The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[agape]

Re: Agape - YOU have too many "Spirit" baptisms in Acts 10...

Re: Agape - YOU have too many "Spirit" baptisms in Acts 10...

Originally posted by Apollos
Agape-
Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers man through His grace.

Nothing but PI. Water baptism is works on man's part and not by grace. We are SAVED BY GRACE and NOT WORKS. Holy Spirit baptism is the GIFT of God to man and it is ONLY BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Water (H20) CAN NEVER BRING MAN SALVATION..

HS baptism was not and never was used for this purpose!

LOL...scripture and verse please?? Let's see what God's Word says about that...shall we?

Matthew 3:11:
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: BUT HE [CHRIST] that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: HE [CHRIST] SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND [WITH] FIRE.

MarK 1:8:
I indeed have baptized you with water: "BUT HE [CHRIST] SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST."
Acts 1:5:

John truly baptized with water, "BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE."

Acts 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."

John 3:5-7:
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water [fleshy birth] and [b[[OF] THESPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.[/b]

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, YE MUST BE BORN [BEGOTTEN] AGAIN.

THE WORD TEACHES THAT ONE "MUST" BE BORN OF THE SPIRIT...NOT WATER...TO ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD!

What? know ye not that your body is THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY GHOST WHICH IS "IN" YOU, AND WHICH YE HAVE "OF GOD," and ye are not your own.?

I John 3:9:
WHOSOEVER is born of God doth not commit sin; FOR HIS SEED REMAINETH IN HIM: AND HE CANNOT SIN BECAUSE HE IS "BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF GOD."

I John 4:7:
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and EVERY ONE THAT LOVETH IS BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF GOD AND "KNOWETH GOD."

I John 5:1:
WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST IS "BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF GOD": and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

I John 5:4:
FOR WHATSOEVER IS "BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF GOD" overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.

I John 5:18:
We KNOW THAT "WHOSOEVER IS BORN [BEGOTTEN] OF GOD" sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

DUH... Can God state it any more plain? And so, it is only for a chosen few....not for salvation....THINK NOT!

Go LEARN THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES and UNLEARN man-made doctrines and false teachings, because that is all water baptism is good for today.

It is time to “wash-up” agape

LOL...Looks like the only thing washed up around here is water baptism.

Btw, still waiting for someone to explain "HOW" water SAVES??

 

[HardCoreFundy2]

Originally posted by c.moore
Hello HardCoreFundy2

How did you get all these good informations??

Can you give me the web site like Kevin said you should do, but I think you did the right thing by showing what the web site said.

This is the second time you came with true wisdom teaching.

Please keep up this great work for our Lord not for yourself but for our PAPA Jesus Christ ABBA FATHER PRAISE GOD !


God Bless You

I got them from

www.e-grace.net

 

[servantofChrist]

HardCoreFundy2,

You replied to my previous post, but you did not answer it!

I asked you why the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Peter, did not speak the words of Eph. 2:8-9 to the multitude of condemned souls there at the conclusion of the first-ever gospel message, when they had been convicted of sin and specifically asked Peter and the other apostles there, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Why didn't Peter say, "By grace you are saved through faith, therefore, since God has supplied the grace, all you have to do is just accept it by faith!"

Why didn't he say that, HCF2, and all others who believe that Eph. 2:8-9 is the verse to cite when telling someone what to do to be saved?

Why, instead, did the Holy Spirit tell that multitude of lost souls, through the Apostle Peter - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...."

I'm waiting for not just a REPLY to this, but an ANSWER!

 

[servantofChrist]

A Few Open Questions

A Few Open Questions

Here are a few open questions for anyone or everyone to answer, who believes that baptism is NOT necessary in order for one to be saved:

Acts 2 is the occasion of the gospel of Christ being preached for the very first time. Peter spoke the message by inspiration of God, not by his own authority. The message concludes with the multitude being convicted of sin, they realize they stand condemned before God, so they ask Peter and the other apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

If, as so many of you contend, the words of Eph. 2:8 is the scripture to cite in telling a sinner, in our time, what to do to be saved, then why were those words NOT the words God spoke in reply to those condemned souls in Acts 2, who specifically asked what they should do?

