Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

Phil W · Apr 21, 2019

Hillsage said:
KJV ACT 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

RSV ACT 2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

NAS ACT 2:6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

NIV ACT 2:6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Prayer tongues from their spirits made a "sound/noise" which was heard first. That draws a crowd to where they were....then the crowd hears the "confounded/bewildering" Holy Spirit 'gift of tongues' in their own languages of men. Then all the "ungifted/unlearned" unspiritual ones start yelling they're acting like "drunks".

1CO 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

That's pretty much what happened on Pentecost. The "whole church assembled and ALL spoke in tongues"...then the "ungifted" said "you are mad....speaking gibberish, babble and now the new one I've not heard before....GABBERING.

To me the phrase "noised abroad" means...talked about, spoken of, or, related.
When the Jews and visitors heard OF the speaking in tongues they "came together" to check it out.

Phil W · Apr 21, 2019

Ttalkkugjil said:
The disciples needed instruction in order to grasp the instruction which they'd received from Jesus. This would be provided for by the Spirit, whose function would be truth's teaching.

She'll teach them. She'll bring them into the truth, make them familiar with it, let them grasp the truth, have them realize God's grace in Jesus. In doing this, she won't display an independent activity.

The relation between the Godhead's persons is unity. The Spirit can and will lead the believers into truth, because she'll speak what she's heard in the Godhead. She'll speak the Trinity's words as such.

The Spirit wants to be with and in the Word, and through it lead us into truth, keeps us against lies, and helps us conquer in trials. So she reveals God.

She'll tell of things to come. The future salvation also belongs to God. Jesus' coming to judge, the consummation of the redemption in God's Kingdom. In regard to these the Spirit will give the information.

In doing so, her work will be for Jesus, since the truth which she'll reveal she'll receive from Jesus for preaching. By picturing Jesus before believers, the Spirit gives to Jesus the glory which is due him.

In taking her doctrine from Jesus, the Spirit receives her doctrine from God, for since they've the Godhead in common, they've also the divine knowledge in common.

Christ here makes a statement that couldn't be made by a mere man. "All that God has," he says, "is Mine." He has power over it, for he and God have everything in common.

The Spirit has the Godhead to draw from, in the believers' interest. That's the Spirit's work for and in the believers, that she teaches them to know Christ.

I feel that assigning any sexuality at all to the Holy Spirit is an error.
It is a spirit, not a human being or animal.

Saint Steven · Apr 22, 2019

Phil W said:
To me the phrase "noised abroad" means...talked about, spoken of, or, related.
When the Jews and visitors heard OF the speaking in tongues they "came together" to check it out.

Three of the four translations provided said "sound".

Acts 2:6
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

Hillsage · Apr 22, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Three of the four translations provided said "sound".

Acts 2:6
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

You just can't keep people from "kicking against the pricks" of truth.

ACT 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

They fight so hard against it, it's no wonder that they'll never have the chance to 'get it'. According to their faith, so shall it be.

Phil W · Apr 22, 2019

-

Saint Steven said:
Three of the four translations provided said "sound".

Acts 2:6
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken.

As this is of no matter to the salvation of anyone, it need not be argued about..
Translating it either way really doesn't matter...unless the translation is used to discredit the KJV used for 400 hundred years before the neo-translations were foisted on the public.

Saint Steven · Apr 22, 2019

Phil W said:
-
As this is of no matter to the salvation of anyone, it need not be argued about..
Translating it either way really doesn't matter...unless the translation is used to discredit the KJV used for 400 hundred years before the neo-translations were foisted on the public.

Explain how your take on "noised abroad" works in context?

Phil W · Apr 22, 2019

Saint Steven said:
Explain how your take on "noised abroad" works in context?

Sure, but first I will repost "KJV ACT 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."
from post #401
And my comment too...
To me the phrase "noised abroad" means...talked about, spoken of, or, related.
When the Jews and visitors heard OF the speaking in tongues they "came together" to check it out.
So, in context I posit...The Jews and visitors to Jerusalem heard about the Pentecost event (tongues of fire and the mighty rushing wind from heaven) from other witnesses to it, and the multitude came together, and were confounded...
I hope that helps.

