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

[Melody]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
Dog,

You said:

Matthew 26:28 does not say that His shed blood is the NT, it says His blood is the “blood of the covenant”. I am not sure what you are trying to say by this, but I do know that His blood made the NT possible. It is His blood that “dedicates” or ratifies the new covenant – Heb. 9:18. Is this what you mean?

My reply:

What is it that one must believe to be save????? I need you to answer this question!!!!!

The new testament is not a series of books contained in the bible. The new testament is the "shed blood" of Jesus Christ!!!

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. Matt. 26:29 (KJV)

We must "by faith" spiritually drink His blood to enter into the Spiritual kingdom of the Father. When did they at Pentecost drink of this cup? You will search in vain for this message at Pentecost!!! Paul was the first man to deliver this message!!!

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Cor. 3:6 (KJV)

Peter's Pentecostal message was of the "letter" and He did not understand this message but He was converted by Paul's preaching!!! Act's 2:38 is not the new testament of His blood!!!!

By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Heb. 7:22 (KJV)
:And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death Heb. 7:23 (KJV)

Men were given "temporal" remission in the "rite" of water baptism and animal sacrifices. If man before the cross had not been given remission all at death would have gone to hell.

So, how were their sins remitted if YOU said John's baptism did not remit sins? Did Jesus have to personally forgive everyone under the old testament.

Why were their sins remitted under the old testament of water baptism? Because the NEW TESTAMENT had no strength before the cross and then only to those that had "faith" in it!!!

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Heb. 9:16 (KJV)
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Heb. 9:17 (KJV)


In Christ
Craig

What must we believe to be saved?

That this same Jesus is both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Without blood there is no remission of sins.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


And what must we do for remission of sins?

Be baptized in the name of Jesus.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Therefore if you have not been baptized in the name of Jesus the blood has not been applied and your sins have not been remitted.

 

[servantofChrist]

I've always wondered how a young man can go to a theological seminary for 4-6 years and come out of it teaching people that Mk. 16:16 and Acts 2:38 don't REALLY mean what they say!????

In Mk. 16:16, the Lord states 2 things one must do to be saved. Standing squarely between the "He," the sinner, and "saved," the goal he desperately needs to reach, are not 1 BUT 2 things - "believed" and "be baptized."

In the second part of the verse, Jesus is specifying all that is needed to NOT be saved - and that is merely not to believe in Him in the first place.

It's like saying, "He who eats and digests his food will live. But he who does not eat will die." It is totally unnecessary to say, "But he who does not eat and digest his food will die," because if you don't eat to begin with, that alone will do you in!

As for Acts 2:38, this is the first gospel message ever preached and every word of it was delivered by the inspiration and authority of Almighty God. For that gospel message to teach the view on baptism and salvation that denominational people teach and preach, it would have to have been re-worded to read like this: "Repent, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and be baptized...."

The denominational view perverts and distorts the plain, inspired words of the Holy Spirit (to their own destruction, see 2 Pet. 3:16), by removing "be baptized" from its position in the sentence, which is BEFORE "forgiveness of your sins," and putting it AFTER "the forgiveness of your sins."

But the scripture is plain as daylight to any mind that is unbiased and is in a truth-seeking mode. The word of God puts BOTH "Repent" AND "be baptized" BETWEEN those condemned people and the "FORGIVENESS" of their sins.

No matter how loud you shout it out, or how firmly you've convinced ("deceived" is the more accurate word for it) yourself that "Jesus is Lord," if you do NOT believe the words of Acts 2:38 EXACTLY in the order they have been delivered and recorded their by the Holy Spirit, then you DO NOT and CANNOT TRULY believe that Jesus is Lord - "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do WHAT I SAY?"

 

[servantofChrist]

Way to go, "Melody," "Kevin," "Apollos," "JustaChristian," and all others who have so plainly shown the TRUTH about baptism.

Thank God for those who not only believe the truth, but who are "ready to give a defense" for it (1 Pet. 3:15) and "earnestly contend for" it as well (Jude v. 3).

For all of the things you've said, I want to express my profoundest thanks, and give a resounding "AMEN!" to each and every point you've made.

"Keep on keepin' on!"

 

[servantofChrist]

It would be no less than a dream if the moderators could get 4 or 5 of the biggest name evangelists who do not believe that baptism in water is necessary for salvation, on this forum, with lots of advertising about it in advance (evangelists such as Billy Graham and others of equal, or near-equal, magnitude as he), and have a debate with the 4 or 5 of us on this forum who DO believe in its necessity for salvation, and pray that millions and millions of people around the world would all "tune in" to the forum and "listen" with all of their heart and soul and mind - from an INDEPENDENT, TRUTH-SEEKING ATTITUDE of heart and mind - and have a "Great Debate" on this subject for the whole world to tune in to.

I would do it in a heartbeat!

 

[Ian Day]

Craig,

You destroy you own case by such rubbish remarks:

Peter's Pentecostal message was of the "letter" and He did not understand this message but He was converted by Paul's preaching!!! Act's 2:38 is not the new testament of His blood!!!!

And why do you refer to Apollos as DOG & object to being addressed as HOG

If you find differences between the teaching of Peter who was taught by Jesus himself & inspired by the Holy SPirit, and Paul who was taught by revelation of Jesus, and had a Spiritual understanding, then the problem is YOURS.

As Paul aid, the revelation of the mystery was to the Apostles & prophets. (Eph. 3:4-6)

 

[Apollos]

HS baptsim was never for salvation...

HS baptsim was never for salvation...

HoG –

I am suprised you have not gone into hiding. Good for you that you continue to try to find the truth.

A ritual is a customary act or ceremony performed for religious benefit, as the ritual of baptism.

This definition will not determine whether the ‘customary act” came from the NT or the OT. And “…for religious benefit”…?? My-my, this will certainly alienate those who hold water baptism as a “symbol” or a “declaration” of something.

I see that you could not find any OT scriptures for water baptism. I told you so. The baptism of John was given by the HS to help John “prepare the way” of the Lord. It will not be found in the OT. Therefore, it is NOT OT ceremony/ritual in this context.

BUT – even if it had been, you would still have to answer WHY couldn’t Jesus establish a NEW water baptism within the NT ?? Could Jesus do this ???

