Hello,
The following syllogism demonstrates that water baptism is not necessary for salvation:
a. If one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. You can not have the Holy Spirit and be lost. Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 are clear on this.
b. Cornelius "received" the Holy Spirit before he was baptized (Acts 10:47).
c. Therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was baptized.
Furthermore in Acts 11:16, 17 Peter states that Cornelius received the "same gift" as those in Acts 2. Those in Acts 2:4 were said to be "filled with the Holy Spirit". Thus since Cornelius received the "same gift" he too was "filled with the Holy Spirit" as well. Did you know that every time that Luke uses this expression it always refers to a person that belongs to God? So the fact that Cornelius was "filled with the Holy Spirit" before he was baptized proves that he already belonged to God before he was baptized.
Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that the NT gift of tongues are for those "in" the body of Christ. Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
The conversion of Cornelius (baptism not necessary) - #3
Moderator: grand_puba
I think you misseda few important things in the text here.
1) If baptism is unneccessary for salvation, then why Mk 16:16 and Acts 2:38
2) In this text, why did Peter command them to be baptized, if this was not essential to their salvation? Was Peter commanding them to do something that was useless to them? (Acts 10:47-48)
3) In Peter's account of this story in Acts Ch. 11, he clearly states that the angel told Cornelius that Peter would come and tell them what Cornelius and his household needed to be saved (Acts 11:14-17).
4) Finally, Alan Williamson has some really insightful comments on the distinction between the Holy Spirit IN and UPON you that really help us to see the issue clearly. The following is in his words:
"I believe the key to understanding what happened to Cornelius (and his family) lies in the purpose for which they received this outpouring (baptism) of the Holy Spirit. In the context we are able to see that God did this in order to "prove" to Peter and the other Jews that the gospel was for the Gentiles also. That was the effect that this event had, that of convincing the Jews that God will save the Gentiles also through the preaching of the gospel. -- Acts 10:45 11:15-18
As for the argument that such a gift means that baptism is unnecessary, all you have to do is look at the text. AFTER they had received this outpouring of the Spirit, Peter commanded them to be baptized. WHY? -- Acts 10:47
If one will search the scriptures for the purpose of water baptism done in the name of Jesus.. it is clearly done "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). An examination of Acts 19:1-5 shows a relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit, just as does Acts 2:38. These two passages speak of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.6:19-20). Note that in Acts 2:38 the obedient are promised to receive the "gift of the Holy Spirit" - same phrase found in Acts 10:45 - but, they are not referring to the same thing.
In Acts 2:38 the gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling - cf. Acts 5:32. IN Acts 18:25 - 19:6... the disciples baptized by Apollos did NOT receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they were NOT baptized into Christ. Only when Paul baptized them according to the truth of the gospel did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit... and then AFTER than Paul laid hands upon them and the Holy Spirit came "on" them... and they spoke in tongues.
This is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was "on" Cornelius and his household. They spoke in tongues. This was God's evidence that they could be accepted into the church, saved by the preaching of the gospel... and thus, after this sign Peter commanded them to be "baptized" (in water), even though they had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-17).
The events in Acts 8 show almost the reverse of these two measures... as the people in Samaria who were baptized (Acts 8:12) received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38. Also, consider Romans 8:9. However, the believers who were baptized in Acts 8 did not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, nor the ability to speak in tongues.
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:
16. for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
To suppose that those baptized in Acts 8 did NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would deny that they were saved. It would deny the promise of Acts 2:38. And yet it is clear from the text that even though they had obeyed the gospel and were saved (Acts 8:12 and Mark 16:16), this passage reveals that there was another measure of the Holy Spirit to be received through the laying on of the hands of an apostle.
Only when Peter and John came from Jerusalem and prayed for them and laid their hands upon them did the Holy Spirit “fall” on them. This is different from the indwelling. This is something that is “on” them. Such is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10 with Cornelius.
God poured out the Holy Spirit directly on Cornelius and his family. There was no laying on of an apostle’s hands, as not even the apostle Peter would dare to impart such a gift to a Gentile. God poured out the “like gift” on this family of Gentiles to prove to all that salvation was for all people.
Acts 11:12-17 And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house:
13. and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14. who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.
15. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.
16. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
17. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?
Failure to make the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (given to all saved individuals at the point of their new birth – Acts 2:38) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, either directly from God (Acts 2, 10), or by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8, 19), will result in much confusion on this Bible subject.
Hebrews 6:1-3 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2. of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3. And this will we do, if God permit."
2) In this text, why did Peter command them to be baptized, if this was not essential to their salvation? Was Peter commanding them to do something that was useless to them? (Acts 10:47-48)
3) In Peter's account of this story in Acts Ch. 11, he clearly states that the angel told Cornelius that Peter would come and tell them what Cornelius and his household needed to be saved (Acts 11:14-17).
4) Finally, Alan Williamson has some really insightful comments on the distinction between the Holy Spirit IN and UPON you that really help us to see the issue clearly. The following is in his words:
"I believe the key to understanding what happened to Cornelius (and his family) lies in the purpose for which they received this outpouring (baptism) of the Holy Spirit. In the context we are able to see that God did this in order to "prove" to Peter and the other Jews that the gospel was for the Gentiles also. That was the effect that this event had, that of convincing the Jews that God will save the Gentiles also through the preaching of the gospel. -- Acts 10:45 11:15-18
As for the argument that such a gift means that baptism is unnecessary, all you have to do is look at the text. AFTER they had received this outpouring of the Spirit, Peter commanded them to be baptized. WHY? -- Acts 10:47
If one will search the scriptures for the purpose of water baptism done in the name of Jesus.. it is clearly done "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). An examination of Acts 19:1-5 shows a relationship between baptism and the Holy Spirit, just as does Acts 2:38. These two passages speak of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.6:19-20). Note that in Acts 2:38 the obedient are promised to receive the "gift of the Holy Spirit" - same phrase found in Acts 10:45 - but, they are not referring to the same thing.
In Acts 2:38 the gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling - cf. Acts 5:32. IN Acts 18:25 - 19:6... the disciples baptized by Apollos did NOT receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit because they were NOT baptized into Christ. Only when Paul baptized them according to the truth of the gospel did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit... and then AFTER than Paul laid hands upon them and the Holy Spirit came "on" them... and they spoke in tongues.
This is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was "on" Cornelius and his household. They spoke in tongues. This was God's evidence that they could be accepted into the church, saved by the preaching of the gospel... and thus, after this sign Peter commanded them to be "baptized" (in water), even though they had already been baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:15-17).
The events in Acts 8 show almost the reverse of these two measures... as the people in Samaria who were baptized (Acts 8:12) received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as promised in Acts 2:38. Also, consider Romans 8:9. However, the believers who were baptized in Acts 8 did not have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, nor the ability to speak in tongues.
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:
16. for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
To suppose that those baptized in Acts 8 did NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would deny that they were saved. It would deny the promise of Acts 2:38. And yet it is clear from the text that even though they had obeyed the gospel and were saved (Acts 8:12 and Mark 16:16), this passage reveals that there was another measure of the Holy Spirit to be received through the laying on of the hands of an apostle.
Only when Peter and John came from Jerusalem and prayed for them and laid their hands upon them did the Holy Spirit “fall” on them. This is different from the indwelling. This is something that is “on” them. Such is the distinction that needs to be made in Acts 10 with Cornelius.
God poured out the Holy Spirit directly on Cornelius and his family. There was no laying on of an apostle’s hands, as not even the apostle Peter would dare to impart such a gift to a Gentile. God poured out the “like gift” on this family of Gentiles to prove to all that salvation was for all people.
Acts 11:12-17 And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction. And these six brethren also accompanied me; and we entered into the man's house:
13. and he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14. who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house.
15. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning.
16. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
17. If then God gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?
Failure to make the distinction between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (given to all saved individuals at the point of their new birth – Acts 2:38) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, either directly from God (Acts 2, 10), or by the laying on of an apostle’s hands (Acts 8, 19), will result in much confusion on this Bible subject.
Hebrews 6:1-3 Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2. of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3. And this will we do, if God permit."
Cornelius
The fact remains that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. And according to Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 to have the Holy Spirit means that one is saved. Furthermore the text says that Cornelius received the "same gift" (Acts 11:17) as those in Acts 2. Notice those in Acts 2 were "filled with the Holy Spirit". One can be "filled with the Holy Spirit" but not have the Holy Spirit indwelt in you? That doesn't make sense.
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Acts 2:38 applies only to the Israelites.
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Mark 16:9-20 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts (among others) so is therefore too unreliable of a text to base any doctrine on.
Acts 2:38 applies only to the Israelites.
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Cornelius
Acts 2:38 applies only to the Israelites of the transitional time of Acts (see also Acts 22:16).
According to Ephesians 4:5 there is "one baptism". But this one baptism comes in two forms - an inner testimony (spiritual) and an outer seal (physical). Just like the use of "one Lord" can and does refer to more than one Person of the Godhead (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17). According to Acts 10:44-48 physical baptism is still to be practiced. And according to 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 2:11, 12 spiritual baptism is still taking place. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 "baptize" is no more physical than the use of "body". Both are spiritual. The same holds true with "drink' - along with the rest of the chapter. In Colossians 2:11, 12 Paul is no more talking about a physical baptism than he is about a physical circumcision. They are both spiritual.
