THE importance of baptism AND BEING "IN CHRIST"

[CWBBOARD]

Hi this is my first post, feel free to comment...

BAPTISM?​

Water baptism should not be understood to mean that the death of Christ was unimportant or unnecessary!! The death of Jesus was very necessary!! Baptism is simply a condition you must follow to be saved. The act of baptism does not save you; Baptism saves you by the resurrection of Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
MAT 7:21 * "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.' (Acts 22:16). If this did not wash away Saul’s sins then the bible is deceptive.. From this verse we conclude that the sins of an alien sinner are washed away when he is baptized. One could not believe the Bible without believing this truth. This verse does not teach that water washes away sins. It merely says that sins are washed away when the person is baptized. It does not say what washes these sins away. It merely tells us when these sins are washed away—when we are baptized.
our sins are washed away when we are scripturally baptized. Revelation 1:5 tells us what washes away our sins and Acts 22:16 tells us when.
How do we know that Acts 2:21 does not mean that the alien sinner must pray through for salvation? The people there assembled did not understand it to mean that, nor did Peter explain it to mean that one must pray through. The passage does not say so. When they asked what they must do (Acts 2:37) it indicated that they did not understand Acts 2:21 to mean that they could be saved through praying through at a mourner's bench. When Peter told them what to do he did not say "You already know what to do, for I have already told you that you can be saved by calling upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21). He had to explain to them what it meant to call on the Lord. Instead of repeating verse 21, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in order to be forgiven. This makes it evident that calling on the name of the Lord meant to appeal to God, to depend on God, by submitting to His way of salvation. To call on the name of the Lord was equal to obeying the gospel… 2:21 is more general, while 2:38 is more specific!! as to what one must do in calling on the name of the Lord—for calling on His name was necessary to salvation. The alien sinner invokes the aid of Christ. Verse 38 explains how the calling is done.
Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Revelation 1:5).

If someone came to you and said, “ I have made mistakes in my life, What must I do to be saved?” Why would you not tell them what Peter said to the people who persecuted Jesus…? “Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ” acts 2:38

You Must be In Christ to have salvation! How do you get into Christ?​

Baptism is to “put on Christ” (gal 3:27) 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
The Bible shows that all spiritual blessings are in Christ every spiritual blessing in Christ Eph.1:3,7
But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1 john 2:5
You do not know Christ unless you are in Christ.
17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 2cor 5:17
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus romans 8:1

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. 1john 2:3-

1 peter 3:21 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.
You see water is the dividing line from Noah and the “old” world Just as water is the dividing line between inside and out side of Christ.

Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.





23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23





IN CHRIST/ OUT OF CHRIST

CHRISTIAN /WITHOUT CHRIST
CHILD OF GOD /DISOBEDIENT
CLEANSED /FAR FROM GOD
REDEEMED /LOST AND UNDER WRATH
SAVED FROM WRATH


* BE BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST GALATIONS 3:27

 

[ffreds]

I dont think you need a physical baptism in order to be saved it is the spiritual one that saves you. I was baptised when I was a infant(most people say this doesnt count) and Im thinking about doing it sometime in the future as an adult but I know that I am saved right at this very moment, there is not a doubt in my mind. If you have God in your heart and you are trying to follow Jesus example then you are good to go. This is just my veiwpoint on the matter, I felt compelled to write it.

 

[FG21]

My understanding is that baptism is the public announcement of 'HELLO!!! I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I LOVE JESUS!"

Anyhoo, that's the way I feel about it. My pastor does too. He's gonna dip me.

 

[CWBBOARD]

I dont think you need a physical baptism in order to be saved it is the spiritual one that saves you. I was baptised when I was a infant(most people say this doesnt count) and Im thinking about doing it sometime in the future as an adult but I know that I am saved right at this very moment, there is not a doubt in my mind. If you have God in your heart and you are trying to follow Jesus example then you are good to go. This is just my veiwpoint on the matter, I felt compelled to write it.

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?? and you will recieve eternial life?
I would say that means you need to do it to be saved.

My understanding is that baptism is the public announcement of 'HELLO!!! I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I LOVE JESUS!"

Anyhoo, that's the way I feel about it. My pastor does too. He's gonna dip me.

where does it say in the bible that it is a public announcement of Hello? It explains in the Bilble that it is the way to be put into christ, (putting christ on)

Just wondering?

 

[DArceri]

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?? and you will recieve eternial life?
I would say that means you need to do it to be saved.

Notice what I highlighted in red above. (ie. in particular, WILL recieve).