Answer: Jesus could… and Jesus DID !! He did this in Matthew 28:18-20 !!
<<<>>>

Jesus is our propitiation through faith in His blood. I believe that His blood was shed for me, and He died in my place. He paid the price of justification for me! When I believe this, I know salvation is made available to me. Then I must do that which God tells me to do to appropriate the salvation that Jesus made possible by His blood! God chose the simple means of water – just like He did for Naaman and the blind man in John 9 – through which to appropriate the blessing (in this context the salvation) He offers by His grace! This is so simple and so plain !

You do NOT have ONE scripture that shows us HS baptism appropriates salvation, remits our sins, or is part of the salvation process (outside of the word) !!!

(Let me ask again… ### HOW you think man appropriates salvation from God which is made available by Jesus’ blood. How does man obtain remission of his sin?? Tell us !!)
<<<>>>

You have already been corrected by myself and others here about “baptism in the name of Jesus” (that is, by His authority) being THE SAME as baptism “into the name of the Father, Son and HS.” It IS the same thing. You still disagree, so answer the following…

What is baptism “into the name of the Father, Son and HS”?? What is this, what happened to it, and why did Jesus command it? Your ignoring this does not constitute an answer!

WHAT is the baptism – “in the name of Jesus Christ” that we read about in Acts 2, 8, 10, & 19 ?? We need your answer!

We are baptized by the "Spirit" (not man) in the name of the Father, the Word (the Son), and the Holy Ghost when we have "faith" in the finished work of Christ at the Cross.

Why? Because YOU said so!!! (((((LOL)))) Not one scripture you gave teaches this. Perhaps you have some other passage that you have been holding back for us. Hmm??

You often give scriptures for which there is no context within this discussion. Do you think that by just posting passages that somehow we will be converted to your error? Hardly! --- t-b-c

 

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by servantofChrist
It would be no less than a dream if the moderators could get 4 or 5 of the biggest name evangelists who do not believe that baptism in water is necessary for salvation, on this forum, with lots of advertising about it in advance (evangelists such as Billy Graham and others of equal, or near-equal, magnitude as he), and have a debate with the 4 or 5 of us on this forum who DO believe in its necessity for salvation, and pray that millions and millions of people around the world would all "tune in" to the forum and "listen" with all of their heart and soul and mind - from an INDEPENDENT, TRUTH-SEEKING ATTITUDE of heart and mind - and have a "Great Debate" on this subject for the whole world to tune in to.

I would do it in a heartbeat!

Many of these "great evangelist" do believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but if they changed their manner of life they would lose their audiance and be ostracized by their fellowship. I know a man named Robert Shank who wrote a book called "Life In The Son". He set out to forever settle the fact that once one is saved that he is always saved. The more he studied the more he concluded that what he believed was not actually the truth. He also wrote a book called "Elect In The Son" on the doctrine of Election. I would recommend the reading of these books. You can find it on the web. O, by the way, this is not the same Robert Shank that is a Methodist minister who has a web page. Do a search on "Life In The Son" and "Elect In The Son" at http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/books.htm for information on these books These are not expensive, and will open your eyes to understanding the scriptures better.

JustAChristian

 

[Kevin]

Are you going to answer?

Are you going to answer?

HopeofGlory,

I'm still waiting for an answer to this post:

No "man" ever baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

That's just absurd! If no man ever baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then would you explain to me and everybody on this forum why Jesus would command MAN to do something that man would never do?!

Apollos isn't adding Jack Squat to the scriptures as you wrongly accuse him of. Jesus authorized ONE baptism for people to be baptized into in Matt 28:19-20, and He commanded MAN to do the baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If not man, than just who do you think Jesus gave this commandment to?

And when Jesus gave MAN this commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that's exactly what they did! When the people in Acts 10:47-48 got baptized "in the name of the Lord", they were baptized in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit as well, because...

1 John 5:7

7) ... there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

If you don't agree that being baptized in the name of the Lord is the same baptism commanded in Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20), then I challenge you to show me where man got the authority to baptize people in the name of the Lord. People don't just go out and baptize in the name of somebody unless they are authorized or told to do so. Where were they authorized/commanded to do this? The answer is clear.. they were authorized to do this by being commanded of this by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission - Matt. 28:19-20.

Also, if you're telling me that baptism in the name of the Jesus is separate from that of the Father and Holy Spirit, then show me just one scripture where somebody was baptized:

* in the name of the Father.
* in the name of the Holy Spirit.

And again, those people in Acts 10:47-48, who were baptized in the name of the Lord (and thus the Father and Holy Spirit... all 3 being ONE), were baptized with water as proven in verse 47 (can anyone forbid WATER that these should not be baptized...).

When Philip baptized the eunuch in Acts 8, it was done with water. This is what you said in a previous debate about this baptism:

The words of the new testament were not spoken to the eunuch, thus no spirit baptism even though he was water baptized.

Not true. Look at verses 34-35 (Acts 8):

34) So the enuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?"
35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

The words of the New Testament weren't spoken to him??!! Philip "preached Jesus" to him after Jesus had died on the cross for all sins... just WHAT do you think the New Testament is all about?

This baptism was done AFTER Jesus commanded MAN to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... and that's exactly what the eunuch was baptized into. Why would he baptized into anyting else? He wouldn't.

Jesus commanded MAN to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... and it includes water.

 

[HopeofGlory]

Ian,

You said:
You destroy you own case by such rubbish remarks:

My reply:
Sorry you feel that way!

You asked:
And why do you refer to Apollos as DOG & object to being addressed as HOG

My response:
I have witnessed the rudeness of Apollos on many occasions and often it was towards first time posters. He has no excuse for this other than they disagree with him. When I first came to this forum it was Apollos and his insults that welcomed me. As a result I have responded in like manner to give him a taste of his own medicine. I see he doesn't like it much. I hope (not likely) he will learn to respect others. Our "Hope of Glory" is the Lord Jesus and it upsets me to see others use "HoG" when referring to Him. If anyone is angry with me then insult me but not my Hope of Glory. "Dog" was used by Jesus in reference to a Gentile excluded from the kingdom message while it still included the law. During the Mosaic the law ordinances (sacrifices and baptism) gave remission of sins. Gentiles were without the law, hence my reference to Apollos as "waterdog". These debates often get heated but we should respect others as much as possible and realize they are defending what they truly believe. If Apollos will discontinue with the use of HoG I will gladly respond to him without the use of Waterdog.