Why did God NOT respond to their question with something like these words – “By grace you are saved through faith. I have supplied the grace, just have faith and you will be saved.”?

Please do not merely give a "reply" to these questions, rather, give an ANSWER to them.

 

[HardCoreFundy2]

Originally posted by servantofChrist
HardCoreFundy2,

You replied to my previous post, but you did not answer it!

I asked you why the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Apostle Peter, did not speak the words of Eph. 2:8-9 to the multitude of condemned souls there at the conclusion of the first-ever gospel message, when they had been convicted of sin and specifically asked Peter and the other apostles there, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Why didn't Peter say, "By grace you are saved through faith, therefore, since God has supplied the grace, all you have to do is just accept it by faith!"

Why didn't he say that, HCF2, and all others who believe that Eph. 2:8-9 is the verse to cite when telling someone what to do to be saved?

Why, instead, did the Holy Spirit tell that multitude of lost souls, through the Apostle Peter - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...."

I'm waiting for not just a REPLY to this, but an ANSWER!

I submit this article in answer to your question

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990i/Acts2-38.html

 

[servantofChrist]

HCF2,

I perused the article you referenced and nowhere in it were any words to be found that answered the questions I asked above. I'm still waiting for you, or anyone else, to answer the question:

If baptism is not necessary for someone to be saved, and Eph. 2:8-9 ARE the correct words to cite in the N. T. to tell someone what to do to be saved, then why were those words, or words similar to them, NOT spoken by God to the lost souls who listened to the first gospel message ever preached - which was, of course, preached entirely by inspiration of God Himself, through the mouth of the Apostle Peter?!

WHY were Peter's words to these people who needed to be saved NOT - "By grace you are saved through faith."?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

I have biblical proof in Acts that there was people who heard the word and believed and was filled with the Holy Spirit before any water baptism and even they ask afterwards get we get baptized by the old ritual and if anybody will forbid it, so your timing is wrong here in the new gospel of Christ.

And I have biblical proof that:

• What happened to the Gentiles in Acts 10:44 does not happen to everybody upon belief (HS baptism). The Samaritans in Acts 8:12 believed the word by the preaching of Philip and were baptized in the name of the Lord, yet the Holy Spirit didn't fall upon them when they believed as it did for the Gentiles. Why not?
  
• Spirit baptism cannot be the "ONE" baptism that was commanded by Christ. Christ commanded that MAN was to baptize people in Matt. 28:19-20. Man cannot perform Spirit baptism, and therefore cannot be the "ONE" baptism spoken of in Eph. 4:5. Man can and did perform baptism in the name of the Lord (Acts 2:38), and it uses water (Acts 10:47-48).

Oh yes, and by the way, just why did Peter command the Gentiles to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord even though the Holy Spirit had already been baptized? If Spirit baptism is the ONE baptism, as you think it is, why did Peter command baptism in the name of the Lord, which uses water? And if you give the the typical denominational answer of an outward symbol of faith for other Christians or something like that, I would like to see you back it with scripture.

Why would God voluntar for something when he is the Author and finisher of our faith, and he commands ,and he is a giving and providing God , that does not have to raise his hands or fight against anything, he just say let it be and it is.

I'm not too sure I understand your question. If you are asking why God would voluntarily pour out His grace, well, because He knew that we needed it! We couldn't possible redeem ouselves from our sins. We NEEDED God's gift, and He knew it.

I see everytime I ask you about a gift you run around the bush and add that Jesus dieing for us is the gift

Run around the bush?! Pffft. Hardly. How is the sacrifice of Christ for our sins not a free gift? Explain that. Did God HAVE to send His Son to die for us? NO! Did He? YES. God sent His Son to die for us when He didn't have to. How is that not a free gift?!

The whole gift is the salvation in whole by just trusting and believing, and loving Jesus.

