Saved by Faith or grace?

[Wordkeeper]

Note that it does not seem that there was any regular Jewish practice of "baptism", as Christians know it, before John the Baptist and the first coming of Jesus Christ in the first century AD. But there was a Jewish practice called "mikvah", which was a ritual immersion in water in order to regain ritual purity under the Mosaic law, after the excretion of certain bodily fluids had made one ritually unclean, such as during menstruation, childbirth, sexual intercourse, or nocturnal emission, or from pus-emitting sores or ulcers of the skin. Mikvah can also be employed in some other ways, such as a sign of conversion to Judaism, as a way to ritually prepare a dead body for burial, in the ritual consecration of priests, ritually dealing with leprosy, or ritually preparing oneself for a sacred holiday.

It does not seem that mikvah was about repentance from sin, in the sense of deciding to turn away from willful, impure actions which one has committed by the lusts of one's own heart. Instead, mikvah seems to be more about washing oneself physically for ritual purification, when one is made ritually unclean under the Mosaic law, in some manner which does not necessarily involve any sin on one's part. And when a sin was committed, it was Mosaic animal sacrifices which ritually purified the flesh (Hebrews 9:13), although never the conscience (Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 10:4). Just as the New Covenant's (Jeremiah 31:31-34) shedding of Jesus Christ's blood on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28) has forever replaced all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's animal sacrifices for sin (Hebrews 10), so the New Covenant has entirely replaced the letter of the Mosaic law (Hebrews 7:18-19), with all of its "diverse washings" (Hebrews 9:10), which would include mikvah.

The original Greek word (G0908) for "baptism" (Matthew 3:7) is derived from "baptizo" (G0907), which means to submerge (Mark 1:5) or wash (Mark 7:4). "Baptizo" is from "bapto" (G0911), which means to dip in a liquid (Luke 16:24, John 13:26, Revelation 19:13). A similar word, "baptismos" (G0909), can refer to either baptism (Colossians 2:12) or washing, as in Hebrews 9:10, which refers to "diverse washings" (baptismos) which Jews practiced under the Mosaic law. In this case, it could be said (as is sometimes done) that "there was a regular Jewish practice of baptism", including mikvah. But not in the sense of a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), which seems to have started with John the Baptist at the time of Jesus Christ's first coming (Mark 1:4-9).

Indeed, the Jews recognized that the particular baptism of John the Baptist was not any regular Jewish practice, but something very special indeed. For "they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (John 1:25). This suggests that the Jews had some expectation that a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins would come, but that it would be instituted only by the Messiah/Christ Himself, and the returned Elijah (Malachi 4:5), and the special prophet foretold by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). While John the Baptist denied being Elijah himself (John 1:21), John the Baptist did come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). So Jesus said that John the Baptist was a fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the return of Elijah (Matthew 11:14). And, of course, John the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, the Son of God (John 1:34, cf. Mark 14:61-62). Jesus is also at the same time the special prophet foretold by Moses (Acts 3:22-26).

So if, based on John 1:25, the Jews were looking forward to the institution of a special baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and they expected it to be instituted by the Christ/Messiah, and the returned Elijah, and the special prophet foretold by Moses, then Christian baptism is that special baptism (Acts 22:16).

Acts 19:1-7

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit whena you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

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 in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tonguesb and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


Baptism is a bit like buying a ticket. If you go to the airport and buy a ticket Chicago New York, you'll land up in New York city. If you buy a Chicago London ticket, guess where you land up?


If you took John's baptism, you'd land up being justified like the Publican in the Temple, under law, forgiven from wrath against sin through repentance, but with no option to enter rest. If you took Jesus's baptism, you'd land up being justified like Peter, not under law through repentance , so with a clear conscience, and heir to the promise of which Christ was first fruit: rest. Freedom from your own efforts to become a blessing to the world. Through the Holy Spirit.


Today the is no more a baptism of John. Every Biblical baptism is Christ's baptism. Sadly, there are many unbiblical baptisms being performed. Biblical baptisms ensure the candidate has cognition of his commitment, is aware of the details, and agrees to them. Without this awareness agreement can obviously not but be reached. Again, sadly, this baptism will have even less results than Israel's baptism, John's baptism.

 

[truefiction1]

Wrong. The Holy Spirit is given to bring revelation that God is able and willing to lead us into rest, the Kingdom of God. If the Kingdom of God was within us, it would mean that it was within the Pharisees, obviously not what was meant by the text.

The Holy Spirit would reveal that it was right to repent, turn away from serving mammon for perishable gain to serving God for permanent treasure, because God was able and willing to lead us into the Kingdom. Even difficult situations like having great wealth, was not a problem for God, because with Him all things were possible.