Further evidence that proves that spiritual baptism is still for today is found in the conversion account of Cornelius. According to Acts 10:45 and 11:16 to have the Holy Spirit "poured out" (ekcheo) upon you and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same thing. But according to Titus 3:6 the Holy Spirit has been "poured out" (ekcheo) upon all Christians. Thus since they mean the same thing all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
According to Ephesians 4:5 there is "one baptism". But this one baptism comes in two forms - an inner testimony (spiritual) and an outer seal (physical). Just like the use of "one Lord" can and does refer to more than one Person of the Godhead (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:17). According to Acts 10:44-48 physical baptism is still to be practiced. And according to 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Colossians 2:11, 12 spiritual baptism is still taking place. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 "baptize" is no more physical than the use of "body". Both are spiritual. The same holds true with "drink' - along with the rest of the chapter. In Colossians 2:11, 12 Paul is no more talking about a physical baptism than he is about a physical circumcision. They are both spiritual.
Further evidence that proves that spiritual baptism is still for today is found in the conversion account of Cornelius. According to Acts 10:45 and 11:16 to have the Holy Spirit "poured out" (ekcheo) upon you and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same thing. But according to Titus 3:6 the Holy Spirit has been "poured out" (ekcheo) upon all Christians. Thus since they mean the same thing all Christians have been baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Concerning Cornelius
The conversion of Cornelius was a special one. It was to show that the Gentiles would be accepted as well as the Jews. I don't believe that this verse shows at all that baptism isn't necessary. It shows the contrary. As we read on in the later vs. that he was to be baptized. Everytime you read of the person by which to be saved and baptizm it was water baptizm. Ch. 11 shows us that in the vision of Peter the Gentiles (the unclean if you will) would be accepted just as the Jews. I believe this event was a special event for the God to show that the Gentiles would be saved as far as the receiving the Holy Spirit but do believe that it was still necessary for him to be baptized. This is the only time I know of in the entire Bible for such an event and rightly so since the Gentile nations would be partakers of the gospel. Also, since they spoke in tongues would not prove at all that water baptizm isn't commanded. It was a special occasion. The reason we can come to that conclusion is due to the fact that all other times in the scriptures such as Mark 16:16, Acts 8: 26-29: 26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." He was commanded to be baptized. Also, Saul was not saved on the road to Damascus but was told to go into the city where he would be told what to do to be saved. Now that is just plain language here. (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5,22;4:1,2; Acts 1:5,22;) We can only conclude that from the occasion of Cornelius that it was a specila act and time that God chose. We know that he commanded the others to be baptized. We know that God is no respector of persons. So that leaves us with what I mentioned earlier--that baptizm was necassary but even if God chose on THIS occasion he could since it was a different occasion. In the Old Test. the Holy Spirit fell upon a Donkey but that doesn't mean that the donkey was saved. Everytime preaching of Jesus is mentioned the subject of Baptism comes up. That is amazing. It is not say a special prayer, ask jesus to come as your personal savior, etc. It is always spoken in baptism. The old man is washed away in baptism. Baptism is connected to remission of sins always.
Cornelius
The conversion of Cornelius does not show that the Gentiles "would be accepted" but that they "were accepted". For he had already received the Holy Spirit and to have the Holy Spirit shows that one is saved (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13).
Baptism is necessary "after" one is saved. It is not necessary though for salvation. Of course Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized. It is one of the first things a person should do "after" they are saved. We are "commanded" in 1 Corinthians 11 to partake of the Lord's Supper so does that mean if someone hasn't partook of the Lord's Supper they are not yet saved?
I never wrote that Paul was saved on the Damascus Road. Read my previous post. I specifically put his conversion alongside Acts 2:38 by mentioning Acts 22:16.
In your last sentnce you wrote that "baptism is connected to remission of sins always." This is not true. As shown Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. You cite the example of even a donkey having the Holy Spirit to try to prove that it doesn't necessarily mean that one is saved. However, that took place before the resurrection of Christ when the Holy Spirit "had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39). During this time the Holy Spirit empowered both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) to carry out God's will after the resurrection He sealed only those who were saved (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
I'd like for you to give me just one example in the book of Acts where a Gentile is said to have received the Holy Spirit after they were water baptized. Cornelius is the only example given to us by Luke so that in him Luke establishes the only way that the Gentiles (you and I) are to receive the Holy Spirit - before water baptism.
Galatians 4:6 reads "And becaue you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" When Cornelius received the Holy Spirit/was filled with the Holy Spirit/was baptized in the Holy Spirit could he refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized proving that he was already a son?
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Baptism is necessary "after" one is saved. It is not necessary though for salvation. Of course Cornelius was "commanded" to be baptized. It is one of the first things a person should do "after" they are saved. We are "commanded" in 1 Corinthians 11 to partake of the Lord's Supper so does that mean if someone hasn't partook of the Lord's Supper they are not yet saved?
I never wrote that Paul was saved on the Damascus Road. Read my previous post. I specifically put his conversion alongside Acts 2:38 by mentioning Acts 22:16.
In your last sentnce you wrote that "baptism is connected to remission of sins always." This is not true. As shown Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. You cite the example of even a donkey having the Holy Spirit to try to prove that it doesn't necessarily mean that one is saved. However, that took place before the resurrection of Christ when the Holy Spirit "had not yet been given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified" (John 7:39). During this time the Holy Spirit empowered both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) to carry out God's will after the resurrection He sealed only those who were saved (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
I'd like for you to give me just one example in the book of Acts where a Gentile is said to have received the Holy Spirit after they were water baptized. Cornelius is the only example given to us by Luke so that in him Luke establishes the only way that the Gentiles (you and I) are to receive the Holy Spirit - before water baptism.
Galatians 4:6 reads "And becaue you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" When Cornelius received the Holy Spirit/was filled with the Holy Spirit/was baptized in the Holy Spirit could he refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized proving that he was already a son?
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
This verse means exactly that the Gentiles were accepted as you will find after reading on in chapter 11 in Peters vision. The Lord's supper is not a good example since that is not commanded TO BE SAVED but IS commanded for us to do in order to remember him and to stay in harmony with God. We have to do it and want to do it. Baptism is commanded for us TO BE SAVED (IN ORDER TO BE) saved. Help me understand why it would be commanded if we are already saved? If I was already saved then I would not worry about being baptized since that is not commanded for my being saved. The two are connected. We do have the Holy Spirit today. Since it is no longer shown in forms of speaking in tongues such as that in Acts, raising of the dead, etc. some assume that they are not saved when in fact the Holy Spirit is in us today. It isn't in us the same way. We know that this is a special time such as the Gentiles as Peter points out by his vision. It is true that their was different ways in which the word baptism is used. In the Bible when you find salvation and baptism together it is always water baptism. How was it that the Eunich was to go "down into" the water to be baptized. Phillip had to have been discussing this with the eunich even though we are not told that directly but only that he was reading in Isaiah. The eunich came to that conclusion after reading and talking with Phillip. Again, why did Saul have to go into the city to be told what to do to be saved on the road to Damascus if he was already saved. That just doesn't seem to be in harmony with the other scriptures.
Cornelius
You keep bringing up things I have already addressed. For the third time Paul was not saved until he was baptized. This was true for all Israelites. You also keep saying that baptism is commanded for us to be saved but several times I have shown that Cornelius already "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized showing that he was already saved before he was water baptized. In terms of the eunuch I have no problem that he went down in the water to be water baptized.
I have no problem that tongues are not for today...but when they were in effect any person having them was "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized. You didn't at all address my last two comments.
1. Show me just one passage where a pure Gentile is ever said to have received the Holy Spirit after he was water baptized in the book of Acts.
2. Galatians 4:6 reads "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" Could Cornelius by receiving the Holy Spirit/being filled with the Holy Spirit/being baptized in the Holy Spirit refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized thereby proving he was already a son?
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
I have no problem that tongues are not for today...but when they were in effect any person having them was "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized. You didn't at all address my last two comments.
1. Show me just one passage where a pure Gentile is ever said to have received the Holy Spirit after he was water baptized in the book of Acts.
2. Galatians 4:6 reads "And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!" Could Cornelius by receiving the Holy Spirit/being filled with the Holy Spirit/being baptized in the Holy Spirit refer to God as "Father" before he was water baptized thereby proving he was already a son?
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
No you haven't addressed the things I have addressed but disagreed which I don't have a problem with. I am just explaining the reason I believe that the Bible does not teach what you are. I could go through the Bible since it was written for us(Gentiles). It tells us as in Mark 16 that baptism is necessary as well as believing, and confessing. I could site others that would teach the same thing about the Gentiles. The Bible tells us in Acts that it was to go to the Jews first as you have said but they rejected it so it went to the Gentiles. The entire book of Romans is base on the fact that God never was after a physical Isreal but a spiritual Isreal. In that book he is telling us that it is for all. The Gentiles are grafted in and such. With that in mind, answer this one thing. What must a person do to be saved? Do you have to get the Holy Spirit before one is saved? If so, how will one know if he has the spirit? What is the purpose of baptism? It is either necessary or it is not. You said it was but not for salvation. What is it necessary for??? Salvation: what could be more important for mankind than the things he must do to be saved?
Baptism
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. At first you say I didn't address the things you brought up but then you say I disagreed with them. Isn't disagreeing with them with biblical support addressing them?