You said:
If you find differences between the teaching of Peter who was taught by Jesus himself & inspired by the Holy SPirit, and Paul who was taught by revelation of Jesus, and had a Spiritual understanding, then the problem is YOURS.

My response:
The problem may well be yours, Ian. What bothers me is theologians build a systematic theology on the words and actions of apostles and they judge right doctrine by such. They even interpret the words of Christ Jesus by this method. Progressive revelation and progressive understanding by man (apostles included) is clearly apparent through out the bible. God gives us His word, that is the beginning, then revelation of His truth in degrees of understanding.
We can most assuredly trust Christ Jesus!!! I have yet to see a theologian on these forums using the words of Christ to build his theology. What I see are debates as to were Peter or Paul was right! Peter is a prime example and a very simple study reveals his progressive understanding of the "words" Christ Jesus spoke.
To say Peter understood Jesus at Pentecost is a gross error on your part.

One final point. I agree with Apollos and others on this thread that water baptism is not a sign of what we believe. It was the effectual baptism for remission of sins in the early church. Why is it you can't accept this truth?

In Christ
Craig

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin,

You asked:
Are you going to answer?
I'm still waiting for an answer to this post:

Sorry, I only have so much time for responses here. I can't responed to every one.

You said:
If no man ever baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then would you explain to me and everybody on this forum why Jesus would command MAN to do something that man would never do?!

My response:
I have given my interpretation of the comission many times. I read every word you post. Will you at lest do the same for me?
Here it is again:

The apostles were commanded to baptize with the WORD!

For Christ sent (after the cross) me not to (water) baptize, but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

Why would Christ send Paul NOT to water baptize if the GREAT COMMISSION was... You apostles go water baptize? There is no rhyme to this type of reasoning. Man’s doctrine teaches water baptism was commanded by Jesus in “the great commission” but this is not biblical terminology.

#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them. The word is spirit and it is by this word we are baptized...It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life John 6:63 (KJV). The quickening of the spirit (baptism) is immediate when the words of the new testament are believed. The new testament is a new testimony with a greater witness (John 5:33-36) for remission of sins (Matt. 26:28) as opposed to the old testimony for remission (Mark 1:4).

The new testament is not a series of books starting with the four gospels but is a greater witness given by Christ and was not in force until after the death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). The apostles never baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost because this Spirit baptism is performed by Christ when we believe His words.
The contrast of the baptism in water and the baptism in the word is revealed by Jesus with these words...For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)

#2
Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word. This baptism, quickening of the spirit which is the word, is received the moment one believes the word. This word of the gospel is spirit and life eternal in the new testament.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing (water baptism): the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)

#3
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: Luke 24:46 (KJV)
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47 (KJV)

Christ said that remission of sins would be received through His death. He did not say remission would be in water baptism. The word of the "new" testament for remission of sins must be believed. Christ is clearly explaining how remission of sins would be received and referring to Isaiah 53 where “it is written” He was to suffer. These scriptures not once mention water baptism for remission.

#4
For John truly baptized with water; but (on the contrary) ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:5 (KJV)

Christ speaks of the contrast of the two baptisms and confirms it will not be in water BUT Spirit! The contrast was further revealed in that the death of Christ for remission of sins superceded water baptism....But I receive not testimony from (The Baptist and Peter were men!) man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. John 5:34 (KJV)
He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. John 5:35 (KJV)
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish (the cross where he shed his blood), the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:36 (KJV)

This greater witness is when Christ Jesus "finished" the work at the cross not a "new" water baptism!

By comparing scripture with scripture it is evident the commission was to preach the new testimony for sin remission and when one believes the words of this gospel of Christ they would be baptized by the Spirit. The confusion is had when men go against the warning of God and “ADD” the word “WATER” to the final words of Christ.

You said:
Apollos isn't adding Jack Squat to the scriptures as you wrongly accuse him of. Jesus authorized ONE baptism for people to be baptized into in Matt 28:19-20, and He commanded MAN to do the baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If not man, than just who do you think Jesus gave this commandment to?

Many times it has been say the Jesus commanded the apostles to ""water"" baptize and it is a "fact" He did not!

You said:
And when Jesus gave MAN this commandment to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that's exactly what they did! When the people in Acts 10:47-48 got baptized "in the name of the Lord", they were baptized in the name of the Father and Holy Spirit as well, because...

My reply:
Jesus commanded...""Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them""..... teach his "words" thus baptizing them in His words which "are spirit", hence "spirit baptism". The "words" Jesus spoke of the "new" testament (Matt 26:28) for remission.

You said:
1 John 5:7 ) ... there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

If you don't agree that being baptized in the name of the Lord is the same baptism commanded in Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20),then I challenge you to show me where man got the authority to baptize people in the name of the Lord. People don't just go out and baptize in the name of somebody unless they are authorized or told to do so. Where were they authorized/commanded to do this? The answer is clear.. they were authorized to do this by being commanded of this by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission - Matt. 28:19-20.


My reply:

The commision was teaching not "water" baptism. God gave John the authority to water baptize before the cross! I believe their are pastors out there that baptize people for "money" in the name of the Lord. Some that are baptised aren't even saved.
Again, Jesus never commanded the apostles to "water" baptize.

Those that were baptized at Pentecost (same as John's baptism) were still witnessing (preparing the way of the Lord) that Jesus was the Messiah. The three that bear witness in heaven and earth are witnessing the death of Christ at the cross for remission when He shed His blood of the new testament and you will not find this witnessed by apostles at Pentecost. The three that bear witness in the earth are the Spirit, water, and the blood. These three Christ shed forth on the cross.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30 (KJV)
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. John 19:34 (KJV)
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. John 19:35 (KJV)

A solider bare record to this witness "Spirit, water, blood" these "three" are the essence of life and it is clearly the ultimate sacrifice.

What did this solider say?

Truly this was the Son of God!

Who witnessed this to him?

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Some testimony for a Roman soilder would'nt you think?

You said:
Also, if you're telling me that baptism in the name of the Jesus is separate from that of the Father and Holy Spirit, then show me just one scripture where somebody was baptized:

My response:
Spirit baptism occurs when one believes the "spirit words" that are "life" and it is an operation of God, it is not witnessed by others and no man can "know" that another has received it. All I can do as a "man" is point you to the cross!!!

