Water Baptism passed away in this dispensation

[bling]

Tico said:
I apologize if I mislead you, but I stated that baptism took place in a Jewish context. That may have meant Jew or Gentile.

If all the Christians (Jew and Gentile) in Ephesus were water Baptized then the one baptism they would have understood Paul to be talking about was Christian water Baptism. Just as in Acts 2 repentance, baptism and the indwelling measure of the Holy Spirit went together. Like Godrulz explained John the Baptist baptism was an interim baptism that did not include the indwelling Spirit. John’s baptism was similar to the Jewish conversion of women that were baptized inset of circumcised, as a sign of their commitment to Judaism. John’s baptism along with repentance was an expression of the individuals dependence on God’s mercy and grace (Love) for their close loving relationship with God. It showed their realization that the Law was not possible to save them and they would rely on God’s mercy.

Tico said:
This sounds a bit contradictory. If they were very familiar with baptism (even experiencing it), then there would not have been the need for teaching on the topic as evidenced by your next comment.

They (Jew and gentile) had all experienced the one Christian water baptism that provided the indwelling Spirit, but would have been taught about other baptisms (which none of them would have experienced as Christians) and they were not the same as the one baptism that united them.

Tico said:
What's curious about the Cornelius experience is that he received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

God does not play by our rules and can make exceptions when ever He wants.
The curious thing is Peter’s description: Acts 11: 15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
Peter goes back to Pentecost to capture a similar occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism and attaches Christ’s description of this unique type of baptism to show it is from God. This type baptism was not the regular receiving of the Spirit that we all can experience at water baptism.

Tico said:

I'm not sure if that last sentence means that we have to accept Him and be water baptized to receive the Holy Spirit. If you are espousing some settled doctrine that is found in the Bible, then there would be no need to say "today MAY have to be water baptized". If that is the case, then there are two baptisms. There is one into the Body of Christ by the Spirit:
Quote:
1 Cor. 12:13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.


And some other water one enables the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

No. I am trying to convey the idea that the one Spirit (found through scripture and in other Christians) leads those that have heard, believe, confessed, and repented to be water baptized. I do not feel any before Pentecost received the indwelling portion of the Spirit that Christ promised to all believers. The Spirit did come upon prophets of old and Christ breathed on the disciples and the Spirit was with the disciples doing wonderful things before Pentecost, but He was not indwelling them as Christ promised.

Tico asked:

When do we receive the Holy Spirit?
Quote:
Gal. 3:2This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

It has nothing to do with water baptism. Another verse or two from Gal. 3.

Quote:
13Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


Yet another:
Quote:
Eph 1:13In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

We are sealed by the Spirit by faith, believing, not by water baptism. Speaking of this oneness between Jew and Gentile (which, of course I believe) we receive this union through the cross, not through water baptism:

Nothing works without the human making a free will decision to believe (trust) in God’s forgiveness (love) through the sacrifice of Christ. That is man’s part he plays and must be played out or the Spirit will not come to him. You can do all that and not receive the indwelling Spirit similar to the believers before Christ going to the cross. If the physical Christ is around then He can be your assurance. Since Christ is not around physically today we have the indwelling Spirit as our guaranty of salvation which is given to the faithful, but the faithful are those that are baptized.
You are trying to separate: being faithful in the Christian dispensation, from being those that were baptized believers, which appears to be the same thing, for we know of no believer after Pentecost that was not baptized in water.
I believe God did and can make exceptions at any time and believers and prophets did have the Spirit to perform miracles and inspire them, but the indwelling Spirit seems to come at baptism and was probably the only way those in Ephesus received the indwelling Spirit. Paul could have laded hands on them to receive a miraculous portion of the Spirit, but that was not baptism of the Spirit.
There are different measures of the Spirit from Acts 19: 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
We can see John’s Baptism did not provide any Spirit, so they accepted Christian baptism to receive the indwelling Spirit, then they went on to receive miraculous Holy Spirit power with the laying on of an apostles hands.
Truly being faithful will include being baptism, but the Law which did not even include John’s baptism could do nothing to give the follower the indwelling Spirit. If you were baptized without faith (believing) that would be worthless. Everything leads from your faith including baptism.

Quote:
Eph. 2:14For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.19Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Tico said:
Nevertheless, Paul says that there is one baptism to which you respond that there is really two. What is more is that you state that the baptism he speaks about is the lesser non-saving baptism of water which may cause an indwelling of the Spirit on some occasions (contrary to the above Scriptures which state that the Spirit comes through faith, not baptism in water).

Academically there are many types of baptism, but the one baptism Paul is referring to is the one and only type baptism all believers in Emphasis had submitted to, water baptism. The same indwelling Spirit can to both Jews and gentiles at that time.

Tico said:
You are still yet to answer my question about Matthew 28 and the rest of the commission. Please review that post. It would be great to talk through that issue as well. Thanks for sharing your input. This is an enjoyable discussion.

I do not remember you asking me anything about Matt. 28.
There are many steps to making disciples (a Christ like person) with one of those steps being baptizing. Baptism may be very important and worth mentioning separately, but just as Christ encouraged people to be baptized, He Himself did not actually do the baptizing. Paul seems to be an example of a truly Christ like person living in the Christian dispensation, and like Christ spent his time doing things others could not, such as being a living example, preaching, teaching and healing. Baptism is something any believer can do to another follower, so Paul could leave that to others, like Christ left baptizing to others. Paul does not speak out against baptism, just the followers putting the wrong emphasis on baptism and making the baptizer significant.

 

[Tico]

Bling,

If all the Christians (Jew and Gentile) in Ephesus were water Baptized then the one baptism they would have understood Paul to be talking about was Christian water Baptism.

Why? By your admission, water baptism is the lesser. The more significant is the spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ through His death and resurrection. If there is only one baptism (according to Eph. 4:5) and you are to conclude that it is that of water, then you have to deny the other into the Body of Christ. Unless, you would posit there there might be more than one God, etc. even though the text of Eph. 4:4-5 explicitly says otherwise. Was Paul purposefully misleading the Ephesians to say that the only baptism was that of water and not of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ?

Just as in Acts 2 repentance, baptism and the indwelling measure of the Holy Spirit went together.

Could you RECEIVE the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins without water baptism according to Acts 2:38. Please use arguments from the Scripture and from the text of Acts 2:38 to make your case. I understand what godrulz says. You both are bright and intelligent and obviously sincere in your faith, but please use the Scriptures to defend your points.

Like Godrulz explained John the Baptist baptism was an interim baptism that did not include the indwelling Spirit. John’s baptism was similar to the Jewish conversion of women that were baptized inset of circumcised, as a sign of their commitment to Judaism. John’s baptism along with repentance was an expression of the individuals dependence on God’s mercy and grace (Love) for their close loving relationship with God. It showed their realization that the Law was not possible to save them and they would rely on God’s mercy.

No problem with what JB was doing. Please review my previous posts regarding the two passages I dealt with from the Greek about the purpose of John´s baptism. Did John´s baptism of repentance (notice that repentance describes the type of baptism as it is in the genitive case) result in the remission of sins? Please argue from the text of these verses and the Scripture. Thanks.