I'll get to your questions when you deal with the last two statetments I have left in my previous two emails. These have not been addressed.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
I'll get to your questions when you deal with the last two statetments I have left in my previous two emails. These have not been addressed.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
I have already give you examples as you have asked. We can use Cornelius. He was not saved on the basis that he had the Holy Spirit only. That was a different case that showed that NOW (not that they already where as you stated) are partakers of the gospel as we are. Read Ch. 11 and in Peter's vision he says that God showed him that what was once unclean (Gentile) is not to be called unclean or common. This is still in the context of the Cornelius story. As I said the jew in the new testement God showed was not the one that He was looking for. It was a Spiritual Isreal. Not all who are of Isreal are of Isreal. Some were indeed Gentiles that were joined by being a prosolyte. Now, you answer me about the other questions I have asked about what must we do to be saved and the others as well. As I said the jew in the new testement God showed was not the one that He was looking for. It was a Spiritual Isreal. Not all who are of Isreal are of Isreal. Some were indeed GENTILES that were joined by being a prosolyte. My first sentence makes perfect sense. I have addressed them as the Bible teaches. I have given Biblical support for mine as well.
No, you haven't really addressed Cornelius. You are saying that he was still unsaved even though he had the Holy Spirit. This contradicts Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13. Could Cornelius refer to God as "Father" when he received/was baptized with/was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized proving that he was already a son? You say he was still unsaved even though he spoke in tongues but 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that this NT gift is for those "in" the body of Christ. This NT gift is for saved people "in" the body of Christ.
As already stated, Mark 16:9-20 is too disputed of a text to base any doctrine on. Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus) do not contain it nor does the Latin manuscript "K" along with the Sinaitic Syriac. Nine of the ten Armenian manuscripts do not contain it as well. Although the majority of the manuscripts do have it manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. Jerome and Eusebius stated that in nearly all the manuscripts they had it was missing. In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest known commentary on Mark omits it as well.
You ask what must a person do to be saved. They must hear the gospel, repent, believe and confess. The purpose of baptism is to visibly demonstrate that one has already entered into the body of Christ. It shows our "association" with Him. In 1 Corinthians 10:2 it reads they were "baptized into Moses". This corresponds with us being water baptized into Jesus Christ. But notice even before they were "baptized into Moses" that he was "already" their spiritual leader (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35 and 50). The same thing then with the Christian and Christ. Even before one is water baptized into Jesus Christ He is "already" the Christian's spiritual leader/God. And if Christ is your spiritual leader/God and not Satan then that describes a saved person not an unsaved person - all "before" they are water baptized.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
As already stated, Mark 16:9-20 is too disputed of a text to base any doctrine on. Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus) do not contain it nor does the Latin manuscript "K" along with the Sinaitic Syriac. Nine of the ten Armenian manuscripts do not contain it as well. Although the majority of the manuscripts do have it manuscripts have to be weighed and not merely counted. Jerome and Eusebius stated that in nearly all the manuscripts they had it was missing. In fact, Victor of Antioch who wrote the earliest known commentary on Mark omits it as well.
You ask what must a person do to be saved. They must hear the gospel, repent, believe and confess. The purpose of baptism is to visibly demonstrate that one has already entered into the body of Christ. It shows our "association" with Him. In 1 Corinthians 10:2 it reads they were "baptized into Moses". This corresponds with us being water baptized into Jesus Christ. But notice even before they were "baptized into Moses" that he was "already" their spiritual leader (Exodus 12:21, 28, 35 and 50). The same thing then with the Christian and Christ. Even before one is water baptized into Jesus Christ He is "already" the Christian's spiritual leader/God. And if Christ is your spiritual leader/God and not Satan then that describes a saved person not an unsaved person - all "before" they are water baptized.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
I don't dispute reading secular items to get information. I myself read some commentaries but draw my conclusions from the Bible. The references you made to me really don't mean much since they are not inspired people. Romans 8:9. A good passage indeed. But lets back up for a moment. In chapter 6:3 says that we are baptized into Jesus and into His death. We are baptized into the death that just as Christ was buried we are buried IN BAPTIZM on order that we will be able to be raised with him. So if we are not buried with him (hear the word used is immersion or under) then we can't be raised. You see the simple language used. Christ: Buried and raised. Believers: Buried and raised. In this passage it is through the baptism that this is done. Now this sets the context for Romans 8:9 talking to people that were already saved by believing and being baptized. The rest of the chapter leading up to the 8:9 passage is talking about how to act after one is baptized INTO Christ. This was to the people at Rome. All were not Jews either. There were complaints at the Church in Rome that the Jews would make claims that since they had the old law that they had a greater right to the new law and some still wanted to make circumcision, etc. a part of being a Christian. Paul addresses this. Gal 4:6--again you can't take bits and pieces. Back up to chapter 3 and before. Paul tells them that they ARE (already) saved. The church as well as Elders had been set up on a previous Journey that Paul had been on. So the letter is written to the Church at Galatia. What is the church? It was the group of believers. And the ones that believed and were baptized were saved. Some of that saved were Jews and some were Gentiles. So when he gets to Gal 4:6 it is a simple matter of Paul telling the already saved people (since they had been baptized) 3:28 says that they are one. You stated well that there is one Body, one Spirit, One baptism, etc. So they are one the way Ephesians calls them one. Eph. 4:5. 1John 4:16--look at verse 15. How does God dwell in us? Of course by his Spirit but what is that? Speaking in tongues? No, no one can do it today. If we could do the New Testament miracles then we could raise people from the dead and that isn't going to happen either. Verse 13 says God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby (KJV) meaning "because of this reason that he just stated" we know that we dwell in him and he in us, because he has given us his Spirit. The Spirit of loving each other is the way we dwell in him and He in us according to verse 13. In other words if we don't love one another then God will not dwell in us. So there you have a person that can be loving and then not love as well (love is something that you do, not just a warm feeling that overtakes a person). . Read 1 John 5:6--there we could sum up the entire matter. He comes to us through water and blood. What water? What Blood? It isn't the water and blood that comes from having a baby. It is baptism and the blood that was shed. I have also showed that the saved are not the only ones to have the Spirit as in the case of Balaam and his donkey. Was the donkey saved? No. I know that is means this from verse 8 in 1 John 5:8. This water bears witness also. To say that Mark is disputed is very correct because the world and denominations don't like it. It convicts the teaching of the false teachers today that say that it isn't necessary. I could see how people call it "disputed" It is in now ways disputed in my mind. All real Christians have no problem with it. Only those that can make their plan fit into it. I have dealt with the scriptures you sited the best that I can with you. I have addressed each one. There would be others that could be more fluent in the matter but this is how I see it. The Bible never uses baptism as a means of showing that we are already saved but rather it is used as the way to be saved. I would do as I Cor. says to seek love and not to worry about things such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, etc. That passage tells us to seek love the greater gift. You told me what must a man do to be saved but you omitted one part: baptism. They all are required. Leave one out and you are not saved.
Cornelius
Romans 6:3 is a spiritual baptism just like Colossians 2:11, 12 is. Both employ the same phrase "baptized into Jesus Christ" and as already shown the Colossian passage refers to a spiritual baptism.
Of course Romans 8:9 (and Galatians 4:6) is being referred to those who are already Christians. Paul is telling these Christians that if you have the Holy Spirit you are saved. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. Despite not being for today tongues at that time showed that one is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight). Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
I have already responded to the donkey having the Holy Spirit in a previous post. That was during the time when the "Spirit had not yet been given" because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39). During this time both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) were empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out God's will. It was after the resurrection that He sealed only saved people (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
Mark 16:9-20 is still too disputed of a text to use. This is true also of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV in trying to prove the Trinity. If it is that important of a doctrine it will appear elsewhere.
You avoided everything that I had written concerning 1 Corinthians 10:2 showing that water baptism comes after salvation.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Of course Romans 8:9 (and Galatians 4:6) is being referred to those who are already Christians. Paul is telling these Christians that if you have the Holy Spirit you are saved. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. Despite not being for today tongues at that time showed that one is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight). Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
I have already responded to the donkey having the Holy Spirit in a previous post. That was during the time when the "Spirit had not yet been given" because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:39). During this time both the saved and the unsaved (including a donkey) were empowered by the Holy Spirit to carry out God's will. It was after the resurrection that He sealed only saved people (Ephesians 1:13). Such was the case of Cornelius before he was water baptized.
Mark 16:9-20 is still too disputed of a text to use. This is true also of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV in trying to prove the Trinity. If it is that important of a doctrine it will appear elsewhere.
You avoided everything that I had written concerning 1 Corinthians 10:2 showing that water baptism comes after salvation.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
The passages you showed me prove that we are baptized into Christ via water baptism. I have answered your questions. You can't seem to rectify the passages. You are taking passages out of context, twisting them and so forth. I don't believe that you really want the truth but enjoy slinging around some scriptures that are not true. I gather that you are a follower of Smythe in his baptist doctrine. I can tell we are not going to get anywhere so I feel that I have exhausted my efforts to teach you the truth. I would like to move on. We are not being productive here.
Cornelius
You have not really addressed my questions. You keep repeating yourself thinking that if you keep stating the same (false) statement it will make it true. You are saying that one can have the Holy Spirit such as Cornelius and still be lost but that totally contradicts Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 where to have the Holy Spirit shows that one is saved. You brought up the fact that the donkey had the Holy Spirit even though I already addressed that in a previous letter. You did not even touch on 1 Corinthians 10:2. No, nor did you address that 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that the NT gift of tongues are for those "in" the body of Christ - and Cornelius spoke in tongues "before" he was water baptized.
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Two Methods of Dipping
To the Forum:
The New Testament had two conversions where the Spirit was received first, and dipping in water followed. These were Saul and Cornelius.
All other conversions were Water first and receiving the Spirit second.
And, What was the difference?
It is very simple and obvious.
When Water was first, the converts were taught by men of earth.
When Spirit was first, Saul and Cornelius were instructed by God.
