, the focus is back on what mankind does instead.
    There is no argument here that the Blood of Christ is what cleanses us. All the passages you list here are true. But did you miss the portion of Col 2 where Paul tells us that we are baptized "into Christ's death. "You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism" So we were circumcised of the body of flesh when we were baptized. Jesus' Blood was poured out for all mankind at the cross, but it is poured over an individual in baptism.

  3. #558
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    455

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    That post wasn't to Kali.. Look again. it was for YOU. Answer Slugs question if you dare because it's a valid one.

    And you ain't Jesus.
    Agreed. I ain't Jesus. But it is clearly a legitimate practice to answer a question with a question.

    And I already explained why the question is invalid. The teen should never have been put off from immediate obedience to God's command after his initial profession of belief, just as every Biblical story demonstrates.

    The answer to his question is yes. If asked by the parent of a teenager who professed belief but was put off from baptism for a month and died in the interim, their child is not in Heaven. Would I want to tell them that, no. I would not want to heap more misery on an already broken family. But I could not give them false hope in light of Scripture's statements otherwise.

    Scripture clearly states when our sins are washed away: when the body of sin is cut off (circumcised) in baptism (Col 2). Scripture clearly states when our new life begins: when we arise in the likeness of Jesus' resurrection from baptism (Rom 6). Scripture clearly states that baptism is done for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). So yes, this child did not put on Christ, and the fault is the "pastor" in Slug's question.

  4. #559
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    Who's sins were washed away prior to baptism after Christ's ascension into Heaven?

    I agree that the Law (of Moses) was completed and nailed to the cross with Christ. We are no longer subject to it. I am not creating a new Law. I am reading Christ's commands. There are ACTIONS that must be taken. Repentance is an action; a change in thinking leading to a change in direction of our life. Confession of Jesus name is an action; a public verbal expression of our belief that Jesus is God. And these both are clearly required for us to receive salvation. Are they not?

    Did Jesus just tell some to be baptized? Or did He tell the Apostles, and us, to preach the Gospel and everyone who believes the Gospel and that Jesus is the Christ and is baptized will be saved? Thus a command to everyone everywhere.
    Acts 10 / 7 - They received the Spirit and were saved. Paul specified that THEY - more than one - had received the Holy Spirit just like WE have. They had been baptized by the Spirit ... as Paul and the other apostle's had been. This is un-debatable. So, unless the Holy Spirit can resided in a believer BEFORE their sins were washed away you have no leg to stand on friend. Prove that someone can still be a condemned and have the Spirit if you can. Otherwise, you have no case.

    And all of this BEFORE baptism.

  5. #560
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    455

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Acts 10 / 7 - They received the Spirit and were saved. Paul specified that THEY - more than one - had received the Holy Spirit just like WE have. They had been baptized by the Spirit ... as Paul and the other apostle's had been. This is un-debatable. So, unless the Holy Spirit can resided in a believer BEFORE their sins were washed away you have no leg to stand on friend. Prove that someone can still be a condemned and have the Spirit if you can. Otherwise, you have no case.

    And all of this BEFORE baptism.
    I have addressed this already, many times. This was a specific, unique circumstance. The Apostles did not recognize the Gentiles as acceptable recipients of the Gospel message until the Spirit fell on them (the Gentiles) as it did on the Apostles on Pentecost. They were ready to condemn Peter for communing with Gentiles until he told them the full story in order from the beginning. Acts 11:1-4 "Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:..."

    But when they heard the story, they glorified God saying, "“Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”"

    This was a message to the Apostles, not a confirmation of their salvation. And as I have also pointed out, the Spirit fell on Cornelius before he had heard the Gospel. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning." Thus he could not yet have believed the Gospel, thus, by your own argument, he could not yet have been saved, because we must first believe before we can be saved.