Once in the Kingdom, the Holy Spirit would enable revelation of God's ability and willingness in our lives, so that people would be convinced and leave Egypt to serve God, repent. That's why the disciples were asked to wait for the Holy Spirit.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, Peter was able to bring people out of Egypt, just as Moses was able to bring people out of Egypt with the help of the Holy Spirit:

Acts 2:43-47
43Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. 44And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Hebrews 3:16Now who heard him and provoked him? Was it not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?

Psalms 78:11-17
11They forgot His deeds
And His miracles that He had shown them.

12He wrought wonders before their fathers
In the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.

13He divided the sea and caused them to pass through,
And He made the waters stand up like a heap.

14Then He led them with the cloud by day
And all the night with a light of fire.

15He split the rocks in the wilderness
And gave them abundant drink like the ocean depths.

16He brought forth streams also from the rock
And caused waters to run down like rivers.

17Yet they still continued to sin against Him,
To rebel against the Most High in the desert.

The Holy Spirit wasn't dwelling within the Pharisees because they didn't repent. They were faithless and perverse, except for the ones who did believe Christ. These would receive the Holy Spirit.

So I will repeat this Bible revealed and Eternal Truth: The Holy Spirit is He Who brings God and His Heavenly Kingdom to Live inside of us. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot participate in this Heavenly Life. How can you say that these revelations are "Wrong" when Scripture explicitly and perfectly expresses this very Truth, and after I have showed you the very Scriptures in which this Truth is revealed?

I will tell you one last time what the Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven is: The Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17) Please do not say that the Bible is "Wrong".

 

[truefiction1]

Biblical baptisms ensure the candidate has cognition of his commitment, is aware of the details, and agrees to them. Without this awareness agreement can obviously not but be reached. Again, sadly, this baptism will have even less results than Israel's baptism, John's baptism.

Then mentally retarded people can't become members of the Church I guess. Oh well, too bad for them. But wait, the Bible doesn't say that such people can't be Baptized. It doesn't say that babies can't become members of the Church by being baptized either. Hmmm.... I wonder where such ideas are really coming from. If sin is a disease and being a member in the Church is the best way to receive treatment for such a disease, do we not bring our little children there? I bring mine to a medical doctor or hospital when they are sick with some bodily illness without their informed consent. Why would any father or mother not do the same for their little ones with regard to the disease of sin?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Then mentally retarded people can't become members of the Church I guess. Oh well, too bad for them. But wait, the Bible doesn't say that such people can't be Baptized. It doesn't say that babies can't become members of the Church by being baptized either. Hmmm.... I wonder where such ideas are really coming from. If sin is a disease and being a member in the Church is the best way to receive treatment for such a disease, do we not bring our little children there? I bring mine to a medical doctor or hospital when they are sick with some bodily illness without their informed consent. Why would any father or mother not do the same for their little ones with regard to the disease of sin?

Children always have their angels facing towards God. Those with mental deficiencies too.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The Holy Spirit wasn't dwelling within the Pharisees because they didn't repent. They were faithless and perverse, except for the ones who did believe Christ. These would receive the Holy Spirit.

So I will repeat this Bible revealed and Eternal Truth: The Holy Spirit is He Who brings God and His Heavenly Kingdom to Live inside of us. Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot participate in this Heavenly Life. How can you say that these revelations are "Wrong" when Scripture explicitly and perfectly expresses this very Truth, and after I have showed you the very Scriptures in which this Truth is revealed?

I will tell you one last time what the Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven is: The Bible says that the Kingdom of Heaven is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17) Please do not say that the Bible is "Wrong".

If the text says the kingdom of God is within you, do you think the unbelieving pharisees also had righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit IN themselves? This is a big issue in scholastic discussions, so think carefully before you answer.

Luke 17:20
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

[truefiction1]

Children always have their angels facing towards God. Those with mental deficiencies too.

And so, why therefor aren't they all to be welcomed to partake of Communion in the Church, which requires them to be Baptized as all the other members are? He did say to "suffer the little children to come to Me, for to such belong the Kingdom of God". There is no command in the Bible to not Baptize anyone who can not give informed consent. Whole households were Baptized, and it's quite possible that those households included small children and babies. Again, another senseless idea which that about only in the late middle ages; supposed reforms of practices that hadn't been changed since the beginning. Again, this is not a reform of Church practice. It is an annihilation of a good thing that was practiced from the beginning, and a dismantling of the efficacy of the Gospel, leading toward the "mystery of lawlessness".

Guess what... the great falling away of the Church did not happen at the beginning of the Church age. The great falling away (apostasy) is a prophecy of an event that is to take place towards the very end of the age of the Church. Heresies, schisms, and Church reformations that ultimately only serve to rob would-be saints of spiritually essential things have always just been the means by which the world culture is being especially prepared for the general falling away, which is to practically become the end of the existence of the Church. The true Church is very much still intact and there weren't any dogmatic reforms, because there weren't changes in doctrine or the manner of practicing the Holy Mysteries (Baptism) in the first place.

 

[truefiction1]

If the text says the kingdom of God is within you, do you think the unbelieving pharisees also had righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Spirit IN themselves? This is a big issue in scholastic discussions, so think carefully before you answer.

Luke 17:20
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

The Kingdom of Heaven (mystical Communion with God in the Holy Spirit) only comes into those who repent. What is the very first thing, according to Matthew's Gospel, that Christ proclaimed at the beginning of His ministry as preacher of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven?

It is this: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:17)

By saying this thing, He is telling us that in order to receive the Kingdom of Heaven, all that is needed is to believe Him and to repent. The enemies of Christ (corrupt Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, and corrupt civil leaders) refused to believe Him and repent of their love of this evil world, even though He was offering them the Kingdom of Heaven. There is immediacy in His offer. Many will find this hard to understand, but the Kingdom of Heaven isn't something that we have to completely wait for to experience. It is here... now... because the Holy Spirit is able to give us to experience it and taste of it. This is what faith and repentance can allow the Spirit to give us. Paul writes of such things too:

"I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— was caught up into Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell." (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

The man, whether it was Paul himself that he was talking about or some other man in Christ, received personal, mystical experience of Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. But such participation in the Heavenly Kingdom is only a gift to those who believe Christ and repent.

 

[Wordkeeper]

The Kingdom of Heaven (mystical Communion with God in the Holy Spirit) only comes into those who repent. What is the very first thing, according to Matthew's Gospel, that Christ proclaimed at the beginning of His ministry as preacher of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven?

It is this: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matthew 4:17)

By saying this thing, He is telling us that in order to receive the Kingdom of Heaven, all that is needed is to believe Him and to repent. The enemies of Christ (corrupt Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, and corrupt civil leaders) refused to believe Him and repent of their love of this evil world, even though He was offering them the Kingdom of Heaven. There is immediacy in His offer. Many will find this hard to understand, but the Kingdom of Heaven isn't something that we have to completely wait for to experience. It is here... now... because the Holy Spirit is able to give us to experience it and taste of it. This is what faith and repentance can allow the Spirit to give us. Paul writes of such things too:

"I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or out of it I do not know, but God knows— was caught up into Paradise. The things he heard were too sacred for words, things that man is not permitted to tell." (2 Corinthians 12:1-4)

The man, whether it was Paul himself that he was talking about or some other man in Christ, received personal, mystical experience of Heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. But such participation in the Heavenly Kingdom is only a gift to those who believe Christ and repent.

You didn't answer. Was the Kingdom of God WITHIN THE PHARISEES.

 

[truefiction1]

You didn't answer. Was the Kingdom of God WITHIN THE PHARISEES.

No. The Pharisees who rejected Christ had the hell inside of them. The Kingdom of God was not WITHIN THE PHARISEES, but that IS where the Kingdom of God is to be found, WHEN IT IS INDEED FOUND. Christ told them (and us) where it is that we need to find it: INSIDE OF OURSELVES WHEN GOD COMES TO LIVE WITHIN OUR OWN HEARTS!

If these sentences aren't convincing enough, the Bible teachings that will follow if you should still want to argue will probably be more convicting.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Today the is no more a baptism of John. Every Biblical baptism is Christ's baptism..

Interestingly Jesus showed the difference of the two baptisms mentioned here

Acts 1:5 KJV
For John truly baptized [past tense done away] with water; but ye shall be [future tense to come] baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Here we see that water baptism was past and is not the baptism that Christ gives. So then water baptism as part of Israe'ls OT programs as part of the carnal ordinancs and types of spiritual realities and Johns water baptism was for repentance and to manifest Jesus to Israel.

We also read of these two different baptisms


Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

So the baptism of Jesus is not water baptism.

The baptism into Christ at salvation is By One Spirit into one body (1 Cor 12:13, and Galatians 3:27 KJV) but the baptism with the Holy Ghost is by Jesus;.


Ephesians 4:5 KJV

“one Lord, One faith, one baptism,”

So this one baptism cannot be water baptism that was past. The saving baptism is into Christ by the Spirit.

We also know that there are many baptisms in scripture, possibly 7 of them.

Hebrews 6:2
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

So this one baptism must be the saving baptism spoken of in scripture which is not water baptism, But the baptism into Christ whee we put on Christ . We are immersed into him, this is the grace of God that we enter "into" at salvation.

 

[truefiction1]

Interestingly Jesus showed the difference of the two baptisms mentioned here

Acts 1:5 KJV
For John truly baptized [past tense done away] with water; but ye shall be [future tense to come] baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."

Here we see that water baptism was past and is not the baptism that Christ gives. So then water baptism as part of Israe'ls OT programs as part of the carnal ordinancs and types of spiritual realities and Johns water baptism was for repentance and to manifest Jesus to Israel.

We also read of these two different baptisms


Matthew 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

So the baptism of John is not water baptism.

The baptism into Christ at salvation is By One Spirit into one body (1 Cor 12:13, and Galatians 3:27 KJV) but the baptism with the Holy Ghost is by Jesus;.


Ephesians 4:5 KJV

“one Lord, One faith, one baptism,”

So this one baptism cannot be water baptism that was past. The saving baptism is into Christ by the Spirit.

We also know that there are many baptisms in scripture, possibly 7 of them.

Hebrews 6:2
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

So this one baptism must be the saving baptism spoken of in scripture which is not water baptism, But the baptism into Christ whee we put on Christ . We are immersed into him, this is the grace of God that we enter "into" at salvation.

Interestingly also, is that none of these sayings are meant to convey that there would not be water Baptisms in the Church. Water Baptism has steadily been the standard form (and there are other forms of it) from the time of Christ til now. The idea that it was supposed to have been done away with is a fairly recent innovation with no real basis in Scripture or history.

If there is only one valid form of Baptism, as you would like us to believe, and that one valid form of Baptism must be the invisible Baptism of the Holy Ghost and not with water, then what is to be said about the Ethiopian eunuch who received water Baptism by the Apostle Philip, in the Book of Acts? Are we to conclude, as you are doing by the nature of your logic, that the Eunuch Baptized by Philip was not the "one Baptism" done invisibly by the Holy Spirit? Are we to conclude then that the Eunuch was not therefor Baptized at all?

We think not. Water Baptism is also one of the forms that the "one Baptism" takes in the Church. There are others, and all of them are still forms of the "one and only Baptism". The saying is "only one Baptism", not "only one form of Baptism".

Jesus was not saying that Baptism was going to be done without water. His meaning is that it will be done mostly in the ritual of water immersion, but that because of His coming, His death, his Resurrection, Ascension, and His giving of the Holy Spirit, that this water Baptism would be with the Holy Spirit, and with the Fire of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 8:26-39)
"Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south to the desert road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official in charge of the entire treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his return was sitting in his chariot, reading Isaiah the prophet.

The Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that chariot and stay by it.”

So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,

so He did not open His mouth.

In His humiliation He was deprived of justice.

Who can recount His descendants?

For His life was removed from the earth.”a

“Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”

Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing."

THE ANGEL DIRECTED PHILIP TO GO TOWARD WHERE HE WOULD RUN INTO THE ETHIOPIAN, BECAUSE GOD WANTED THIS ETHIOPIAN TO RECEIVE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM. ONCE THE EUNUCH RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WATER AND CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER, THE SPIRIT CARRIED PHILIP OFF TO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE EUNUCH WENT ON HIS WAY WITH THE JOY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM ACCOMPLISHED -- BY IMMERSION IN WATER.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Interestingly also, is that none of these sayings are meant to convey that there would not be water Baptisms in the Church. Water Baptism has steadily been the standard form (and there are other forms of it) from the time of Christ til now. The idea that it was supposed to have been done away with is a fairly recent innovation with no real basis in Scripture or history.

If there is only one valid form of Baptism, as you would like us to believe, and that one valid form of Baptism must be the invisible Baptism of the Holy Ghost and not with water, then what is to be said about the Ethiopian eunuch who received water Baptism by the Apostle Philip, in the Book of Acts? Are we to conclude, as you are doing by the nature of your logic, that the Eunuch Baptized by Philip was not the "one Baptism" done invisibly by the Holy Spirit? Are we to conclude then that the Eunuch was not therefor Baptized at all?

We think not. Water Baptism is also one of the forms that the "one Baptism" takes in the Church. There are others, and all of them are still forms of the "one and only Baptism". The saying is "only one Baptism", not "only one form of Baptism".

Jesus was not saying that Baptism was going to be done without water. His meaning is that it will be done mostly in the ritual of water immersion, but that because of His coming, His death, his Resurrection, Ascension, and His giving of the Holy Spirit, that this water Baptism would be with the Holy Spirit, and with the Fire of the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 8:26-39)
"Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south to the desert road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official in charge of the entire treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his return was sitting in his chariot, reading Isaiah the prophet.

The Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to that chariot and stay by it.”

So Philip ran up and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,

and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,

so He did not open His mouth.

In His humiliation He was deprived of justice.

Who can recount His descendants?

For His life was removed from the earth.”a

“Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”

Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing."

THE ANGEL DIRECTED PHILIP TO GO TOWARD WHERE HE WOULD RUN INTO THE ETHIOPIAN, BECAUSE GOD WANTED THIS ETHIOPIAN TO RECEIVE HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM. ONCE THE EUNUCH RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WATER AND CAME UP OUT OF THE WATER, THE SPIRIT CARRIED PHILIP OFF TO SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE EUNUCH WENT ON HIS WAY WITH THE JOY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM ACCOMPLISHED -- BY IMMERSION IN WATER.

The diverse washings (baptismos in Greek ) and carnal ordinances were imposed upon the Jews until the time of reformation Hebrews 8 and 9 the old covenant was fading away slowly.

And yes, Jesus is saying that Johns water baptism is past and his baptism is come. That is why Jesus mentioned the difference of the two baptisms and why he mentioned the word “water” when referring to Johns baptism and not his.


And yes scripture has lots to say about theses things that I teach everywhere and in every place. But man made traditions often clash with scripture. And so many follow the Jewish customs and law and the practice that entered into the early church from m many aspects of the old covenant. But the writer of Hebrews said that the old covenant was fading away, ready to vanish, (Hebrews 8).take note, that it had not faded away or vanished yet when the writer penned those words.

They baptism that the Eunuch ask to have was a common thing among Jews for converts. I believe it is mentioned in the Halakah law if the Jews eat before even Jesus came on the scene. Also when Gentile converts came to Judaism they dunked full submersion under water were circumcised and some offered two turtle doves

It is interesting that the Eunuch asked for it , somehow this common practice was known already.

But the issue in Acts is that the Jews were still struggling with the law for some 40 years after Christ death and that they were still following the old covenant for a time. They were even going int the temple regularly and having animals sacrifices circumcision all the law and customs and they ( the Jewish Christians) were zealous of these things (Acts 21)

So for any unwise person to simply say, “well, I don’t care what you show from scripture, if they did it in Acts then we should also”. But I simply ask them, “do you sacrifice animals as they did all through Acts as Jewish believers? Do you circumcise some as they did in Acts 25,16 etc. Are you zealous of the Jewish covenant and mosaic law as they were? Do yo only eat certain foods as the Jewish believers did in Acts? Etc etc

Many miss this transition or reformation of the old covenant for the Jews to the new covenant and mix everything together.

There is no way out of this. When you see a Jewish man who is a believer in Jesus in Acts baptizing anyone they were still under the law and OT covenant to some degree. God allowed this time of transition for a time it would seem right up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles said Christ sent him not to baptism but to preach the gospel, nor with the wisdom of words lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Consider,

Hebrews 9 - 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

Hebrews 8 - 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Acts 16 - 3. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”

Galatians 2 - 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:... 7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;”

Acts 21 - 17. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. ...20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. ...26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.”

 

[truefiction1]

The diverse washings (baptismos in Greek ) and carnal ordinances were imposed upon the Jews until the time of reformation Hebrews 8 and 9 the old covenant was fading away slowly.

And yes, Jesus is saying that Johns water baptism is past and his baptism is come. That is why Jesus mentioned the difference of the two baptisms and why he mentioned the word “water” when referring to Johns baptism and not his.


And yes scripture has lots to say about theses things that I teach everywhere and in every place. But man made traditions often clash with scripture. And so many follow the Jewish customs and law and the practice that entered into the early church from m many aspects of the old covenant. But the writer of Hebrews said that the old covenant was fading away, ready to vanish, (Hebrews 8).take note, that it had not faded away or vanished yet when the writer penned those words.

They baptism that the Eunuch ask to have was a common thing among Jews for converts. I believe it is mentioned in the Halakah law if the Jews eat before even Jesus came on the scene. Also when Gentile converts came to Judaism they dunked full submersion under water were circumcised and some offered two turtle doves

It is interesting that the Eunuch asked for it , somehow this common practice was known already.

But the issue in Acts is that the Jews were still struggling with the law for some 40 years after Christ death and that they were still following the old covenant for a time. They were even going int the temple regularly and having animals sacrifices circumcision all the law and customs and they ( the Jewish Christians) were zealous of these things (Acts 21)

So for any unwise person to simply say, “well, I don’t care what you show from scripture, if they did it in Acts then we should also”. But I simply ask them, “do you sacrifice animals as they did all through Acts as Jewish believers? Do you circumcise some as they did in Acts 25,16 etc. Are you zealous of the Jewish covenant and mosaic law as they were? Do yo only eat certain foods as the Jewish believers did in Acts? Etc etc

Many miss this transition or reformation of the old covenant for the Jews to the new covenant and mix everything together.

There is no way out of this. When you see a Jewish man who is a believer in Jesus in Acts baptizing anyone they were still under the law and OT covenant to some degree. God allowed this time of transition for a time it would seem right up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

But Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles said Christ sent him not to baptism but to preach the gospel, nor with the wisdom of words lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Consider,

Hebrews 9 - 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

Hebrews 8 - 13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Acts 16 - 3. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”

Galatians 2 - 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:... 7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;”

Acts 21 - 17. And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. ...20. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. ...26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purifcation, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.”

Concoct all the tales you like, but your claims have no real basis in Scripture or in historical reality, both of which make the strong case for water Baptism having always been acknowledged as the standard practice in the Church. The whole idea that water Baptism is not necessary came about only in the late middle ages. To do away with it is not a recovery of lost Christian truth. It is not a reform. It is an annihilation of something that has been from the beginning of the Church, and part of Satan's plot to tear away at the fabric of the Truth and to rob people of the practice of much needed Holy things.

Your argument against water being used for Baptism is weak and futile. It has no basis in Scripture, because Christ did not teach his disciples not to Baptize with water, otherwise they would not have, yet obviously they were baptizing with water. The early Church always employed water Baptism in every case and this is evidenced by very early Christian manuscripts and historical accounts. Scripture bears witness to the Holy Spirit being present during water Baptisms, which clearly shows that such Baptisms are approved and performed by God. Additionally, there is no good reason not to perform Baptism using water.

The Eunuch asked for water Baptism because it was obvious that Baptism is to be done with water. Not only that, the Apostle Philip had just been teaching Him all about Christ and Salvation. This short account does not likely give every last detail of what was discussed. Philip likely told the Ethiopian about Baptism with water while they were discussing everything about the Gospel. That is why he wanted to be baptized with water right then. It wasn't because water Baptism was a well known Jewish practice. The Forerunner came Baptizing with water for repentance, not the Pharisees, who were the dominant sect ruling over Judaism in those times.

This doctrine of yours is a product of the imaginations of many innovators, all of whom have simply allowed themselves to be duped, either by the evil spirits of the air directly, or else indirectly through the teaching of those who have been duped directly by such spirits. Either way, it is the work of the enemy of Truth, and you have been had.

 

[Wordkeeper]

No. The Pharisees who rejected Christ had the hell inside of them. The Kingdom of God was not WITHIN THE PHARISEES, but that IS where the Kingdom of God is to be found, WHEN IT IS INDEED FOUND. Christ told them (and us) where it is that we need to find it: INSIDE OF OURSELVES WHEN GOD COMES TO LIVE WITHIN OUR OWN HEARTS!

If these sentences aren't convincing enough, the Bible teachings that will follow if you should still want to argue will probably be more convicting.

Basically you're saying that righteousness, etc in the Holy Spirit would be found in the Pharisees if they believed in Jesus, a future event conditional on repentance.

THEN WHY DOES THE TEXT SAY THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD ALREADY ARRIVED?

Matthew 12:28
But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you.

NET Bible
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.

NET ©Notes
1 sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong.

2 tn The phrase ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (efqasen ef’ Juma") is quite important. Does it mean merely “approach” (which would be reflected in a translation like “has come near to you”) or actually “come upon” (as in the translation given above, “has already overtaken you,” which has the added connotation of suddenness)? Is the arrival of the kingdom merely anticipated or already in process? Two factors favor arrival over anticipation here. First, the prepositional phrase ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (ef’ Jumas, “upon you”) in the Greek text suggests arrival (Dan 4:24, 28Theodotion). Second, the following illustration in v. 29 looks at the healing as portraying Satan being overrun. So the presence of God’s authority has arrived. See also L&N 13.123 for the translation of φθάνω (fqanw) as “to happen to already, to come upon, to come upon already.”

 

[Bible2+]

truefiction1 said in post #619:

Infants are always fully immersed, three times, in a baptismal font.

Unless God wants to make an exception for an elect individual (Exodus 33:19b, Romans 9:15), infant baptism is not valid, because baptism is useless for salvation, and is not even allowed, unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all of his heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .

*******

truefiction1 said in post #623:

If sin is a disease and being a member in the Church is the best way to receive treatment for such a disease, do we not bring our little children there?

It is sometimes said that infant baptism means that God has claimed/saved that infant.

But only elect infants have been claimed by God. Nonelect infants have no hope of salvation (Romans 9:11-22), even if their parents get them baptized. There is no way to prove whether or not an infant is elect until he or she grows up and becomes a Christian, proving that he or she is elect (Acts 13:48b), or until he or she dies without ever becoming a Christian, proving that he or she is nonelect (John 8:42-47).

*******

truefiction1 said in post #626:

The great falling away (apostasy) is a prophecy of an event that is to take place towards the very end of the age of the Church.

Regarding "the age of the Church", note that there is no such thing. For the Church will continue in the world throughout all ages (Ephesians 3:21, John 17:15). For just as the Church will continue in the world throughout the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and then throughout the subsequent Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), so the Church will then continue forever on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5).

 

[Bible2+]

Wordkeeper said in post #620:

If the Kingdom of God was within us, it would mean that it was within the Pharisees, obviously not what was meant by the text.

Presently, the Kingdom of God is in heaven (2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 12:22-24), and is on the earth spiritually within Christians (Romans 14:17, Luke 17:21). But in the future, the Kingdom will come fully upon the earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). It will also be physically (Luke 22:30, Matthew 19:28) on the earth (Revelation 5:10), first during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:3-21), and then forever on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1-8), as in a new surface for the Earth.

Jesus Christ's Kingdom is Israel (John 1:49, John 12:13-15, John 19:19, Luke 22:30). And at His future, Second Coming, He will sit on the earthly throne of King David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7), and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7, Acts 3:20-21). Jesus is, in His humanity, the son of David (Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:15-16, Romans 1:3), of the house of David (Luke 1:69). So at Jesus' Second Coming, He will restore the tabernacle, the house, of David (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11) to its royal glory (2 Samuel 5:12), which it had lost (2 Kings 17:21a). And Jesus will fulfill the prophecy and prayer of 2 Samuel 7:16-29. And He will bring salvation to all of the still-living, non-Christian elect Jews of the house of David. For they (along with all other still-living, non-Christian elect Jews) will become Christians when they see Jesus at His Second Coming (Zechariah 12:10-14, Zechariah 13:1,6, Romans 11:26-31). And so they will all become part of the Church at that time. For there are no Christians outside of the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

After Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, Zechariah 14:3-5) will occur the Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Zechariah 14:8-21), during which time the Gentile nations will come to seek the returned Jesus ruling the whole earth (Zechariah 8:22, Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11) on the restored throne of David (Isaiah 9:7) in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-11,16-19). And the physically resurrected Church will reign on the earth with Jesus during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). For the Church is Israel (Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

*******

Wordkeeper said in post #634:

THEN WHY DOES THE TEXT SAY THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD ALREADY ARRIVED?

Matthew 12:28
But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you.

Compare:

Mark 9:1 ¶And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

The subsequent transfiguration of Jesus Christ was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Mark 9:1-9, Luke 9:27-36) in the same sense that Jesus' previous and subsequent casting out of devils was a coming of the Kingdom of God with power (Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20). That is, such events showed that God's power had come to the earth in the person of Jesus Christ at His first coming.

 

[Bible2+]

LoveofTruth said in post #630:

Ephesians 4:5 KJV

“one Lord, One faith, one baptism,”

Note that one thing can include multiple aspects, like how the Trinity is one God (Mark 12:29, John 10:30), and yet it includes three Persons at the same time (Mark 1:9-11, Matthew 28:19). And Christian faith is one faith, and yet it includes multiple core beliefs, such as that Jesus Christ not only suffered and died on the Cross for our sins, but also physically rose from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Similarly, while Christian baptism is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), it includes two different aspects: water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism:

Acts 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were [water] baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44 ¶While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be [water] baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be [water] baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

*******

LoveofTruth said in post #632:

But the writer of Hebrews said that the old covenant was fading away, ready to vanish, (Hebrews 8).

Hebrews 8:13 means that when the prophet Jeremiah in the sixth century BC prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 about the first century AD making of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6), which would not be according to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Jeremiah 31:32, Romans 7:6), Jeremiah's prophecy, as soon as it was made, had immediately made the letter of the Mosaic-law covenant "old", and headed inexorably toward a future extinction (Hebrews 7:18-19). This extinction occurred not (as is sometimes claimed) in 70 AD, but decades earlier, at the moment that Jesus Christ died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a) and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19), which was the same moment that He brought the New Covenant into effect (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a). So there was no transition period, no overlap at all (Hebrews 10:9b, Hebrews 7:12), between the time of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and the time of the New Covenant.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Concoct all the tales you like, but your claims have no real basis in Scripture or in historical reality,.

Everything I showed you is from scripture and you seem to ignore it.
I have found when people are unable to answer the scriptures they simply say whatever you say. And ignore scripture and instead go off on other tangents.

Try to answer the scripture points I make. This understanding is after years of prayer and study, almost thirty years.

 

[truefiction1]

Basically you're saying that righteousness, etc in the Holy Spirit would be found in the Pharisees if they believed in Jesus, a future event conditional on repentance.

THEN WHY DOES THE TEXT SAY THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD ALREADY ARRIVED?

Matthew 12:28
But if I am casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has arrived among you.

NET Bible
But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you.

NET ©Notes
1 sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong.

2 tn The phrase ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (efqasen ef’ Juma") is quite important. Does it mean merely “approach” (which would be reflected in a translation like “has come near to you”) or actually “come upon” (as in the translation given above, “has already overtaken you,” which has the added connotation of suddenness)? Is the arrival of the kingdom merely anticipated or already in process? Two factors favor arrival over anticipation here. First, the prepositional phrase ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (ef’ Jumas, “upon you”) in the Greek text suggests arrival (Dan 4:24, 28Theodotion). Second, the following illustration in v. 29 looks at the healing as portraying Satan being overrun. So the presence of God’s authority has arrived. See also L&N 13.123 for the translation of φθάνω (fqanw) as “to happen to already, to come upon, to come upon already.”

You answered your own question with the Scriptural text you supplied immediately following it: "... if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has already arrived among you."

This means that the Kingdom of God is already in their midst because the Holy Spirit of God is present. For it is by the Spirit and by belief in Christ that one can enter into mystical Communion with God the Trinity. So, if Christ is there, and the Spirit is there, as is evidenced by Their working together to cast out demons, then what follows is the Truth that the Kingdom of God is present, in their midst, and if they only believe and repent they too can become filled with the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom of God.

 

[truefiction1]

Unless God wants to make an exception for an elect individual (Exodus 33:19b, Romans 9:15), infant baptism is not valid, because baptism is useless for salvation, and is not even allowed, unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all of his heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .

*******



It is sometimes said that infant baptism means that God has claimed/saved that infant.

But only elect infants have been claimed by God. Nonelect infants have no hope of salvation (Romans 9:11-22), even if their parents get them baptized. There is no way to prove whether or not an infant is elect until he or she grows up and becomes a Christian, proving that he or she is elect (Acts 13:48b), or until he or she dies without ever becoming a Christian, proving that he or she is nonelect (John 8:42-47).

*******



Regarding "the age of the Church", note that there is no such thing. For the Church will continue in the world throughout all ages (Ephesians 3:21, John 17:15). For just as the Church will continue in the world throughout the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6), and then throughout the subsequent Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), so the Church will then continue forever on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1 to 22:5).

The thousand year reign (millennium) is NOW. It began when the Church was born at Pentecost. This is what I was referring to as "the Church age". Of course the Church is Eternal. This was never suggested by the phrase "the Church age". This phrase merely refers to the time period prior to the tribulation.

The Church has always baptized infants, because nobody but God knows whose names are written in the Book of Life. Not all people who received Baptism as consenting adults will necessarily receive the Kingdom of God. God, not men, knows who are saved and who not. But all Baptisms are valid, even though not all, perhaps, who are Baptized are among the saved. That isn't for us to rule upon, but God. Thus, we Baptize them and it is valid.

The Bible does not say that infants cannot or should not be Baptized. All newborn children of Christian parents should be brought up in full Communion in the Life of the Church, whenever possible. Otherwise we are not following Christ's Scriptural admonishment to "suffer the little children to come to Him".

All infants believe in Christ, because there is no intentional commitment to sin that would otherwise prevent them from wanting to do so. Their nature is one of simple trust. There is therefor no reason at all not to Baptize them so that they can Commune in the Church from the very beginning of their lives. We have many examples of Baptized infants having grown up in the Church and have lived and/or died as martyrs for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Again, the practice of waiting to Baptize anyone until they can give informed consent through a statement of faith did not come about until the late middle ages. It is not the recovery of a lost truth. It is an innovation devised from the demon influenced imaginations of men whose role in the evil enemies' plan is to remove as many of the much needed Holy things from the common practices of men as can be successfully removed. These innovations only serve to create dissension and confusion and an overall picture of Christianity as doctrinal chaos, in addition to removing Truthful understandings of what the essence of Salvation in Christ is.

Heresy and schism always serves the progression of mankind towards the coming state of ultimate "lawlessness".