Now, lets look at the historical context (ie. pre-pentacost).... The purpose of Jesus recognizing water baptism (BEFORE THE 'HELPER' CAME INTO THE WORLD) was for the recognition, confession, and repentance of ones sins. John the Baptist was preparing the way for someone MUCH GREATER. Those who got baptized by John's water baptism were told to 'repent' and get ready for their Messiah. Now if we can agree on that, let's look at what Jesus told Nicodemus. He told Nicodemus he needed to be baptized by both water and spirit. WHY BOTH? Well, lets look at the situation. This was a time before the 'GIFT' of the Spirit came, ie. pre-pentacost. So, the water baptism was for what purpose? It was to get people to acknowledge their sins, confess, and repent in preparation of the coming of the Messiah. John said, I baptized with water, BUT Jesus WILL baptize with the Spirit. Note, the religious leaders, ie. Pharisees, by not getting water baptized, showed their sinful nature of self-righteousness was in the way of a truly repentant heart and obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven. It showed that since they didn't believe in John's water baptism of repentance, they didn't believe they were dead in sin and in need of repentance (ie. they had too high of an opinion of their righteousness that kept them from the Kingdom of God). NOW, notice what Jesus says to Nicodemus when He states Nicodemus needed to be born-again to see the Kingdom of God. IF Nicodemus acknowledges he is in need of repentance and confession of his sins (ie. purpose of John's water baptism), he would then later, (on the day of pentacost), recieve the gift of the Spirit (ie. will be 'born again'). It takes a humble heart not only to acknowledge ones own sins, but then publically announce ones need for John's water baptism of repentance to others. (The Beatitudes sermon comes to mind)... ONLY WHEN THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME TO HIM WOULD HE BE ABLE TO INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, ie. SALVATION.... Now, all this being said, we ourselves are living after the day of pentacost, and thus, water baptism doesn't play the same role as it did pre-pentacost. Back then, the Spirit hadn't come yet. Water baptism was a necessary step for the PREPARATION of the coming Spiritual baptism. For 'true' believers of Christ today, we get baptized as a statement to others that we recieved the Spirit of God and are born-again believers. You see, we are in a totally different 'age'. So in context, Jesus was actually speaking of a water baptism, John's baptism of repentance, and also of a coming spiritual baptism that would allow a person to be born-again. Today, if we get water baptized first without confession and recognition of our sins, recieving the Holy Spirit is no guarantee. That's where those who believe in baby baptism for purposes of salvation go wrong. If a baby is 'saved', that is God's grace in play. It has nothing to do with the water baptism.

 

[Hillsage]

=DArceri; Notice what I highlighted in red above. (ie. in particular, WILL recieve).

DArceri,
I think you might not totally understand the part you 'highlighted'. The word being translated "you will receive" is the word 'lambano' in the 'Greek' which isn't saying 'you will automatically get/receive'. It means you will have to go after it, or subsequently receive...like the football player who 'receives' a pass. The word for 'receiving' initial salvation isn't lambano...but decomai. And that word means a 'passive reception' of something. Getting born again...or being 'on the team' is accomplished not by your doing...but by 'the calling of the coach' and your 'accepting'. And that kind of receiving is the word decomai.

VINE’S STATES “THERE IS A CERTAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAMBANO AND DECHOMAI, IN THAT IN MANY INSTANCES LAMBANO SUGGESTS A SELF PROMPTED TAKING, WHEREAS DECHOMAI INDICATES A WELCOMING OR AN APPROPRIATING RECEPTION.”

Following, is a verse which uses both words in their correct 'understanding' and application.

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received/decomai the word of God (initial salvation for 'a' holy spirit...yours), they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive/lambano the Holy Ghost: (baptism of 'The' Holy Spirit)

If one automatically 'got the Holy Spirit' by just 'repentance and being water baptized' then the bible would be inconsistent when it comes to the Samaritans in Acts 8, who "believed and were baptized" (Act 8:12) but never 'lambano/received the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to minister the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14,15).



I'd like to comment on another statement you made saying the Pharisees didn't get John's baptism because of the reason you quote below.

Note, the religious leaders, ie. Pharisees, by not getting water baptized, showed their sinful nature of self-righteousness was in the way of a truly repentant heart and obtaining the Kingdom of Heaven.

According to scripture they weren't candidates for the baptism because they had no "fruit" indicating a changed 'way of life'. Everyone still had a "sinful nature". Provision for the 'new nature' wasn't even available yet.

MAT 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Understand that Jesus HAD NOT DIED yet and forgiveness of sins by 'just believing' wasn't even available, let alone good enough. Remember they were still under 'the Law' which is based upon 'works'. And the baptism of John was for???? Remission and not forgiveness (My opinion is there's a difference which is another study in itself).

MAR 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. KJV

If remission is really the same as forgiveness then the question to be asked is this: Why did Jesus have to die? If the water baptism of John accomplished 'remission', or as most translations interpret it 'forgiveness of sins'...then were their sins forgiven...or weren't they?

That's just my point of view anyway....other thoughts from anyone?

Hillsage

 

[DArceri]

DArceri,

If one automatically 'got the Holy Spirit' by just 'repentance and being water baptized' then the bible would be inconsistent when it comes to the Samaritans in Acts 8, who "believed and were baptized" (Act 8:12) but never 'lambano/received the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to minister the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14,15).

I never advocated the need of water baptism for the remission of sins today or in Jesus' day..... BEFORE YOU READ MY RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT: Today John's water baptism does not apply to us. His mission is over. He was the last of the O.T. prophets. We now have the Spirit of God proclaming His message and witnessing in our hearts. WE now get water baptised as a public proclaimation that Christ's Spirit now indwells in us and we trust He will do a good work in us.