You said:
And again, those people in Acts 10:47-48, who were baptized in the name of the Lord (and thus the Father and Holy Spirit... all 3 being ONE), were baptized with water as proven in verse 47 (can anyone forbid WATER that these should not be baptized...).

My reply:
The witness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is to the inner man and their is no visible sign.


You said:
When Philip baptized the eunuch in Acts 8, it was done with water. This is what you said in a previous debate about this baptism:

Quote:
The words of the new testament were not spoken to the eunuch, thus no spirit baptism even though he was water baptized.

Not true. Look at verses 34-35 (Acts 8):

34) So the enuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?"
35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

The words of the New Testament weren't spoken to him??!! Philip "preached Jesus" to him after Jesus had died on the cross for all sins... just WHAT do you think the New Testament is all about?

My response:
Show me "please" where Phillip said that the Lord Jesus died or shed His "blood" for remission of sins. The NEW TESTAMENT (not a series of books) IS ...
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)
But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom (a spiritual kingdom). Matt. 26:29 (KJV)

You said:
This baptism was done AFTER Jesus commanded MAN to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... and that's exactly what the eunuch was baptized into. Why would he baptized into anyting else? He wouldn't.

Jesus commanded MAN to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... and it includes water.

Reply:
Jesus never commanded MAN to "water baptize", He commanded them to teach the cross and when they believed the message they would be baptized by the Father, the Son, And the Holy Ghost (All are One)!!

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

"Drink" what?

In Christ
Craig

 

[JustAChristian]

Are You Saying.......................?

Are You Saying.......................?

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
Ian,

You said:
.............that Paul's writings were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Surely, you don't mean that! Do you accept Paul's writings as scaripture? The Bible tells us that "all scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteourness that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto evry good work." (2 Tim. 3:15-16). Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ, but are you prepared to show any difference between what Paul taught and what the other apostles taught. You keep bringing up that Paul's was some sort of special event that made his preaching different, but have yet to show one thing the was different in his teaching from the other apostles. Why don't you get off your "hobby horse" and teach something important?

Something like:

"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (and I believe all of it is inspired of the Holy Spirit, JAC). But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' (1 Cor.14:37-38).

JustAChristian

 

[HopeofGlory]

Apollos,

You said:
Quote:
A ritual is a customary act or ceremony performed for religious benefit, as the ritual of baptism.

This definition will not determine whether the ‘customary act” came from the NT or the OT. And “…for religious benefit”…?? My-my, this will certainly alienate those who hold water baptism as a “symbol” or a “declaration” of something.

My response:
I hope that hostility is not the result but a realization of biblical fact is generated.

You said:
I see that you could not find any OT scriptures for water baptism. I told you so. The baptism of John was given by the HS to help John “prepare the way” of the Lord. It will not be found in the OT. Therefore, it is NOT OT ceremony/ritual in this context.

My reply:
You have told me many things but that does not make them so!
Old testament is defined as anything before the new testament, see Matt. 26:28. Would you agree? Under the baptism of John the Mosaic law was still effectual. The context is not which books in the bible water baptism is found but one of when the new testament was given.

You said:
BUT – even if it had been, you would still have to answer WHY couldn’t Jesus establish a NEW water baptism within the NT ?? Could Jesus do this ???

My reply:
Yes He could.

You said:
Answer: Jesus could… and Jesus DID !! He did this in Matthew 28:18-20 !!
<<<>>>

Reply:
No He did not!

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ""All power"" is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. 28:18 (KJV)

Man no longer had the power to forgive sins!

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

Go teach the word thus baptizing.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20 (KJV)

Where did Jesus command "water" baptism??????

He most assuredly did NOT command a "new" water baptism!!!!

You said:
Jesus is our propitiation through faith in His blood. I believe that His blood was shed for me, and He died in my place. He paid the price of justification for me! When I believe this, I know salvation is made available to me.

Reply:
Yes, faith in His shed blood for remission of sins, that is the gospel """of Christ""" and you want find it at Pentecost!!!!

You said:
Then I must do that which God tells me to do to appropriate the salvation that Jesus made possible by His blood! God chose the simple means of water – just like He did for Naaman and the blind man in John 9 – through which to appropriate the blessing (in this context the salvation) He offers by His grace! This is so simple and so plain !

Reply:
Don't regress!!! The blood of Christ and the Mosaic law don't mix!!!!

The entire Mosaic Law was terminated at the cross and 2 Cor. 3:7-14 is clear. Three times (vs. 7, 11, and 14) the Law is declared cancelled. According to Colossians 2:14, Christ's death "blotted out" the Mosaic system. It Established, as a consequence no penalty for failure to observe the rite of water baptism.

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Mark 7:6 (KJV)
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for "doctrines" the "commandments of men". Mark 7:7 (KJV)
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such (baptisms) like things ye do. Mark 7:8 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Mark 7:9 (KJV)
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: Mark 7:10 (KJV)
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, "a gift", by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; "he shall be free". Mark 7:11 (KJV)
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Mark 7:12 (KJV)
Making the "word of God of none effect" "through your tradition", which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mark 7:13 (KJV)

Compare to:

For Christ sent me "not to baptize", "but to preach the gospel (the word of God)": not with wisdom of words (doctrines), lest the cross of Christ should be "made of none effect". 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor. 1:18 (KJV)
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Cor. 1:19 (KJV)
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1 Cor. 1:20 (KJV)
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of "preaching to save them that believe". 1 Cor. 1:21 (KJV)
For the "Jews require a sign", and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 1 Cor. 1:22 (KJV)
But we preach Christ crucified, "unto the Jews a stumblingblock", and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Cor. 1:23 (KJV)
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, "Christ the power of God" (not men), and the wisdom of God. 1 Cor. 1:24 (KJV)
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Cor. 1:25 (KJV)

You said:
You do NOT have ONE scripture that shows us HS baptism appropriates salvation, remits our sins, or is part of the salvation process (outside of the word) !!!

My reply:
Spirit baptism occurs when one believes the "spirit words" that are "life" and it is an operation of God, it is not witnessed by others and no man can "know" that another has received it. All I can do as a "man" is point you to the cross!!!

Jesus said this in reference to His shed blood.......
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)

You said:
(Let me ask again… ### HOW you think man appropriates salvation from God which is made available by Jesus’ blood. How does man obtain remission of his sin?? Tell us !!)