No where in the Bible did the apostles teach Spirit first.
If they wanted us to believe it, and practice it, they would have taught it.
But they did not teach Spirit first.
Paul wrote that "tongues" were for a sign to unbelievers - 1Cor 14.22.
Annanis (Saul) and Peter (Cornelius) were "unbelievers" about God wanting to save the men. But these two were special cases for "signs" to the Body.
Saul was a "sign" of the apostle to the Gentiles.
Cornelius was a "sign" to add Gentiles to the Body.
All this harping about being saved because Cornelius could "speak in tongues" is disproved in the Old Testament.
A) Saul could prophesy, although alienated from God - 1Sam 19.18-24.
B) Baalam's donkey spoke by the Spirit of God. Was he saved?
DIPPING AND SPIRIT SEPARATED.
A) The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is cleansed from sin by Dipping.
B) The apostles received the Spirit (Pentecost) 3-1/2 years after they were dipped.
C) The Samaritans received the Spirit 3 days after they were dipped.
D) The Lord Jesus received the Spirit AFTER He was dipped, and AFTER He prayed - Luke 3.21.
E) We should follow the Lord's example.
We receive the Spirit by prayer - Luke 11.13, Jas 1.5; Isa 11.1-4 coupled with Luke 3.21.
sid
The New Testament had two conversions where the Spirit was received first, and dipping in water followed. These were Saul and Cornelius.
All other conversions were Water first and receiving the Spirit second.
And, What was the difference?
It is very simple and obvious.
When Water was first, the converts were taught by men of earth.
When Spirit was first, Saul and Cornelius were instructed by God.
No where in the Bible did the apostles teach Spirit first.
If they wanted us to believe it, and practice it, they would have taught it.
But they did not teach Spirit first.
Paul wrote that "tongues" were for a sign to unbelievers - 1Cor 14.22.
Annanis (Saul) and Peter (Cornelius) were "unbelievers" about God wanting to save the men. But these two were special cases for "signs" to the Body.
Saul was a "sign" of the apostle to the Gentiles.
Cornelius was a "sign" to add Gentiles to the Body.
All this harping about being saved because Cornelius could "speak in tongues" is disproved in the Old Testament.
A) Saul could prophesy, although alienated from God - 1Sam 19.18-24.
B) Baalam's donkey spoke by the Spirit of God. Was he saved?
DIPPING AND SPIRIT SEPARATED.
A) The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is cleansed from sin by Dipping.
B) The apostles received the Spirit (Pentecost) 3-1/2 years after they were dipped.
C) The Samaritans received the Spirit 3 days after they were dipped.
D) The Lord Jesus received the Spirit AFTER He was dipped, and AFTER He prayed - Luke 3.21.
E) We should follow the Lord's example.
We receive the Spirit by prayer - Luke 11.13, Jas 1.5; Isa 11.1-4 coupled with Luke 3.21.
sid
The New Covenant Is In Revelation
Hi Sid,
In terms of Saul receiving the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized, the text, specifically Acts 9:17, 18, does not explicitly say. It does tell us that he received his sight. His reception of the Holy Spirit like all other Israelites most probably took place after he was water baptized.
In terms of speaking in tongues, the text says King Saul could prophecy. It does not say he spoke in an unknown tongue. Concerning Balaam's donkey the New Testament gift of tongues applies to "people". God can allow anything else to speak if He so chooses but any "person" having this NT gift is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight).
Marc
In terms of Saul receiving the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized, the text, specifically Acts 9:17, 18, does not explicitly say. It does tell us that he received his sight. His reception of the Holy Spirit like all other Israelites most probably took place after he was water baptized.
In terms of speaking in tongues, the text says King Saul could prophecy. It does not say he spoke in an unknown tongue. Concerning Balaam's donkey the New Testament gift of tongues applies to "people". God can allow anything else to speak if He so chooses but any "person" having this NT gift is "in" the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:28 - twenty eight).
Marc
In terms of the Lord Jesus, He too was an Israelite and as such He would receive the Holy Spirit after He was water baptized. Cornelius (the Gentile) is our example that the Lord has given to us in terms of when a person today receives the Holy Spirit - and that before they are water baptized.
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Saul Received The Spirit; To: Marc
Hello, Marc;
"And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was dipped" - Acts 9.17-18.
These are the verses that you quoted, but you denied that he received the Spirit before dipping.
You had probably misread these verses.
No one in the Bible is recorded to have received the Holy Spirit at the time of dipping. This story is from the Pope, and from the Dark Ages.
But the Bible reads differently.
sid
"And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was dipped" - Acts 9.17-18.
These are the verses that you quoted, but you denied that he received the Spirit before dipping.
You had probably misread these verses.
No one in the Bible is recorded to have received the Holy Spirit at the time of dipping. This story is from the Pope, and from the Dark Ages.
But the Bible reads differently.
sid
The New Covenant Is In Revelation
Hey!
I just noticed something. In my Tuesday October 18, 2005 6:44pm I wrote in the first paragraph "baptized into Jesus Christ". I should have written that Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 employ the similar phrase "buried with Him through (in) baptism".
Two other things are worth pointing out. First, it was said that just because Cornelius spoke in the New Testament gift of tongues this doesn't prove he was saved before he was water baptized for even Balaam's donkey spoke in a foreign tongue (Numbers 22). As I previously pointed out this gift applies to "people". Any "person" having this NT gift according to 1 Corinthians 12:28 is "in" the body of Christ. The same would hold true that there are horses that are said to be in heaven (Revelation 19). Does this mean then that these horses had to repent of their sins to be in heaven? This is nonsense. But we do know that any "person" that is in heaven did have to repent of their sins in order to be there.
Second, and as already stated, Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 all declare that if one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized.
Not only do these three passages declare this important truth but so does John 14:17. The Lord Jesus said that the unsaved (the world) cannot receive the Holy Spirit. How then could Cornelius be unsaved until he was water baptized when in fact he did receive the Holy Spirit when the Lord Jesus said the unsaved cannot receive Him?
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
I just noticed something. In my Tuesday October 18, 2005 6:44pm I wrote in the first paragraph "baptized into Jesus Christ". I should have written that Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 employ the similar phrase "buried with Him through (in) baptism".
Two other things are worth pointing out. First, it was said that just because Cornelius spoke in the New Testament gift of tongues this doesn't prove he was saved before he was water baptized for even Balaam's donkey spoke in a foreign tongue (Numbers 22). As I previously pointed out this gift applies to "people". Any "person" having this NT gift according to 1 Corinthians 12:28 is "in" the body of Christ. The same would hold true that there are horses that are said to be in heaven (Revelation 19). Does this mean then that these horses had to repent of their sins to be in heaven? This is nonsense. But we do know that any "person" that is in heaven did have to repent of their sins in order to be there.
Second, and as already stated, Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 all declare that if one has the Holy Spirit they are saved. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized.
Not only do these three passages declare this important truth but so does John 14:17. The Lord Jesus said that the unsaved (the world) cannot receive the Holy Spirit. How then could Cornelius be unsaved until he was water baptized when in fact he did receive the Holy Spirit when the Lord Jesus said the unsaved cannot receive Him?
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Re: Cornelius
I'm lost in the whole emphasis that is being attempted with "pure Gentile" in light of scripture Acts 10:34Marc wrote: 1. Show me just one passage where a pure Gentile is ever said to have received the Holy Spirit after he was water baptized in the book of Acts.
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality."
Some versions render the word "partiality" as "respecter of persons". Keep in mind this is Peter's introduction of what he will say as well as the context that all events must fit in, including the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius and his household.
We have in other passages such as Rom 10:12
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
Then of course we have recorded in Acts 8, which is chronologically before Cornelius, the account of Philip in Samaria. If you're going to get into putting emphasis on Jew vs Gentile, then how is one to classify a Samaritan? The Jews in general regarded them as "dogs" because of their mixed heritage during the captivity, being neither full Jew nor full Gentile. They would tolerate the presence of a Gentile but they wouldn't even walk through Samaria. But in light of Peter's introduction of Acts 10:34 and Rom 10:12, God doesn't care about the physical heritage of the individual. Physical classification is something that is held onto by people (evidence: Peter) but does not exist with God.
So then what about these Samaritans? In Acts 8:12
12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
and then continuing in Acts 8:14-16
14 Now when the apostles who were in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,
15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
How do you read the above passage and context?
here's another example...
These Gentiles received the Holy Spirit after they were baptized. How do we know they were Gentiles?Luke by the Holy Spirit wrote:And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)
- All Jews would have known of the "Holy Spirit" (Genesis 1:1-2; Psalm 51:11-12; Isaiah 63:10-11), yet these people had never even heard of the Holy Spirit.
- They lived in Ephesus, a heavily Gentile populated city.
- Only after this incident does Paul go to the synagogue, where Jews would have been worshipping (Acts 19:1-9).
The Samaritans were catergorized among the Israelites as seen in Acts 1:8 - Jersusalem, Judaea, Samaria "then" the rest of the (Gentile) world.
In terms of those in Acts 19 Adam Calrke is right when he wrote that these were probably Asiatic Jews. These were subject to John's baptism and John baptized Israelites in preparation to the Kingdom of God. Luke also clarifies this point in telling us there were about 12 men in all - a number significant to the Israelite nation.
In terms of those in Acts 19 Adam Calrke is right when he wrote that these were probably Asiatic Jews. These were subject to John's baptism and John baptized Israelites in preparation to the Kingdom of God. Luke also clarifies this point in telling us there were about 12 men in all - a number significant to the Israelite nation.