  6. #561
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a place of praying hard and trusting God while battling on my knees!
    Posts
    31,649
    Blog Entries
    95

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    There is no argument here that the Blood of Christ is what cleanses us. All the passages you list here are true. But did you miss the portion of Col 2 where Paul tells us that we are baptized "into Christ's death. "You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism" So we were circumcised of the body of flesh when we were baptized. Jesus' Blood was poured out for all mankind at the cross, but it is poured over an individual in baptism.
    Brother, then this is where you need to pray from. Paul's lesson is specific (spells out) to what a water baptism represents. Paul also stats that the importance isn't on the baptism when he states that he comes speaking the Gospel, not to baptize

    Why would be make this statement? Answer: Because AS what you reffed, teaches us HOW and WHAT a water baptism represents in the work that Jesus' Blood completed in a believer = saved them, which is redemption/justification.

    Paul spells it out... I'll quote: you were circumcised WITH a circumcision NOT DONE with hands... WHEN you were buried with him in baptism. The baptism that circumcised, which Paul is spelling out is NOT of a type done by hands. The "WHEN" is the baptism (no hands) that Christ does when He comes into a believer.
    Slug1--out

    ~Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,~

    ~Honestly, the pain of persecution lets you KNOW you are still alive... IN Christ!~

    ~Colossians 1:28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.~


    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~


  7. #562
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Agreed. I ain't Jesus. But it is clearly a legitimate practice to answer a question with a question.
    Not for us mere mortal's it isn't. I prefer an actual answer. Jesus answered questions to questions in order to reveal the heart to whomever he was speaking to. This is an internet chat room and sometimes, I agree this can be done here. But in a doctrinal debate, generally speaking, letting a yes be a yes or a no be a no greatly helps us understand one another's position.

    And I already explained why the question is invalid. The teen should never have been put off from immediate obedience to God's command after his initial profession of belief, just as every Biblical story demonstrates.
    The only thing that's insufficient is your explanation for why the question asked was not valid. The question is absolutely valid, however inconvenient it may be to the doctrine you hold.

    The answer to his question is yes. If asked by the parent of a teenager who professed belief but was put off from baptism for a month and died in the interim, their child is not in Heaven. Would I want to tell them that, no. I would not want to heap more misery on an already broken family. But I could not give them false hope in light of Scripture's statements otherwise.
    So you would lie to them ? This still isn't a genuine answer.
    Scripture clearly states when our sins are washed away: when the body of sin is cut off (circumcised) in baptism (Col 2). Scripture clearly states when our new life begins: when we arise in the likeness of Jesus' resurrection from baptism (Rom 6). Scripture clearly states that baptism is done for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). So yes, this child did not put on Christ, and the fault is the "pastor" in Slug's question.
    This is a gross misinterpretation of both circumcision and baptism. Your approach to baptism puts the forgiveness of sin on man and not the blood of Jesus as received by faith. I do find it odd that you claim that the Holy Spirit operates differently in certain situations. Peter never once mentioned urgency in getting these gentiles in the water so they wouldn't perish. He plainly said that they were JUST LIKE HIM. The baptism that saves is by the Holy Spirit, not by covering oneself in H20.

    I would ask you at what point DOES water baptism NOT save. Suppose someone didn't go ALL the way under ? Are they partially washed ? Not washed at all ? And if you say the action is what's important as an indicator of the heart, and full submersion doesn't wash away all sin, would that not seem contradictory to your stance ? When is enough ? At what point does this water fully save ? It's a slippery slope your own when a man's actions justify him in ANY way , whatsoever.

  8. #563
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    I have addressed this already, many times. This was a specific, unique circumstance. The Apostles did not recognize the Gentiles as acceptable recipients of the Gospel message until the Spirit fell on them (the Gentiles) as it did on the Apostles on Pentecost. They were ready to condemn Peter for communing with Gentiles until he told them the full story in order from the beginning. Acts 11:1-4 "Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:..."

    But when they heard the story, they glorified God saying, "“Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”"

    This was a message to the Apostles, not a confirmation of their salvation. And as I have also pointed out, the Spirit fell on Cornelius before he had heard the Gospel. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning." Thus he could not yet have believed the Gospel, thus, by your own argument, he could not yet have been saved, because we must first believe before we can be saved.
    And every time you address it , it comes up short. There are massive holes in your explanation. These Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit JUST AS THEY HAD - the circumcised - BEFORE BAPTISM. PERIOD. The Holy Spirit fell, and dwelled. They "HAD" the spirit, and Peter was basically asking " Since these people are ALREADY saved, what should prevent them from being baptized ?" It was a rhetorical question. In other words - they are saved and SHOULD NOW be baptized. I've not met one C of C member or anyone else who believed in water based salvation who could intelligently explain this. Not one including you. You keep presenting a circular argument.