They (Jew and gentile) had all experienced the one Christian water baptism that provided the indwelling Spirit, but would have been taught about other baptisms (which none of them would have experienced as Christians) and they were not the same as the one baptism that united them.

Does not Gal. 3 say at least twice that we receive the HS by believing? Doesn´t Eph. 1 say that we are sealed by the HS by believing?

According to Ephesians 2, Jew and Gentile are now united through the death and resurrection of Christ, not through water baptism. Furthermore, 1 Cor. 12:13 says that we were baptized together (Jew and Greek) into one body, not by water, but by the Spirit. Aside from this baptism into one body through the death and resurrection of Jesus, what other baptism exists for us today if we truly believe what Eph. 4:5 says, that there is only ONE.

God does not play by our rules and can make exceptions when ever He wants.
The curious thing is Peter’s description: Acts 11: 15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"
Peter goes back to Pentecost to capture a similar occurrence of Holy Spirit baptism and attaches Christ’s description of this unique type of baptism to show it is from God. This type baptism was not the regular receiving of the Spirit that we all can experience at water baptism.

I couldn´t agree more. God doesn´t play by our rules! Thus, I would guess that believe God can and does change the rules. Notice the change in the order of events between Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44-48. In Acts 2, Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, then the HS. In Acts 10, belief, the HS, then baptism in water. (All of this occurring well before God declared that there is only one baptism).

You are trying to separate: being faithful in the Christian dispensation, from being those that were baptized believers, which appears to be the same thing, for we know of no believer after Pentecost that was not baptized in water.

Likewise, we don´t know that all were. Again arguments from silence (made by you or me) don´t help out a whole lot. However, if you would like to make the argument, then I would point out that the vast majority of those saved after Pentecost were saved without the Bible mentioning their baptism in water. If this water baptism is so important that God supplants the one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into the Body of Christ with it, then why isn´t it important enough to mention with the salvation of each new convert?

I believe God did and can make exceptions at any time and believers and prophets did have the Spirit to perform miracles and inspire them, but the indwelling Spirit seems to come at baptism and was probably the only way those in Ephesus received the indwelling Spirit. Paul could have laded hands on them to receive a miraculous portion of the Spirit, but that was not baptism of the Spirit.

It´s interesting that you say it "seems" that the indwelling comes at baptism (in the face of the Scriptures I provided that show it comes by faith). If this is a settled doctrine, then there shouldn´t be any "seems" about it. I must ask, can you say for certain that God is not making an exception today for all believers? That we don´t need water baptism to receive the indwelling of the HS? Or, that we don´t need baptism at all?

Academically there are many types of baptism, but the one baptism Paul is referring to is the one and only type baptism all believers in Emphasis had submitted to, water baptism. The same indwelling Spirit can to both Jews and gentiles at that time.

As Eph. 2 points out, the indwelling with the joint-body of Jews/Gentiles came through the death and resurrection of Jesus, not through water baptism.

I do not remember you asking me anything about Matt. 28.

Sorry, if I assumed I asked you a question, but forgot. Oops. If you believe that the basis for baptizing the church age is the commission set forth in Mat. 28:18-20, do you do all that it says?

19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Part of this commission tells the disciples "observe all things that I have commanded you". Do you teach the Law as Jesus did:

17“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

This would include laws regarding clothing, the death penalty for sabbath breakers, etc. Here´s another passage:

1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Do you teach circumcision according to the law or the ceremonial cleansings required by such? If not, then why not?

 

[godrulz]

Also, when time permits, please respond to my question about the one baptism of Eph. 4:5 and my question about Mat. 28:18-20. Thanks.

Eph. 4:6 mentions one God the Father. Does that preclude God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? This seems to be the parallel to you insisting one baptism must exclude other baptisms. One verse does not contain all truth. If a verse talks about the one God the Father, it does not negate other triune verses. Does one Lord, in reference to Christ, exclude the one Lord the Father? No.


Bible Knowledge Commentary Eph. 4:5 "One Lord (cf. Rom. 10:12) refers to Christ, the Head of the Church (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18). One faith speaks, most likely, not of objective faith, that is, the body of truth believed by Christians (as in Acts 6:7; I Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; Jude 3) but subjective faith which is exercised by all Christians in Christ their Lord (cf. Col. 2:7).

One baptism MAY refer to water baptism, the outward symbol of the inward reality, OR it may refer to a believer's identification with Christ and His death (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 3:27). It seems unlikely that this refers to the latter, Spirit baptism, because it is in the triad of elements that pertain to Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Also, nothing in the broader context (Eph. 4:1-16) suggests that this is the Spirit's baptism. If it refers to water baptism, then the idea is that by this single act believers demonstrate their spiritual unity."

The passage is not absolute. Apart from Mid-Acts assumptions, faith and baptism were normatively linked in the early church, not just for those of Jewish background. Faith, not baptism, is a condition of salvation. Baptism demonstrated faith and identification with Christ to the world and the church. It was tangible evidence that one was following Jesus as Lord and Savior, but surely ritual cannot be meritorious for regeneration in any sense.

Just as Lord and faith are not absolute (they are used in a myriad of ways depending on context), so an allusion to water baptism presupposes that the believer has already been Spirit baptized. The strong link between inward faith and outward obedience allows Paul to equate the two and remind them that their outward baptism unifies them as members of the Church through repentance and faith in Christ and His finished work.

Mt. 28 does not mean that everything Jesus practiced under the Old Covenant were objects of Law and obedience for the Church Age. He taught the Eleven New Covenant truths. These are the things that are to be obeyed, not OT rituals.

Jesus instructed the disciples to go in His authority. They are to make disciples. This has been fulfilled by the Church starting in Pentecost to the present day. For Mid-Acts to negate Jn. 3:16 and the Great Commission shows how far off the mark it is. The great missions enterprise for 2000 years is a fulfillment of Jesus' Great Commission to believers, not just Jewish believers. Likewise, the Great Commandment spoken to Jews in the transitional period to love God and others is not rescinded nor limited to so-called circumcision believers. The Master Teacher does not become irrelevant just because Paul was converted.

There field was to include all nations, not just Israel (cf. Mt. 10:5, 6). They were to make disciples by proclaiming the person and work of Christ. Peter, John, James, Paul, etc. all did this as early as Pentecost (Peter). Those who believed were to be baptized as a witness and step of obedient discipleship. In many countries today, faith does not stand out, but baptism gets one disowned and rejected. This outward act associates a believer with the triune God and the Church. Those who believe are taught specific things from Jesus that were given to the 11. This does not include the OT laws that Jesus lived under BEFORE the cross. The Great Commission is after the resurrection, not early in His transitional ministry to the New Covenant. They taught specific truths for the Church Age. They did not perpetuate OT laws in Acts ff. When they did, the Spirit brought correction to let go of the baggage for the sake of grace.

The Commission is for all followers of Christ (now neither Jew nor Gentile, but one in Christ after the resurrection, not just because Paul converted). The 3 participles tell us how we make disciples: going, baptizing, and teaching. If you go and teach, you can go and baptize and be biblical. Jesus promised to be with us in this process to the end of the Age, not just until Paul introduced a supposed new gospel?! These words were fulfilled by Peter, James, John, and Paul. Pauline thought links back to this (see F.F. Bruce's masterpiece "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free"....this NT scholar and others like Leon Morris do not even entertain ultradispensationalism because it is foreign to sound NT scholarship).