Acts 1:8 reads fully:Marc wrote:The Samaritans were catergorized among the Israelites as seen in Acts 1:8 - Jersusalem, Judaea, Samaria "then" the rest of the (Gentile) world.
8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
This is Jesus speaking in the above quotation. Are you saying that the physical locations that are referenced are of classifications of people? Applying your response then, why would Jesus mention a classification of Jew 3 times (Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria) and Gentiles (end of the earth) once? Likewise, it's physically impossible to be "in" a class of people and acting as "witnesses to Me", substituting your proposed definition of religious classificaion for words such as Jerusalem in the quoted passage. However, a person could well be "in" Jerusalem the city as a location acting as "witnesses to Me". The simple Laws of Language don't permit what you describe. Or, just maybe, Jesus was referring to the actual physical locations they would go to, what they were to do (witnesses to Me), and nothing specific about the classification of people in each place at all?
But still, in light of Rom 10:12, what is the point of even attempting classification when God has expressed it is not relevant and not just in this one context but multiple? It is man that had, and apparently still has, a problem with wanting to classify people.
Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria represent the Israelites while the uttermost parts of the earth represent the Gentile nations. I'm not sure why He mentions it three times.
It is God and not necessarily man that classifies people. The Bible is clear that the Israelites were to be water baptized first then they were to receive the Holy Spirit whereas the Gentiles, as seen in Cornelius, were to receive the Holy Spirit first then they were to be water baptized.
The Israelites - be water baptized - receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 - eight)
The Gentiles - receive the Holy Spirit - be water baptized (Acts 10:44-48- eight)
The Israelites needed to be water baptized as part of their repentance for their peculiar sins of rejecting, mocking, beating and crucifying their King - something to which they and they alone were ultimately responsible for.
Marc
It is God and not necessarily man that classifies people. The Bible is clear that the Israelites were to be water baptized first then they were to receive the Holy Spirit whereas the Gentiles, as seen in Cornelius, were to receive the Holy Spirit first then they were to be water baptized.
The Israelites - be water baptized - receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 - eight)
The Gentiles - receive the Holy Spirit - be water baptized (Acts 10:44-48- eight)
The Israelites needed to be water baptized as part of their repentance for their peculiar sins of rejecting, mocking, beating and crucifying their King - something to which they and they alone were ultimately responsible for.
Marc
A previous post stated that those in Acts 19 to whom Paul baptized were not Israelites for they did not know of the Holy Spirit. However, as my NASB 1977 states in their footnote in relation to "there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2) it says, "Or, the Holy Spirit has been given." They simply didn't know that the Holy Spirit had been given at Pentecost not that they didn't know of the existence of the Holy Spirit. In Jamieson, Fauset and Brown's commentary it reads, "Literally, the words are, 'we did not even hear whether the Holy Ghost was (given)'. In fact, even the late Church of Christ commentator James Burton Coffman stated concerning this passage, "To be sure, as Boles said, 'They had heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit but not that he had been given at Pentecost.'
Marc
Marc
First and simply, this is not supported by the majority of translations. Only the ASV seems to have this reading, and even then, "given" is in italics, which indicates it was supplied by the translators. The word for "given" is not in the original Greek! Even the commentators, who were quoted, admit as much by either putting it in parentheses or italics.Marc wrote:A previous post stated that those in Acts 19 to whom Paul baptized were not Israelites for they did not know of the Holy Spirit. However, as my NASB 1977 states in their footnote in relation to "there is a Holy Spirit" (Acts 19:2) it says, "Or, the Holy Spirit has been given." They simply didn't know that the Holy Spirit had been given at Pentecost not that they didn't know of the existence of the Holy Spirit. In Jamieson, Fauset and Brown's commentary it reads, "Literally, the words are, 'we did not even hear whether the Holy Ghost was (given)'. In fact, even the late Church of Christ commentator James Burton Coffman stated concerning this passage, "To be sure, as Boles said, 'They had heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit but not that he had been given at Pentecost.'
Second, Clarke, Coffman, Boles, et al are not authorities. The only people I recognize are Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Why? Because they were inspired (II Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:3-5). The men you quoted are just commentators. Do you accept everything a reputable commentator writes?Luke, according to several different translations, wrote:KJV Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
ASV Acts 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.
NIV Acts 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
NIB Acts 19:2 and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
NAS Acts 19:2 and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
NAU Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
RSV Acts 19:2 And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
NRS Acts 19:2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" They replied, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
NKJ Acts 19:2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
BBE Acts 19:2 And he said to them, Did you get the Holy Spirit when you had faith? And they said to him, No, we have had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit.
YLT Acts 19:2 he said unto them, 'The Holy Spirit did ye receive -- having believed?' and they said unto him, 'But we did not even hear whether there is any Holy Spirit;'
Third, even if it is granted that these people were Jews, it seems highly unlikely that they would have not known that the Holy Spirit was given and have participated in the Jewish crucifixion of Jesus. The Jews who travelled to Jerusalem for Passover, and participated in the crucifixion of Jesus, would have naturally stayed for the next immediate feast, Pentecost. Everybody at Pentecost would have both heard of the Holy Spirit and known he had been given (Acts 2:1-17).
This illustrates another weakness in the proposed theory: Guilt. Who was guilty for crucifying Jesus? The whole race of Jews, including Samaritans? That is what you proposed. But this raises 2 sticky points:
- God is no respector of persons - Does it not seem unfair that God would hold an entire race to a different standard, just because of the sins of a minor fraction? As still remains unanswered, "God is no respector of persons" (Acts 10:31-32. Therefore, God could not provide a standard for one race and another standard for another race. The New Testament contains no reference to guilt or requirements being different from one race to another. Such notion is contrary to everything the Bible teachs on prejudice, as has already been demonstrated in the above posts.
- Permanent, not transitional - If all Jews and Samaritans, somehow became guilty of Jesus' crucifixion, and needed extra "penance", then why would time make a difference? If the guilt was transferred by race (few Jews sinned so all Jews in all places must do more penance), then there is no basis for a transitional period, unless you think enough Jews were baptized to repay and offset the travesty of Jesus crucifixion. Is this an acceptable conclusion to you? This puts the theory squarely in conflict with Ephesians 4:4-6 - "one baptism". Or, do you think only the Jews involved in the crucifixion needed the extra water baptism?
This passage is arbitrarily applied to defining a boundary between races for the purpose of baptism. Where is baptism mentioned in this context? Nowhere! Even then the designations do not hold up - There are 4 groups not 2! This contradicts the theory instead of supporting it. Moreover, Jesus clearly removed the Samaritans from a spiritual heritage/responsibility of the Jews (How were the Samaritans responsible for Jesus' crucifixion? They were not even welcome in Jerusalem!)Marc wrote:Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria represent the Israelites while the uttermost parts of the earth represent the Gentile nations. I'm not sure why He mentions it three times.
John, recording Jesus' conversation with a Samaritan woman, wrote:ur fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
Granted, this last instruction related to the Limited Commission, but does that sound like Jesus generally lumped Samaritans in with the Jews?Matthew, recording Jesus' instruction regarding Samaritans, wrote:These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)
We must be careful in plucking passages out of their context and using them to support our theories.
=======================
The whole problem I see is that a theory has been proposed and now we are trying to force it into Scripture. Where is the mention of a distinction between Jew and Gentile? Where is the mention of a race-dependent baptism? Where is the mention of a transitional period? Where is the mention of a specific 'penance' due to some Jews being responsible for crucifying Jesus? It is just not there. The only passage that suggest any break in a pattern is Cornelius (Acts 10). Even then the Bible offers a very good explanation for what happened there, without having to create a theory that has no justification in other part of the Bible.
The requirement for water baptsim for all peoples is far more consistent with more of the New Testament (if not all), and it is supported and taught by many more passages. Again, are we proposing a theory and bending Scripture to match, or are we starting with Scripture and bending our theories to match God's Word? Remember, any doctrine regarding baptism must be easily understood, because the writer of Herbrews classified the doctrine of "baptisms" as a fundamental, beginner-level teaching. If we have to ignore and explan so many passages to justify a theory used to explain 2 verses, which don't even mention the teaching, and if the theory has no other support, and contradicts so many more passages, how is that accurate, much less simple and easily understood?
This I applaud:The Hebrew writer wrote:Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)
It takes a lot humility for anyone to admit that they do not know an answer. However, even more honor and praise is due the one who relinquishes a cherished doctrine, which cannot be supported because of so many unanswerable questions.Marc wrote:Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria represent the Israelites while the uttermost parts of the earth represent the Gentile nations. I'm not sure why He mentions it three times.
Acts 2:38 and 10:44-48 are clear. In the first case the Israelites received the Holy Spriit after they were water baptized and in the second case the Gentiles received Him before they were water baptized. That is what the texts declare. In terms of those in Acts 8 and 19 we could go back and forth as to whether they were Israelites. I personally believe they were. So let's stick with these two "clear" passages. Acts 2:38 definately refers to Israelites while Acts 10:44-48 definately refers to Gentiles. We fall under the conditions of Acts 10:44-48 not Acts 2:38.