My reply:
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through "FAITH IN HIS BLOOD", to declare his righteousness "FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" that are past, through the forbearance of God; Rom. 3:25 (KJV)

You can't believe it by seeing it so you have to have faith in the word of God. Yet the Spirit must witness this truth.

To declare, I say, AT THIS TIME his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26 (KJV)

You said:
You have already been corrected by myself and others here about “baptism in the name of Jesus” (that is, by His authority) being THE SAME as baptism “into the name of the Father, Son and HS.” It IS the same thing. You still disagree, so answer the following…

What is baptism “into the name of the Father, Son and HS”?? What is this, what happened to it, and why did Jesus command it? Your ignoring this does not constitute an answer!

My reply:

Jesus never command the apostles to baptize!!! He commanded them to teach!!!!!

To teach the "spirit" words of His shed blood!!! When he told the apostles....the words that I speak unto you, they are "spirit", and they are life. He was referring to...Whoso eateth my flesh, and """drinketh""" my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:54).

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the "Spirit" that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 1 John 5:6 (KJV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and "these three are one". 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:8 (KJV)

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are the three that bear witness in earth to the death of Christ at the cross for remission when He shed His blood of the new testament. The three that bear witness in the earth are the Spirit (three are one), water, and the blood. These three Christ shed forth on the cross.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30 (KJV)
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. John 19:34 (KJV)
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. John 19:35 (KJV)

So, when we believe the "spirit words of His cross" witness by the Father ,Son, and Holy Ghost to the inner man we are baptized by the Spirit. Thus the teaching of those words baptizes us by the Spirit, as seen in the commission...."Go ye therefore, and teach (the words that are spirit) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Compare:

For "by one (three are one) Spirit" are we all "baptized" into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to "drink (blood see John 6:54)" into one Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

You said:
WHAT is the baptism – “in the name of Jesus Christ” that we read about in Acts 2, 8, 10, & 19 ?? We need your answer!

Reply:
Well do to the length of this post a short answer is in order.

It manifested Jesus as the Messiah. This had to be believed or His death would have been in vain.

In Christ
Craig

 

[HopeofGlory]

JustAChristian,

If you're saying I or Ian said...Paul's epistles are not inspired then you are confused.

In Christ
Craig

 

[Kevin]

Hope,

Sorry, I only have so much time for responses here. I can't responed to every one.

No problem. I comepletely understand. I just didn't know if you were going to respond or not. Sorry .

#1
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Matt. 28:19 (KJV)

It is clear the apostles are being instructed to teach and the teaching of the word will baptize them.

No, what is clear is that the apostles are told to:

* make disciples of all nations
* baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
* teach them to observe all things that Jesus commanded the apostles

Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize people, not the word.

For Christ sent (after the cross) me not to (water) baptize, but to preach the gospel.... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

Look closely at verse 17:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross fo Christ should be made of no effect.

Paul said he was not sent to baptize, yet according to you, when he preaches and people believe, they are baptized. This being the case, he should not be preaching because it causes people to be baptized and that is not what he's supposed to be doing. Your reasoning is contradictory.

Also notice that Paul said that "Christ did not send me to baptize", not "Christ did not send the word to baptize". Yet more proof that it is man that does the baptizing, and not the word. Verse 16 clearly says that Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, not "the word". That means that they weren't baptized until Paul baptized them. Baptism does not happen automatically upon belief, it happens when somebody is baptized by another person.

So why did Paul do something that he wasn't sent to do? Was Paul confused?

Look at verse 14:

14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

So by your definition of baptism, that it happens automatically upon belief, Paul is saying -- "Thank God I preached the gospel to none of you, except Crispus and Gauis". Why wouldn't Paul preach to the others, allowing them to automatically be baptized upon belief like Crispus and Gauis? Didn't Christ send him to preach the gospel? No, wait... if Paul preached the gospel, people might believe and be automatically baptized, which Christ did not send him to do. See how rediculous your arguement is?

The fact is, baptism is a separate occrurance that happens after one believes and is done by another person, just as Paul did in verses 14 and 16. Why would we be commanded to do something that is automatically done for us?

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word

Wrong. Notice in Mark 16:16 that there is a distinction between believing and baptism. There would be no need to say "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved" if a person is automatically is baptized on belief. There are two conditons that have to be met by man for them to be saved. If one condition is automatically done, then there would be no need to list TWO conditions for salvation.

Again, how do you explain that it was Paul who did the baptizing in 1 Cor. 1:16, and not the word?

If you don't agree that being baptized in the name of the Lord is the same baptism commanded in Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20),then I challenge you to show me where man got the authority to baptize people in the name of the Lord. People don't just go out and baptize in the name of somebody unless they are authorized or told to do so. Where were they authorized/commanded to do this? The answer is clear.. they were authorized to do this by being commanded of this by Jesus Himself in the Great Commission - Matt. 28:19-20.


My reply:

The commision was teaching not "water" baptism. God gave John the authority to water baptize before the cross! I believe their are pastors out there that baptize people for "money" in the name of the Lord. Some that are baptised aren't even saved.
Again, Jesus never commanded the apostles to "water" baptize.

Nowhere in your reply did I see an answer to where people were authorized to baptize in the name of the Lord. John the baptist did not baptize people in the name of the Lord. The baptism of John was to prepare them for the real baptism that was to come; the baptism in the name of the Lord, Commanded in the Great Commission for the forgiveness of sins! Show me one scripture where John the baptist baptized people in the name of the Lord.

Those that were baptized at Pentecost (same as John's baptism) were still witnessing (preparing the way of the Lord)

First of all, for you to assert that the people in Acts 2:38 received the same baptism that John used is totally wrong. The people in Acts 2:38 were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which is completely different from being baptized into John's baptism.

Acts 19:1-5 proves this. Verses 3-5 says:

3) And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism."

4) Then Paul said, John indeed bapitzed 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."

5) When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Verse 3 states that those people were baptized into John's baptism. The fact is, they were rebaptized in the name of Jesus -- WHICH IS THE BAPTISM PERFORMED AT PENTACOST! That proves that the baptism in the name of Jesus is different than the baptism of John, or else why would they get rebaptized if they are the same baptism?!