That being said, the point of John's baptism, in those days ONLY, was to PREPARE the way for the Messiah's coming. Accepting John's water baptism meant that they accepted God's purpose for John's mission. Genuine belief in John's mission meant they accepted God's prophet and accepted His baptism of repentance. BLESSED ARE THE POOR IN SPIRIT, RIGHT? To genuinely accept this baptism meant they admitted they were ugly sinners and in need of a Savior. Water baptism was to be a heartfelt public acknowledgement of ones sins in the belief that God was now near. For the Pharisees, their prideful self-righteousness could never publically accept and genuinely proclaim the fact that they were sinners and in need of repentance. Thus, there rejection of God's prophet. This is why Jesus tells Nicodemus not to be like his other religious leaders and to accept John's water baptism. Jesus basically was saying to him, don't think of yourself as righteous because you are a religious leader, you MUST 'heartfully' accept John's water baptism AND only then will you be able to recieve the Spirit and be born-again. If Nicodemus agreed with Jesus, then he would do what Jesus told him to do. Notice in scripture Jesus was telling Nicodemus to do the very thing the Pharisees refused to do. Check it out. Go to Luke 7:27,29-30,

27......, 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.'

29 When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just, having been baptized with the baptism of John,

30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

...What was the PURPOSE of God for the Pharisees ??? To be water baptized, right. But WHY? To acknowledge that they were filthy prideful sinners in God's eyes. When the Pharisees refused John's water baptism, they REJECTED God Himself. Their heart was too prideful and self-righteous to accept such a baptism. The whole concept of John's baptism repulsed them for they were too self-righteous. This is why Jesus told Nicodemus HE MUST 'amen' John's baptism with open arms and ONLY THEN could He partake of the Spirit later (ie. born-again moment). Another point I need to make very clear is that not everyone who got water baptised necessarily recieved the Holy Spirit. That was a heart issue determined by God alone at that moment in time (ie. after Pentacost). But the fact remains, the statement by Jesus to Nicodemus was that unless he is born of both 'water and spirit', he could not enter the Kigdom of God. (ie. as Luke 7:29 implies, God's will for Nicodemus was that he must accept John's water baptism (confession of sins) before he could ever recieve the coming gift of the Holy Spirit.)

If remission is really the same as forgiveness then the question to be asked is this: Why did Jesus have to die? If the water baptism of John accomplished 'remission', or as most translations interpret it 'forgiveness of sins'...then were their sins forgiven...or weren't they?

That's just my point of view anyway....other thoughts from anyone?

Hillsage

Ugghhh...Again, John's baptism does not apply to us today. It was God's will for that day and age that His people accept His prophet John's water baptism. John was the last of the O.T. prophets. Again, the Pharisees, by not getting water baptized, were rejecting God's will for them. For us today, the Holy Spirit is our witness, not John the Baptist. It's an impossiblity to reject the Holy Spirit once he witnesses to our spirit and dwells within us. We get water baptised as a proclamation of our faith in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior.

 

[Hillsage]

I never advocated the need of water baptism for the remission of sins today or in Jesus' day..... BEFORE YOU READ MY RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE REMEMBER THIS STATEMENT: Today John's water baptism does not apply to us. His mission is over. He was the last of the O.T. prophets. We now have the Spirit of God proclaming His message and witnessing in our hearts. WE now get water baptised as a public proclaimation that Christ's Spirit now indwells in us and we trust He will do a good work in us.

We really don't differ that much on John's baptism. One point of scriptural disagreement, I might have though, is the point where you keep saying the pharisees wouldn't get baptized. I quoted a scripture which says they came for it and John refused because their life didn't have the "fruits of repentance". I'm not saying all pharisees were in the same boat, as is evidenced by your mention of Luke 7. You say John's baptism is unecessary today??? I'm not so sure. Even today we must repent and forgive to receive forgiveness IMO (Matt 6:12, 15; Mark 11:26). But I believe there is a difference between 'temporal' for giveness for the consequence of sin here and now versus 'eternal' forgiveness which is based upon Jesus' death. But that's another whole discussion.

That being said, the point of John's baptism, in those days ONLY, was to PREPARE the way for the Messiah's coming.

Scripture says it was a "baptism for the remission/forgiveness of sins." A point you never answered when I asked why Jesus still had to die, if sins were forgiven by John's baptism. Explain that from your perspective. I explain it with my 'temporal' 'eternal' POV.

Jesus basically was saying to him, don't think of yourself as righteous because you are a religious leader, you MUST 'heartfully' accept John's water baptism AND only then will you be able to recieve the Spirit and be born-again.

Notice in scripture Jesus was telling Nicodemus to do the very thing the Pharisees refused to do. Check it out. Go to Luke 7:27,29-30,

You now present me with some difficulties...Did they "receive the Spirit and get born again" with John's baptism??? I think not. So why would Jesus tell Nick to get John's baptism "to receive the Spirit and be born again"? You're not being consistent IMO. John's baptism, and ministry wasn't for 'the Spirit' or for 'new birth'...it was for "making paths straight" and for 'temporal' "forgiveness of sins." (Mark 1:3, 4) My opinion of course

...What was the PURPOSE of God for the Pharisees ??? To be water baptized, right. But WHY? To acknowledge that they were filthy prideful sinners in God's eyes.