But you've put a condition on it. It's not a "free" gift. As soon as you put ONE condition on salvation, it's no longer "free". Belief is ONE of those conditions. Yet, when I bring this up over and over, it is you who runs around the bush.

My definition of the free gift holds true to the word "free", for God sent His Son without condition.

and Blood Of Jesus is the way to everlasting life and loving God with all your heart in your walk which in your walk you get water baptized as an symbol of what happen in the spiritual world.

But if we are not baptized into Christ, we are NOT freed from sin. It is those who have died with Christ through baptism that is freed from sin (Romans 6:7)! Yes, it is the blood of Christ which cleanses us of our sins, but ONLY if we are baptized. That's why Acts 2:38 says that baptism is for the "remission of sins". That's why Romans 6:6 we are no longer slaves of sin - if we have been baptized (verse 5). Baptism is for the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ!

The thing you have backward is that you believe some how that before you can take any gift , you have to do and obey first all the commands before getting the gift, and that`s works.

I don't have it backwards. God sent poured out His grace through His Son a long time ago, and I wasn't even there. Even if I was, there would be nothing I could do or obey to get God to send His Son.

When you get this right teaching you will get alot of people saved brother Kevin.

Umm... I teaching exactly what Christ said: He who believes AND is baptized will be saved. That's what I've been saying throughout this entire thread. You on the other hand take away from what Christ plainly said. You want to take baptism out of that verse, even though it's linked with belief by the word "AND" to salvation.

You said:The denominations teach that baptism is an outward symbol of faith for other Christians. This is a man-made LIE about baptism and its purpose, and won't be found anywhere in scripture. We teach that baptism is for the remission of sins, which is easily backed by scripture.

We can say the same about you teachings but the real thing is getting false interpretation , and false informations,

I've shown you on more than one occasion in the Bible that baptism is for the remission of sins. Where are your verses that show that it's an outward symbol of faith for other Christians. Show me.

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Did John know about the truth about Jesus is God and the LOrd is God , and that the Holy Spirit is God???

Did John the baptist know that when he said in the name of God he knew that the this somebody that will come which is greater as he was would be God manifested in the flesh?????

So when John baptized , he really knew about the trinity and the Godly deity of God.

So you're trying to imply that John the baptist baptized people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? I've already shown you a place that proves that John's baptism is an entirely different baptism in comparison to being baptzed in the name of the Lord. Again, look at Acts 19. If John the baptist practiced the same baptism as baptism in the name of the Lord, then there would be no need to rebaptize them in the name of the Lord. But Paul did exactly that. They are different baptisms! Acts 19 proves that John didn't practice baptizing in the name of the Lord, or else they wouldn't have been rebaptized in His name.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

There is no evidence that anyone was RE-BAPTIZED.Please consider the verse out of Acts that you use to prove re-baptism:

"Then said Paul, 'John verily baptized with the baptism of repenance,saying unto the people that they should believe on Him Who should come after him,that is,on Jesus Christ.When they heard this,they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' And when Paul had laid his hands on them,the Holy Spirit came upon them..."(Acts19:4-6).

Notice the position of the PARANTHESES.We can see that Paul never re-baptized anyone,but instead he laid his hands on those who had not yet received the gifts of the Holy Spirit so that they would receive those gifts.And that is exactly what happened.

We see that the Apostles did the same thing (laying of hands) to those at Acts 8:15-17 so that they also would receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Apollos]

Those in error never answer the truth !!!

Those in error never answer the truth !!!

agape -

I would really like to say that I am curious… curious as to why you did NOT answer the points I presented to answer YOUR questions. But I am not curious because I know why you did NOT answer… YOU CAN'T !! That's why you avoided what I said in my last point. Those steeped in error such as yourself NEVER can answer the truth, you just try to try to be "cute" and save face. At this only are you somewhat effective.

Before I point this out to you and others, allow me to answer the quibbles from your last post…

Water baptism is works on man's part and not by grace. We are SAVED BY GRACE and NOT WORKS.