It is true that both the Gentiles and the Israelites were responsible for the death of Christ (Acts 4:27). THis would include God as well (Acts 4:28 - eight). However, the Lord Jesus was sent only to the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24) and He told His disciples to do the same (Matthew 10:6). He stated that salvation begins with the Jews (John 4:22) for it was they and not the Gentiles who belonged to the "adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Romans 9:4). The Israelites had the advantage of knowing God for they were entrusted with His oracles which spoke of Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 3:1, 2). The Gentiles did not have such privileges. Even though Pilate (a Gentile) pronounced the sentence of death on Christ it was the Israelites who willingly took responsibility of doing it (Matthew 27:25). In fact, we are told that it was an Israelite who committed "the greater sin" (John 19:11). The Israelites had the first claim to the rights and privileges of knowing God (Acts 3:26; Romans 1:16; 2:9, 10). Unlike the Gentiles they were not "strangers to the covenants of promise" (Ephesians 2:12). In fact, the Gentiles are said to be "far away" from these promises while the Israelites are "near" (Ephesians 2:17). The Israelites therefore should have known that the Lord Jesus was the Christ (Messiah). In having such a strong advantyage as to knowing Christ their their sins of rejecting, mocking, beating and crucifying their King were sins that they and only they could have committed. Their water baptism into the Christian faith then would be the ultimate act of repentance turning from Judasim to Christianity. In terms of God being a respector of persons, if two men wanted to come to Christ and one was a murderer and the other man never murdered the man who murdered would have to repent of his murders while the other man would have no need to do so. That is not two plans of salvation but their act of repentance was different. The same is true with the Israelites.
If water baptism be necessary for salvation then how could Cornelius have the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues and still be lost? This is not possible. John 14:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 all declare that if you have the Holy Spirit you are saved. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. The same holds true with the NT gift of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that this NT gift is for those "in" the body of Christ. Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
Marc
It is true that both the Gentiles and the Israelites were responsible for the death of Christ (Acts 4:27). THis would include God as well (Acts 4:28 - eight). However, the Lord Jesus was sent only to the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24) and He told His disciples to do the same (Matthew 10:6). He stated that salvation begins with the Jews (John 4:22) for it was they and not the Gentiles who belonged to the "adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Romans 9:4). The Israelites had the advantage of knowing God for they were entrusted with His oracles which spoke of Christ (Acts 7:38; Romans 3:1, 2). The Gentiles did not have such privileges. Even though Pilate (a Gentile) pronounced the sentence of death on Christ it was the Israelites who willingly took responsibility of doing it (Matthew 27:25). In fact, we are told that it was an Israelite who committed "the greater sin" (John 19:11). The Israelites had the first claim to the rights and privileges of knowing God (Acts 3:26; Romans 1:16; 2:9, 10). Unlike the Gentiles they were not "strangers to the covenants of promise" (Ephesians 2:12). In fact, the Gentiles are said to be "far away" from these promises while the Israelites are "near" (Ephesians 2:17). The Israelites therefore should have known that the Lord Jesus was the Christ (Messiah). In having such a strong advantyage as to knowing Christ their their sins of rejecting, mocking, beating and crucifying their King were sins that they and only they could have committed. Their water baptism into the Christian faith then would be the ultimate act of repentance turning from Judasim to Christianity. In terms of God being a respector of persons, if two men wanted to come to Christ and one was a murderer and the other man never murdered the man who murdered would have to repent of his murders while the other man would have no need to do so. That is not two plans of salvation but their act of repentance was different. The same is true with the Israelites.
If water baptism be necessary for salvation then how could Cornelius have the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues and still be lost? This is not possible. John 14:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 and 1 John 4:13 all declare that if you have the Holy Spirit you are saved. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. The same holds true with the NT gift of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:28 states that this NT gift is for those "in" the body of Christ. Did Cornelius speak in tongues before he was water baptized?
Marc
Something else that I recently just thought of concerning Cornelius.
God is the truth (Isaiah 65:16).
Christ is the truth (John 14:6).
The Holy Spirit is the truth (1 John 5:7 NASB 1977)
If you have one Person of the Trinity then you have all three Persons of the Trinity. So not only was Cornelius by receiving the Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit he also received Christ and therefore was in Christ. If a person is "in Christ" according to Romans 8:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:17 does that describe a saved or unsaved person?
Marc
God is the truth (Isaiah 65:16).
Christ is the truth (John 14:6).
The Holy Spirit is the truth (1 John 5:7 NASB 1977)
If you have one Person of the Trinity then you have all three Persons of the Trinity. So not only was Cornelius by receiving the Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit he also received Christ and therefore was in Christ. If a person is "in Christ" according to Romans 8:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:17 does that describe a saved or unsaved person?
Marc
You've stated the idea in the first sentence twice now and are ignoring the simple Laws of Language that do not support your statement. The word "in" by simple definition in context conjoined with the action Jesus stated of "witnesses of Me" REQUIRES that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth be defined as physical locations, not classes of people. There is no avoiding that conclusion. Likewise, your final statement is in direct contradiction to Romans 10:12 as well as other scripture already noted.Marc wrote:Jerusalem, Judaea and Samaria represent the Israelites while the uttermost parts of the earth represent the Gentile nations. I'm not sure why He mentions it three times.
It is God and not necessarily man that classifies people.
Now, 1 Cor 12:28 says:
28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.
Now, you stated the following:
Based upon your line of reasoning, it appears you are concluding that the functions noted in 1 Cor 12:28 occur ONLY in the church, and no where else? If this were true, then how can there be "teaching" outside of the church if it occurs ONLY in the church? See, there is a flaw in your use of Language that is occuring repeatedly as a violation of the Laws of Language: definition in context is required to be consistently applied throughout the context. Assuming your definition that "in" mean "ONLY in" therefore requires that teaching occur ONLY in the church, which we both know from a simple human experiential basis to not be true. There is another function of administrations noted in this same context as well and must follow the same linguistic rules. But, of course basic truth is that administrations, or governance, does indeed occur outside of the context of the church.Marc wrote:1 Corinthians 12:28 states that this NT gift is for those "in" the body of Christ.
Having addressed the flaw of your use of language I want to fill the void with a logically consistent exegisis of 1 Cor 12:28. The context is establishing the priority of importanct of the functions listed in rank order descending from most important to least important. The rank order nature of the list is supported by the enumeration of the functions: first apostles, second prophets, etc. But why place them in rank order? Because earlier in the context of 1 Cor 12 Paul is addressing their flawed view of assigning greater importance to spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues (sound familiar?). The figures used in the chapter illustrate the instrumentality of the functions working together to create a functioning body. Therefore, the preposition "in" denotes where they are used but it does not establish an exclusive, "ONLY in" relationship for each item. The establishment of the exclusivity of each function to be ONLY in the church, the body of Christ, must be found in some other context but is not in 1 Cor 12.
With such flaws to the core logic, there is no basis to support the continued line of reasoning that follows in other areas such as what exactly happened to Cornelius and why, etc. By avoiding the core issue and the flaws exposed in language and scripture, my assessment is that this is no longer an honest exchange and exegesis of scripture but instead an argument that will NOT yield glory to God. I would heartily continue the exchange if we can begin at this point in order to establish a firm foundation of truth to build from. Until then, God speed and may we all see His truth as revealed in scripture.
Teachers of the gospel are teachers that are "in" the body of Christ.
1 Timothy 2:5 says there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. According to that line of reasoning since it doesn't say "only one God" and "only one mediator" we could have more that one God and more than one mediator.
You didn't address the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.
Marc
1 Timothy 2:5 says there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. According to that line of reasoning since it doesn't say "only one God" and "only one mediator" we could have more that one God and more than one mediator.
You didn't address the fact that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.
Marc
In terms of Cornelius speaking in tongues obviously those with Peter knew that it meant he was "in" the body of Christ for that was the sign he had received the Holy Spirit. How else would they have known that the Holy Spirit "fell" upon" him? They didn't "see" the Holy Spirit but they ceratinly saw His effects. They now knew he received the Holy Spirit showing that he was now saved because he spoke in tongues.
The evidence continues to mount that Cornelius was saved before he was water baptized.
In John 7:38 and 39 the Lord Jesus equates the Holy Spirit with "living water". This living water (the Holy Spirit) according to the Lord Jesus in John 4:14 "shall" spring up to "eternal life". Cornelius had the living water (the Holy Spirit) before he was water baptized therefore he had "eternal life" before he was water baptized.
Marc
In John 7:38 and 39 the Lord Jesus equates the Holy Spirit with "living water". This living water (the Holy Spirit) according to the Lord Jesus in John 4:14 "shall" spring up to "eternal life". Cornelius had the living water (the Holy Spirit) before he was water baptized therefore he had "eternal life" before he was water baptized.
Marc
Four questions concerning Cornelius
Yeh hi. I'd like to summarize the case that water baptism is not necessary for salvation based on the previous posts concerning Cornelius and the Holy Spirit - plus I'll add one more.
A. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized.
1. Does 1 John 4:13 say that if one has the Spirit they abide in God?
2. Since the Spirit is called the Spirit of adoption in Romans 8:15 what was Cornelius now adopted into before he was water baptized?
3. According to John 4:14 if one has "living water" do they have "eternal life"?
4. Since the Holy Spirit is God was Cornelius a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) before he was water baptized?
Thanks
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
A. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized.
1. Does 1 John 4:13 say that if one has the Spirit they abide in God?
2. Since the Spirit is called the Spirit of adoption in Romans 8:15 what was Cornelius now adopted into before he was water baptized?
3. According to John 4:14 if one has "living water" do they have "eternal life"?
4. Since the Holy Spirit is God was Cornelius a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) before he was water baptized?
Thanks
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Four questions concerning Cornelius
Yeh hi. I'd like to summarize the case that water baptism is not necessary for salvation based on the previous posts concerning Cornelius and the Holy Spirit - plus I'll add one more.
A. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized.
1. Does 1 John 4:13 say that if one has the Spirit they abide in God?
2. Since the Spirit is called the Spirit of adoption in Romans 8:15 what was Cornelius now adopted into before he was water baptized?