I don't see scripture supporting that. I see "repentance" as preceeding John's baptism, and accordding to the scripture it imparted "remission" of their sins.

Hillsage

I'm leaving for Colorado and a century bike ride shortly, so I won't be around to answer til next week.

 

[DArceri]

Scripture says it was a "baptism for the remission/forgiveness of sins." A point you never answered when I asked why Jesus still had to die, if sins were forgiven by John's baptism. Explain that from your perspective. I explain it with my 'temporal' 'eternal' POV.

I do not believe John's baptism was for the remission of sins. John came to reveal to the Jews who their Messiah was. His baptism was preparitory in nature. The verse you had quoted from is Acts 2:38 which is baptism in JESUS' name (not John's). And if you read all the context before this verse, Peter's is speaking to JEWS (men of Israel) about the life, death, and resurection of Jesus and the the anticipated fulfillment of prophecy for their long awaited Lord and Savior. He is witnessing to them the Gospel message and tying Jesus to their O.T scriptures. So what happens next in verse 37? It says, they were 'cut to the heart'. IOW, they had a "change of heart" about this man Jesus. Peter was now urging them to put their trust in Christ and be baptised in Jesus name, ie. accept Him as Lord and Savior. 3000 that day were baptised, saved, and spoke in tongues. It should be noted that this is not the norm. As a matter of fact, alot of God's work in Acts is not the norm anymore. As for that particular day, it was a special day planned by God for that specific number to be saved. Why? Because He is a Soveriegn God and He ELECTED those 3000 for Himself to be the start of His true Church. The numbers were added to the church abundantly at the start of the church and it was a special time of 'many signs and wonders' that was done to the people. Pure and simple. Remember, the scriptures say the Holy Spirit comes as goes like the 'wind'. Note how when the Spirit of God came upon them, He was described as a 'rushing wind'.

You now present me with some difficulties...Did they "receive the Spirit and get born again" with John's baptism??? I think not. So why would Jesus tell Nick to get John's baptism "to receive the Spirit and be born again"? You're not being consistent IMO. John's baptism, and ministry wasn't for 'the Spirit' or for 'new birth'...it was for "making paths straight" and for 'temporal' "forgiveness of sins." (Mark 1:3, 4) My opinion of course

I think we agree on the point that Johns' water baptism was not to recieve the Holy Spirit. Again it was preparitory. As far as the pharisees are concerned, they were basically handed over for destruction (ie. God's wrath). The 'voice crying in the wilderness' spoken of in the OT was suppose to be a SIGN to them that there one and only Savior was finally near. By them not recognizing that John was 'the voice', they have no excuses on judgement day for they rejected God's purpose for them to 'make their paths straight' for the coming of the LORD. They had been given more than enough revelation and warnings from God. There days were numbered and hit a point of no return when Jesus started speaking in parables. John testifies to there destiny in Mat 3:7-10. As for Nicodemus, when Jesus said to him that he needed to be born of 'water and spirt' to see the Kingdom of God, Jesus was not asking Nicodemus to repent and be baptised. For Jesus knew the heart of all men...note John 2:24-25 "..Jesus did not commit Himself to them because He had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man." He was only exposing Nicodemus' insincere heart. By Nicodemus waking away, he identified himself with his fellow prideful pharisees. Nicodemus was representative of the nation of Israel as a whole.

I see "repentance" as preceeding John's baptism, and accordding to the scripture it imparted "remission" of their sins.

Hillsage

I'm leaving for Colorado and a century bike ride shortly, so I won't be around to answer til next week.

Again, I believe John's baptism was not a baptism for the remission of sins. The remissions of sins was a promise to come. John's baptism was prepatory in nature, ie. that of repentance so as to make their paths straight before their Messiah. A prideful heart could not accept the eventual preaching of Christ's life, death, and resurrection once it happened. Again I want to point out that in Acts, the Spirit was recieved by baptism in Jesus' name. It was a baptism of faith and trust in Jesus life, death, and resurrection.... Notice Acts 19:3, 3 And (Paul) said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. Those people who were taught of John's baptism of repentance never recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit until they were preached the Gospel message of Christ and then submitted to baptism in Jesus' name.

 

[Hillsage]

DArceri

I do not believe John's baptism was for the remission of sins. John came to reveal to the Jews who their Messiah was. His baptism was preparitory in nature. The verse you had quoted from is Acts 2:38 which is baptism in JESUS' name (not John's).

You are incorrect with this statement, I didn't quote Acts 2:38, but I do agree with you that Acts 2 was not John's baptism.

I quoted MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

So, based upon this scripture, the ball is in your court to explain, or disprove, why John's baptism wasn't for "forgiveness or remission" of sins.

Those people who were taught of John's baptism of repentance never recieved the gift of the Holy Spirit until they were preached the Gospel message of Christ and then submitted to baptism in Jesus' name.

But your above statement isn't consistent with scripture concerning those in Samaria who were baptized in Jesus name after believing the gospel...and yet they never received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8). I also sorta question your understanding that there is 'no necessity for the baptism of John' today. Read the following concerning Apollos.