As mentioned many time already in this thread, GRACE is God's part in salvation while FAITH (which is a "work") is man's part. Once again I will pose the question all the cowardly "no-baptismists" will not answer…

Must man do ANYTHING in order to appropriate the salvation God offers man through His grace? Unless you are a true Calvinist, you are in trouble. The answer is YES - man MUST do something, because we know that all men will not be saved. We are now arguing only about HOW MANY things man MUST do before he receives that salvation from God.

I said in my last post that "HS baptism was not and never was used for this purpose (remission of sins - salvation)!" Your reply was…

scripture and verse please?? Let's see what God's Word says about that...shall we?

This is YOUR teaching and claim. Why don't YOU prove it?? Why do you ask me to affirm a negative??

Holy Spirit baptism is the GIFT of God to man and it is ONLY BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.

Okay "LOL Man", here is your chance to prove your heresy. Show us where HS baptism was FOR remission of sins and salvation. I am sure you can ASSUME this, and I am sure you can READ IT INTO a passage, but you ain't gonna prove it cause it ain't there! What cha' got "LOL Man" ??

After this you offered several scriptures out of context. You need to take into account WHO was speaking and WHO they were speaking to. IOW's, did Acts 1:5 apply to ALL MEN??

Quick question - Will ALL men receive HS baptism ?? Will ALL men be saved ?? If you answer NO (and you must) then we must read each passage and take the CONTEXT into consideration to see what was being said about HS baptism. (Psst - not everyone did, and not every will get it!! Tf, Acts 1:5 does not apply to all men and you have taken it out of context!!)

And as said before about John 3:3-5, Jesus is talking about the NEW birth - being "born from above", not natural birth. The NEW BIRTH requires TWO things: WATER (baptism) and SPIRIT (directions from the HS - ei. the BIBLE today). You just know nothing about it because of the error you have been taught!

Btw, still waiting for someone to explain "HOW" water SAVES??

The same way "WATER" healed Naaman. The same way water healed the blind man in John 9. Of course with your bias, you will never see how "water" healed these men. Water was the means selected by God through which man appropriated the healing that God offers man through His grace. Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers man through His grace.

Now let me rub your nose "in it" for NOT responding to the very answers you requested. (If you don't want the truth, don't ask for it!!)

First YOUR version of Acts 10:47 … Can any man forbid {Holy Spirit baptism}, that these should not be baptized with the Holy Spirit, who have received Holy Spirit baptism as well as we? - AGP (Agape Standard Perversion)

If this is not what YOU believe, tell me where it is wrong. But this IS exactly what YOU are saying and it makes no sense!!!

Second, you did not deal with what baptism "in the name of Jesus" was NOT !! Why are you hiding agape?? Why not ONE comment from you?? I guess you cannot explain why the Samaritans were baptized "into the name of the Lord Jesus" and DID NOT HAVE THE HS !!! Oh my!!! Baptism "in the name" of Jesus is NOT "Spirit" baptism - it IS WATER baptism !!!

(Or will you yet attempt to "baptize" the Samaritans twice as you do with Cornelius??) Men with prejudice and bias can "forbid water" (water baptism), but they could never forbid HS baptism as the HS moves as He wills!!

Third, the "clencher" still remains …

Acts 10:49- "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

+All agree that Cornelius and household have already at this point and time received HS baptism
+WHY is Peter "commanding" them to be baptized AGAIN ???
+Is this TWO baptisms with the "Spirit" ??
+Did Peter command "Spirit" baptism (which man cannot do) ????
+Baptism "in Jesus' name" is not Spirit baptism!

Peter has already told us in verse 47 that Cornelius RECEIVED HS baptism! Now WHY is Peter, AFTER this fact, commanding him to be BAPTIZED???

Answer: Cornelius received WATER BAPTISM !!!

Agape, you are like a roach trying to scurry away from the light. You did not answer - you cannot answer - so accept the truth!!

 

[servantofChrist]

Hi Jerry Shugart,

I read your post to "Kevin"; I hope you don't mind my replying to your post even though you addressed it to "Kevin."