 

[godrulz]

Tico:

Acts 2:38 commentary from non Mid-Acts view: (from my post to LH on Acts 2/9 thread):


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1348640&postcount=

 

[Tico]

Godrulz

Excellent post!

Eph. 4:6 mentions one God the Father. Does that preclude God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?

No, there is and will always be one God the Father. God the Son will never be God the Father.

This seems to be the parallel to you insisting one baptism must exclude other baptisms. One verse does not contain all truth.

The other side of the coin would be, do any verses contain any truth?

Does one Lord, in reference to Christ, exclude the one Lord the Father? No.

Whenever Paul writes about God the father in the same context as the Lord, the Lord always refers to the personhood of Jesus Christ. Thus, there has always been one personhood of Jesus Christ and there always will be within the godhead. Because of this, when Paul says there is one Lord, he is referring to one personhood of Jesus Christ. No, God the Father will never be the Lord Jesus Christ. If there was no mention of God the Father, then the reference would be ambiguous and I would have to answer that even though the text says there is one Lord it really means that there are three.

One baptism MAY refer to water baptism, the outward symbol of the inward reality,

I appreciate this sentiment. As a former Southern Baptist, I get this. However, my inability to find this in Scripture is what lead me to believe otherwise. Where is this idea of an outward symbol of the inward reality found in Scripture? I understand the conclusion, but where is the support?

OR it may refer to a believer's identification with Christ and His death (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 3:27). It seems unlikely that this refers to the latter, Spirit baptism, because it is in the triad of elements that pertain to Christ, the second person of the Trinity. Also, nothing in the broader context (Eph. 4:1-16) suggests that this is the Spirit's baptism. If it refers to water baptism, then the idea is that by this single act believers demonstrate their spiritual unity."

Thus, there isn´t just one baptism, but two for us today in spite of what Eph. 4:5 says.

The passage is not absolute. Apart from Mid-Acts assumptions, faith and baptism were normatively linked in the early church, not just for those of Jewish background. Faith, not baptism, is a condition of salvation. Baptism demonstrated faith and identification with Christ to the world and the church. It was tangible evidence that one was following Jesus as Lord and Savior, but surely ritual cannot be meritorious for regeneration in any sense.

It seems to me that you hold the inerrancy of the Word of God and value it very highly, but look what one must say to deny the one baptism and believe there it really means a plurality: This passage is not absolute. Couldn´t I say the same thing that because of baptistic assumptions and an adherence to normative practices of the early Church that one must conclude that Acts 2:38 doesn´t speak of the need for baptism for the remission of sins or that Eph. 4:5 doesn´t really mean one baptism?

Mt. 28 does not mean that everything Jesus practiced under the Old Covenant were objects of Law and obedience for the Church Age. He taught the Eleven New Covenant truths. These are the things that are to be obeyed, not OT rituals.

So all doesn´t mean all that He taught before His death and resurrection? Is this an assumption based on Scripture or based upon a baptistic assumption? Were they to teach anything from before His death and resurrection? If so what things and how do we know which things to strain out His pre-resurrection teachings? Based on what Scripture?

Jesus instructed the disciples to go in His authority. They are to make disciples. This has been fulfilled by the Church starting in Pentecost to the present day. For Mid-Acts to negate Jn. 3:16 and the Great Commission shows how far off the mark it is. The great missions enterprise for 2000 years is a fulfillment of Jesus' Great Commission to believers, not just Jewish believers. Likewise, the Great Commandment spoken to Jews in the transitional period to love God and others is not rescinded nor limited to so-called circumcision believers. The Master Teacher does not become irrelevant just because Paul was converted.

Unfortunately, dispensationalism has been poorly misrepresented to you. I don´t think that it is explained all that well too many times. All the rules of one set of house rules (dispensation) are not negated by the next. In fact, that is why murder has always been wrong. You too are a dispensationalist since you stated that Jesus gave new truths for the disciples to follow negating the old. The same instructions are repeated under Grace (2 Cor. 5--reach the world as ambassadors for Christ, Eph. 2:8-9--salvation through faith alone).

The Great Commission is after the resurrection, not early in His transitional ministry to the New Covenant. They taught specific truths for the Church Age. They did not perpetuate OT laws in Acts ff. When they did, the Spirit brought correction to let go of the baggage for the sake of grace.

The Spirit only brought correction (such as Acts 10) after God changed the rules and ushered in the house rules of grace (Eph. 3:1-10 for example).

The Commission is for all followers of Christ (now neither Jew nor Gentile, but one in Christ after the resurrection, not just because Paul converted). The 3 participles tell us how we make disciples:

Tell whom? Us? Or, the disciples? Agreed, that we need to get to it and evangelize the world. The dispensation of the grace of God says exactly that to the Body of Christ (2 Cor 5 et. al.)

Pauline thought links back to this (see F.F. Bruce's masterpiece "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free"....this NT scholar and others like Leon Morris do not even entertain ultradispensationalism because it is foreign to sound NT scholarship).

This is a little circular. NT scholars who don´t hold to ultradispensationalism don´t entertain ultradispensationalism because it is foreign to them (those who don´t believe it in the first place).

Again, I´m interested in your grammatical, textual analysis of Acts 2:38 and the other two John the Baptist passages that say baptism was necessary for the remission of sins. Please don´t state conclusions, but use the Greek text to demonstrate exactly why you conclude what you conclude. I only say this, since you said that I am ignorant of the Greek grammar (which I may be!)

Thanks, again. I really enjoy being stretched like this.

 

[Tico]

Tico:

Acts 2:38 commentary from non Mid-Acts view: (from my post to LH on Acts 2/9 thread):


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1348640&postcount=

Our posts passed in the night. I´ll take a look at this. Thanks.

 

[Tico]

Tico:

Acts 2:38 commentary from non Mid-Acts view: (from my post to LH on Acts 2/9 thread):


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1348640&postcount=

I copied your post for ease of commentary. By the way, I like the BKC and use it quite a bit. Even before coming the the mid-Acts view, I always felt uncomfortable with the solutions proposed even though I advocated them vigor trying tireless to avoid baptismal regeneration.

First, they were to repent (consistent with Jesus and Paul's teaching). This change of mind, heart, and conduct is the flip side of faith (turn from sin to the Savior). Repentance is found throughout Acts, including Paul's exhortations (e.g. Paul preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds...not something Mid-Acts proponents like to affirm lest it supposedly undermine grace...26:20; 20:21 turn to God in repentance and have faith in Christ=Pauline! don't you guys say we do not need to repent, just grace and faith?).

Since repent as used in these contexts means to change your mind about something (i.e. the Savior or one's own sin), I wish that dispensationalists would not fear using the term. In fact, Paul uses it in 2 Cor. 7.

1) One is that both repentance and baptism result in remission of sins (baptismal regeneration heresy; Mid-Acts misunderstanding). In this view, baptism is essential for salvation. The problem with this view is that elsewhere in Scripture forgiveness of sins is based on faith alone (Jn. 3:16, 36; Rom. 4:1-17; 11:6; Gal. 3:8,9; Eph. 2:8-10, etc.). Furthermore, Peter, the same speaker, later promised forgiveness of sins on the basis of FAITH ALONE (Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18).