ACT 18:25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

I believe that Apollos would be equal to a very good and saved fundamentalist today, who only knows the baptism of John but does not have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think that Aquilla and Priscilla then went on to get Appolos Spirit baptized...just like Paul did to the disciples in Acts 19 who also 'only knew the baptism of John'.

I still think there is a misunderstanding of what John's baptism imparted...and I'm not even claiming that I totally understand the depths of its significance. But I do believe that there is a difference between temporal forgiveness and eternal forgiveness which is connected with it.
What kind of 'forgiveness' do you believe Jesus was imparting in the following verses?
MAT 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

LUK 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

These two people's sins were forgiven, and what was the consequence of that forgiveness? It wasn't eternal forgiveness and a guarantee of heaven in the hereafter. That only comes from Jesus' blood shed on the cross, which hadn't happened and wasn't even available! The forgiveness Jesus gave was temporal, and it undid the temporal consequence of sin which provided temporal healing here and now for these two individuals. That's my present thoughts anyway.

Hillsage

 

[DArceri]

DArceri



You are incorrect with this statement, I didn't quote Acts 2:38, but I do agree with you that Acts 2 was not John's baptism.

I quoted MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

So, based upon this scripture, the ball is in your court to explain, or disprove, why John's baptism wasn't for "forgiveness or remission" of sins.

Read Mal 3:1. "Behold I send a messengner to PREPARE THE WAY OF THE LORD. Mark 1:4 doesn't deviate from this and doesn't deviate from what I have been saying all along. John was sent for what reason? To prepare the way for the Messiah's message of salvation. John's message is one of repentance, ie. 'a change of mind or a change of direction'. One cannot and will not accept the Messiah's LIFE & WORK unless one humbles himself and recognizes he is a sinner. The pharisees failed to recognize that John was the 'voice in the wilderness'. Jesus was their 'stumbling stone'. They could never recieve the forgiveness of their sins because they didn't accept John's baptism. I don't know how many times I must repeat myself. John's baptism is preparatory in nature for the coming of the Holy Spirit.

But your above statement isn't consistent with scripture concerning those in Samaria who were baptized in Jesus name after believing the gospel...and yet they never received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8).

Yes that time it took the laying of hands by one of the Apostles before they recieved the Holy Spirit. But nonetheless, they recieved the Holy Spirit and were added to the church when the Apostles were sent to lay their hands on them. The delay occured for reasons we are not told. Possibly a confirmation was needed by an authority of the apostolic church since Samaritans and Gentiles were not well recieved at this time yet. But note how this event was the start of the debate about whether gentiles should be preached to and added to the church. It finally led up to the Jeruselum Council.

I also sorta question your understanding that there is 'no necessity for the baptism of John' today. Read the following concerning Apollos.

ACT 18:25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.

I believe that Apollos would be equal to a very good and saved fundamentalist today, who only knows the baptism of John but does not have the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think that Aquilla and Priscilla then went on to get Appolos Spirit baptized...just like Paul did to the disciples in Acts 19 who also 'only knew the baptism of John'.

I think you misunderstand what Acts 18:25 is stating about Apollos. Although Apollos was well versed in OT scriptures ie. " the way of the Lord", and thus was fully aware of 'John being the voice' in MAL 3:1, he was lacking in the truth of the Gospel message. Although he acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah that the OT spoke of, he did not fully understand the significance of Christ's death and resurrection and the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He was basically a 'redeemed' OT believer and needed more explanation of the christian faith. For Acts 18:26 says, "...when Aquilla and Pricilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of GOD more accurately."

I still think there is a misunderstanding of what John's baptism imparted...and I'm not even claiming that I totally understand the depths of its significance. But I do believe that there is a difference between temporal forgiveness and eternal forgiveness which is connected with it.
What kind of 'forgiveness' do you believe Jesus was imparting in the following verses?
MAT 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

LUK 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

These two people's sins were forgiven, and what was the consequence of that forgiveness? It wasn't eternal forgiveness and a guarantee of heaven in the hereafter. That only comes from Jesus' blood shed on the cross, which hadn't happened and wasn't even available! The forgiveness Jesus gave was temporal, and it undid the temporal consequence of sin which provided temporal healing here and now for these two individuals. That's my present thoughts anyway.

Hillsage

Ugghhh.... Actually, now your getting into God Himself forgiving sins. Since only God Himself can forgive sins, it doesn't matter if it is through the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. You do believe Jesus is fully God don't you??!!! Once Jesus says your sins are forgiven, THEY ARE FORGIVEN FOREVER. It is not temporary..... BTW, your line of reasoning would suggest that Abraham, David, and all the OT saints were not eternally saved since they all lived on the wrong side of the cross. We know that they all were not perfect, but nonetheless were all eternally saved. Take a gander at Hebrew 11's 'Hall of Faith'.

 

[Hillsage]

Darceri,

Mark 1:4 doesn't deviate from this and doesn't deviate from what I have been saying all along.

Yes it does. You have never answered the question concerning the FORGIVENESS OF SINS which was the baptism of John.

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

One cannot and will not accept the Messiah's LIFE & WORK unless one humbles himself and recognizes he is a sinner. The pharisees failed to recognize that John was the 'voice in the wilderness'. Jesus was their 'stumbling stone'.

