The division is also made clear by the AND that starts verse 6.
:thumb:
The division is also made clear by the AND that starts verse 6.
Cornelius was saved before being water baptized.(Acts 10:44-48)
Only a believer is indwelt with the Spirit of God.
Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
John even said it:
Matthew 3:11 "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.
Which is what happened to Cornelius.
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Not water.
If Cornelius would have heard Peter command water baptism, and refused, he would have become "unsaved" in a hurry.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Sorry, Peter didn't save Cornelius, Christ did and you didn't answer my question.
Sorry, Peter didn't save Cornelius, Christ did and you didn't answer my question.
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Not water.
1 Corinthians 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember baptizing anyone else. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of the Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.…
For something sooo important as you say, why didn't Paul need to not hinder them from being water baptized the moment they received Christ?
If Cornelius would have heard Peter command water baptism, and refused, he would have become "unsaved" in a hurry.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Act 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Act 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
The final words which they heard whereby they were saved were these:
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Then prove it.If you drink from the cup, you are embracing the New Covenant. No way around that, here.
English?Just like Luke 17:20-21 doesn't mean the kingdom is in man, or Matt 11:11 shows Jesus was born from above, or Galatians 4:24 makes all that secular/historical religious milk doctrine sour, Acts 17:24, Gen 32:30, 1Cor 3:16, are spirit/meat of the kingdom in man a light that you only play in its shadow.
And I answered in that thread.I posted this in another thread on the same subject.
No kidding.It's far better to stick with vague generalities. That way you can just keep moving the target like the shifting sands in the desert.
Since the NKJV puts the quotes around only part of what is in yellow above can you provide some exegesis for me, or if they do so in the link can you send me the link? Please.Since you didn't follow to the link to the actual, factual explanation, I'll post it here:
Acts 19:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
What Paul told THEM is in YELLOW. The THEY in verse 5 refers to "the people" that heard John. What THEY with Paul did that day comes after the AND in verse 6.
You simply cannot hear what scripture says; because your prefer your story.
So the one baptism can't possibly be the baptism John the Baptist said Jesus would provide, as opposed to his baptism with water?Paul said with regard to baptism there is only one baptism, if Paul was right it means there are not two baptisms, there is only the baptism the Father endorsed by sending John to baptize.
Jesus' through his disciples baptized a greater number of people than John, again endorsing the Father's baptism of water.
Being "saved" is a term that is overused. A lot!
The reason is that if we choose to quit following Jesus and walk away from Him we become unsaved. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved".
If we decide we don't want Him or His ways, even after we've previously believed, He will try to win us back, but if we insist He will allow us to walk away. He will not abduct us against our will and take us to heaven.
So the question isn't "were the Gentiles saved after receiving the Holy Ghost, and before being baptized"...
...the question should be "could they have continued to be saved if they would have decided to not obey Peter when he commanded them to get baptized".
Where is your evidence this man was saved prior to fornicating?Sorry, but that's just not Bible. If you read 1 Cor 5, you'll find that a member of the church who was saved had started fornicating with his father's wife. Paul said to break off fellowship with him and turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his body so that his spirit could BE SAVED.
Where is your evidence that he started out saved?He started out saved, became unsaved because he chose to live sin more than God, and through his actions forsook God. Thankfully he repented, and Paul instructed the church in 2 Corinthians to forgive him, and said that he himself forgave the man "in the person of Christ".
And what did Paul say about those in Christ in 1 Corinthians 6:11? Are they fornicators?In the middle of that situation, a few verses later, was where Paul made the statement that fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
That is a REALLY far stretch without support. Peter did NOT say that they needed to all be baptized THERE AND NOW. Simply that they needed to be baptized for the remission of sins.MOST of them (according to you) were from afar, but NOT ALL were. Peter said they ALL (locals and pilgrims) needed to be baptized, which means at least a portion of them were instructed to be re-baptized.
Your "interpretation" has lots of silliness including the idea that those already baptized needed to get we again.You said, and I quote, "re-baptism is a silly idea".
It obviously wasn't silly in Acts 2:38. Peter made sure he followed up his command for baptism with the words "every one of you", which alludes to the fact there may have been questions among them whether or not it was a commandment for all of them. That question makes sense if some of them had already been baptized by John.
Water baptism is per the priesthood of Israel. You're distracted from that point.Btw it plainly states that there were Judeans there, who according to Matthew 3:5 definitely had already been baptized.
And he said specifically and deliberately for "every one of you" to get baptized in Jesus' name. This let's me know 2 things:
1) those who were baptized by John had not been baptized in Jesus' name. Otherwise, there would be no reason to baptize them again in the same name.
2) your blanket statement that "re-baptism is a silly idea" is totally wrong, and not even close to rightly dividing the word of truth.
Water baptism is per the priesthood of Israel.
That is COMPLETELY irrelevant. WATER baptism is per the priesthood of Israel.In Mark 1:8 John said, "I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Why couldn't John baptize with the Holy Spirit? Why was he not able to do so?
So the one baptism can't possibly be the baptism John the Baptist said Jesus would provide, as opposed to his baptism with water?
Actually, it's just another question you can't answer.That is COMPLETELY irrelevant. WATER baptism is per the priesthood of Israel.
P.S. Just another attempted distraction/diversion... I'm not going to chase your misdirection's.
I could answer it, but I'm not taking the bait.Actually, it's just another question you can't answer.
Yes, and your POINT?John was a Levite and the NT was not yet available.
John did what he was sent to do.
Paul says that in the BODY, there is ONE baptism.... it's not water.
Paul taught salvation from the Hebrew scriptures.
Your made-up fantasy baptism is not supported by the Hebrew Bible.
Baptism pictures death in a watery grave by immersion, your baptism pictures nothing.