Agreed that for us under grace this would be quite problematic.

2) A second interpretation translates 2:38 "be baptized...on the basis of the remission of your sins". The preposition used is eis which, with the accusative case, may mean 'on account of, on the basis of'. It is used this way in Mt. 3:11; 12:14; Mk. 1:4. The it is possible for the construction to mean 'on the basis of', this is not its normal meaning; eis with the accusative case usually describes purpose or direction.

This is not the normal interpretation and would be a stretch since according to Acts 2:38, the receiving of the Holy Spirit would still be contingent upon repentance and a baptism "because" of the remission of sins.

3) A third view takes the clause 'and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ' as parenthetical. This is supported by several factors:

i) The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb 'repent' is plural and so is the pronoun 'your' in the clause 'so that your sins may be forgiven (lit. 'unto the remission of your sins'). Therefore the verb 'repent' must go with the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

Agreed as to the verbs. However, what is not pointed out is that the subject of the imperative "baptize" in the singular, 3rd person is "each". Each what? "one of you". "You" is a plural, 2nd person pronoun in the gentive directly connected to "each" and describing who the "each" are. Then when we find "the remission of your sins" ("your" being plural). It is a direct reference to "each of you (plural)" which is the subject of the imperative "baptize". There is no reason to divide these two parts of the sentence based upon a plural pronoun found in connection with the remission of sins when the second person plural pronoun is also found describing the subject of "each".

On the other hand, the imperative (command) 'be baptized' is singular, setting it apart from the rest of the sentence. (agreement is an issue we must abide by in grammar, Greek or English).

What is thus set apart, if anything, is the first imperative, "repent" in the second person. The phrase, "be baptized each one of for the remission of your sins" is one complete contiguous thought. "You" and "your" in the plural is used to describe the subject of "baptize" and is used to describe whose sins were being referred to. "You" and "your" demonstrates the contiguous nature of the command to be baptized for remission. If there is a parenthesis, it is opened after "repent" and is closed before the "and" (kai) in the middle of verse 38.

ii) This concept fits with Peter's proclamation in Acts 10:43 (cf. Jn. 3:16) in which the same expression 'sins may be forgiven' occurs. There it is granted on the basis of faith alone...if baptism was crucial, proof text it again? (just like in Pauline thought...Paul also was baptized and baptized, contrary to Mid-Acts trying to distort the facts).

We don't know what Peter would have continued to say since he was interupted by the Holy Spirit. In that moment (in the middle of Acts), salvation and the receipt of the HS was by faith solely in Jesus as was evidenced by an astonished group of Jewish believers. However, it should be pointed out that faith in Jesus in Acts 2:38 would cause one to be baptized just as faith in Genesis caused Noah to do something--build a boat. Not to mention, the order of events differed between Acts 2 (Repent, baptize, receive HS) and Acts 10 (believe, receive HS, baptize).

iii) In Lk. 24:47 and Acts 5:31, the same writer, Luke, indicates that repentance results in remission of sins.

Baptism is linked with repentance as an outward symbol of it, but it should never be confused as a condition of salvation on par with repentant faith (in any Covenant or dispensation).

Acts 2:38, Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16 Luke 3:3 would indicate that baptism isn't an outward symbol (an assertion not found in the Bible) of repentance, but it was an integral part.

Furthermore, this explanation does not address the problems presented in Mark 1:4, 16:16 nor Luke 3:3. It seems that we are going through great pains to explain away the obvious.

 

[Bob Hill]

When you quote Acts 2:38 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.”, and Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned, Baptist pastors usually say you don’t have to be baptized to be saved, but if you became a believer, you would follow the Lord in baptism as an outward sign of an inner work.

They quote Acts 16:31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”, and say this shows that the only thing a person must do to be saved is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

A Church of Christ pastor would disagree. He shows that water baptism was even necessary in the epistles.

He would show us 1 Peter 3:20,21: “who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us - baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

But the Baptist pastor would show you Ephesians 2:8,9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”, then he says “It is not of works, and baptism would be a work. Baptism should come after you’re saved, but it doesn’t save you!”

Well, what should we believe? Who is right?

Both are right, and both are wrong.

We must look at the Scriptures and see why.

The proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom started with the ministry of John the Baptist. His message was, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat 3:2)! He preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:3).

Do I believe that he preached baptism for the remission of sins? And, do I believe John preached that a person had to be baptized to be saved? Yes!

But we must always remember the basic methods of Bible study:
1. Find out who is speaking.
2. Find out to whom they are speaking.
3. Find out this: under what dispensation is it being said.

:the_wave:

A dispensation in the Bible is the way things were run according to God’s instructions during a certain period of time.

To whom was John the Baptist sent? It says in John 1:31 that John was sent to Israel: “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
I think that’s pretty clear. John came to Israel to show that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ.

It was at a time when God was only dealing with the Jews.

The method of salvation was repent and be baptized for your sins. This was the message of the kingdom gospel.

Luke 16:16 shows when the kingdom gospel started: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.”

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Did Christ and the apostles preach the same gospel that John preached? Yes, for it says that they did in Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 1:14,15.

Now, notice that baptism was linked with the message of the kingdom. This was the good news of the circumcision (The Jews), called the circumcision gospel.

Gal 2:7-9 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [“of the uncircumcision” is a genitive, kind of like a possessive.] had been committed to me, as the gospel of [Genitive again.] the circumcision was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcision also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

How many different kinds of baptism were there when John started his ministry? Only one.

Was it necessary for salvation? Yes.

We even find Jesus saying to Nicodemus in John 3:5 that if a man wants to enter into the kingdom of God, he must be born of water and of the Spirit.

This requirement of water (baptism) fit right into the message John began and the apostles continued after the resurrection and the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

Christ commanded the Eleven in Mark 16:15-16, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Peter insisted on the same requirement ten days later in Acts 2:38: “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.”

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

From all of this material I have given, we see that water baptism, at that time, was necessary for salvation, before Holy Spirit baptism would take place.

Now, on the day of Pentecost, for the first time, there were two baptisms.

Water baptism was necessary for salvation.

Then, Holy Spirit baptism took place.

From the context of verses 22 and 39 we see that this happened while God was still dealing with Israel. Peter was only speaking to Israel in 22, and he was referring to the promise to Israel in 39.

Next, something very important happened.

The Apostle Paul was saved. I will not go into the differences in Paul’s salvation, although it appears, and I should say, “only appears” that Paul was saved under the same message Peter preached in Acts 2.

Acts 22:16 says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Because God had started a new dispensation with Paul (Please read Gal 1:11-2:9 & Eph 3:1-9), all kinds of different things began to happen.

First, Peter got a vision in Acts 10 which showed that Israel had been set aside.

They were, temporarily, no longer God’s special people.

This was shown by the vision given to Peter when the law of clean and unclean animals was set aside (Lev 20:24-26).

Next, Peter was sent to a Gentile and told by the Holy Spirit to doubt nothing (Acts 10:20).