Jesus was NOT their "stumbling stone". Jesus hadn't even been announced yet by John. And Jesus had never even begun His ministy yet. Don't you see that? John wasn't preaching 'Jesus' he was preaching 'repentance for forgiveness of sins'.

Yes that time it took the laying of hands by one of the Apostles before they recieved the Holy Spirit.

Not scriptural, and not my experience. I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands just like the bible writes of. And Peter didn't tell Simon he'd never be able to lay hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit because he wasn't "an apostle". Peter told him he had a heart issue to deal with.


And as far as Apollos and Pricella and Aquilla is concerned, I think my position is solid in scripture. The "more accurate thing" that Pricella and Aquilla taught Apollos is the same thing that Paul taught the "disiciples" at Ephesus who also only had the baptism of repentance. Paul told them they needed the (baptism) of the Holy Spirit and then he administered that. This is also consistent with the NT experience of those at Samaria in Acts 8. They received the gospel, they were water baptized and then some Pentecostal Christians named Peter and John came down and ministered the baptism of the Holy Spirit which "none of them had received".

I believe it is you who needs to "read the hall of faith" in Heb 11 again, and I hope that you receive an enlightened heart by the Spirit of truth as you do.

HEB 11:39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Actually, now your getting into God Himself forgiving sins. Since only God Himself can forgive sins, it doesn't matter if it is through the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.

Not according to scripture.

ACT 7:60 And he (Stephen) knelt down and cried with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

JOH 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

BTW, your line of reasoning would suggest that Abraham, David, and all the OT saints were not eternally saved since they all lived on the wrong side of the cross.

Correct, I don't believe they have received their eternal salvation yet. Because they have not yet bowed the knee to the only name by which they can be saved, and that is the name of Jesus. I do believe that they will do that at the judgment though.

HEB 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

They didn't have the blood of Jesus for eternal salvation, they only had temporal salvation. Don't you know that the Sadducees didn't even believe in a 'hereafter' let alone an eternal salvation??? They believed that salvation was for today only. The Jew I talked to was never even taught about an eternal haven/hell doctrine...the grave was the end.

ACT 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

You should consider the fact that you don't understand the difference between temporal forgiveness versus eternal forgiveness...and, I'm assuming, neither does your church. But that's true of all the churches I know of. As I pointed out in scripture, even men have the ability to forgive temporally...just like the "son of MAN" Jesus. Even the Lord's prayer tells us to forgive sins. But Jesus never gave eternal forgiveness as the "son of God". He couldn't until He paid the price and was resurrected...only then did he have the "name above every name".

Hillsage

 

[DArceri]

Darceri,

Yes it does. You have never answered the question concerning the FORGIVENESS OF SINS which was the baptism of John.

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Answered this already.

Jesus was NOT their "stumbling stone". Jesus hadn't even been announced yet by John. And Jesus had never even begun His ministy yet. Don't you see that? John wasn't preaching 'Jesus' he was preaching 'repentance for forgiveness of sins'. [/quote] Answered this already.

Not scriptural, and not my experience. I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands just like the bible writes of.

Of course, your a charismatic!!!

And Peter didn't tell Simon he'd never be able to lay hands for the receiving of the Holy Spirit because he wasn't "an apostle". Peter told him he had a heart issue to deal with.

I never mentioned anything about Simon's problem. Simon's motives were definately in 'left field'.

And as far as Apollos and Pricella and Aquilla is concerned, I think my position is solid in scripture. The "more accurate thing" that Pricella and Aquilla taught Apollos is the same thing that Paul taught the "disiciples" at Ephesus who also only had the baptism of repentance. Paul told them they needed the (baptism) of the Holy Spirit and then he administered that. This is also consistent with the NT experience of those at Samaria in Acts 8. They received the gospel, they were water baptized and then some Pentecostal Christians named Peter and John came down and ministered the baptism of the Holy Spirit which "none of them had received".

Sorry, I disagree. I gave you my interpretation and I feel it solid.

I believe it is you who needs to "read the hall of faith" in Heb 11 again, and I hope that you receive an enlightened heart by the Spirit of truth as you do.

HEB 11:39 And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Not according to scripture.

ACT 7:60 And he (Stephen) knelt down and cried with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

JOH 20:23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."



Correct, I don't believe they have received their eternal salvation yet. Because they have not yet bowed the knee to the only name by which they can be saved, and that is the name of Jesus. I do believe that they will do that at the judgment though.

HEB 10:4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

They didn't have the blood of Jesus for eternal salvation, they only had temporal salvation. Don't you know that the Sadducees didn't even believe in a 'hereafter' let alone an eternal salvation??? They believed that salvation was for today only. The Jew I talked to was never even taught about an eternal haven/hell doctrine...the grave was the end.

ACT 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

You should consider the fact that you don't understand the difference between temporal forgiveness versus eternal forgiveness...and, I'm assuming, neither does your church. But that's true of all the churches I know of. As I pointed out in scripture, even men have the ability to forgive temporally...just like the "son of MAN" Jesus. Even the Lord's prayer tells us to forgive sins. But Jesus never gave eternal forgiveness as the "son of God". He couldn't until He paid the price and was resurrected...only then did he have the "name above every name".

Hillsage

Well, my mistake is that I never noticed your Charismatic' icon and now it explains everything. Listen, I know for a fact you will dismiss what I have to say since you are a Charismatic, but I'll say it anyway. Not every event or phenomenon recorded in the early church age can be found happening today. The Book of Acts is a transformation period. It covers an extraordinary time of history and many things are never repeated again from those days. If you believe those days are normative, then why isn't everyone experiencing a 'mighty rushing of wind and cloven tongues as of fire'? Why is your so-called speaking of tongues mostly jibberish today when on the day of Pentacost they each heard the other speak in their own language? Anyway, I've made my arguments and you've rejected them. No need to go on since your opinion of scripture is colored by your so called charismatic 'experiences' and doctrine, and I must admit I am not all that familiar with your doctrine. So God Bless.

 

[Hillsage]

Darceri,

If you believe those days are normative, then why isn't everyone experiencing a 'mighty rushing of wind and cloven tongues as of fire'?

I think you answered that question yourself in the quote below. Or is your defense only good when it pertains to your doctrine?

Not every event or phenomenon recorded in the early church age can be found happening today.

And as far as the rushing mighty wind is concerned...the wind was a prophesied event/word from Jesus as to what would happen on Pentecost prior to them receiving/lambano the Holy Spirit themselves (Luke 24:49, Act 1:3-4). The apostles couldn't receive the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 because Jesus even said they wouldn't receive until after waiting in Jerusalem...for Pentecost to be fulfilled. The key to John 20:22 is the word "receive" which is 'lambano' and not 'decomai'. He wasn't telling them he was 'giving' it he was telling them to 'take it' after they heard the wind blow just like Jesus blew air at them in 20:22.

Why is your so-called speaking of tongues mostly jibberish today when on the day of Pentacost they each heard the other speak in their own language?

Because "jibberish" is what a true 'angelic/heavenly/spiritual language sound like to men! According to the bible anyway.

1CO 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

You obviously were never taught, by your 'independent church', that there are two Spirit/spirit tongues in scripture. One is from YOUR SPIRIT praying to God in a spiritual language . The other is the one you know about which is GOD'S SPIRIT speaking 'through a man', 'to men' with the known 'languages of men'.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
I'm sure you don't think 'your spirit' is 'The Holy Spirit' do you (no need to answer). It certainly does sound like you have never prayed with the heavenly language of 'your spirit' though.

Anyway, I've made my arguments and you've rejected them.

Simply because you didn't 'make an argument' that was convincing IMO.

No need to go on since your opinion of scripture is colored by your so called charismatic 'experiences' and doctrine,

So true, after all He is 'the Spirit of truth'. Many fundamentals have 'changed their opinions' after becoming 'crazimatics'.

and I must admit I am not all that familiar with your doctrine. So God Bless.

I think this is a wise decision on your part. May we part in 'the peace and the unity of the Spirit of love'...and not the religious spirit of 'doctrinal agreement'...the bane of denominationalism and church division.

Blessings,
Hillsage

 

[Schroeder]

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?? and you will recieve eternial life?
I would say that means you need to do it to be saved.




where does it say in the bible that it is a public announcement of Hello? It explains in the Bilble that it is the way to be put into christ, (putting christ on)

Just wondering?

welcome, just thought i would say something. every passage you gave you misinterpreted. FOr one what does titus 3:2 say. There is no act we do that saves us. but you say getting water baptized does. Whether you use the excuse that its Gods means little. If I do NOT get water baptized God will not act. correct. So I have to do an act to be saved. DOesnt matter one bit if the act I do only LETS God do the work that actually saves us. It contradicts all of scripture. Second please show the passage that shows us that water baptism gives us the Spirit. Read gal 3:2,14,22. 1 cor 12:13. eph 1:13-14. Please show the verses that say "water" baptism for that matter. Gal. 3:24 or around there is not speaking of "Water" baptism. Read it with 1 cor 12:13. and all the passages that speak about our rebirth. Jesus says over and over that if we BELIEVE on him we have eternal life. If that is true there is no water baptism, other wise he would have told us this. OR he was not being honest when he says this. read john 7:28-30something He speaks of the spirit which he would give us when we BELIEVE. Baptism of the holy spirit is the only baptism that does not contradict all the other passages. And it is the one john the baptist said Jesus would give us.

 

[Tangible]

This thread hurts my eyes.

 

[Schroeder]

This thread hurts my eyes.

you too. the red is brutal to try and red i mean read.

 

[Schroeder]

DArceri,
I think you might not totally understand the part you 'highlighted'. The word being translated "you will receive" is the word 'lambano' in the 'Greek' which isn't saying 'you will automatically get/receive'. It means you will have to go after it, or subsequently receive...like the football player who 'receives' a pass. The word for 'receiving' initial salvation isn't lambano...but decomai. And that word means a 'passive reception' of something. Getting born again...or being 'on the team' is accomplished not by your doing...but by 'the calling of the coach' and your 'accepting'. And that kind of receiving is the word decomai.

VINE’S STATES “THERE IS A CERTAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAMBANO AND DECHOMAI, IN THAT IN MANY INSTANCES LAMBANO SUGGESTS A SELF PROMPTED TAKING, WHEREAS DECHOMAI INDICATES A WELCOMING OR AN APPROPRIATING RECEPTION.”

Following, is a verse which uses both words in their correct 'understanding' and application.

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received/decomai the word of God (initial salvation for 'a' holy spirit...yours), they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive/lambano the Holy Ghost: (baptism of 'The' Holy Spirit)

If one automatically 'got the Holy Spirit' by just 'repentance and being water baptized' then the bible would be inconsistent when it comes to the Samaritans in Acts 8, who "believed and were baptized" (Act 8:12) but never 'lambano/received the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to minister the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14,15).

In this passage do think this makes it true that we know can receive this baptism of the holy spirit by laying on of hands. i dont think thats true. there is no Spirit we can willy nilly give to anyone. when we are saved we receive the Spirit baptism. there is no other spirit baptism. this happened here because the apostles were establishing their authority as from God and that this gospel message was True and from God. Those preachers on TV that say they giv ethe spirit are wrong. making people faint or whatever becasue of laying of hands is pure emotionlism. the holy spirit is not used this way. we receive it at salvation and it lives in us to guide us on our journey through this world.

I'd like to comment on another statement you made saying the Pharisees didn't get John's baptism because of the reason you quote below.



According to scripture they weren't candidates for the baptism because they had no "fruit" indicating a changed 'way of life'. Everyone still had a "sinful nature". Provision for the 'new nature' wasn't even available yet.

MAT 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Understand that Jesus HAD NOT DIED yet and forgiveness of sins by 'just believing' wasn't even available, let alone good enough. Remember they were still under 'the Law' which is based upon 'works'. And the baptism of John was for???? Remission and not forgiveness (My opinion is there's a difference which is another study in itself).

MAR 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. KJV

If remission is really the same as forgiveness then the question to be asked is this: Why did Jesus have to die? If the water baptism of John accomplished 'remission', or as most translations interpret it 'forgiveness of sins'...then were their sins forgiven...or weren't they?

That's just my point of view anyway....other thoughts from anyone?

Hillsage

this part i agree with. Though I would like your opinion on mark 16:15-16. Is this speaking of water baptism or the holy spirit baptism. like what is spoken in john 7:38-39.

 

[Schroeder]

DArceri,
I think you might not totally understand the part you 'highlighted'. The word being translated "you will receive" is the word 'lambano' in the 'Greek' which isn't saying 'you will automatically get/receive'. It means you will have to go after it, or subsequently receive...like the football player who 'receives' a pass. The word for 'receiving' initial salvation isn't lambano...but decomai. And that word means a 'passive reception' of something. Getting born again...or being 'on the team' is accomplished not by your doing...but by 'the calling of the coach' and your 'accepting'. And that kind of receiving is the word decomai.

VINE’S STATES “THERE IS A CERTAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAMBANO AND DECHOMAI, IN THAT IN MANY INSTANCES LAMBANO SUGGESTS A SELF PROMPTED TAKING, WHEREAS DECHOMAI INDICATES A WELCOMING OR AN APPROPRIATING RECEPTION.”

Following, is a verse which uses both words in their correct 'understanding' and application.

ACT 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received/decomai the word of God (initial salvation for 'a' holy spirit...yours), they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive/lambano the Holy Ghost: (baptism of 'The' Holy Spirit)

If one automatically 'got the Holy Spirit' by just 'repentance and being water baptized' then the bible would be inconsistent when it comes to the Samaritans in Acts 8, who "believed and were baptized" (Act 8:12) but never 'lambano/received the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem to minister the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14,15).



I'd like to comment on another statement you made saying the Pharisees didn't get John's baptism because of the reason you quote below.



According to scripture they weren't candidates for the baptism because they had no "fruit" indicating a changed 'way of life'. Everyone still had a "sinful nature". Provision for the 'new nature' wasn't even available yet.

MAT 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Understand that Jesus HAD NOT DIED yet and forgiveness of sins by 'just believing' wasn't even available, let alone good enough. Remember they were still under 'the Law' which is based upon 'works'. And the baptism of John was for???? Remission and not forgiveness (My opinion is there's a difference which is another study in itself).

MAR 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. KJV

If remission is really the same as forgiveness then the question to be asked is this: Why did Jesus have to die? If the water baptism of John accomplished 'remission', or as most translations interpret it 'forgiveness of sins'...then were their sins forgiven...or weren't they?

That's just my point of view anyway....other thoughts from anyone?

Hillsage

I agree with what you say in the second point. but the first part about act 8. this was to show the apostles authority and that there message or gospel was from God.There is no laying on of hands to GIVE the holy spirit to amyone.It was done in the beggining for a time to show the apostles authority from God. We recive the Baptism of the Spirit when we believe and are reborn or saved. Without water. and we have this SPirit in us today and untill christ returns. when he is here physically we will not need this holy spirit in us. And we will have oour new bodies as well.

But I was wondering what you think of mark 16:15-16. is it holy spirit baptism or water baptism.

 

[judechild]

But I was wondering what you think of mark 16:15-16. is it holy spirit baptism or water baptism.

Aside from the summery you've provided of what you believe, sir, is there any reason to think that they aren't the same Baptism?