Saint Steven · Apr 23, 2019

Phil W said:
Sure, but first I will repost "KJV ACT 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."
from post #401
And my comment too...
To me the phrase "noised abroad" means...talked about, spoken of, or, related.
When the Jews and visitors heard OF the speaking in tongues they "came together" to check it out.
So, in context I posit...The Jews and visitors to Jerusalem heard about the Pentecost event (tongues of fire and the mighty rushing wind from heaven) from other witnesses to it, and the multitude came together, and were confounded...
I hope that helps.

I meant the biblical context.
Not the context of your personal musings about what it might mean.

You seem to have a disconnect about the immediacy of the order of events.
Pentecost wasn't something that was simmering on the back burner (and the talk of the town); it was an eruption (that drew immediate attention).

Phil W · Apr 23, 2019

Saint Steven said:
I meant the biblical context.
Not the context of your personal musings about what it might mean.

You did ask me for "my" take, didn't you?

You seem to have a disconnect about the immediacy of the order of events.
Pentecost wasn't something that was simmering on the back burner (and the talk of the town); it was an eruption (that drew immediate attention).

How was that "immediate attention" generated?
By mouth to mouth relationship, from witness to the next at hand to the next, etc.
It had been "noised abroad".

Hillsage · Apr 23, 2019

Phil W said:
You did ask me for "my" take, didn't you?

How was that "immediate attention" generated?
By mouth to mouth relationship, from witness to the next at hand to the next, etc.
It had been "noised abroad".

He meant your 'take', as backed by the bible, which is assumed from bible studiers. Nobody cares about your unsubstantiated opinion, but those who also erroneously agree with the error of your POV. Both of which have 'conveniently' ducked and run. But your take isn't biblical. It's just your unsubstantiated opinion. An opinion which I will deal with biblically.

The disciples were celebrating Pentecost where all the Jews went to celebrate Pentecost...the HOUSE of the Lord...also known as the TEMPLE. The Christians were gathered together in "one place" in that "house/temple" according to scripture. Not at some rent house as the ignorant have taught. The apostles didn't have money ("silver and gold have I none") or an apartment big enough for 120 to meet in.

But, being gathered in the HOUSE of the Lord is why, when they spoke in the tongues of "angels", which are not known unto men it sounded like an unintelligible 'noise'. The very same kind of definition you "ungifted/unlearned" guys still use to call tongues today...HELLLLO, PHIL, this would be a good time to put on your thinking cap. And it was that noise of prayer "tongues which no man understands" that drew the immediate attention of all those other countries, since they too were all in the same HOUSE of the Lord celebrating with their own groups of fellow Jewish countrymen.

ACT 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound/echos from heaven of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

You also erroneously believe and posted earlier, that it was this sound/echos in verse 2 which was a "rumor". But you were wrong then, and are still WRONG now. This word echos which only qualifies as being secondarily defined as 'rumor' was not talking about the "noise/sound"/phone' of 'tongues'. But rather, it was talking about sound/echos of the coming of the Holy Spirit as a rushing mighty wind... which certainly doesn't fit the defintion of a language or tongue.

2279 echos {ay'-khos} of uncertain affinity
(1) a sound, noise
(1.a) spoken of the roar of the sea waves
(2) rumour, report

And all this happened before the disciples spoke in the the language/tongue of their spirit's prayer language in verse 6.

ACT 2:6 And at this sound/phone the multitude came together,...

5456 phone {fo-nay'}
probably akin to 5316 through the idea of disclosure
(2.a) of the sound of uttered words
(3) speech
(3.a) of a language, tongue

Phil W · Apr 23, 2019

Hillsage said:
He meant your 'take', as backed by the bible, which is assumed from bible studiers. Nobody cares about your unsubstantiated opinion, but those who also erroneously agree with the error of your POV.

As my "biblical opinion" was not asked for, I replied with an answer to his question regarding my "take" on the subject.
Why are you trying to provoke me?

Both of which have 'conveniently' ducked and run. But your take isn't biblical. It's just your unsubstantiated opinion. An opinion which I will deal with biblically.

I call it as I see it.

The disciples were celebrating Pentecost where all the Jews went to celebrate Pentecost...the HOUSE of the Lord...also known as the TEMPLE. The Christians were gathered together in "one place" in that "house/temple" according to scripture. Not at some rent house as the ignorant have taught. The apostles didn't have money ("silver and gold have I none") or an apartment big enough for 120 to meet in.

You are jumping to unbiblical conclusions.
The bible say they were in a "house where they were sitting". (Acts 2:2)
I wasn't aware there were chairs in the temple for visitors.
Jesus' disciples were afraid of the Jewish hierarchy, so why would they all go to the temple?

But, being gathered in the HOUSE of the Lord is why, when they spoke in the tongues of "angels", which are not known unto men it sounded like an unintelligible 'noise'. The very same kind of definition you "ungifted/unlearned" guys still use to call tongues today...HELLLLO, PHIL, this would be a good time to put on your thinking cap. And it was that noise of prayer "tongues which no man understands" that drew the immediate attention of all those other countries, since they too were all in the same HOUSE of the Lord celebrating with their own groups of fellow Jewish countrymen.

Which version of the bible are you siting?
My KJV has none of what you opine.
In fact it says the things given to the apostles and co. were understandable by all the foreign visitors.

ACT 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound/echos from heaven of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

You also erroneously believe and posted earlier, that it was this sound/echos in verse 2 which was a "rumor". But you were wrong then, and are still WRONG now. This word echos which only qualifies as being secondarily defined as 'rumor' was not talking about the "noise/sound"/phone' of 'tongues'. But rather, it was talking about sound/echos of the coming of the Holy Spirit as a rushing mighty wind... which certainly doesn't fit the defintion of a language or tongue.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other poster, as I never used the word "rumor" while explaining my requested opinion on "sounded about".

Hillsage · Apr 23, 2019

Phil W said:
As my "biblical opinion" was not asked for, I replied with an answer to his question regarding my "take" on the subject.
Why are you trying to provoke me?

This forum kind of calls for more astute posters than opinion based 'only' comments. If all you have is opinion go post with people who all agree with you.

I call it as I see it.

So did your two buddies, until they couldn't prove it scripturally any better than you've been doing.

You are jumping to unbiblical conclusions.
The bible say they were in a "house where they were sitting". (Acts 2:2)
I wasn't aware there were chairs in the temple for visitors.
Jesus' disciples were afraid of the Jewish hierarchy, so why would they all go to the temple?

On their arrival pilgrims could hear the sounds of the Levites who sang and played musical instruments at the entrance. The pilgrims would circle around the Temple seven times and then watch the various rituals, sit under the columned porticos that surrounded the plaza and listen or talk to the rabbis.
The Second Temple

Which version of the bible are you siting?
My KJV has none of what you opine.
In fact it says the things given to the apostles and co. were understandable by all the foreign visitors.

Your KJV has none of what you opine e. I've quoted lots of RED scripture you quote nothing but your "take" which is why what I say provokes you. They should make you deal with reality instead of just indoctrinated opinions.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other poster, as I never used the word "rumor" while explaining my requested opinion on "sounded about".

You know what, I can admit when I'm wrong. And I can't find you saying this, so I apologize.

Unlike you denying in post 343 that I said in post 322 that you said "bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh" in post 288. I don't recall an apology for you not admitting I was right and you were wrong concerning what you said 'that time'. Especially when I went back found it and quoted it in my post. Now that's just plain disingenuous integrity IMO.

I think I'm ready to move on again from your 'opinions'. This time I need to stick with my decision. :wave:

Jonathan Mathews · Apr 24, 2019

John the Ex-Baptist said:
If you are someone opposed to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, please give your reasons for being opposed, and preferably back up your argument from the text of Scripture.

I was Born of God 1 week before I was dunked in water. The believing thief on the cross received the "One Baptism" while he was hanging on the cross with Jesus and went to Paradise without ever being dunked in water. Some of John's disciples were dunked in water, but still had not received the One Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:3). The One Baptism is when the Holy Spirit is poured out from Jesus Christ into your heart and soul. You are circumcised of heart and your soul is filled/dunked by the Holy Spirit.

Phil W · Apr 24, 2019

Hillsage said:
This forum kind of calls for more astute posters than opinion based 'only' comments. If all you have is opinion go post with people who all agree with you.

Is that your opinion?

[

So did your two buddies, until they couldn't prove it scripturally any better than you've been doing.

I was asked for an opinion, which I provided.

On their arrival pilgrims could hear the sounds of the Levites who sang and played musical instruments at the entrance. The pilgrims would circle around the Temple seven times and then watch the various rituals, sit under the columned porticos that surrounded the plaza and listen or talk to the rabbis.The Second Temple

Where in the bible is that?

Your KJV has none of what you opine. I've quoted lots of RED scripture you quote nothing but your "take" which is why what I say provokes you. They should make you deal with reality instead of just indoctrinated opinions.

I was asked for my opinion, which I provided.
Had a poster asked for scriptural descriptions of "noised abroad", I wouldn't have offered my "take".

You know what, I can admit when I'm wrong. And I can't find you saying this, so I apologize.

No problem...on boards such as these, especially after hundreds or even thousands of posts, it is easy to confuse one poster with another.

Unlike you denying in post 343 that I said in post 322 that you said "bone of His bone and flesh of His flesh" in post 288. I don't recall an apology for you not admitting I was right and you were wrong concerning what you said 'that time'. Especially when I went back found it and quoted it in my post. Now that's just plain disingenuous integrity IMO.

I think I'm ready to move on again from your 'opinions'. This time I need to stick with my decision.

I will go look at those posts right now
I went back and studied that which you posted about my "denial".
The reason I denied posting an OT scripture is because a likeness of it was used by Paul in Eph 5:30...from whence I used it.
I will do better in the future regarding my citings of scripture.
If an apology will make it up to you, then I apologize heartily.

Hillsage · Apr 24, 2019

Jonathan Mathews said:
I was Born of God 1 week before I was dunked in water. The believing thief on the cross received the "One Baptism" while he was hanging on the cross with Jesus and went to Paradise without ever being dunked in water. Some of John's disciples were dunked in water, but still had not received the One Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:3). The One Baptism is when the Holy Spirit is poured out from Jesus Christ into your heart and soul. You are circumcised of heart and your soul is filled/dunked by the Holy Spirit.

The "one baptism" of Eph 4 is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The "one baptism" is the baptism which Jesus had to undertake to provide the spirit of Christ in us at slavation making us His spiritual body on earth, while he is the spiritual head. And Jesus had to undergo that "one baptism" AFTER he was water and Holy Spirit baptized.

Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

It was the baptism of death that Jesus underwent that provides the "unity of the spirit" of Christ in us at salvation.

Hillsage · Apr 24, 2019

Phil W said:
Is that your opinion?

Yes it is.

Where in the bible is that?

Right next to your verse which says they had to sit in chairs. :doh:

I was asked for my opinion, which I provided.
Had a poster asked for scriptural descriptions of "noised abroad", I wouldn't have offered my "take".

Which is why it is probably best I we not dialogue. Because if it isn't backed with scripture and my view is, then I'm just not going to be satisfied with opinions. Something I have shared over and over with you Phil, as well as others.

No problem...on boards such as these, especially after hundreds or even thousands of posts, it is easy to confuse one poster with another.

I agree.

If an apology will make it up to you, then I apologize heartily.

No, I'm not ASKING for one. You never asked for mine. If they aren't given as a result of conviction from the Spirit, they just aren't as sincere IMO. But thanks for the effort. Even that is more than most here will ever do. :oldthumbsup:

Saint Steven · Apr 25, 2019

Phil W said:
As my "biblical opinion" was not asked for, I replied with an answer to his question regarding my "take" on the subject.
Why are you trying to provoke me?

I call it as I see it.

You are jumping to unbiblical conclusions.
The bible say they were in a "house where they were sitting". (Acts 2:2)
I wasn't aware there were chairs in the temple for visitors.
Jesus' disciples were afraid of the Jewish hierarchy, so why would they all go to the temple?

Which version of the bible are you siting?
My KJV has none of what you opine.
In fact it says the things given to the apostles and co. were understandable by all the foreign visitors.

Perhaps you are thinking of some other poster, as I never used the word "rumor" while explaining my requested opinion on "sounded about".

I found a good article about this online.
All of this is theory, of course. But there seems to be a better case for in the Temple than in the upper room.

Pentecost Didn't Happen in an Upper Room

Phil W · Apr 25, 2019

Saint Steven said:
I found a good article about this online.
All of this is theory, of course. But there seems to be a better case for in the Temple than in the upper room.

Thanks for reconnecting with me.
I agree that the bestowal of the Holy Ghost wasn't in the same upper room as Acts 1's ordination of a new apostle, but I have a hard time believing the bestowal was in the temple.
Supposing all 120 the disciples from Acts 1 went to the temple at the same time. Wouldn't the chief priest, Sadducees, Pharisees, and whoever else denied Christ was the Son of God make a big fuss?
This was only 40 days since Jesus was killed !

Though I admit I had never heard of the bestowal having occurred in the temple, it just doesn't sit right with me...but who really knows?
It's just one of those things that really doesn't matter in regard to the reception of or maintaining of salvation.

Pentecost Didn't Happen in an Upper Room

I read quite a bit of what this site stood for, and again did not get a real good feeling regarding it.
They seemed intent on introducing Torah law to Gentiles.
I have been freed from the Law, and all it's many precepts.
The important things are written on my heart, ie. love God above all else and love my neighbor as I love myself

Saint Steven · Apr 26, 2019

Phil W said:
Supposing all 120 the disciples from Acts 1 went to the temple at the same time. Wouldn't the chief priest, Sadducees, Pharisees, and whoever else denied Christ was the Son of God make a big fuss?
This was only 40 days since Jesus was killed !

I'll have to admit that this concept was new to me as well.
I take it as theory since we don't know for sure what happened.
Here are a few factors to keep in consideration that we can be sure of.
1) Acts chapter two says this: Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. ... vs 46
Note that this is a continuation of something they were already doing.
2) They baptized three thousand new believers that day.
That means that Peter preached to more than three thousand. It requires a lot of space to do that. Where did they meet? These three thousand were also baptized. Where?

Furthermore, if we go with the traditional upper room scenario, how does all this work?
You have 120 in an upper room at the outpouring who began speaking in tongues and then all went down the stairs and out into the street where the chaos gathered a crowd.

The Acts two text doesn't really support this. Only the traditional story we have heard repeatedly. The chapter begins with these words: When the day of Pentecost came... - vs 1
This is our clue as to where they were. It was a feast day in the Temple. The text continues: ... they were all together in one place. - vs 1 --- The article has a picture of the Temple showing all the porches that line the perimeter of the courtyard. Where Jesus used to preach, and where they still met.

In Acts chapter three we read this: One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. - vs 1
So we can understand that they still followed the attendance requirements of Judaism. Which means they would have likely also been in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost.

Saint Steven · Apr 26, 2019

Phil W said:
I read quite a bit of what this site stood for, and again did not get a real good feeling regarding it.
They seemed intent on introducing Torah law to Gentiles.
I have been freed from the Law, and all it's many precepts.
The important things are written on my heart, ie. love God above all else and love my neighbor as I love myself

Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

How do you know that the early church met on the first day of the week instead of the Sabbath day? Ultimately we have to rely on the writings of the early church outside the NT canon. Do we take these writings as scripture? Nope. Can we use them for reference material? Yes.

Those writings define the term "the Lord's Day" for us. The only appearance of that term in the Bible is found in Rev.1:10, where it is not defined. But the writings of the early church define it for us. The Lord's Day is the first day of the week, the day of our Lord's resurrection, the day the church gathered, the queen of days, Sunday.

Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Similar threads