Secondly, do you realize that the people in verse 5 were baptized because of what Paul taught (verse 4)? Because of what Paul taught, they were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is the exact same baptism spoken of in Acts 10:48: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord". Do you further realize that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with WATER (verse 47)?

AGAIN, Paul taught the Ephesians in Acts 19:4. After being taught by Paul, they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts 10: 47 clearly shows that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with WATER. Paul taught water baptism!!!

Thirdly, why would they still be preparing the way for Jesus in Acts 2:38?! By the time Acts 2:38 happened, Jesus had come to the earth, died for our sins, was resurrected, and ascended back to heaven! Jesus had already come! The message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38 was given under the influence of the Holy Spirit that guided them into "all truth", speaking what it heard from Jesus (John 16:12-13).

I noticed you said to Ian:

I agree with Apollos and others on this thread that water baptism is not a sign of what we believe. It was the effectual baptism for remission of sins in the early church.

If water baptism was good for salvation for the early church, why is not good for salvation for Christ's church today? His church has not changed. Look at Jude verse 3:

3) Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The faith was delivered ONE time for ALL the saints. ALL of them. For you to be correct, the faith would have to be delievered TWO times, since you say that water baptism saved for the early church, but not today's chruch. People would have been told TWO different faiths. This verse says ONE faith delievered to ALL of the saints. There were NOT two gospels!!

 

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory
JustAChristian,

If you're saying I or Ian said...Paul's epistles are not inspired then you are confused.

In Christ
Craig

Craig,
You stated to the extent that Paul's revelation from Jesus Christ was something more special than that of the teachings to the other apostles. That they received from the inspiration of the holy Spirit but that Paul's teaching came from Christ (implying that it was not delivered through inspiration). Yes, his message is definately inspired of God.

You have stated in one of you post that "where is baptism in water" in Matthew 28:18-20?" Baptism means immerse. To dip ar plunge in water or to overwhelm. We mess up too often when we don't consider all the definations. I am studing Greek and I was confused on the point of 1st Aorest verbs and 2nd Aorest verbs. They both are undefined action in past tense. 1st Aorest Verbs are regular and 2nd Aorest are irregular (eat to ate, etc). When I tried to understand why the text taught that "hear" in the past tense is a regular verb and 1st Aorest, I couldn't understand how. Hear in the past tense is heard which is irregular. But, when I learned that the word in Greek "akeuo" also means "learn" then I see how it is a regular verbs. What I am getting to is this. You have to see all that is said about a subject before you make a statement. In Mark 16:15-16 is Mark's accounts of the events of Matthew 28:18-20. He is imphatic is mentioning baptism. Matthew does mention it also, but more so than Luke. John does not mention the commission at all. This could be a progressive action on their, accounting certain portions of the event at different points of the events of that day. Always remember to accout to "all the counsel of God " (Acts 20:28). Paul did.

JustAChristian

 

[HopeofGlory]

JustAChristian,

My replies are in bold.

You stated to the extent that Paul's revelation from Jesus Christ was something more special than that of the teachings to the other apostles. That they received from the inspiration of the holy Spirit but that Paul's teaching came from Christ (implying that it was not delivered through inspiration). Yes, his message is definately inspired of God.

Please, it is on fair that you quote what I said and them comment on it. You may have misunderstood me! Paul and all the apostles were inspired!!! If Paul's teachings came from Christ then they are inspired. Jesus said...I and my Father are one. John 10:30 (KJV)

You have stated in one of you post that "where is baptism in water" in Matthew 28:18-20?" Baptism means immerse. To dip ar plunge in water or to overwhelm. We mess up too often when we don't consider all the definations.

My point is, nowhere is it found in scripture that Jesus commanded "water" baptism and He most assuredly did not command a "new" water baptism. Baptism in "water" is found many times in scripture but when water is not contextual then baptism may have other implications. We must not say thus saith the Lord when the Lord has not said!

What I am getting to is this. You have to see all that is said about a subject before you make a statement. In Mark 16:15-16 is Mark's accounts of the events of Matthew 28:18-20. He is imphatic is mentioning baptism. Matthew does mention it also, but more so than Luke. John does not mention the commission at all. This could be a progressive action on their, accounting certain portions of the event at different points of the events of that day. Always remember to accout to "all the counsel of God " (Acts 20:28). Paul did.

Why is it that you feel the historical account of Acts in reference to the words and actions of men should define right doctrine? My point is this, you have to see all that the "LORD" said about a subject before you say thus saith the Lord.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matt. 28:20 (KJV)


If we back up and see what the Lord actually "commanded" we will see He never commanded "water" baptism!!! He spoke of Spirit baptism.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matt. 26:28 (KJV)

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:53 (KJV)
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:54 (KJV)

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 (KJV)
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64 (KJV)

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

The context in which the Lord is speaking is....

1- A new testament of remission by blood, an offerring of eternal life.

2- The words He spoke of it are spirit and life eternal.

3-The words would quicken us and the flesh (man) profiteth nothing.

4-Ye shall be baptized with the Spirit in contrast to water.

Now I ask you, Where did the apostles at Pentecost teach these things that the Lord commanded them????

Also consider this verse....

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


In Christ
Craig

 

[JustAChristian]

Boldness In Answering Craig's Latest!

Boldness In Answering Craig's Latest!

Craig,
You will find that I have entered my response to your last Post in bold text.

Craig says:
My point is, nowhere is it found in scripture that Jesus commanded "water" baptism and He most assuredly did not command a "new" water baptism. Baptism in "water" is found many times in scripture but when water is not contextual then baptism may have other implications. We must not say thus saith the Lord when the Lord has not said!

1. Jesus commanded the preaching of the gospel
2. What is the gospel? Paul declared to the Corinthian church,

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

3. Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ and taught only that which Christ commanded (directly or indirectly) in all churches (Eph 3:3; 1 Cor 4:17).

4. Paul taught that man must be baptized.

A. In order to be spiritually buried as Christ.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Rom. 6:3-6).

B. In order to be added to the Spiritual body of Christ. And, in order to be in fellowship with the saints of God.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal 3:27).

" Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.(Acts 2:41-47).

Conclusion.