    I would also ask you this... if I were saved and baptized, would I be redeemed if I didn't believe that baptism saved me ? Would it not "count" ?

  9. #564
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,623

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    I have addressed this already, many times. This was a specific, unique circumstance. The Apostles did not recognize the Gentiles as acceptable recipients of the Gospel message until the Spirit fell on them (the Gentiles) as it did on the Apostles on Pentecost. They were ready to condemn Peter for communing with Gentiles until he told them the full story in order from the beginning. Acts 11:1-4 "Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:..."

    But when they heard the story, they glorified God saying, "“Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”"

    This was a message to the Apostles, not a confirmation of their salvation. And as I have also pointed out, the Spirit fell on Cornelius before he had heard the Gospel. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning." Thus he could not yet have believed the Gospel, thus, by your own argument, he could not yet have been saved, because we must first believe before we can be saved.
    This is the weakest possible argument, and patently untrue.
    1) Is this or is this not a "confirmation of Salvation?" You say it is not, but here is what we read:

    Acts 10.39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

    Acts 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

    Clearly, Cornelius *heard the messaage.* The message was that Jesus was *appointed as Judge,* and *delivered from death.* How is Cornelius' *believing this message* not *confirmation of Salvation?* It was *as Peter was delivering this message,* and had in fact been *delivering this message* that Cornelius was Spirit Baptized.

    In other words, the message was already sufficiently delivered, even though the speech itself had not been completed in Peter's mind. Peter may have thought more of the message needed to be delivered or explained. The Holy Spirit felt that enough of the message had been delivered to grant Salvation. This was indeed a confirmation of Salvation, which is exactly what the Spirit Baptism is!

    2) Was this a "message to the Apostles" exclusive of any "confirmation of Salvation?" No, the message to the Apostles was precisely that--a confirmation that God was *Saving the Gentiles!* See point #1.

  10. #565
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalahari
    Posts
    6,005

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    So you were never condemned. That's not scriptural.
    If I was dead in sin I was condemned.

    Was my assurance in salvation ever in doubt? By the grace of God no.

  11. #566
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    455

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    This is the weakest possible argument, and patently untrue.
    1) Is this or is this not a "confirmation of Salvation?" You say it is not, but here is what we read:

    Acts 10.39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

    Acts 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

    Clearly, Cornelius *heard the messaage.* The message was that Jesus was *appointed as Judge,* and *delivered from death.* How is Cornelius' *believing this message* not *confirmation of Salvation?* It was *as Peter was delivering this message,* and had in fact been *delivering this message* that Cornelius was Spirit Baptized.

    In other words, the message was already sufficiently delivered, even though the speech itself had not been completed in Peter's mind. Peter may have thought more of the message needed to be delivered or explained. The Holy Spirit felt that enough of the message had been delivered to grant Salvation. This was indeed a confirmation of Salvation, which is exactly what the Spirit Baptism is!

    2) Was this a "message to the Apostles" exclusive of any "confirmation of Salvation?" No, the message to the Apostles was precisely that--a confirmation that God was *Saving the Gentiles!* See point #1.
    The story of Cornelius' conversion is told in both Acts 10 and 11. You are correct that in chapter 10 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." But in chapter 11 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. So which is it? I believe that, since all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore never contradicts itself, the only explanation is that the Spirit came on them as Peter began to speak and continued while he spoke. So the Gospel had not yet been preached, although he did finish preaching it, and the Spirit continued on them while he continued to teach. In what way does that contradict the Word? You all continually state that we are saved by belief. But Cornelius had not believed yet. He couldn't have because he hadn't heard yet. This is not circular, but linear just as Romans 10:13-14.

    Preacher sent -----> Message preached ------> Messaged believed ------> Call on Jesus Name
    Peter --> Spirit falls -Peter preaches -----> Cornelius believes ----> baptized

    The explanation for why the Spirit could come on them even before they were saved was that they were righteous according to the Patriarchal system that the Gentiles were still under. I believe that there were some Gentiles families with whom God continued to speak with the heads of households even after Abraham was given the covenant. Why do I believe this? Cornelius for one. God spoke to him, he recognized the voice, and obeyed it. Moses' father-in-law for another. He was not of Abraham's seed, but he heard God's voice and obeyed it. And there are many others as well. So I believe that Cornelius, if he had not lived during the time of the transition from OT to NT, would have been saved under the Patriarchal "law". He had already demonstrated faith by sending for Peter in obedience to God. But he was not yet saved under the NT because he did not know who Jesus was at the time, and so could not obey the Gospel and call on Jesus name (he didn't know who Jesus was until Peter told him).

  12. #567

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    There is a difference between saying "water baptism is part of the formula for salvation" and saying "water baptism saves you as a symbolic act." It is not the symbolic act that actually saves, but what the symbolic act represents!

    The abbreviated statement, "baptism saves you," is understood by language convention. It is not saying "water baptism is an essential element in salvation." Rather, it is an abbreviated form of saying, "water baptism, *as a symbol of salvation,* saves you inasmuch as this symbol depicts important ingredients in salvation."

    The symbolic act of water baptism represents acts that are critical to Salvation, and as such, *represents* those things. It's like saying, "If you go up to that church and accept Jesus, you will be saved." And then, to abbreviate, I say, "going to that church will save you."

    It is not literally the trip to church that saves a person, but rather, the fact it represents actually getting to church and converting to Christ. In the same way it is not the act of water baptism that literally saves someone, but the fact it is an expression of real conversion to Christ.

    Salvation was often followed up by water baptism because it represented a sincere confession that Salvation was not only committed to, but it is now something to be followed from henceforth. It is like saying, "What saves you is not just the act of commitment to Christ, but more, the *eternal* commitment to Christ in which the confession is followed up by the commitment.
    In my 1st two sentences of my post, I attested that water baptism does not actually save us. Being saved is solely by the grace of God through our faith in Jesus as the living son of God.

    But, there is a lot of texts and bible references that support that we are to continue with the practice of water baptism.

    To teach otherwise would be teaching against what Jesus and the apostles encouraged to the church that should be observed in our practices.

  13. #568
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    11,623

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    The story of Cornelius' conversion is told in both Acts 10 and 11. You are correct that in chapter 10 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." But in chapter 11 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. So which is it? I believe that, since all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore never contradicts itself, the only explanation is that the Spirit came on them as Peter began to speak and continued while he spoke. So the Gospel had not yet been preached, although he did finish preaching it, and the Spirit continued on them while he continued to teach. In what way does that contradict the Word? You all continually state that we are saved by belief. But Cornelius had not believed yet. He couldn't have because he hadn't heard yet. This is not circular, but linear just as Romans 10:13-14.

    Preacher sent -----> Message preached ------> Messaged believed ------> Call on Jesus Name
    Peter --> Spirit falls -Peter preaches -----> Cornelius believes ----> baptized

    The explanation for why the Spirit could come on them even before they were saved was that they were righteous according to the Patriarchal system that the Gentiles were still under. I believe that there were some Gentiles families with whom God continued to speak with the heads of households even after Abraham was given the covenant. Why do I believe this? Cornelius for one. God spoke to him, he recognized the voice, and obeyed it. Moses' father-in-law for another. He was not of Abraham's seed, but he heard God's voice and obeyed it. And there are many others as well. So I believe that Cornelius, if he had not lived during the time of the transition from OT to NT, would have been saved under the Patriarchal "law". He had already demonstrated faith by sending for Peter in obedience to God. But he was not yet saved under the NT because he did not know who Jesus was at the time, and so could not obey the Gospel and call on Jesus name (he didn't know who Jesus was until Peter told him).
    You're wrong.
    1) Cornelius received the Spirit from the work of Jesus, and not from the OT system, which Jesus died to liberate Israel from. The Law held the promise of Salvation, but held Israel in bondage to the curse of sin until Jesus liberated them from that system.