Then, the most significant event happened when Peter went to the Gentiles. When they believed, the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter’s message before he could tell them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

In fact, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles while Peter was still preaching.

The Jews who accompanied Peter were amazed.

This, indeed, was a dispensational sign from God that something had changed.

What had changed?

God had started a new program when He saved Paul.

However, since God would only reveal the new message for this new dispensation to the Apostle Paul, Peter was still preaching the same gospel message he had always preached (Acts 10:34-43).

I want to review what I have already written on this thread.

1. At first there was only one baptism, John’s. It was necessary for salvation.

2. Then things started changing when Paul was saved.

3. The Holy Spirit fell on Gentiles before they were water baptized. Remember, water baptism was a sign to Jews to show Christ to them.

Sometime during his second missionary journey the Apostle Paul told the body of Christ about the baptisms which they knew of, in this manner: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius . . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”

In the same epistle, he wrote, 1 Co 12:13: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks”. Therefore, water baptism had changed from being the only baptism, and necessary for salvation, to a ritual which had faded away.

Next, another very important incident happened. God finished showing Israel that they had been set aside.

He had done this in a progressive manner which reached its conclusion in Acts 28:28. It started in Acts 13:46, continued in Acts 18:6, and was concluded in Acts 28:28.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

After Israel had been shown that they had been set aside, Paul was inspired by God to write Ephesians. In Ephesians 4:3-6, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians today. He wrote, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” What? It doesn’t say two baptisms? It says there “is one baptism”? Yes, that’s right. Which one is it then? It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

Well then, we can see that the gospel message started out with one baptism, water. This was necessary for salvation. It progressed to two: water first, then, Holy Spirit baptism. The water baptism was still necessary for salvation. Finally, in this dispensation, it returned to one, Holy Spirit, which is now necessary for salvation. So, both pastors would be right and both pastors would be wrong. Therefore, we must always search the Scriptures to see what is right dispensationally.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[godrulz]

In the gospels (JB, etc.) repentance was evidenced by baptism. Repentance led to heart change, not external ritual. The outer act was visible proof and a step of obedience that one was actually changing their lives. If they were not willing to obey, there repentance and faith was suspect. The rest of the Bible does not make circumcision nor baptism (externals) a condition of salvation, though they are linked with the internal realities. Paul is clear in Romans that grace/faith has always been the grounds/conditions, even in the OT (Abraham, etc.). Just because steps of obedience and outward symbolism was related, does not mean the externals were the real issue.

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I will obey the Great Commission. Something of such a timeless, universal magnitude (Jn. 3:16 world, not elect, 12, Jews, etc.) was not limited to a handful of apostles nor to Jewish believers for a limited time before Paul. The disciples made more disciples to the present day, Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. It is a sad, strained reading to try to negate the last words of Christ that are fulfilled starting in Acts and continuing to this day.

 

[Bob Hill]

In Ephesians 4:3-5, Paul wrote about the unity of the Spirit. He was writing about God’s dealings with Christians today. He wrote, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism”

What? It doesn’t say two baptisms?

It says there “is one baptism”? Yes, that’s right.

Which one is it then?

It must be Spirit baptism since the Holy Spirit is still sealing members into the body of Christ.

We can see from this that the gospel message started out with one baptism, water.

This was necessary for salvation.

It progressed to two: water first, then, Holy Spirit baptism. The water baptism was still necessary for salvation.

Finally, in this dispensation, it returned to one, Holy Spirit, which is now necessary for salvation.

So, it’s easy for all of us to be right sometimes and wrong sometimes.

Therefore, we must continue to search the Scriptures to see what is right and wrong, in God’s opinion, dispensationally.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Tico]

In the gospels (JB, etc.) repentance was evidenced by baptism. Repentance led to heart change, not external ritual. The outer act was visible proof and a step of obedience that one was actually changing their lives.

Numerous times, I have asked for scriptural proof of this assertion. On unrelated occassions you have pointed out that I am viewing everything from a pre-determined doctrine (MAD) which clouds my ability to see clearly. I assert that your conclusion above is predicated upon your conclusion in general: Baptism is an outward sign, thus any time baptism in water is mentioned it is an outward sign. You can´t use your conclusion to prove your conclusion. You have still not responded to my textual and exegetical analysis of the two JB passages.

If they were not willing to obey, there repentance and faith was suspect. The rest of the Bible does not make circumcision nor baptism (externals) a condition of salvation, though they are linked with the internal realities.

Check out this passage from Gen. 17:

9And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Do really think that one who breaks the covenant of God and is cut off from His people would have salvation? However, you are right on in the sense, that God required much more. He required repentance, faith, baptism and works under the ministry of John and Jesus.

Paul is clear in Romans that grace/faith has always been the grounds/conditions, even in the OT (Abraham, etc.). Just because steps of obedience and outward symbolism was related, does not mean the externals were the real issue.

You are correct in what Paul says. What you have missed is that James uses Abraham to prove the opposite assertion, that a man is not saved by faith alone. What changed in the life of Abraham between Gen. 15 and Gen. 22 (the event James cites)? The covenant of circumcision--a work! Thus, Paul can say that Abraham is the father of two peoples: those of the circumcision and those of the uncircumcision.

I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I will obey the Great Commission. Something of such a timeless, universal magnitude (Jn. 3:16 world, not elect, 12, Jews, etc.) was not limited to a handful of apostles nor to Jewish believers for a limited time before Paul. The disciples made more disciples to the present day, Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. It is a sad, strained reading to try to negate the last words of Christ that are fulfilled starting in Acts and continuing to this day.

When one is unable to respond to truth, generally conclusions are thrown out without support, with emotional appeals and backhanded criticisms are offered. I too am a disciple of Jesus Christ. God says through Paul.

1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

Our marching orders for evangelizing the world are found in 2 Cor. 5:

12For we do not commend ourselves again to you, but give you opportunity to boast on our behalf, that you may have an answer for those who boast in appearance and not in heart. 13For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; or if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

 

[godrulz]

Are you saying that the disciples only went to the Jews and avoided Samaritans and Gentiles? Jesus did not limit the scope of His love or gospel to those who were ethnic Jews. Even OT Israel was to be a blessing to all nations, though they dropped the ball (Gentiles were raised up...Rom. 9-11). After the resurrection, the Great Commission was marching order for the new order, the New Covenant Church, Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. It was not limited to a few disciples for a few years until Paul came along.

James vs Romans is misunderstood by Mid-Acts. Try this on for size:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33352

The external baptism issue is self-evident based on all relevant verses, not just proof texts.

 

[bling]

Tico said:
Why? By your admission, water baptism is the lesser. The more significant is the spiritual baptism into the Body of Christ through His death and resurrection. If there is only one baptism (according to Eph. 4:5) and you are to conclude that it is that of water, then you have to deny the other into the Body of Christ. Unless, you would posit there there might be more than one God, etc. even though the text of Eph. 4:4-5 explicitly says otherwise. Was Paul purposefully misleading the Ephesians to say that the only baptism was that of water and not of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ?

If I suggested water baptism is any lesser then Holy Spirit baptism, I made a huge error. The only Holy Spirit baptism we have recorded is Acts 2, 4, and 10 these are very much outward signs for others including us today (a witness in scripture) Acts 10: 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished . Water baptism provides the invisible indwelling portion of the Spirit which is needed for the individual to lead a pure life Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The receiving of this indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit seems contingent on hears repenting and being baptized. From the verses that follow and from every other water baptism listed the people did not have the baptism of the Spirit poured out upon them as described in Acts 2: 1-4, Acts 4: 31 and Acts 10: 44. there is also miraculous gifts of the Spirit ( this is different then the indwelling Spirit) that can come to individuals through the laying on of the apostles hands. Salvation comes through faith and water baptism is in response to that faith and the invisible indwelling Spirit comes through water baptism. Peter in Acts 10 and 11, tells us what Holy Spirit Baptism was like, which I have never seen a group experience, yet I know people filled with the indwelling Spirit. There is no indication anyone in Ephesus experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is water baptism, Christ submitted to His death, burial and resurrection and water baptism is a submitting by the person being baptized, as compared to Holy Spirit baptism that comes upon the group.
Our confusion seems to come from equating Holy Spirit Baptism (there is the gift of speaking in tongues given with this baptism), with receiving the indwelling Spirit and/or the miraculous gifts of the Spirit the apostles had and could at least some time pass on with the laying on of hands.

Tico asked:
Could you RECEIVE the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins without water baptism according to Acts 2:38. Please use arguments from the Scripture and from the text of Acts 2:38 to make your case. I understand what godrulz says. You both are bright and intelligent and obviously sincere in your faith, but please use the Scriptures to defend your points.

God/ Christ can forgive anyone He wants at any time example: women caught in adultery John 8: 1-11, and thief on the cross Luke 23: 43. God provided Holy Spirit Baptism prior to Christian water Baptism in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and described in Acts 11, but there was a huge need to display not only to those receiving the Spirit something had happened, but to those around them. Even though Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Spirit they still needed the water baptism to receive the indwelling portion of the Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism is something that comes upon a group of people and seems to be more for those around the receivers or those that will hear about it, while water baptism is something you submit to having done for the individual to get the invisible but very real indwelling Spirit. When you ask “Could you RECEIVE the Holy Spirit” I have tried to explain that there are different portions of the Spirit which you should be aware of: Have you see the house shack, tongues of fire descend on peoples heads, and a large group of Christians start speaking in other languages simultaneously? Have you seem people today with the miraculous power to raise people from the dead (a gift given with the laying on of the apostles’ hands? Have you experienced the indwelling Holy Spirit that can do exactly what you need Him to do if He is not quenched, living in you?

Tico said:
No problem with what JB was doing. Please review my previous posts regarding the two passages I dealt with from the Greek about the purpose of John´s baptism. Did John´s baptism of repentance (notice that repentance describes the type of baptism as it is in the genitive case) result in the remission of sins? Please argue from the text of these verses and the Scripture. Thanks.

First and foremost, the Gospels are Christ’s story and John the Baptist is a small part of that story. We have only brief, mostly second hand statements, about what John taught and the message was “prepare the way”. John was not giving the full message or a present means for assured salvation or the passing on of the indwelling Spirit, but the turning in the right direction and the first step.
John’s baptism seems to be like this:
1 Cor. 10 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
What does, “baptized into Moses” mean? If it is trying to convey the idea that the people symbolically accepting a new future covenant relationship with God, then that might fit what John was doing.
Mark said: “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” I do not know if anyone can further define “of” and “for”, I can not. The water is symbolic like the cloud and the sea of change/ new life/ commitment. The earth was baptized in the flood washing away the old and the ark was baptized in the water from above to come out into a new life and covenant.
Baptism seems symbolic of change. I would say that John’s baptism symbolic of the change from a commitment on the Law for salvation to a commitment on God’s grace for salvation. The sign of that commitment is seen in the confessing of their sins, submitting to baptism and repentance.
The water did not do anything by itself as we know Christ was baptized and even though Christ could keep the Law, He might also show His commitment to God’s grace and provide an example.

Tico asked:
Does not Gal. 3 say at least twice that we receive the HS by believing? Doesn´t Eph. 1 say that we are sealed by the HS by believing?
According to Ephesians 2, Jew and Gentile are now united through the death and resurrection of Christ, not through water baptism. Furthermore, 1 Cor. 12:13 says that we were baptized together (Jew and Greek) into one body, not by water, but by the Spirit. Aside from this baptism into one body through the death and resurrection of Jesus, what other baptism exists for us today if we truly believe what Eph. 4:5 says, that there is only ONE.?

Gal. 3: 2…Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3… After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 14…so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
These words are addressed to people that had been baptized and received the indwelling Spirit. Paul describes what faith in Christ is: Gal.3: 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. The clothed with Christ is the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) and the baptism is water baptism.

1 Cor. 12: 13for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink, OR 13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
The whole emphasis of 1 Cor. 12 is the oneness that is ours. The same one Spirit is in both Jew and gentile and all are part of the same body. The indwell Spirit is something you can taste, hopefully sweet and not bitter. Paul speaks to the Corinthians extensively in this letter about baptism and we would agree that Paul was talking about water baptism earlier. I do not find the sudden change to some other kind of baptism and that would be very confusing for them.
The same one Spirit found in all those that preached to the Corinthians led them to be baptized both Jew and gentile. They are one in Spirit.
Eph. 4 as I said before is talking about the one baptism available to us today “water baptism”. You have already said I can be water baptized and can water baptize others (as a good work for the sac of the Jews), so you are suggesting there is at least two types of baptism even today. I am the one that is saying there is only one that was available to the Ephesians and us today.

Tico said:
I couldn´t agree more. God doesn´t play by our rules! Thus, I would guess that believe God can and does change the rules. Notice the change in the order of events between Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:44-48. In Acts 2, Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, then the HS. In Acts 10, belief, the HS, then baptism in water. (All of this occurring well before God declared that there is only one baptism).

I did not say God changes like you are saying; just He does not play by our rules. I have addressed Holy Spirit baptism already.

Tico said:
Likewise, we don´t know that all were. Again arguments from silence (made by you or me) don´t help out a whole lot. However, if you would like to make the argument, then I would point out that the vast majority of those saved after Pentecost were saved without the Bible mentioning their baptism in water. If this water baptism is so important that God supplants the one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into the Body of Christ with it, then why isn´t it important enough to mention with the salvation of each new convert?

Salvation comes with trust (faith) in the grace of God. Hopeful all will then be baptized to receive the indwelling Spirit. In the 1st Century it appears most were soon baptized after believing. We have plenty of examples of baptism to get the point across. You could say the same thing about repenting and confessing. Do you believe Christians must/ should confess and/or repent?

Tico said:
It´s interesting that you say it "seems" that the indwelling comes at baptism (in the face of the Scriptures I provided that show it comes by faith). If this is a settled doctrine, then there shouldn´t be any "seems" about it. I must ask, can you say for certain that God is not making an exception today for all believers? That we don´t need water baptism to receive the indwelling of the HS? Or, that we don´t need baptism at all?

I hope and pray I am going with the most likely alternative. I am really not trying to sell you on my conclusions, but challenge you as you challenge me in my thinking. I do think we can know the answer to this question, if we really want to know to change our personal lives for the better. If I am being academic about the subject I can not expect the Spirit to lead me to the truth. I can know for myself by knowing the Spirit is with me, but you can not know that from my indwelling Spirit unless we are of the same Spirit. I might be wrong, because I can quench the Spirit and do not know if you might bring some new verses to light if you are being led by the Spirit.
Making exceptions for good reasons is not the same as being inconsistent. The covets in the past include sacrifices ( Adam and Eve’s animal skins, Noah upon leaving the Ark, Abram offering Isaac, Moses in the land, and Christ on the cross. Most of the time there was a baptism involved, but not always. Water baptism replaced circumcision and like circumcision not saving the Jews water baptism does not save Christians. I do not see any reason for doing away with the Christian water baptism for I do not see any new sacrifice in Acts to establish the new dispensation or something replacing water baptism.

Tico said:
As Eph. 2 points out, the indwelling with the joint-body of Jews/Gentiles came through the death and resurrection of Jesus, not through water baptism.

Water baptism is not being excluded, everyone there had been baptized. Jesus had to die and rise again for the Spirit to even be available. John 16.

Tico said:
Sorry, if I assumed I asked you a question, but forgot. Oops. If you believe that the basis for baptizing the church age is the commission set forth in Mat. 28:18-20, do you do all that it says?

I read Godrulz answer and mine would be similar. We have what Jesus taught His disciples in scripture. That would include a message to keep the weighty matters of the law, Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and energy and love your neighbor as yourself. From the sermons he preached to the Samaritans they would have learned who God’s real children are and things were changing. The Good Samaritan story would emphasis what really needs to be done. They would have witnessed that it takes Deity to obey the Law and the needed to depend on mercy. Jesus was always preaching the Kingdom that was to come not the Old Law which is what we have in the New Testament.

Tico asked:
Quote:
17“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.


This would include laws regarding clothing, the death penalty for sabbath breakers, etc. Here´s another passage:
Quote:
1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.


Do you teach circumcision according to the law or the ceremonial cleansings required by such? If not, then why not?

Please, Christ preached that the Old Covenant was going to be completed and extensively preached about the new Kingdom that was coming after His death. Circumcision has been replaced by adult water baptism. None of original apostles said specifically Jesus taught us to circumcise or keep the Law, that seems to be an assumption on their part and it helped get the message out to those orthodox Jews quickly before bringing the gentiles on.

 

[Tico]

Are you saying that the disciples only went to the Jews and avoided Samaritans and Gentiles? Jesus did not limit the scope of His love or gospel to those who were ethnic Jews. Even OT Israel was to be a blessing to all nations, though they dropped the ball (Gentiles were raised up...Rom. 9-11).

Friend, you don´t realize how close you are to understanding what we believe. The Jews, if they followed the covenant of the Law, were to be become a nation of priests (Ex. 19:5-6). Why? To reach the world. Just as you correctly pointed out, the OT is repleat with evidence to support this point: Zech. 8:23, Is. 49:5, Is. 60:1, to name a few. This was God´s plan to evangelize the world through His chosen people. Consider some of what Jesus said during His ministry:

Mat 10:5These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 15:21Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.”
23But He answered her not a word.
And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
24But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
26But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
27And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
28Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Of course Jesus dealt with gentiles as this story indicates, but only after they acknowledged from where salvation came--Israel! This coincides with those verses from the OT above. You and I agree on this. In John 4 we have the beautiful story of the woman at the well. She was a Samaritan! She understood according the Scriptures that the Messiah was coming (and was there). Whether you believe that Samaritans were Jews or gentiles, it didn´t matter. What mattered was that one humbled himself before God recognizing His promises and Word to be true. The gentile centurion of Luke 7 was one who loved the Jewish nation and even built a synagogue for it. Israel was the fount from which salvation would flow!

After the resurrection, the Great Commission was marching order for the new order, the New Covenant Church, Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. It was not limited to a few disciples for a few years until Paul came along.

It wasn´t until Acts 11 that the brothers had heard that the gentiles also received salvation. This indeed would be strange if it had been happening all along unless gentile conversions were the biggest secret kept in the church at that time. Which were the gentiles that first received this salvation? Those to whom Peter ministered in Acts 10. Peter reaffirms this Acts 15:7. It wasn´t until this point (in the middle of Acts) that we have a body of Gentiles and Jews. Sure, some proselytes entered the faith through Israel (as pointed out in the above quoted passages). To Paul was given this mystery of the one body between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 3:1-14, Col. 1:24-29). It could not have been given unless he was first saved (as happened in the middle of Acts).

You are right that Israel dropped the ball. The following promise was given and not heeded:

Acts 3:19Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Even though the BKC rejects ultradispensationalism, it says the following regarding this passage:

In conclusion, Acts 3:17-21 shows that Israel´s repentance was to have had two purposes: (1) for individual Israelites there was foregiveness of sins, and (2) for Israel as a nation her Messiah would return to reign.

Israel, as a nation did not repent and their King did not return. Thus, God cut them off as promised in Luke 13:6-9. He then called Paul to minister the gospel of the uncircumcision as Peter, James, and John continued to minister the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7-9).

James vs Romans is misunderstood by Mid-Acts. Try this on for size:

Here I´ll quote your post in pertinent part:

I believe there is an Old and a New Covenant. Hebrews shows the superiority of the New over the Old. I do not believe it teaches another true gospel in the NT for a limited time. Likewise, James, John, Peter, and others did not just write for the circumcision with a different criteria for salvation than the Gentiles.

How does this statement reconcile with the following one? According to you, there is one set of marching orders and one churh, but two covenants?

After the resurrection, the Great Commission was marching order for the new order, the New Covenant Church, Jew and Gentile, one in Christ. It was not limited to a few disciples for a few years until Paul came along.

Can we reconcile Romans and James without Mid-Acts assumptions?

I accept that Hebrews and James were written for Jewish Christians. Other writers wrote to Gentile believers (Corinth; Romans, etc.). They contextualized the one Gospel to different audiences (cf. 4 Gospel accounts are one Gospel of Christ even though Matthew was to Jews, Mark to Romans, Luke to Greeks, and John to Jewish or Gentile Believers in the Son of God).

This doesn´t explain anything about the content of those letters. Since we agree that Romans 4 teaches salvation by grace through faith alone, we´ll deal with James 2.

14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. 24You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

This passages is dealing with saving faith. Can a man be saved without being justified? According to James was a man justified by works and not faith alone? Ït´s a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no answer. Were Abraham (after Gen. 17) and Rahab justified by works? You said that the passage was contextualized to the audience, but this doesn´t help without an explanation. Again, you state a conclusion that the NT doesn´t teach two gospels, but use the conclusion to support itself without offering evidence.

The external baptism issue is self-evident based on all relevant verses, not just proof texts.

All relevant verses are proof texts. It is curious to me that you criticized my knowledge of the Greek, but won´t respond to my analysis of the Greek of any relevant verse. You also sent a lengthy, very detailed, specific dissertation about the grammar of Acts 2:38, but say that we have to base our opinion on all relevant verses, not specifics. I have asked since the beginning, what are those relevant verses that show that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change? You can´t just state a conclusion as proof of itself.