You are incorrect, sir, in your comments on Acts 19:1-4. You said Paul did not re-baptize anyone. He may not have been the actual one who baptized these disciples in Ephesus who had been previously baptized "into John's baptism," but your are mistaken about two things:

These disciples were indeed re-baptized, and, the baptism they received the second time was not the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of Paul's hands, observe:

The text says they were "baptized into John's baptism." That means water baptism (Mk. 1:4-5). We also know that the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in water by Philip the evangelist (Acts 8:36-38).

When reading the narrative in Acts 19:1-4, v. 4 speaks of "John's baptism," which we know is water baptism. Then, in v. 5, it says, "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

There are NO WORDS between those verses that indicate a change of thought that would warrant the reader to infer that the baptism in v. 5 is Holy Spirit baptism.

Secondly, you connect the baptism in v. 5, that the Ephesian disciples submitted themselves to, as occurring when Paul laid his hands on them, indicating, in your view, baptism of the Holy Spirit.

But that is NOT the ORDER of what is presented in vv. 4-6.

V. 5 says, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"; then after this baptism, v. 6 says that Paul laid his hands on them" and the Holy Spirit came upon them.

But BOTH the laying on of Paul's hands and the ensuing Spirit's coming upon them occurred AFTER they had been baptized (v. 5).

And since they had previously been baptized "into John's baptism" and afterward they were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," that mean's they were indeed "re-baptized."

The one thing you may be correct about in all of this is, that it may not have been Paul who (re)baptized these men from Ephesus, because the text does not say explicitly that it was Paul himself that did the baptizing of these men.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

servantofChrist,

We see that those who had already been baptized in water received the Holy Spirit when the Apotles laid their hands upon them:

"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostle´s hands the Holy Spirit was given..."(Acts8:18).

And that is exactly how those believersat Acts 19 received the Holy Spirit.Paul laid his hands on them and they also received the Holy Spirit.First,Paul asked them:

"Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?"

When they said no,Paul told them:

"John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,saying into the people that they should believe on Him Who should come after him,that is,Jesus Christ.When they heard this,they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

Paul is saying that those who heard John the Baptist were the ones who were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus--when they heard the Baptist say that they should believe in the Lord Jesus THEN at that time those who heard the Baptist were "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

After saying that,Paul then laid his hands on them and at that time they received the Holy Spirit:

"And when Paul had laid his hands on them,the Holy Spirit came on them,and they spoke with tongues,and prophesied"(Acts19:6).

The whole conversation was concerning receiving the Holy Spirit.And they received the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands on them.There was no reason to baptize them again with water,since they had already been baptized with water.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[servantofChrist]

Hi Jerry,

Paul is saying that those who heard John the Baptist were the ones who were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus--when they heard the Baptist say that they should believe in the Lord Jesus THEN at that time those who heard the Baptist were "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

I cannot understand how you get out of Acts 19:3-5 that those present were baptized BOTH in John's baptism AND were "baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" way back at the time they were baptized by John the Baptist???

Paul is right there with them and he asked them, " 'Into what then were you baptized?' And they said, 'Into John's baptism.' "

Now, those last 3 words - "Into John's baptism" obviously points BACK to the time/occasion of John baptizing people.

And THEN Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."

Now watch this, please, Jerry... AFTER Paul had said those words, not way back during the time of John doing his baptizing, but AFTER those words that PAUL spoke just then - THEN it says, "And when they heard this [not way back when they had been baptized by John before], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

(It's getting late and I've gotta get ready for bed. I'll pick up this with you again later. Nice to talk to/with you, Jerry)

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

I can see that servantofChrist has already addressed you. Indeed, they were re-baptized. They clearly admitted that they were baptized into John's baptism. Then, AFTER being preached to, they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Two different baptisms.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

John´s baptism was called the baptism of repentance(Lk.3:3).Also,Peter said,"REPENT and be baptized,every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ"(Acts2:38).

These two baptisms are both baptisms of repentance.

And Scripture reveals another baptism,and this one has nothing to do with water:

"John answered,saying unto them all,I indeed baptize you with water;but One mightier than I cometh...He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire"(Lk.3:16).

And the BAPTISM spoken of at Acts 19 is about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.Paul asked them if they had "received the Holy Spirit"(v.2).When they said they had not,"Paul laid his hands upon them,the Holy Spirit came on them,and they spoke with tongues,and prophesied"(v.6).

Once being water baptized with the baptism of repentance,they had no need to be baptized again with another baptism of repentance.What they needed was the baptism where they received the Holy Spirit.And they received that baptism when Paul laid his hands upon them.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Kevin]

Jerry,

John´s baptism was called the baptism of repentance(Lk.3:3).Also,Peter said,"REPENT and be baptized,every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ"(Acts2:38).

In Acts 2:38, they were indeed told to repent as you mentioned. When they repented, this simply means that they were to change thier lives, turning away from their ways of sins. They were then water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, which John's baptism couldn't possibly do. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ/the Lord uses water (Acts 10:47-48). When we are baptized in the name of the Lord, we are baptized into His death, put away our old man of sin, and arise a new creation in Christ and free from sin (Romans 6:1-11). John's baptism cannot do this for us.

And Scripture reveals another baptism,and this one has nothing to do with water:

Indeed. Spirit baptims does not use water. But this is not the baptism commanded of us. For Jesus commanded that man was to go out into the world preaching and baptizing (Matt. 28:19-20). Man cannot perform Spirit baptism.

Once being water baptized with the baptism of repentance,they had no need to be baptized again with another baptism of repentance.

Baptism in the name of the Lord is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). This couldn't be done with John's baptism and is exactly why they were rebaptized in Acts 19.... they needed to be baptized for the remission of sins.

 

[Francisco]

Jerry,

You seem to have left off an important piece of the verse you just quoted. Here it is in it's entirety:

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

If you look at the entire verse, instead of just the first half of the verse, you see the baptism Peter speaks of is for the remission of sin. Of course Peter exhorted them to repent, otherwise forgiveness of their sins would have been of no value. But you can't ignore the words 'for the remission of sins.'

The baptism of John the Baptist was a symbolic baptism that was an outward sign of a promise to repent of evil ways, but it had no effect on sin whatsoever. John's mission was to prepare the Lord's way by preparing the people to receive the coming salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, the forgiveness won through Jesus' victory on the cross, by which all men can receive forgiveness.

I guess you could say that both of these baptisms were baptisms of repentance, but the baptism Peter is speaking of is a baptism of repentance AND THE REMISSION OF SIN.

You see, Jerry, you must be careful when reading scripture to read ALL of it, not just the sentence fragments that coalesce with your modern theology.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



So you're trying to imply that John the baptist baptized people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? I've already shown you a place that proves that John's baptism is an entirely different baptism in comparison to being baptzed in the name of the Lord. Again, look at Acts 19. If John the baptist practiced the same baptism as baptism in the name of the Lord, then there would be no need to rebaptize them in the name of the Lord. But Paul did exactly that. They are different baptisms! Acts 19 proves that John didn't practice baptizing in the name of the Lord, or else they wouldn't have been rebaptized in His name.

I was just askng did John know who Jesus was, and that they knew about the trinity like Abraham knew????

Did John that Jesus was GOd???


peace

 

[Francisco]

c.moore and Kevin,

Please excuse me for jumping in. Just a couple quick comments/answers to c.moores last post:

Originally posted by c.moore
I was just askng did John know who Jesus was, and that they knew about the trinity like Abraham knew????

John the Baptist did not know Jesus was God, but referred to him as the 'lamb of God'. John also sent some of his followers to inquire of Jesus: 'Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?' So, John the Baptist was unsure of exactly who Jesus was, other than knowing Jesus might be the one prophesied of as the Christ.

John the Baptist did not know about the Trinity. Nor did Abraham.

God Bless,

Francisco

 

[HardCoreFundy2]

John the Baptist did not know about the Trinity. Nor did Abraham. God Bless, Francisco

How do you know?