    John 14.26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

    John the Baptist plainly said that the coming of the Spirit would be a baptism from Jesus, and not from the OT Law. Clearly, the Spirit of God operated under the Law during the OT era. But after Christ's work on the cross, the Spirit came to confirm a New Covenant operation. And that's what Cornelius was both promised and experienced.

    2) You admit that the Spirit fell upon Cornelius while Peter was speaking to him, and yet claim that it was before Peter even said enough to him to preach Jesus to him. Clearly, the text indicates that Peter had been preaching Jesus to Cornelius *before* the Spirit fell on him. In fact, the implication is that the Spirit fell on him *because* he had been preaching to him, and had received what Peter had been telling him. I'll quote it for you again....

    Acts 10.34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

    39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

    44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.


    It is plain and simple that Peter began to speak to Cornelius in vs. 34. And that is plain because the words of Peter are recorded right after that. That means Peter actually spoke, and didn't just begin to speak, without actually saying anything. Not only did he begin to speak, but he proceeded to provide truth about Jesus that Cornelius could believe in. And then we see that Cornelius received that word, resulting in his being filled with the Holy Spirit.

    You completely reverse this, in order to establish *false doctrine.* You claim the Law is still in effect, and that the Holy Spirit anointed the Law. Certainly, the Holy Spirit operated under the Law while that Covenant was still in effect. But Jesus died to liberate Israel from the curse of the Law, and from the ceremonies that illustrated their continuing bondage.

  14. #569
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a place of praying hard and trusting God while battling on my knees!
    Posts
    31,649
    Blog Entries
    95

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    The story of Cornelius' conversion is told in both Acts 10 and 11. You are correct that in chapter 10 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." But in chapter 11 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. So which is it? I believe that, since all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore never contradicts itself, the only explanation is that the Spirit came on them as Peter began to speak and continued while he spoke. So the Gospel had not yet been preached, although he did finish preaching it, and the Spirit continued on them while he continued to teach. In what way does that contradict the Word? You all continually state that we are saved by belief. But Cornelius had not believed yet. He couldn't have because he hadn't heard yet. This is not circular, but linear just as Romans 10:13-14.

    Preacher sent -----> Message preached ------> Messaged believed ------> Call on Jesus Name
    Peter --> Spirit falls -Peter preaches -----> Cornelius believes ----> baptized

    The explanation for why the Spirit could come on them even before they were saved was that they were righteous according to the Patriarchal system that the Gentiles were still under. I believe that there were some Gentiles families with whom God continued to speak with the heads of households even after Abraham was given the covenant. Why do I believe this? Cornelius for one. God spoke to him, he recognized the voice, and obeyed it. Moses' father-in-law for another. He was not of Abraham's seed, but he heard God's voice and obeyed it. And there are many others as well. So I believe that Cornelius, if he had not lived during the time of the transition from OT to NT, would have been saved under the Patriarchal "law". He had already demonstrated faith by sending for Peter in obedience to God. But he was not yet saved under the NT because he did not know who Jesus was at the time, and so could not obey the Gospel and call on Jesus name (he didn't know who Jesus was until Peter told him).
    Brother, part of your post here is eisegesis in nature. Yes, Cornelius (and family/friends) feared God but there is an element about salvation that is prominent. HEARING! So two elements of salvation were missing in these Gentiles lives, 1) Hearing the Gospel and 2) the Holy Spirit.

    They received BOTH and this was the evidence that Peter needed (but there is more in these two needs) that the Gentiles before him HAD BEEN SAVED by Christ. The other need was God's need to PROVE to the Jews, specifically Peter, they salvation was ALSO for the Gentiles. Once Peter witnessed what the Holy Spirit was doing INSIDE of them as tongues manifested, OUTSIDE of them... a gifting given ONLY to people who are MEMBERS of the Body and who are SEALED by, the Holy Spirit. Once Peter witnessed this, then he knew he also needed to help them with their first good work of faith.

    Brother, if Peter never water baptized them, those Gentiles would still be saved because the evidence that the Holy Spirit made them Born-again, is evident to even you and I. If Peter never baptized them, the Holy Spirit would NOT leave them and render them, UN-Born-again.