If you conclude from the scriptures that Jesus never commanded baptism, then you disobey all rules of logic. You accept things of the scripture based on one of three avenues, those being that it is stated directed, those things that are commanded or that which is implied so implicitly that it can not be misunderstood. For instance, Peter preached on Pentecost that the believers were to be baptized for the remission of sins. Now between the end of his sermon and the adding to the church daily by the Lord Jesus Christ, these believers went down into the water and came up out of the water, like Philip and the Eunuch of Act 8: 38-39. We know that Jesus told his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel. Paul preached that which he received from revelation. What was revealed was the gospel, the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). Paul taught that a man must be baptized, in the letter to the Romans and to the Galatians. He taught only that which was revealed from Christ. He taught the same in all churches. He taught baptism in all the churches. His teaching was consistent with the other apostles ( Acts 15:22-23). Therefore, gospel contains baptism in water for the remission of sins as a command of Christ.

Craig asked:
Why is it that you feel the historical account of Acts in reference to the words and actions of men should define right doctrine? My point is this, you have to see all that the "LORD" said about a subject before you say thus saith the Lord.

I have never concluded my teaching to that which is found only in Acts. I use "all the counsel of God" – from "cover to cover", and even the cover, if necessary.


Craig comments:
If we back up and see what the Lord actually "commanded" we will see He never commanded "water" baptism!!! He spoke of Spirit baptism.

I have answered this point above.

Craig comments"
The context in which the Lord is speaking is....

1- A new testament of remission by blood, an offerring of eternal life.

The blood of Jesus Christ is essential for cleansing and remission, but it is found in no doctrine except baptism for the remission of sins.

Craig comments:
2- The words He spoke of it are spirit and life eternal.

I conclude that you are speaking of John 6:63. "The words that I speak, they are Spirit and they are life." Note that the words are spirit (not Holy Spirit)

Craig comments:
3-The words would quicken us and the flesh (man) profiteth nothing.

The word of God is the agent in the New Birth, and will only quicken and purify the souls of those that do what is commanded within it:

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1Peter 1:22-23).


Craig comments:
4-Ye shall be baptized with the Spirit in contrast to water.

John did not teach that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit exclusively in contrast to water. Jesus baptized in water (John 3:26).


Craig has a question:
Now I ask you, Where did the apostles at Pentecost teach these things that the Lord commanded them????


The apostles of Christ received the authority to preach baptism from Christ

"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts 1:8). The first time the gospel was preached was on Pentecost (Acts 2). Baptism was preached (Acts 2:38). The people understood the message on baptism (Acts 2:41). The Lord added to the church only those that gladly received the word and were baptized.


Craig feels he has me!
Also consider this verse....

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


The Holy Spirit has never been the element in salvation. He is always the agent. The Ethiopian Eunuch had said, "See here is water (the element) what doth hinder me to be baptized? Also, Peter taught, " water...the like figure where even baptism doth also now save us, (1 Peter 3:19-20). Baptism of the Holy Spirit was only to endow with power or authority and to substantiate the presence of Jews in the household of Gentiles preaching the Gospel. It never was for cleansing of sins or salvation.



Craig is so sure that Jesus never commanded water baptism that he has said "My point is, nowhere is it found in scripture that Jesus commanded "water" baptism . That is indeed a challenging statement. We see were it is possible that Jesus baptized., but like the best of scholars, I must admit that it is obscure in the language. Did Jesus, however, command water baptism? Well, lets see what the scriptures says:

In the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, he says "...Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" Jesus say that the apostles, when they went out to preach, they were to teach the people to whom they preach to observe whatsoever He had commanded. The apostles told the people to be baptized for the remission of sins. It must be concluded that Christ commanded the people to be baptized. If not, then the statement by Christ "...whatsoever I have commanded you is moot." Likewise, the scriptures say of the Holy Spirit, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit brought to the apostle's remembrance the command to baptize. This command cam from Christ, for they only preached just what Jesus told them to preach. Just because there is not a direct statement from Jesus, "You are to baptize the believer in water" does not negate the fact that He did command it. I have shown how that He commanded it.

JustAChristian

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin.

You said:
Paul said he was not sent to baptize, yet according to you, when he preaches and people believe, they are baptized. This being the case, he should not be preaching because it causes people to be baptized and that is not what he's supposed to be doing. Your reasoning is contradictory.

Reply:
Well, we can "know" that Paul was not under the "great commission" if he was not sent to baptize, since YOU "assume" the commission was water baptism how do you reconcile your contradiction?
The Spirit baptizes us therefore Paul was not sent to baptize!! There is no contradiction with this reasoning!!

For by one Spirit are we all baptized... 1 Cor. 12:13 (KJV)

You said:
Also notice that Paul said that "Christ did not send me to baptize", not "Christ did not send the word to baptize". Yet more proof that it is man that does the baptizing, and not the word. Verse 16 clearly says that Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, not "the word". That means that they weren't baptized until Paul baptized them. Baptism does not happen automatically upon belief, it happens when somebody is baptized by another person.

So why did Paul do something that he wasn't sent to do? Was Paul confused?

Reply:
Why would Paul say.... """thank God""" that ''''I (water) baptized none'''' of you, but Crispus and Gaius;... also the household of Stephanas...1 Cor. 1:16 (KJV)
It was because he NOW realizes..... the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

You said:
So by your definition of baptism, that it happens automatically upon belief, Paul is saying -- "Thank God I preached the gospel to none of you, except Crispus and Gauis". Why wouldn't Paul preach to the others, allowing them to automatically be baptized upon belief like Crispus and Gauis? Didn't Christ send him to preach the gospel? No, wait... if Paul preached the gospel, people might believe and be automatically baptized, which Christ did not send him to do. See how rediculous your arguement is?

Reply:
God's definition of baptism is that it is performed by the Spirit when we believe (Mark 16:15-16) the "spirit words" (John 6:63) that Jesus Christ spoke concerning the new testament (Matt 26:28). The power was no longer of men (Matt 28:18).

Paul is doing exactly what Jesus commanded by saying...
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel... 1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

You said:
The fact is, baptism is a separate occrurance that happens after one believes and is done by another person, just as Paul did in verses 14 and 16. Why would we be commanded to do something that is automatically done for us?

Reply:
Men perform by tradiction "water" baptism but Jesus never commanded ""water"" baptism. You have yet to provide one verse to prove he did.

Consider....

One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4:5 (KJV)

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

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15 (KJV)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16 (KJV)

Again, the teaching but also when one believes the word they are baptized by that word


You said:
Wrong. Notice in Mark 16:16 that there is a distinction between believing and baptism. There would be no need to say "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved" if a person is automatically is baptized on belief. There are two conditons that have to be met by man for them to be saved. If one condition is automatically done, then there would be no need to list TWO conditions for salvation.

Reply:
If I say he who jumps into the water and gets wet will be saved!
How can you separate the two? A runner wins a race "and" gets the prize. Now if the gift giver is righteous the runner will get the prize because it was promised to him.

You said:
Nowhere in your reply did I see an answer to where people were authorized to baptize in the name of the Lord. John the baptist did not baptize people in the name of the Lord. The baptism of John was to prepare them for the real baptism that was to come; the baptism in the name of the Lord, Commanded in the Great Commission for the forgiveness of sins! Show me one scripture where John the baptist baptized people in the name of the Lord.

Reply:
I tried to explain to you that peole do things but that does not mean they were authorized to do it! Can't you see it in the fact that Paul was ""not sent to baptized"" yet he did baptize some. Paul even said "thank god" I baptized only those few. You have not proven your case for a "new" water baptism.

You said:
First of all, for you to assert that the people in Acts 2:38 received the same baptism that John used is totally wrong. The people in Acts 2:38 were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which is completely different from being baptized into John's baptism.

Acts 19:1-5 proves this. Verses 3-5 says:

3) And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism."

4) Then Paul said, John indeed bapitzed 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."

5) When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

Verse 3 states that those people were baptized into John's baptism. The fact is, they were rebaptized in the name of Jesus -- WHICH IS THE BAPTISM PERFORMED AT PENTACOST! That proves that the baptism in the name of Jesus is different than the baptism of John, or else why would they get rebaptized if they are the same baptism?!

Reply:
I see your theory but it must be supported with evidence that Jesus commanded a "new water" baptism. Also, you need to clearly define the difference between the "two" baptisms and what were the different rewards.

With out the above evidence which you have not provided your conclusion is lacking. You need to show us that it was John that actually baptized them or it can easily be theorized that they did not receive the full message of John, that Jesus was the Christ.

You said:
Secondly, do you realize that the people in verse 5 were baptized because of what Paul taught (verse 4)? Because of what Paul taught, they were baptized in the name of the Lord, which is the exact same baptism spoken of in Acts 10:48: "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord". Do you further realize that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with WATER (verse 47)?

Reply:
You must prove that no one was baptized in the name of Jesus under John's ministry. I am sure many professed that Jesus was the Christ since God spoke to the people.... from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt. 3:17 (KJV)

You said:
AGAIN, Paul taught the Ephesians in Acts 19:4. After being taught by Paul, they were baptized in the name of the Lord. Acts 10: 47 clearly shows that baptism in the name of the Lord is done with WATER. Paul taught water baptism!!!

Reply:
Pauls tells them that Jesus was the Christ (son of the living God)
and they were baptized. Yet you apparently don'y see the simalarity where God the Father spoke from heaven and said Jesus was His Son because you don't believe anyone was baptized in the name of Jesus under John's ministry. Why would they not believe God if they believed Paul?

You said:
Thirdly, why would they still be preparing the way for Jesus in Acts 2:38?! By the time Acts 2:38 happened, Jesus had come to the earth, died for our sins, was resurrected, and ascended back to heaven! Jesus had already come! The message that Peter preached in Acts 2:38 was given under the influence of the Holy Spirit that guided them into "all truth", speaking what it heard from Jesus (John 16:12-13).

Reply:
Pentecost was the major manisfestation to the people of God that Jesus was the Christ. The Jews gathered there from all over the world to hear the message, it had to be given to the nation as a whole. The sad thing of it is the majority of the Jews still do not believe He is the Christ as they did at Pentecost. Peter was inspired but He did not hold "all truth" at Pentecost. His conversion (guidance) continued well after yet it is revealed in his later epistles that he came to a full revelation of the message Christ Jesus delivered to him.

You said:
If water baptism was good for salvation for the early church, why is not good for salvation for Christ's church today? His church has not changed.

Progressive revelation! Christ sent me not to baptize! The Peterine message at Pentecost did not contain the shed blood of Christ for eternal remission of sins yet they were save in water baptism.

You said:
The faith was delivered ONE time for ALL the saints. ALL of them. For you to be correct, the faith would have to be delievered TWO times, since you say that water baptism saved for the early church, but not today's chruch. People would have been told TWO different faiths. This verse says ONE faith delievered to ALL of the saints. There were NOT two gospels!!

Reply:
The righteousness of God is revealed from ""faith to faith"" ,see(Rom 1:17).

The wrath of God is against the unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, see (Rom. 1:18).

The people under the old testament had faith in truth but after the truth of the new testament was revealed they held the former truth in unrighteousness.

In Christ
Craig

 

[JustAChristian]

Craig,

Major Premise: All scriptures relating to the teachings of Jesus Christ are those scriptures essential for salvation as taught by the apostles.

Minor Premise: Baptism for remission of sins was taught in scripture by the apostles.

Therefore: Baptism for the remission of sins is essential for salvation.

In the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, he tells his apostles to baptize believers "...Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you". Jesus say that the apostles, when they went out to preach, they were to teach the people to whom they preach to observe whatsoever He had commanded. The apostles told the people to be baptized for the remission of sins. It must be concluded that Christ commanded the people to be baptized. If not, then the statement by Christ "...whatsoever I have commanded you is moot." Likewise, the scriptures say of the Holy Spirit, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit brought to the apostle's remembrance the command to baptize. This command came from Christ, for they only preached what Jesus told them to preach. Just because there is not a direct statement from Jesus, "You are to baptize the believer in water" does not negate the fact that He did command it. I have shown how that He commanded it.

JustAChristian

 

[HopeofGlory]

JustAChristian.

You have not shown that Jesus commanded "water" baptism! Why? Because He never did. You however go even further than this, you and others would have us believe Jesus command a "new" water baptism, which is absurd. If you believe Jesus commands apostles to water baptize then explain why Paul was sent NOT to baptize! Works of the flesh are not essential to salvation seeing how it was Jesus that said the flesh profiteth nothing. Your words do not negate the words of Christ Jesus. Every time you see "baptized" in the bible it doesn't mean in water. "By one Spirit we are all baptized", in water? No! "Baptized in His death", in water? Not hardly!

In Christ
Craig