3. According to John 4:14 if one has "living water" do they have "eternal life"?
4. Since the Holy Spirit is God was Cornelius a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) before he was water baptized?
Thanks
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
A. Cornelius "received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 10:47) before he was water baptized.
1. Does 1 John 4:13 say that if one has the Spirit they abide in God?
2. Since the Spirit is called the Spirit of adoption in Romans 8:15 what was Cornelius now adopted into before he was water baptized?
3. According to John 4:14 if one has "living water" do they have "eternal life"?
4. Since the Holy Spirit is God was Cornelius a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) before he was water baptized?
Thanks
Marc
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Checking back in
The more I study the Bible the more I realize that water baptism is not necessary for salvation. I'd like to touch on my previous posting concerning 1 John 4:13. It says that one can know they abide in God because He has "given" them of His Spirit. Notice the word "given" for it is the same Greek word used by Peter in Acts 11:17 in describing how God "gave" Cornelius the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. Thus since he was "given" the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized Cornelius already abided in God before he was water baptized. If one abides "in God" are they saved or unsaved?
The second posting on this thread claimed that those who were given the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This person goes on to write that even though this phrase is used of Cornelius in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized it does not mean the same thing. The exact same phrase by the same author in the same book in the same context (the result of the preaching of the Lordship of Christ and His resurrection) but two different meanings? The evidence will simply not suport such a conclusion. And as already shown Cornelius was "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:16, 17 - 2:4) before he was water baptized. If one is filled with the Holy Spirit one is indeed indwelt with the Holy Spirit for how can one get more of the Holy Spirit than to be "filled" by Him? Let it be pointed out then that since Cornelius was indwelt with the Holy Spirit that God was his "Father" and he was His "son" (2 Corinthians 6:16-18) - both descriptions of a saved person all before he was water baptized.
Finally, according to Acts 11:16, 17 Cornelius is said to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. What did the Holy Spirit baptize him into before he was water baptized?
- Marc Taylor
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
The second posting on this thread claimed that those who were given the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This person goes on to write that even though this phrase is used of Cornelius in Acts 10:45 before he was water baptized it does not mean the same thing. The exact same phrase by the same author in the same book in the same context (the result of the preaching of the Lordship of Christ and His resurrection) but two different meanings? The evidence will simply not suport such a conclusion. And as already shown Cornelius was "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 11:16, 17 - 2:4) before he was water baptized. If one is filled with the Holy Spirit one is indeed indwelt with the Holy Spirit for how can one get more of the Holy Spirit than to be "filled" by Him? Let it be pointed out then that since Cornelius was indwelt with the Holy Spirit that God was his "Father" and he was His "son" (2 Corinthians 6:16-18) - both descriptions of a saved person all before he was water baptized.
Finally, according to Acts 11:16, 17 Cornelius is said to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized. What did the Holy Spirit baptize him into before he was water baptized?
- Marc Taylor
oceanstar314@yahoo.com
Matthew 3:10-12
And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (v.10).
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (v.11).
And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (v.12).
Two groups of people are mentioned in each passage:
3:10
good tree - saved people
bad tree - unsaved people
3:11
baptized with the Holy Spirit - saved people
baptized with fire - unsaved people
3:12
wheat - saved people
chaff - unsaved people
All that are baptized with the Holy Spirit are saved people while all those who are baptized with fire are unsaved people. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore he was already saved before he was water baptized.
- Marc
And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (v.10).
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (v.11).
And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (v.12).
Two groups of people are mentioned in each passage:
3:10
good tree - saved people
bad tree - unsaved people
3:11
baptized with the Holy Spirit - saved people
baptized with fire - unsaved people
3:12
wheat - saved people
chaff - unsaved people
All that are baptized with the Holy Spirit are saved people while all those who are baptized with fire are unsaved people. Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized therefore he was already saved before he was water baptized.
- Marc
Marc, you have a very serious issue with how you read scripture. This latest post and supposed "conclusion" is really quite serious in it's flaws. You have created a "thread" of pairing two examples through the context of Matt 3:10-12, that is completely out of context and an utter fabrication. In achieving a consistent understaning of scripture, you must first ask the question: "What is the context talking about?" To this you must go back to the introduction that John provides:
: "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,". John is warning them of something, but of what? The warning then becomes the subject in v9-12ff. God is about to do something to them, but again, what is he going to do? An OT context provides some insight into the times that were at hand:
More pertinent to this issue of the Holy Spirit is what is spoken of in Joel 2:28: "That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;" The word "all" is the class of all peoples. I think even you, Marc, would agree that the Spirit has not literally indwelled all peoples. Therefore, we're left to ask the question then "How was the Spirit poured out on all flesh?" Joel answers this question for us! In v32 Joel says, speaking of that day when the Lord would deliver judgment:
Finally, returning to the context of Matt 3, you have fabricated a contrast in Matt 3:11 of those baptized with the Holy Spirit and those baptized with fire. First, and most obvious flaw in your logic is this: the simple conjunction "and". The two things are not contrasts at all, they are connected thoughts by use of the conjunction "and". It is not two different classes of people but one single class with two actions rendered: baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Next, considering the contextual subject matter of the judgment being proclaimed against the Pharisees and Saducees as noted in John's comments of Matt 3:7, he is talking of an action rendered towards this class of people. And then examining other scripture of similar "judgement language" structure such as Joel 2, we can see the figurative use of language that is consistent with Matt 3 and that what John is speaking of regarding "baptizing with the Spirit and fire" is not a good thing at all in their case. It is speaking of a pending judgment that will result in their destruction if true repentance is not achieved, Matt 3:8. There is no contrast between saved and lost in Matt 3:11 Again, the focus of this section is on the judgment to be rendered.
Marc, you have serious issues with your reading, understanding, analysis, and conclusions that you draw from scripture. I say that in hopes that you can begin to see the flaws in your logic, set them aside, and can see the truth. I first pointed this out back in December 2005, and quite frankly, I have seen no inclination to heeding that warning. It leaves me speculating why you are here, why you keep posting to this thread, and what you hope to achieve? Only God can judge the heart, but I am left to have to judge for myself the actions. The actions speak to me of a person that is either out to make trouble and "stir the pot" or of someone so blinded to their own point of view that they have a heart of stone when it comes to the Word of God working on their heart. But only you and God can tell what the real story is. All I can do is warn you, and others, of your errors, and pray you change before it results in the loss of your soul.
So, to answer the first contextual question, John is speaking to the Pharisees and Saducees in a very condeming and stern fashion......"Brood of vipers!" and tells them specifically about what there issue is (vMatt 3:7-9 wrote: 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,
9 and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
: "Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,". John is warning them of something, but of what? The warning then becomes the subject in v9-12ff. God is about to do something to them, but again, what is he going to do? An OT context provides some insight into the times that were at hand:There are quite a few similarities in language structure and context between the statements in Mat 3 and Joel 2. First, both are speaking of a time to come, a great time of the Lord. Second, they both use figurative language that is typical of judgment by God. Now, judgment by God does not necessarily mean end time judgment. The nature of judgment must be derived from the context. In each context there are certain "markers" that are provided that can be used as somewhat of a guide. However, the biggest key in this use of "judgment language" is that it is figurative in nature. Joel 2:30-31 bears this out and is figurative of the day that the Lord will come and His power.Joel 2:28-32 wrote: 28 “ And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
30 “ And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:
Blood and fire and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
32 And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.
More pertinent to this issue of the Holy Spirit is what is spoken of in Joel 2:28: "That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;" The word "all" is the class of all peoples. I think even you, Marc, would agree that the Spirit has not literally indwelled all peoples. Therefore, we're left to ask the question then "How was the Spirit poured out on all flesh?" Joel answers this question for us! In v32 Joel says, speaking of that day when the Lord would deliver judgment:
This is not speaking of a literal indwelling or receiving of the Spirit by people. He's speaking of the effect that the Spirit would have on ALL people. That by the delivery of the Word by means of the Spirit that all that call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That is a wholly and completely different action of the Spirit than you continue to assert, Marc.Joel 2:32 wrote: "And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD calls. "
Finally, returning to the context of Matt 3, you have fabricated a contrast in Matt 3:11 of those baptized with the Holy Spirit and those baptized with fire. First, and most obvious flaw in your logic is this: the simple conjunction "and". The two things are not contrasts at all, they are connected thoughts by use of the conjunction "and". It is not two different classes of people but one single class with two actions rendered: baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire. Next, considering the contextual subject matter of the judgment being proclaimed against the Pharisees and Saducees as noted in John's comments of Matt 3:7, he is talking of an action rendered towards this class of people. And then examining other scripture of similar "judgement language" structure such as Joel 2, we can see the figurative use of language that is consistent with Matt 3 and that what John is speaking of regarding "baptizing with the Spirit and fire" is not a good thing at all in their case. It is speaking of a pending judgment that will result in their destruction if true repentance is not achieved, Matt 3:8. There is no contrast between saved and lost in Matt 3:11 Again, the focus of this section is on the judgment to be rendered.
Marc, you have serious issues with your reading, understanding, analysis, and conclusions that you draw from scripture. I say that in hopes that you can begin to see the flaws in your logic, set them aside, and can see the truth. I first pointed this out back in December 2005, and quite frankly, I have seen no inclination to heeding that warning. It leaves me speculating why you are here, why you keep posting to this thread, and what you hope to achieve? Only God can judge the heart, but I am left to have to judge for myself the actions. The actions speak to me of a person that is either out to make trouble and "stir the pot" or of someone so blinded to their own point of view that they have a heart of stone when it comes to the Word of God working on their heart. But only you and God can tell what the real story is. All I can do is warn you, and others, of your errors, and pray you change before it results in the loss of your soul.
You wrote that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not two different classes of people but one single class with two actions rendered. Thereby equating the two. To begin with even the moderataors of this forum disagree with your assertion:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ptism.html
Furthermore, John in Matthew 3:10 and 12 is clearly contrasting two different classes of people.
Finally, why is it that we never read of anyone ever said to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a negative light anywhere else? Every time that term is used it always in a postive way. I'd like to see the cititaion of biblical authorities that claim that being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" is detrimental.
- Marc
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ptism.html
Furthermore, John in Matthew 3:10 and 12 is clearly contrasting two different classes of people.
Finally, why is it that we never read of anyone ever said to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a negative light anywhere else? Every time that term is used it always in a postive way. I'd like to see the cititaion of biblical authorities that claim that being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" is detrimental.
- Marc
Are you going to now rip their statements in the article out of context too? Mis-state and mis-quote them as well? That article presented multiple other contexts of the same language and a bad, judgmental connotation.Marc wrote:You wrote that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not two different classes of people but one single class with two actions rendered. Thereby equating the two. To begin with even the moderataors of this forum disagree with your assertion:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ptism.html
Furthermore, John in Matthew 3:10 and 12 is clearly contrasting two different classes of people.
Finally, why is it that we never read of anyone ever said to be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a negative light anywhere else? Every time that term is used it always in a postive way. I'd like to see the cititaion of biblical authorities that claim that being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" is detrimental.
- Marc
You have exposed another serious flaw in your defintion process. You are using the word "baptize" to mean more than the root word would support. Baptize simply means to be immersed. The root word does not by itself define:
a) Immersed in what?
b) Immersed for why, what purpose?
Those two aspects of the "baptism" must be defined and derived from context. As I demonstrated with the context of Joel 2, we're seeing clear "judgment language" structure in Joel 2 and here in Matt 3. The introduction by John to these Pharisees and Saducees is very direct and clear: "Brood of vipers!" and then "bring true repentance." So, the context is a warning and pronouncement of judgment against these people. Now we can begin to answer the two questions with respect to this "baptism" in Matt 3:10-12:
a) They will be immersed in judgment by God
b) They will be immersed for the purpose of being judged by God
Your flaw is that you have assumed a false defintion that "baptism" always means a "baptism unto salvation" when the root word does not support that definition. It is the same, crucial flaw that is throughout your previous postings from December until now as well.
For the sake of this thread this is a direct quote from the article you referenced. Their conclusion and harmonization, based on my reading, is also that this context is speaking of judgment and a very BAD immersion of judgment that is about to occur against these Pharisees and Saducees. I have bolded their conclusion for emphasis to this point:
Baptism of Fire
Fire is often used to symbolize God's treatment of the righteous and the wicked. Some passages use fire to symbolize God's fiery wrath and judgment upon the wicked (Ezekiel 21:31-32; Isaiah 29:6). Other passages refer to a difficult, but merciful trial by refining fire that purges God's people of their wickedness (Zechariah 13:8-9; Malachi 3:1-4). In each symbolic usage of fire, the context determines whether the intent is punishment or refinement. With these two possible uses in mind, let us examine the context of the references to "baptism of fire".
Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, John answered, saying to all,
"I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire." Luke 3:15-17
John's answer was given in response to the question of him being the Messiah, or Christ. He contrasts himself with the Messiah by contrasting his baptism with the those baptisms administered by the Messiah. He continues to expound on the Messiah's authority through His power to render judgment and separate the righteous from the wicked
Please notice that the only other reference to the "fire" of verse 16 is that of "unquenchable fire" in verse 17. Verse 17 illustrates the Messiah's judgment through an old figure of separating the useless chaff from the desired wheat kernels. The winnower separates the wheat to be saved, while the chaff is separated for destruction by fire, which illustrates the ultimate redemption of the righteous and the destruction of the wicked. This would cause one to reasonably conclude that baptism by fire is nothing other than a symbol of the eternal destruction of the wicked in hell's fire.
Another possibility, although unlikely, is that the "baptizing with the Holy Spirit and fire" refers to a single baptism, that comprises two elements: the empowering of the Holy Spirit and a purifying fire. This may seem plausible, since a vision of something like fire was shown during the apostles' baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). However, please notice that the phrase "baptize with ... fire" only occurs in two passages out of the entire Bible (Matthew 3:10-12; Luke 3:15-17). In the context of both passages, we find a reference to destruction or punishment by fire (Matthew 3:10, 12; Luke 3:17). However, in contrast to this relation, the other two gospel accounts that mention baptism with the Holy Spirit, that do not reference fire, also do not reference punishment (Mark 1:8; John 1:33). This suggests that "baptism with fire" is associated with punishment and destruction by fire.
Moreover, when Peter recalled Jesus' reference to the events surrounding the apostles and Cornelius' family's Holy Spirit baptism, he makes reference to "baptize with the Holy Spirit" but "baptize with fire" is again conspicuously absent (Acts 11:15-16).
This gives us three reasons as basis for a conclusion: one, the relation of the immediate context to destruction by fire where the phrase is used; two, the conspicuous absence of reference to punishment by fire when the phrase is not used; and three, the further absence of its reference when Holy Spirit baptism did occur. These three reasons lead one to believe that "baptism with fire" is not part of a single Holy Spirit baptism, but it is a separate baptism, referring to the immersion of the wicked into the fires of hell (Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 25:41-46). Of course, if it did refer to a single baptism, then it would have expired in conjunction with Holy Spirit baptism according to the earlier cited passages.
Rip the staements of the articel out of context? Wishful thinking on your part.
Yes they will be immersed in judgment by God. I agree. That is what baptism with fire means. But just as those who are baptized with fire are eternally separated from God so too all those who are baptized with the Holy Spirit will be immersed into His eternal bliss. And Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.
- Marc
Yes they will be immersed in judgment by God. I agree. That is what baptism with fire means. But just as those who are baptized with fire are eternally separated from God so too all those who are baptized with the Holy Spirit will be immersed into His eternal bliss. And Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.
- Marc
...and as I have already shown from the Bible the baptism with the Holy Spirit did not end. All Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit. If you have not been baptized with the Holy Spirit then you are not a Christian. For according to Acts 10:45 and 11:16 to have the Holy Spirit "poured out" (ekcheo) upon you and to be baptized with the Holy Spirit is the same thing but Paul tells us in Titus 3:6 that the Holy Spirit has been "poured out" (ekcheo) upon all Christians. Thus since they mean the same thing then all Christians have been baptized with the Holy Spirit.
- Marc
- Marc
The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is being baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is not deny that water baptism is to take place but being baptized with the Holy Spirit is the "one baptism" that is necessary in placing the person into the body of Christ. For anyone to believe that being baptized with the Holy Spirit has ended disagrees with Acts 10:45 and 11:16 coupled with Titus 3:6.
In terms of Cornelius Acts 11:14 declares that Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he will be saved. "Will be saved" denotes that he was not saved before he met Peter.
- Marc
In terms of Cornelius Acts 11:14 declares that Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he will be saved. "Will be saved" denotes that he was not saved before he met Peter.
- Marc
The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is being baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is not deny that water baptism is to take place but being baptized with the Holy Spirit is the "one baptism" that is necessary in placing the person into the body of Christ. For anyone to believe that being baptized with the Holy Spirit has ended disagrees with Acts 10:45 and 11:16 coupled with Titus 3:6.
In terms of Cornelius Acts 11:14 declares that Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he will be saved. "Will be saved" denotes that he was not saved before he met Peter.
- Marc
In terms of Cornelius Acts 11:14 declares that Peter was sent to him to tell him words whereby he will be saved. "Will be saved" denotes that he was not saved before he met Peter.
- Marc
When was Abraham saved? When was David saved?
When was the Holy Spirit poured out onto all mankind?
Read Acts 10:1-4 the description of this man seems to fit many O.T. figures who were waiting for the Messiah. According to the N.T. the blood of Christ cleanses those in the past as well, is it possible that they were not saved until the blood was shed, is it possible that Cornelius was in a right relationship with God not understanding that the messiah had come yet, but still had faith that God was to send the redeemer? Corelius was found to be righteous before God.
Notice 10:34,35 "Whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" Who is this talking about? This is before Cornelius was saved yet he was found to be accepted by God, just as Abraham, David.
I know it seems odd because of what we hear and learn from others but Cornelius was righteous in Gods eyes before the Holy Spirit fell upon him, he did not understand that CHrist came in order for him to be found saved under the N.T. pattern Peter would tell him what to do to be saved!
When was the Holy Spirit poured out onto all mankind?
Read Acts 10:1-4 the description of this man seems to fit many O.T. figures who were waiting for the Messiah. According to the N.T. the blood of Christ cleanses those in the past as well, is it possible that they were not saved until the blood was shed, is it possible that Cornelius was in a right relationship with God not understanding that the messiah had come yet, but still had faith that God was to send the redeemer? Corelius was found to be righteous before God.
Notice 10:34,35 "Whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him" Who is this talking about? This is before Cornelius was saved yet he was found to be accepted by God, just as Abraham, David.
I know it seems odd because of what we hear and learn from others but Cornelius was righteous in Gods eyes before the Holy Spirit fell upon him, he did not understand that CHrist came in order for him to be found saved under the N.T. pattern Peter would tell him what to do to be saved!