I want to point out that in order to maintain a baptistic outlook, you must say that Jesus didn´t mean "all that I taught you" in Mat. 28, that the one baptism doesn´t really mean one, that we have to pick and choose our second person personal pronouns in Acts 2:38 in order to arrive at a conclusion that fits with the conclusion, and deny that John´s baptism of repentance for the remission of sins wasn´t really for the remission of sins.

Nonetheless, if someone wants to have a baptismal service to give a picture of his identification with the death and resurrection of Christ, then do it! Just, please don´t tell anyone that it is a scriptural mandate. It makes us look unconcerned with the biblical text as I pointed out in the paragraph above.

 

[Tico]

The only Holy Spirit baptism we have recorded is Acts 2, 4, and 10 these are very much outward signs for others including us today (a witness in scripture) Acts 10: 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished . Water baptism provides the invisible indwelling portion of the Spirit which is needed for the individual to lead a pure life Acts 2: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The receiving of this indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit seems contingent on hears repenting and being baptized. From the verses that follow and from every other water baptism listed the people did not have the baptism of the Spirit poured out upon them as described in Acts 2: 1-4, Acts 4: 31 and Acts 10: 44. there is also miraculous gifts of the Spirit ( this is different then the indwelling Spirit) that can come to individuals through the laying on of the apostles hands. Salvation comes through faith and water baptism is in response to that faith and the invisible indwelling Spirit comes through water baptism. Peter in Acts 10 and 11, tells us what Holy Spirit Baptism was like, which I have never seen a group experience, yet I know people filled with the indwelling Spirit. There is no indication anyone in Ephesus experienced the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is water baptism, Christ submitted to His death, burial and resurrection and water baptism is a submitting by the person being baptized, as compared to Holy Spirit baptism that comes upon the group.
Our confusion seems to come from equating Holy Spirit Baptism (there is the gift of speaking in tongues given with this baptism), with receiving the indwelling Spirit and/or the miraculous gifts of the Spirit the apostles had and could at least some time pass on with the laying on of hands.

All of this is refuted by Acts 10:44-48 when Cornelius first believed, second received the HS, then was baptized in water. This is the opposite of Acts 2:38. Both can´t be true. Furthermore, in a previous post, you said that Acts 10 was an exception. If the Acts record contains exceptions, it can´t be the rule.

God/ Christ can forgive anyone He wants at any time example: women caught in adultery John 8: 1-11, and thief on the cross Luke 23: 43. God provided Holy Spirit Baptism prior to Christian water Baptism in Acts 2 and Acts 10 and described in Acts 11, but there was a huge need to display not only to those receiving the Spirit something had happened, but to those around them. Even though Cornelius and his household received the baptism of the Spirit they still needed the water baptism to receive the indwelling portion of the Spirit

.

Where is the support in the Bible for this last statement?

Holy Spirit baptism is something that comes upon a group of people and seems to be more for those around the receivers or those that will hear about it, while water baptism is something you submit to having done for the individual to get the invisible but very real indwelling Spirit. When you ask “Could you RECEIVE the Holy Spirit” I have tried to explain that there are different portions of the Spirit which you should be aware of: Have you see the house shack, tongues of fire descend on peoples heads, and a large group of Christians start speaking in other languages simultaneously? Have you seem people today with the miraculous power to raise people from the dead (a gift given with the laying on of the apostles’ hands? Have you experienced the indwelling Holy Spirit that can do exactly what you need Him to do if He is not quenched, living in you?

The Bible describes the filling of the Holy Spirit in Eph. 5:18-20 and this has nothing to do with water baptism. Where is the justification for receiving different portions of the Holy Spirit through water baptism? "It seems" doesn´t speak with biblical authority.

Mark said: “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” I do not know if anyone can further define “of” and “for”, I can not.

Are you agreeing, then that these passages state that John´s baptism was for the remission of sins? If not, are you stating that you don´t understand what is meant by "of" and "for"?

Gal. 3: 2…Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3… After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 14…so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

These words are addressed to people that had been baptized and received the indwelling Spirit. Paul describes what faith in Christ is: Gal.3: 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. The clothed with Christ is the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit) and the baptism is water baptism.

So, what comes first, receiving the HS or water baptism? Are you saying they first were baptized in water, then received the Spirit through faith? Christ is not water. Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Thus, using baptism in this sense to mean water baptism is contrary to the verse.

The whole emphasis of 1 Cor. 12 is the oneness that is ours. The same one Spirit is in both Jew and gentile and all are part of the same body. The indwell Spirit is something you can taste, hopefully sweet and not bitter. Paul speaks to the Corinthians extensively in this letter about baptism and we would agree that Paul was talking about water baptism earlier. I do not find the sudden change to some other kind of baptism and that would be very confusing for them.

Not really too confusing. Paul or some other human did the baptizing in 1 Cor 1 and the HS is doing the baptizing in 1 Cor 12. Does your interpretation mean that one cannot belong to the Body of Christ until he is baptized in water? Baptismal regeneration?

The same one Spirit found in all those that preached to the Corinthians led them to be baptized both Jew and gentile. They are one in Spirit.
Eph. 4 as I said before is talking about the one baptism available to us today “water baptism”. You have already said I can be water baptized and can water baptize others (as a good work for the sac of the Jews), so you are suggesting there is at least two types of baptism even today. I am the one that is saying there is only one that was available to the Ephesians and us today.

No, I´m sorry if I was confusing, but once the last of the Jews under the gospel of the circumcision died out in the 1st century, there was no need to baptize or submit to the Law for the sake of the Jews. There is only one for today. If you want to deny a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ which is that by the Spirit into His body, then you can maintain that there is only one baptism and that is in water.

Salvation comes with trust (faith) in the grace of God. Hopeful all will then be baptized to receive the indwelling Spirit. In the 1st Century it appears most were soon baptized after believing. We have plenty of examples of baptism to get the point across. You could say the same thing about repenting and confessing. Do you believe Christians must/ should confess and/or repent?

Definitely, we must confess we are sinners (or else ther eis nothing to be saved from) and repent (or change one´s mind) about who Christ is. This is for salvation. However, as Christians, it´s always a wonderful idea to repent and to confess.

I hope and pray I am going with the most likely alternative. I am really not trying to sell you on my conclusions, but challenge you as you challenge me in my thinking.

Great attitude. This is why I´m on TOL, to be challenged. Thanks.

Circumcision has been replaced by adult water baptism. None of original apostles said specifically Jesus taught us to circumcise or keep the Law, that seems to be an assumption on their part and it helped get the message out to those orthodox Jews quickly before bringing the gentiles on.

What Scripture do you have to suggest that water baptism replaced circumcision? How were they then taking place at the same time? What does Mat 5:17-20 and Mat. 23:1-3 say Jesus says about keeping the Law?

 

[godrulz]

The order of Pentecostal Spirit baptism vs water baptism does not matter. It is not a matter of both not being true. It is a matter of you making a mountain out of a molehill.

All believers receive the Spirit at conversion. Whether they are filled with the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues or whether they are water baptized or not is not an issue. You are confusing the issues due to a lack of understanding of water baptism and the Pentecostal experience (as opposed to conversion issues).