    Just as man can't save a un-saved person by baptizing an un-saved person in water, man can't un-save a saved person by not baptizing a saved person.
    Slug1--out

    ~Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,~

    ~Honestly, the pain of persecution lets you KNOW you are still alive... IN Christ!~

    ~Colossians 1:28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.~


    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~


  15. #570
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    In a place of praying hard and trusting God while battling on my knees!
    Posts
    31,649
    Blog Entries
    95

    Re: How necessary Baptism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brents View Post
    The story of Cornelius' conversion is told in both Acts 10 and 11. You are correct that in chapter 10 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word." But in chapter 11 we are told that the Spirit came on Cornelius "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them. So which is it? I believe that, since all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore never contradicts itself, the only explanation is that the Spirit came on them as Peter began to speak and continued while he spoke. So the Gospel had not yet been preached, although he did finish preaching it, and the Spirit continued on them while he continued to teach. In what way does that contradict the Word? You all continually state that we are saved by belief. But Cornelius had not believed yet. He couldn't have because he hadn't heard yet. This is not circular, but linear just as Romans 10:13-14.

    Preacher sent -----> Message preached ------> Messaged believed ------> Call on Jesus Name
    Peter --> Spirit falls -Peter preaches -----> Cornelius believes ----> baptized

    The explanation for why the Spirit could come on them even before they were saved was that they were righteous according to the Patriarchal system that the Gentiles were still under. I believe that there were some Gentiles families with whom God continued to speak with the heads of households even after Abraham was given the covenant. Why do I believe this? Cornelius for one. God spoke to him, he recognized the voice, and obeyed it. Moses' father-in-law for another. He was not of Abraham's seed, but he heard God's voice and obeyed it. And there are many others as well. So I believe that Cornelius, if he had not lived during the time of the transition from OT to NT, would have been saved under the Patriarchal "law". He had already demonstrated faith by sending for Peter in obedience to God. But he was not yet saved under the NT because he did not know who Jesus was at the time, and so could not obey the Gospel and call on Jesus name (he didn't know who Jesus was until Peter told him).
    Brother, part of your post here is eisegesis in nature. Yes, Cornelius (and family/friends) feared God but there is an element about salvation that is prominent. HEARING! So two elements of salvation were missing in these Gentiles lives, 1) Hearing the Gospel and 2) the Holy Spirit.

    They received BOTH and this was the evidence that Peter needed (but there is more in these two needs) that the Gentiles before him HAD BEEN SAVED by Christ. The other need was God's need to PROVE to the Jews, specifically Peter, they salvation was ALSO for the Gentiles. Once Peter witnessed what the Holy Spirit was doing INSIDE of them as tongues manifested, OUTSIDE of them... a gifting given ONLY to people who are MEMBERS of the Body and who are SEALED by, the Holy Spirit. Once Peter witnessed this, then he knew he also needed to help them with their first good work of faith.

    Brother, if Peter never water baptized them, those Gentiles would still be saved because the evidence that the Holy Spirit made them Born-again, is evident to even you and I. If Peter never baptized them, the Holy Spirit would NOT leave them and render them, UN-Born-again.

    Just as man can't save a un-saved person by baptizing an un-saved person in water, man can't un-save a saved person by not baptizing a saved person.
    Slug1--out

    ~Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,~

    ~Honestly, the pain of persecution lets you KNOW you are still alive... IN Christ!~

    ~Colossians 1:28 Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.~


    ~"In the turmoil of any chaos, all it takes is that whisper that is heard like thunder over all the noise and the chaos seems to go away, focus returns and we are comforted in knowing that God has listened to our cry for help."~


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Need Advice: Help regarding Baptism???
    By wendy-p-marshall in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Dec 10th 2015, 07:24 PM
  2. Which is right in Baptism?
    By Sig Sauer in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Dec 7th 2015, 07:32 PM
  3. Replies: 126
    Last Post: Jun 28th 2012, 02:42 PM
  4. Biblical Support for Infant Baptism/Adult Baptism?
    By TheAnswer99 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar 27th 2010, 04:11 AM
  5. Baptism
    By Soldier4Him in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: Jul 13th 2008, 07:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •