O.B.N.C.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 9, 2021

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Do you honestly believe that any preacher who believes what you do would only preach and not baptize?

Doug Brents said:
Absolutely not, just as Paul did not.

Well then, it seems you do not understand your own contradiction.

IF water baptism was necessary for salvation, then ANY evangelist who didn't baptize immediately upon conversion would be remiss, obviously.

Those who believed when he preached were baptized immediately (Crispus, Gaius, and the family of Stephanus).

Please read with more comprehension. Those were the very FEW who he baptized. That means there were loads more who he didn't baptize.

But again, what he is saying in 1 Cor 1 is that he is glad now that more people didn’t believe immediately then, because that removes fuel from the decisiveness that was in the congregation there.

That's not what he said or meant.

Your view about water baptism reminds me of another group of believers in the Bible.

Acts 15:1-5
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The only difference is the ritual. For these believers, the ritual was circumcision. For your theology, the ritual is water baptism.

Otherwise, they are parallel.

The council of Jerusalem rejected the believers from the party of the Pharisees for their attempt to include a ritual for salvation.

They would have done the same thing for your attempts.

Doug Brents · Oct 9, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Do you honestly believe that any preacher who believes what you do would only preach and not baptize?

Well then, it seems you do not understand your own contradiction.

IF water baptism was necessary for salvation, then ANY evangelist who didn't baptize immediately upon conversion would be remiss, obviously.

You state an oxymoron. A person is not converted until he is baptized. Therefore, it is patently impossible to not baptize someone upon conversion. Everyone who is converted is converted at the moment of baptism and no sooner (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:19, Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:11-13, Gal 3:27)

FreeGrace2 said:
Please read with more comprehension. Those were the very FEW who he baptized. That means there were loads more who he didn't baptize.

There were many who were in the Church when he wrote his letter, but almost all were converted through the preaching of other preachers (Apollos for example). As I said, Paul came planting seeds. Apollo’s came later and watered that seed and it grew. Others came and more seeds took root as the Spirit gave increase.

FreeGrace2 said:
That's not what he said or meant.

Your view about water baptism reminds me of another group of believers in the Bible.

Acts 15:1-5
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.
4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The only difference is the ritual. For these believers, the ritual was circumcision. For your theology, the ritual is water baptism.

Otherwise, they are parallel.

Not parallel at all.
The Judaizers, as they were called, were trying to get the new Christians to follow parts of the Law of Moses. But the counsel of Jerusalem decided that, AFTER someone is already in Christ, “… it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”

FreeGrace2 said:
The council of Jerusalem rejected the believers from the party of the Pharisees for their attempt to include a ritual for salvation.

They would have done the same thing for your attempts.

You make me laugh, thank you.
As I just stated, the Judaizers were trying to get those who had already been baptized into Christ to follow parts of the Law. They were not addressing people before they were saved. They were trying to persuade people that they were not really saved unless they were circumcised “according to the tradition of Moses.”

FreeGrace2 · Oct 9, 2021

Doug Brents said:
You state an oxymoron. A person is not converted until he is baptized.

That's not an oxymoron. It's your opinion getting in the way.

But, you bring up a point. IF "a person is NOT onverted UNTIL he is baptized", then why don't you see WHY an evangelist would NEVER avoid baptizing anyone who responded positively to the gospel? Wouldn't they NEED to be baptized, right then and there?

Of course they would. And that is precisely the point. Paul made clear that he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

That would surely be an INCOMPLETE gospel if he wasn't baptizing people.

Why don't you realize that?

Therefore, it is patently impossible to not baptize someone upon conversion.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Paul's point was that he WASN'T baptizing, but was preaching.

That's a real INCOMPLETE gospel if water baptism was necessary for salvation.

Everyone who is converted is converted at the moment of baptism and no sooner

Then Paul was an IMMENSE FAILURE as an evangelist, given what he said in 1 Cor 1.

(Acts 2:38, Acts 22:19, Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:11-13, Gal 3:27)

Nope. It's all been explained to you.

And citing Gal 3:27 is hilarious, since v.2 and 5 EXPLICITLY say that the Holy Spirit is given on the basis of believing the gospel, not baptism.

There were many who were in the Church when he wrote his letter, but almost all were converted through the preaching of other preachers (Apollos for example).

That is not true.

1 Cor 9-
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?
2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

Paul considered the believing congregation at Corinth to be from his own preaching. Yes, Apollos preached there too, but Paul wa clearly the main one.

And consider Acts 18-
9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.
10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.”
11 So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

This is how Acts 18 begins:
1 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.

So, don't tell me that the congregation wasn't mostly the work of Paul's preaching.

Of course it was.

Not parallel at all.

lol. The ONLY DIFF was in the ritual.

The Judaizers, as they were called, were trying to get the new Christians to follow parts of the Law of Moses. But the counsel of Jerusalem decided that, AFTER someone is already in Christ, “… it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.”
You make me laugh, thank you.[/QUOTE]
Well, good for you. But you have YET to support your claims from Scripture. Unlike myself.

Doug Brents · Oct 9, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
That's not an oxymoron. It's your opinion getting in the way.

But, you bring up a point. IF "a person is NOT onverted UNTIL he is baptized", then why don't you see WHY an evangelist would NEVER avoid baptizing anyone who responded positively to the gospel? Wouldn't they NEED to be baptized, right then and there?

Of course they would. And that is precisely the point. Paul made clear that he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

That would surely be an INCOMPLETE gospel if he wasn't baptizing people.

Why don't you realize that?

You seem to assume that as many were converted in Corinth to Paul’s preaching as were in Jerusalem to Peter’s. That doesn’t appear to be the case. Paul says he did baptize some (those who believed immediately), but he did not baptize many, because not many believe immediately.

And Paul, being the first to preach to them, and having planted the first seed, and being the preeminent preacher and Apostle to the Gentiles, very much felt that the congregation in Corinth came from his preaching. But he clearly was not there when most of that seed bore fruit, when they were saved.

FreeGrace2 said:
Yes, that is exactly my point. Paul's point was that he WASN'T baptizing, but was preaching.

That's a real INCOMPLETE gospel if water baptism was necessary for salvation.

Paul’s point was that he was glad more of them hadn’t been baptized into Christ, by his own hand so that he was not additional fuel for the divisions in the congregation. Go back and reread 1 Cor 1:10-13. He makes it clear that when he says he was glad he had not baptized more it was because of there divisions over being in Paul’s camp vs Apollo’s’ camp, vs Christ’s camp. So then, he is glad that more of them don’t have him as their baptized so that they can’t say he baptized in his own name, or use him as a rallying point for their own sect.

FreeGrace2 said:
Then Paul was an IMMENSE FAILURE as an evangelist, given what he said in 1 Cor 1.

The number of people Paul baptized into Christ speaks against your accusation.

FreeGrace2 said:
Nope. It's all been explained to you.

Yes, you have explained your precondition shading your interpretation of those passages. And I have shown you both with direct Biblical command, and with Biblical example, how essential water baptism is to salvation.

FreeGrace2 said:
And citing Gal 3:27 is hilarious, since v.2 and 5 EXPLICITLY say that the Holy Spirit is given on the basis of believing the gospel, not baptism.

Those verses explicitly say the Spirit is given on the basis of faith (pistis), not belief (mental assent). Mental assent is great, but it is worthless in terms of salvation. For only through faith can we please God or receive the blessings He has promised to those who obey Him.

FreeGrace2 said:
And consider Acts 18-
9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.
10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.”
11 So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

This is how Acts 18 begins:
1 After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.

So, don't tell me that the congregation wasn't mostly the work of Paul's preaching.

Of course it was.

Do you not think that, through the Spirit’s guidance, Paul passed the actual baptizing of new believers to his traveling companions or to others who had already been baptized (except for the noted few). Yes, this is supposition, but as the other Apostles did in Jerusalem in passing off easier, or more mundane, tasks to others and keeping themselves to the preaching of the Word, this fits with the facts of the matter, and as I said, maybe the Spirit directed Paul to do this so that he could then write in 1 Cor 1 that he didn’t baptize many.

FreeGrace2 said:
lol. The ONLY DIFF was in the ritual.

In your mind only.

FreeGrace2 said:
Well, good for you. But you have YET to support your claims from Scripture. Unlike myself.

Yes, you have supported your claims through misuse, and adulteration of Scripture. The fact that you don’t believe the truth of the Word, while not surprising me (as many who claim affiliation with Christ believe as you do), truly saddens me.

I pray your eyes are opened to the truth and that God has mercy on you.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 9, 2021

Doug Brents said:
You seem to assume that as many were converted in Corinth to Paul’s preaching as were in Jerusalem to Peter’s.

I proved that the congregation of Corinth was from Paul's preaching. Why do you even bring up Peter's preaching in Jerusalem?? Irrelevant. Just read the verses that prove what I said.

That doesn’t appear to be the case. Paul says he did baptize some (those who believed immediately), but he did not baptize many, because not many believe immediately.

That doesn't appear to be the case. You are just ignoring (or rejecting) the verses that prove that the Corinthian congregation were from Paul's preaching.

And Paul, being the first to preach to them, and having planted the first seed, and being the preeminent preacher and Apostle to the Gentiles, very much felt that the congregation in Corinth came from his preaching. But he clearly was not there when most of that seed bore fruit, when they were saved.

Actually, you clearly were not there when Paul preached. So you have no authority to make any claim about what wasn't written.

And I proved from Acts 18 and what Paul wrote to the Corinthians that the congregation was from his preaching.

Paul’s point was that he was glad more of them hadn’t been baptized into Christ, by his own hand so that he was not additional fuel for the divisions in the congregation.

That IS what he wrote. But the congregation at Corinth was from Paul's preaching.

Go back and reread 1 Cor 1:10-13. He makes it clear that when he says he was glad he had not baptized more it was because of there divisions over being in Paul’s camp vs Apollo’s’ camp, vs Christ’s camp. So then, he is glad that more of them don’t have him as their baptized so that they can’t say he baptized in his own name, or use him as a rallying point for their own sect.

You have to ASSUME/PRESUME/GUESS that Paul didn't have many converts. Nonsense.

The number of people Paul baptized into Christ speaks against your accusation.

No, it refutes your claims that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Most of the Congregation believed the gospel when Paul preached to them.

Yes, you have explained your precondition shading your interpretation of those passages. And I have shown you both with direct Biblical command, and with Biblical example, how essential water baptism is to salvation.

Sure, by crook and by hook. You deny that Paul told the jailer what he MUST DO to be saved, even though Luke's account shows clearly that it was.

Yes, he was baptized, but that was AFTER he and his family believed.

Cornelius and family/friends heard Peter, believed and received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptized.

You have no case.

Those verses explicitly say the Spirit is given on the basis of faith (pistis), not belief (mental assent).

And I've shown the plethora of verses where baptism isn't even mentioned. Both salvation and possession of eternal life is on the basis of believing in Christ.

Mental assent is great, but it is worthless in terms of salvation.

No, your opinions are worthless regarding salvation.

Do you not think that, through the Spirit’s guidance, Paul passed the actual baptizing of new believers to his traveling companions or to others who had already been baptized (except for the noted few).

More presumption. Which is all you have.

Yes, you have supported your claims through misuse, and adulteration of Scripture.

No, that would apply to yourself. As I've shown.

The fact that you don’t believe the truth of the Word, while not surprising me (as many who claim affiliation with Christ believe as you do), truly saddens me.

I absolutely do believe the truth of the Word. It's your denial of truth that is at issue.

Paul's answer was clear to the jailer and complete. You haven't proved otherwise.

I said this in my previous post:

"But, you bring up a point. IF "a person is NOT onverted UNTIL he is baptized", then why don't you see WHY an evangelist would NEVER avoid baptizing anyone who responded positively to the gospel? Wouldn't they NEED to be baptized, right then and there?

Of course they would. And that is precisely the point. Paul made clear that he wasn't sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

That would surely be an INCOMPLETE gospel if he wasn't baptizing people.

Why don't you realize that?"

It still applies. And Paul's recorded answer would have included water baptism if if were necessary for salvation, because that was PRECISELY what the jailer was asking for.

But, go ahead and ignore this huge chink in your theology. Whatever.

prophecy_uk · Oct 10, 2021

All you prove is man is right, ONLY, in his own eyes, you also show you seek nothing else IN YOUR CIRCLING DISCUSSION..

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 10, 2021

prophecy_uk said:
All you prove is man is right, ONLY, in his own eyes, you also show you seek nothing else IN YOUR CIRCLING DISCUSSION..

Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.

Were you talking to someone, or just to yourself? Can't determine.

Biblical discussions are proved only by what the Bible says, not by what man wants it to mean.

prophecy_uk · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Were you talking to someone, or just to yourself? Can't determine.

Biblical discussions are proved only by what the Bible says, not by what man wants it to mean.

You not only do not agree with scripture, you actively oppose it as well.

What value are your words that speak against Gods word, do you think they prove somethign to someone ?

The fruit of the Spirit ( goodness and righteousness which are love for another seen in Jesus Christ in all the good He went about doing) proves what is acceptable to the Lord ( works and not words)

You are reproved, and your circles are all you have left...

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
I proved that the congregation of Corinth was from Paul's preaching. Why do you even bring up Peter's preaching in Jerusalem?? Irrelevant. Just read the verses that prove what I said.

The verses you cited don’t prove your point, except in your delusions.
The facts are these:
Paul preached in Corinth for a year and a half.
Paul only baptized three individuals and/or family groups.
All those who are in Christ were baptized into Him (in water)(Gal 3:27).
So someone else was doing the baptizing. Who? We don’t know. But the fact remains that someone was baptizing everyone who was added to the Church and it wasn’t Paul.

FreeGrace2 said:
That doesn't appear to be the case. You are just ignoring (or rejecting) the verses that prove that the Corinthian congregation were from Paul's preaching.

Not at all. They were the result of his PREACHING, but not the result of his baptizing them. That was his point in his statement, as I have already pointed out.

FreeGrace2 said:
You have to ASSUME/PRESUME/GUESS that Paul didn't have many converts. Nonsense.

I didn’t say he didn’t have many converts. I said he didn’t baptize many of them. If you preach to a group, and 100 of them believe and are baptized into Christ, but you only do the baptizing of 10 of them, would the 90 be counted as result of your effort, or the one who baptized them?

Your efforts, obviously. So it doesn’t matter who baptized them.

FreeGrace2 said:
No, it refutes your claims that water baptism is necessary for salvation. Most of the Congregation believed the gospel when Paul preached to them.

Probably so, but as Scripture says, we enter into Christ (are saved) when we are baptized (in water) into Him, not when we believe.

FreeGrace2 said:
Sure, by crook and by hook. You deny that Paul told the jailer what he MUST DO to be saved, even though Luke's account shows clearly that it was.

Yes, he was baptized, but that was AFTER he and his family believed.

Cornelius and family/friends heard Peter, believed and received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptized.

You have no case.

Now you are reading into Scripture something that is not there. Where does it say he received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized? It does not. Acts 2:38 says the gift (indwelling) is a result of being water baptized into Christ. The jailer’s sins were removed and he received the indwelling when he and his house were baptized; not before.

FreeGrace2 said:
And I've shown the plethora of verses where baptism isn't even mentioned. Both salvation and possession of eternal life is on the basis of believing in Christ.

Serious question here: what did the plaque say that was above Jesus’ head?

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

Double post, deleted.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

prophecy_uk said:
You not only do not agree with scripture, you actively oppose it as well.

If you really believe what you post, then please prove what you claim. A claim without evidence is lame.

What value are your words that speak against Gods word, do you think they prove somethign to someone ?

A claim without evidence is lame.

The fruit of the Spirit ( goodness and righteousness which are love for another seen in Jesus Christ in all the good He went about doing) proves what is acceptable to the Lord ( works and not words)

No one can see works on a forum. So that isn't an issue. The issue on forums is what the Bible SAYS. My words are proved by the verses that I quote.

You are reproved, and your circles are all you have left...

So, who "reproved" me? Surely not you. So who?

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth
10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

These verses show that the Christian life is to be a supernatural way of life, powered by the Holy Spirit.

Now, since Paul commands us to be "filled with the Spirit" in Eph 5:18, can you provide a specific and clear explanation of HOW a believer is filled?

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
I proved that the congregation of Corinth was from Paul's preaching. Why do you even bring up Peter's preaching in Jerusalem?? Irrelevant. Just read the verses that prove what I said.

Doug Brents said:
The verses you cited don’t prove your point

Well, they do, but it seems you just don't want to accept the truth.

except in your delusions.

Snark fest going on here.

The facts are these:
Paul preached in Corinth for a year and a half.
Paul only baptized three individuals and/or family groups.
All those who are in Christ were baptized into Him (in water)(Gal 3:27).

Here's a fact. Gal 3:27 is about the baptism of the Spirit, NOT the ritual involving water.

So someone else was doing the baptizing. Who? We don’t know. But the fact remains that someone was baptizing everyone who was added to the Church and it wasn’t Paul.

That's not even close to fact. It's only your imagination, presumption, and assumption.

They were the result of his PREACHING, but not the result of his baptizing them.

Yes, and that is my point. They believed what Paul preached and were saved. Whoever water baptized them was a ritual.

I didn’t say he didn’t have many converts. I said he didn’t baptize many of them.

It seems you just don't want to grasp the reality here. IF IF IF water baptism is necessary for salvation, NO NO NO evangelist would EVER NOT baptize all who responded to the gospel.

If you preach to a group, and 100 of them believe and are baptized into Christ, but you only do the baptizing of 10 of them, would the 90 be counted as result of your effort, or the one who baptized them?

Everyone who believes IS baptized "into Christ". That's the baptism of the Spirit.

Why don't you believe Acts 11-
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized withwater, but you will be baptized withthe Holy Spirit.’
17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

This passage proves that at the moment of belief in Christ, the believer is indwelt with the Spirit. This is the baptism of the Spirit.

Probably so, but as Scripture says, we enter into Christ (are saved) when we are baptized (in water) into Him, not when we believe.

No verse says this. In fact, we are saved and receive the Spirit WHEN WE BELIEVE.

Gal 3-
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Go ahead and answer these questions by Paul.

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Sure, by crook and by hook. You deny that Paul told the jailer what he MUST DO to be saved, even though Luke's account shows clearly that it was.

Yes, he was baptized, but that was AFTER he and his family believed.

Cornelius and family/friends heard Peter, believed and received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptized.

You have no case.

Now you are reading into Scripture something that is not there.

LOL. You're the one doing that. You claim Paul's recorded answer in v.31 was NOT complete and that Paul HAD TO give MORE information to the jailer.

Where does it say he received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized? It does not.

The text doesn't mention that. My comment was regarding Cornelius. Read Acts 11:15-17, which proves WHEN he received the Spirit.

Acts 2:38 says the gift (indwelling) is a result of being water baptized into Christ. The jailer’s sins were removed and he received the indwelling when he and his house were baptized; not before.

I am so tired of your abuse of this verse. Since you refuse what I've explained, I'm going to give you what an on-line commentator says about it. Free Bible Commentaries and Bible Study Tools

2:37 "they were pierced to the heart" This is the Greek term kata plus nussō. The root word is used in John 19:34 for Jesus being nailed to the cross. Peter's sermon nailed these hearers to the truth of the gospel. This obviously refers to the necessary conviction of the Holy Spirit which precedes salvation (cf. John 16:8-11; Rom. 3:21-31).

2:38 "Repent" This is an AORIST ACTIVE IMPERATIVE which means make a decisive decision. The Hebrew term for repentance meant a change of action. The Greek term meant a change of mind. Repentance is a willingness to change. It does not mean a total cessation of sin, but a desire to please God, not self. As fallen humanity we live for ourselves, but as believers we live for God! Repentance and faith are God's requirements for salvation (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16, 19; 20:21). Jesus said "Unless you repent, you will all perish" (cf Luke. 13:3,5). Repentance is God's will for fallen man (cf. 2 Pet. 3:9, Ezek. 18:23, 30, 32). The mystery of the sovereignty of God and human free will can be clearly demonstrated by repentance as a requirement for salvation. However, the paradox or dialectic pair is that it is also a gift of God (cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18 and 2 Tim. 2:25). There is always a tension in the biblical presentation of God's initiating grace and humanity's needed covenantal response. The new covenant, like the old covenant, has an "if. . .then" structure. There are several terms used in the NT which relate to the concept of repentance.

The theological question is how does "for" (eis) function? Is forgiveness linked to "repent" or "be baptized"? Is forgiveness dependent on repentance and/or baptism?

The possible uses of eis are multiple. The most common use is "with a view to" or "for this purpose of." Most Baptist scholars choose "because of" for theological reasons, but it is a minor option. Often our presuppositions even function at this grammatical analysis level. We must let the Bible speak in context; then check the parallels; then form our systematic theologies. All interpreters are historically, denominationally, and experientially conditioned.

Forgiveness through faith in Christ is a recurrent theme in these sermons in Acts (i.e., Peter 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; and Paul 13:38).

"receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" This is a FUTURE MIDDLE (deponent) INDICATIVE. The gift of the Spirit was

an assured salvation
an indwelling presence
an equipping for service
a developing Christlikeness

We must not push the items or the order of the events of salvation because they are often different in Acts. Acts was not meant to teach a standard formula or theological sequence (cf. How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 94-112), but record what happened.

Should an interpreter use this text to assert a sequence of salvation acts: repent, be baptized, forgiveness, and then the gift of the Spirit? My theology demands the Spirit as active from the first (cf. John 6:44,65) and crucial all through the process of conviction (cf. John 16:8-12), repentance (cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25), and faith. The Spirit is primary and necessary (cf. Rom. 8:9) from start to finish. He certainly cannot be last in a series!

One of the books that has helped me shed my denominational indoctrination and let the Bible speak with power is F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions. In it he makes several good comments about Acts 2:38. One that grabbed me is:

"This reception of the spirit might be experienced before baptism (Acts 10:44), after baptism (Acts 2:38), or after baptism plus the laying on of apostolic hands (Acts 8:16; 19:54)" (p. 167).

Moderns want clear statements of doctrine which can be affirmed, but usually they react to a "proof-text" method of interpretation and isolate only those texts that fit their pre-understanding, biases.

Serious question here: what did the plaque say that was above Jesus’ head?

John 19:19 - Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
John 19:19 - Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If that is so, then why did Mark simply say,
“And the inscription of His accusation was written above:

THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

No reference to His name. No reference to where He was from. And Mark also does not tell us of the three languages that are noted in John’s account. Does this make Mark’s account inaccurate? Did the Spirit lie?

No, the Spirit just chose to have Mark record the bare bones of this part of the story, without the additional details as recorded by John.

This is the same effect you get when looking at things like the story of the jailer. The Spirit did not see fit to enunciate all the details of what was said, but the reader is expected to know them because they have been spelled out earlier in the letter that Luke wrote (Acts 2:13, 3:19, etc.).

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
John 19:19 - Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Doug Brents said:
If that is so, then why did Mark simply say,
“And the inscription of His accusation was written above:

THE KING OF THE JEWS.”

No reference to His name.

Big deal. It's just a detail. Nothing of doctrinal level.

No reference to where He was from. And Mark also does not tell us of the three languages that are noted in John’s account. Does this make Mark’s account inaccurate? Did the Spirit lie?

Every writer of the Bible expressed his own personality. Doesn't mean everyone would say EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

But you are just straining at gnats. Again, Paul's answer to the jailer was complete, as many other verses say the exact same thing in different contexts.

No, the Spirit just chose to have Mark record the bare bones of this part of the story, without the additional details as recorded by John.

And it's insignificant. What CANNOT be insignificant is the answer to the jailer's question, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IN ALL OF HISTORY.

What you are trying to do is equate an insignificant point with THE MOST important question in history. Way to go.

This is the same effect you get when looking at things like the story of the jailer.

Not even close. Quit trying to equate or even compare a very INSIGNIFICANT point with the GREATEST QUESTION OF SIGNIFICANCE in history.

The Spirit did not see fit to enunciate all the details of what was said, but the reader is expected to know them because they have been spelled out earlier in the letter that Luke wrote (Acts 2:13, 3:19, etc.).

This is a new low with this kind of comparison.

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Here's a fact. Gal 3:27 is about the baptism of the Spirit, NOT the ritual involving water.

That is your opinion (and, admittedly, that of much of the Christian world). However, that is clearly not the case. There is only one baptism in the NT Church (Eph 4:4-6). And as noted in many passages, water is required for it. Further, as noted in Matt 28:19, man must be the one doing the baptizing. Man cannot cause the Spirit to do anything, so this clearly cannot be Spirit baptism.

FreeGrace2 said:
It seems you just don't want to grasp the reality here. IF IF IF water baptism is necessary for salvation, NO NO NO evangelist would EVER NOT baptize all who responded to the gospel.

Not at all true. Many people I have seen baptized were not baptized by the minister who preached to them. The first minister who preached the Gospel to me didn’t baptize me. It doesn’t matter who does the baptizing, what matters is the name into which one is baptized.

FreeGrace2 said:
Everyone who believes IS baptized "into Christ". That's the baptism of the Spirit.

Why don't you believe Acts 11-
15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized withwater, but you will be baptized withthe Holy Spirit.’
17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

This passage proves that at the moment of belief in Christ, the believer is indwelt with the Spirit. This is the baptism of the Spirit.

No, it doesn’t. When Peter “began to speak”, Cornelius had not yet HEARD the Gospel, and since hearing leads to faith (Rom 10:17), he could not yet have had faith, and since faith leads to salvation (Eph 2:8) he could not have been saved yet. The purpose of the Spirit falling on Cornelius befor he was saved was, as is noted in Acts 11:17-18 where the other Apostles are quieted by the fact that God gave the same gifts of power to the Gentiles as He did the Jews, meaning that the Gentiles were to be accepted int the Church as equals to the Jewish. Christians.

FreeGrace2 said:
No verse says this. In fact, we are saved and receive the Spirit WHEN WE BELIEVE.

Gal 3-
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

Go ahead and answer these questions by Paul.

As this verse says (and many others as well), we receive the Spirit through FAITH (pistis), not through a mental assent “belief”.

FreeGrace2 said:
LOL. You're the one doing that. You claim Paul's recorded answer in v.31 was NOT complete and that Paul HAD TO give MORE information to the jailer.

Indeed he did; in verse 32 he “spoke the Word of the Lord to him and his household.” He had not yet spoken the Word of the Lord to the jailer. He had only given a one sentence, 30,000 foot, overview of the Gospel.

FreeGrace2 said:
I am so tired of your abuse of this verse. Since you refuse what I've explained, I'm going to give you what an on-line commentator says about it. Free Bible Commentaries and Bible Study Tools

2:37 "they were pierced to the heart" This is the Greek term kata plus nussō. The root word is used in John 19:34 for Jesus being nailed to the cross. Peter's sermon nailed these hearers to the truth of the gospel. This obviously refers to the necessary conviction of the Holy Spirit which precedes salvation (cf. John 16:8-11; Rom. 3:21-31).

This means they believed, mental assent, they were convinced and convicted that they had killed God in the flesh.

FreeGrace2 said:
2:38 "Repent" This is an AORIST ACTIVE IMPERATIVE which means make a decisive decision. The Hebrew term for repentance meant a change of action. The Greek term meant a change of mind. Repentance is a willingness to change. It does not mean a total cessation of sin, but a desire to please God, not self.

The theological question is how does "for" (eis) function? Is forgiveness linked to "repent" or "be baptized"? Is forgiveness dependent on repentance and/or baptism?

The possible uses of eis are multiple. The most common use is "with a view to" or "for this purpose of." Most Baptist scholars choose "because of" for theological reasons, but it is a minor option. Often our presuppositions even function at this grammatical analysis level. We must let the Bible speak in context; then check the parallels; then form our systematic theologies. All interpreters are historically, denominationally, and experientially conditioned.

Forgiveness through faith in Christ is a recurrent theme in these sermons in Acts (i.e., Peter 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43; and Paul 13:38).

It is very clear which way to take “eis” when looking at Acts 3:19. This verse clearly and plainly says that repentance is done so that sins can be forgiven and times of refreshing can come. In 2:38, there is absolutely nothing grammatical that would separate repentance and baptism from both being referred by “eis”. This makes it clear that eis must mean for the purpose of, not because you have been.

FreeGrace2 said:
"receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" This is a FUTURE MIDDLE (deponent) INDICATIVE. The gift of the Spirit was

an assured salvation

an indwelling presence

an equipping for service

a developing Christlikeness

We must not push the items or the order of the events of salvation because they are often different in Acts. Acts was not meant to teach a standard formula or theological sequence (cf. How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 94-112), but record what happened.

Should an interpreter use this text to assert a sequence of salvation acts: repent, be baptized, forgiveness, and then the gift of the Spirit? My theology demands the Spirit as active from the first (cf. John 6:44,65) and crucial all through the process of conviction (cf. John 16:8-12), repentance (cf. Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25), and faith. The Spirit is primary and necessary (cf. Rom. 8:9) from start to finish. He certainly cannot be last in a series!

The presence of the Spirit through this process is clear. And the miraculous gifts of the Spirit are manifest through the OT and the NT without the indwelling. However, the indwelling is a new promise in the NT that was not present in the OT, and it is clearly a result of baptism in this passage.

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Big deal. It's just a detail. Nothing of doctrinal level.

Yes, it is very much a big deal. Because you seem to think that if something is not mentioned in EVERY place that the subject is brought up that it is irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

FreeGrace2 said:
Every writer of the Bible expressed his own personality. Doesn't mean everyone would say EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

But you are just straining at gnats. Again, Paul's answer to the jailer was complete, as many other verses say the exact same thing in different contexts.

But not ALL of them do. Some say something more than belief is required. Some add specific actions that fall under the heading of faith.

FreeGrace2 said:
And it's insignificant. What CANNOT be insignificant is the answer to the jailer's question, which is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IN ALL OF HISTORY.

What you are trying to do is equate an insignificant point with THE MOST important question in history. Way to go.

No, I am pointing out, through an easily seen instance of differences in the recorded history, that just because something is not said in every case does not make it any less true.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

Doug Brents said:
That is your opinion (and, admittedly, that of much of the Christian world). However, that is clearly not the case.

It is clearly the case. You just don't want to accept the truth. Water baptism is a ritual only.

There is only one baptism in the NT Church (Eph 4:4-6).

And that isn't a ritual either.

And as noted in many passages, water is required for it.

Yes, water IS used in rituals.

Further, as noted in Matt 28:19, man must be the one doing the baptizing. Man cannot cause the Spirit to do anything, so this clearly cannot be Spirit baptism.

Right again. Ritual. Man does it.

No, it doesn’t. When Peter “began to speak”, Cornelius had not yet HEARD the Gospel

Compare with the events of Acts 11.

As this verse says (and many others as well), we receive the Spirit through FAITH (pistis), not through a mental assent “belief”.

There is no difference.

[UOTE]Indeed he did; in verse 32 he “spoke the Word of the Lord to him and his household.”[/QUOTE]
You are the one trying to ADD words to Scripture.

He had not yet spoken the Word of the Lord to the jailer. He had only given a one sentence, 30,000 foot, overview of the Gospel.

It was complete. And Paul's answer is exactly the same as many other verses throughout the NT.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

Doug Brents said:
Yes, it is very much a big deal.

NOT. Your "comparison" is absurd. Apples to oranges. Just because the sign above Jesus on the cross isn't recorded the same between 2 different gospels has NO relation to Paul's answer to the jailer. His answer WAS complete, whether you like it or not.

Because you seem to think that if something is not mentioned in EVERY place that the subject is brought up that it is irrelevant.

Seems you have quite a knack to misunderstanding words.

What is irrelevant is to try to equate the "different signs" recorded on the cross with Paul's answer to the jailer.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

That's where you are.

But not ALL of them do. Some say something more than belief is required.

Who cares what "some" say? I care about what the Bible says.

Some add specific actions that fall under the heading of faith.

There are NO human actions that "fall under the heading of faith". That's where you keep going off the rails.

No, I am pointing out, through an easily seen instance of differences in the recorded history, that just because something is not said in every case does not make it any less true.

Your point is irrelevant. I've already shown you many many verses that say exactly what Paul said about how to be saved.

You only have a small handful of verses, and you've misunderstood all of them.

Doug Brents · Oct 11, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
It is clearly the case. You just don't want to accept the truth. Water baptism is a ritual only.

And that isn't a ritual either.

Yes, water IS used in rituals.

Right again. Ritual. Man does it.

Compare with the events of Acts 11.

There is no difference.

You are the one trying to ADD words to Scripture.

It was complete. And Paul's answer is exactly the same as many other verses throughout the NT.

Your comment is completely lacking in any substantive contribution to this discussion.

FreeGrace2 · Oct 11, 2021

Doug Brents said:
Your comment is completely lacking in any substantive contribution to this discussion.

The truth is that trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation IS salvific. Plus nothing.

Water baptism is a ritual, which symbolizes the believers' identification with the Lord in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Rom 6:4 - We 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.

Col 2:12 - having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

You are free to believe what you want.

O.B.N.C.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads