Baptism

[Stinker]

Chapter and verse for your last sentence please. [Dispy #39]


Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

 

[Dispy]

Chapter and verse for your last sentence please. [Dispy #39]


Even if you do not understand Rom.6:3-11 to be speaking of water baptism, it still means the same as you understand it Dispy.

It is a physical representation of what happened to all believers, as what 1Cor.12:13 teaches.

I find nothing physical in Romans 6:3-11. THANK GOD verse 6 isn't physical.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[- DRA -]

I totally agree with you that those at Pentecost heard what Peter preached were baptized, received the Holy Ghost, and added to the Church. However, Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Ghost (Matthew 3:11).

The disciples of Jesus were given the Holy Ghost prior to Pentecost but not the power (Luke 20:22). Jesus in Luke 24:49 said "...but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from high. So their power of the Holy Gost came in fulfillment of promise.

Yes, at Pentecost water baptism was still in effect, and those that repented and were baptized did recieve the power of the Holy Ghost and added to the Jewish church, not the Body of Christ, which was still future revelation.

The Body of Christ, the Church for today, was not made until after the nation of Israel was set aside after the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7.

(Now keep in mind that prior to the setting aside of Israel, for one that was a Gentile to serve the true and living God, that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses.)

In Acts 8 we find that Ethiopian was saved and baptized in water. Why? Because the kingdom program with its water baptism was still in effect. But, you will notice that he (the Etheopian) did believe and was then bapized. He then became a Jewish Proselyte.

It was in Acts 10 that Peter first learned that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean." That meant that the Jew and Gentiles were now on equal footing and without distinction. Did that bring the Gentiles up to the same level at the Jews? NO! It put the Jews on the same level as the Gentiles who were set aside back in Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel.

Romans 11:32 "For God hath concluded them ALL (Jews and Gentiles) in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all."

You will notice that in Acts 10;44 that all those that were with Cornelius were filled with the Holy Ghost PRIOR to being water baptized. They were not required to repent and be baptized prior to receiving the Holy Ghost as in Acts 2:38. That is why those of the cirucmcision were so astonished. So you see; changes were taking place. Water baptism was still in the program at that time. There was no command that they had to be baptized.

When we get to the Spirit baptism of 1Cor.12:13, it is not Jesus that is the Baptizer as in Acts 2. It is NOW the Holy Spirit that is the Baptizer. It is not for the remission of sins and receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris, the Chruch for today.

When Jesus was upon the earth, He preached, and commanded his disciples to preach "the gospel of the kingdom"/"the kingdom at hand; which had to do with the fulfillment of prophesy. It was to be carried out via the "so called" great commission.

Being Israel rejected their King and His Kingdom, there was no way that that commission could be carried out. Therefore, God set the nation of Israel aside and raised up Saul/Paul to usher in the dispensation of Grace. Not if fulfillment of prophesy, but with the "revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began."

The "gospel of the kingdom" was preached with the Law in effect. The "gospel of the grace of God," which Paul preached, was preached and the Law no longer in effect. Even though Paul did water baptize some, he NEVER anyone to be water baptized. Please read my posts PART 2 and 3. They will explain why.

James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out, and in Galatians 2:9 agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) while he should go to the Gentiles.

One should never read future revelation into past events. That would be like reading the Laws of Moses into the Garden of Eden or reading the battles of WWI into the battles of WW2. Therefore one should never read the revelatons to Paul into the Gospels and the 1st 7 chapters of Acrts. The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law. The revelations to Paul are after Israel and the Law are set aside, and have to do with salvation by Grace through FAITH ALONE based upon the Cross work of Christ according to the revelation of the mystery revealed to Paul.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Thanks for your response and the Scriptural references you provided. That gives us a basis to work from to seek a common understanding of baptism today. I understand better where you are coming from, but still do not agree with how you get to where you are. Consider . . .

The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 . . . just as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14. For a totally different reason, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:47-48. Look at Peter’s conclusion in verse 47. He asks if anyone can forbid water. Why? Obviously, God had shown that He approved of the Gentiles having the gospel preached to them. They are candidates for baptism. So, like the Jews in Acts chapter 2, the Gentiles are COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). Acts 2:38 explained what resulted from this baptism -- the remission of sins.

Later, Peter explains these events to his Jewish brethren in Acts chapter 11. Acts 11:15-16 identifies the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles as being the same as what occurred to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 -- the baptism with the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus. Now, can you find any other place in the N.T. where this particular baptism occurs and is identified as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit? And, I need some Scriptural information about this baptism that the Holy Spirit is supposed to baptize with. Others I have studied with have explained 1 Cor. 12:13 as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, but you claim that it is a totally different baptism than this -- the one you say is “not for the remission of sins and [not to] receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris [sic], the Chruch [sic] for today.” Frankly, I only find in the Scriptures that Jesus promised to build one church (singular) -- not two churches -- in Matt. 16:18, and that He built the church in Acts chapter 2 when the Jews repented of their sins and were baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38,41,47). Especially note verse 47. Once one meets the terms of salvation one is added to the church. The church is identified as the body of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23, and Eph. 4:5 declares that there is one body (church). The Scriptures reveal that the one church is made up of individual Christians (1 Cor. 12:27) who live in different geographical regions e.g. the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters 2-3. In the plural sense, churches are referred to as the churches of Christ in Romans 16:16. To summarize my point, the church of Christ and the body of Christ are one in the same. The church is the (spiritual) body of Christ. And, if you study and carefully consider Ephesians chapters 2 through 4:6 you will find that this spiritual body is made up of both Gentiles and Jews.

As for the Ethiopian eunuch, I encourage you to consider his conversion from a different perspective. After Jesus was preached to him, the eunuch confessed his faith in the Lord and was baptized in water. This harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Frankly, I don’t understand how can say that belief and baptism made the eunuch a Jewish proselyte. Did you possibly overlook Acts 8:35? Philip “preached Jesus.” Somehow, you have concluded that Philip preached the need to be a proselyte to Judaism. The Scriptural evidence does not support this. In fact, considering that the eunuch was traveling to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27) suggests that he was a Jew or a already a proselyte. Note the context. After worshipping in Jerusalem, the eunuch was returning. Then Philip met up with him and “preached Jesus.” In response to hearing Jesus preached -- not Judaism -- the eunuch desired to be baptized in water.

As for how Gentiles compare to Jews under the gospel of Christ, Romans 3:23, Gal. 3:28-29, and Ephesians 2:19 (fellow citizens) address this issue.

Two things I think you’ve overlooked:
1.) The kingdom was set up that Jesus promised (see Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, and Rev. 1:9)
2.) The great commission was fulfilled (see Mark 16:15 and Col. 1:23)
Accepting what the Scriptures say about these things should help rethink your reasoning on Gal. 2:9. Paul is referring to the events after his conversion to Christ. Paul and Barnabas went on what is commonly called Paul’s first missionary journey to preach the gospel (see Acts chapters 13-14) while the apostles continued to labor among the Jews. This is what the passage is alluding to. The passage does NOT say what you say it says. You said, “James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out,” but this is NOT what Gal. 2:9 says. Evidently, your misunderstanding of the apostles’ fulfillment of the great commission has allowed you the liberty to read something into the passage that simply is NOT there.

Your quote in the last paragraph of your post deserves some attention -- “The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law.” Generally speaking, the Gospels occur while the law of Moses was in effect. However, Jesus nailed that law to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus’ covenant went into effect after His death. In fact, if you think of it in the terms that this passage uses, you can view Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus’ will.

Bottom line. The kingdom was set up that was promised. The kingdom is the church. Both Jews and Gentiles make up the church. The apostles only taught one plan of salvation under the gospel of Christ. God has done what He promised He would do. Simple as that. And, if it is necessary for us to be united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God, then baptism is still necessary today (see Romans 6:3-11).

I have already read and considered parts 2 and 3 of your original post. I will respond as time allows.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

First off, I do not believe the seed or blessing from Abraham promised in Gen. 12:1-3 was the nation of Israel. This is a reference to Jesus (see Acts 3:20-26; Matthew 1:1). He was the light to the Gentiles discussed in first few verses of Isaiah chapter 42.

I will agree that in Genesis 12:1-3 is also referring ti Jesus. However, the physical seed of Abraham is the nation of Israel. Isaac was of the seed of Abraham and his name was changed to Israel. "Genesis 12:21: "...for in Isaac shall they seed becalled."

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion (Jerusalem), and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in they moutn, shall not depart of of they mouth, not out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever.

60:1 Arise, shine: for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and the kings to the brightness of thy rising.

The above prophesy will be fulfilled when Israel will recognizes their Messiah at His 2nd coming. However, it would have happen when Jesus was upon the earth and Israel, had Israel accepted Jesus as there Messiah. But they rejected their King and His Kingdom. Also, had Israel repended in Acts 3:19-20, Jesus would have returned and established His Kingdom.

Good. I'm glad that we both see Jesus as being the seed or blessing that Gen. 12:3 was referring to. I don't deny that Abraham's physical seed or ancestry came through Isaac, and Jacob, and then through his twelve sons. However, Acts 3:20-26 makes it clear that Jesus -- not the nation of Israel --
was the was seed or blessing. See also Gal. 3:14-16. Just wanted to make sure that we didn't miss this very important point. While in one sense the nation of Israel was the seed of Abraham, it was NOT the seed or blessing promised in Gen. 12:3.

I believe that Jesus set up the kingdom as prophesied of in passages like Isaiah 2:1-4 and Dan. 2:44. Jesus promised it would be in the lifetime of some of the disciples heard Him (Mark 9:1). It was set up (Col. 1:13). The apostle John was in it (Rev. 1:9).

How do you determine that Peter's sermon in Acts 3 was a pivotal point as far as the kingdom was established? Three thousand Jews had responded favorably to the gospel message preached in Acts 2. Look at Acts 4:4. The number of men has now grown to five thousand. Look also at Acts 5:14. Now, I fully realize that these numbers were only a small portion of the Jews, but some did accept and obey the Lord.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Second, I believe that you misunderstand the kingdom. Consider. Both John and Jesus began preaching that the kingdom was “at hand” (close) e.g. Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15). Jesus even prophesied that some of the disciples there would not die before the kingdom was set up (Mark 9:1). True to the Lord’s word, the kingdom was established in the first-century – within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus’ promise (see Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). I point this out because your reasoning leaves me with the distinct impression you are still waiting for the kingdom. Why wait? It is already here, and has been for about 2,000 years.

Yes, both John and Jesus preached "the kingdom at hand." According to OT prophesy ist was the time for that to happen. The King was born in Jerusalem, but His subjects cried "crucify Him." When Peter, at Pentecost, in Acts 3:19:20 told his listeners what they had to do in order for Jesus to return, they, as a nation didnot repent. Therefore, the kingdom program with its preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" was interrupted and God raised up Saul/Paul to usher in "the dispensation of the grace of God" according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.

I fail to see how we can be living in the kingdom age today because I don't see the restoration of all things. Further, the kingdom is to last 1,000 years and you claim it has been for about 2,000 years now.

Actually wasn't the Messiah born in Bethlehem? See Matt. 2:1-8.

Acts 3 seems to be a significant point of interest to you. You see it as the point where the kingdom was interrupted, but Col. 1:13 doesn't present things in that way. The kingdom was established. Think back to Acts 2:36. Peter declared Jesus to be both Lord and Christ. The word Greek word "Christ" was the equivalent of the Hebrew word "Messiah." In essence, Peter was declaring Jesus to be the king of the Jews (see also the reference to the King of kings in 1 Tim. 6:15). Now, what kind of king was Jesus supposed to be if he couldn't set up His kingdom as He promised?

Where does it say the kingdom is to last 1,000 years? Is this based on your understanding of Rev. 20:2? If so, that is NOT what the passage says.

Bottom line. Whatever understanding you obtain from Acts 3:21 should agree with Col. 1:13, since "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a), right? I don't understand how you can take what you think a passage means (Acts 3:21) to undermine what a passage plainly says (Col. 1:13), and act like this is how truth is supposed to be determined.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Third, the law of Moses included many washings (note Heb. 6:1). However, it wasn’t any of these that John preached to prepare the way for the Lord. John preached a baptism of repentance (Matt. 3:11). He was preparing the people to receive the Lord (Malachi 3:1a). They did this by repenting of their sins. Later, the Jews that accepted that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ) were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (by His authority – not John’s) in Acts 2:38 to have their sins taken away by being united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3-11). This is the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach i.e. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.

I find no water in the baptism of Romans 6:3-11. Please explain to me how the baptism of Romans 6:3-11 be the baptism that Jesus authorized the apostles to preach in Matt. 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-26 when it was still part of the mystery that was kept secret, since the world began? The purpose of the Cross was unknown prior to the raising up of the Apostle Paul. Even Peter at Pentecost preached the cross as something to be repented of.

There are at least 12 different baptisms mention in the Bible. 2 are real (no water ceremony), 5 are figurative (no water ceremony) and 5 are ritual (water ceremony). Today there is one baptism (Eph.4:5) in effect and it is the Spirit (Holy) baptism of 1Cor.12.13.

The mystery that you are referring to is simpy not a factor in this discussion.
The mystery is discussed in Eph. 3:1-9. The mystery involves the Gentiles being fellow heirs of the gospel (see verse 6).

Actually, in Acts 2 Peter DOESN'T preach that the cross was something to be repented of. Rather, it is their rejection of Jesus as being Lord and Christ that needed to be repented of. Notice, the command is two-fold: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Compare this passage to Acts 10:47-48. That text clearly reveals to us that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ -- the same as in the name of the Lord -- is in water. And, we learn from Acts 2:38 that baptism was necessary to have their sins taken away (from the expression "for the remission of sins). Now, go over and note Romans 6:3-11. It explains what occurs during baptism. Note verse 7. We die to sin and are freed from it -- in baptism. This harmonizes with Acts 2:38 (in water - determined from Acts 10:47-48), which teaches that baptism is necessary "for the remission of sins." Compare this thought also to Acts 22:16. See the harmony that exists between the Scriptures?

Another angle to consider concerning 1 Cor. 12:13. Who directs us to respond to the gospel through the word of God? Isn't it the Spirit? Wasn't he the one directing the words of the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2 when he preached and stated the terms for salvation in 2:38? And, didn't 3,000 Jews obey what they were told to do (verse 41)? And, weren't they saved and added to the church (verse 47)? Now, what baptism did the Spirit baptize them with with in the text of this discussion? Wasn't it the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in verse 38 -- which was in water (Acts 10:47-48)? See my point?

Concerning the one baptism: look at the purpose for the baptism in the name of the Lord and compare it with the purpose for the baptism with the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that your reasoning would conclude that we don't have a need today to have our sins taken away, because that is what occurs in baptism i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, 1 Peter 3:21.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

Fourth, there are only two instances in the New Testament where Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit – the apostles in Acts chapter 2 and the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. In both instances, it was clearly evident what occurred i.e. speaking in tongues. In addition to this, a measure of the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostle’s hands (Acts 8:17-18; 19:6). Have you considered why the Holy Spirit was promised to the apostles (see John 16:7-14)? We now have all truth i.e. 2 Tim. 3:16-17; James 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3). What more do we need? We now have God’s complete word (delivered with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that gives all we need to please and serve the Lord.

The disciples received the Holy Ghost in John 20:21. However, they did not receive the power until Pentecost. Jesus told them in Luke 24:49 to wait in Jerusalem "until ye be endued with power from on high."

The purpose of the Holy Ghost power was because Israel was "a sign nation." Isreal always required a sign and God alway gave them one. Signs were proof that it was from God. Those a Pentecost were given the Holy Ghost to bring all Israel back under one roof (so to speak), and then to be that "nation of priests" which would be a blessing to the famlies of the earth (nations), as promised Abram back in Genesis 12:1-3.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

Jesus told the disciples why He was sending the Comforter (Holy Spirit) to them (see John 14:16-18 and 16:7-14. The power of the Holy Spirit confirmed two things: the message and the messenger (see Heb. 2:3-4). It also signaled the coming of the kingdom (Mark 9:1).

We have previously discussed the blessing or seed promised in Gen. 12:3. It refers to Jesus -- NOT the nation of Israel.

1 Peter 2:5 discusses the holy priesthood.

Food for thought:
Gal. 3:26-27 describes how faith prompts us to be baptized into Jesus, where we also put on Christ. Now, note verse 29. We become Abraham's seed as a result of our favorable response to the gospel as described in verses 26-27.

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

Well, the Bible contains certain writings, BUT not all writings that are know to be true. The Didache WAS considered part of the Bible for some folks, but it was ultimately not included at the Council of Hippo. Nonetheless, we know 1st and 2nd century Christians quote from it.

[q]Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.[/q]

Since that is not in the Bible, do you have to ignore it? Can you use it? It was written around 50 AD by the remaining Disciples.

Just wondering here...

Does the Anglican or Orthodox church accept a person who was baptised with wather but was NOT dunked or poured over 3 times...but one time only. Also, what about if they were sprinkled.

Just a question. I am NOT opposed to infant baptism at all.

 

[gtsecc]

Just wondering here...

Does the Anglican or Orthodox church accept a person who was baptised with wather but was NOT dunked or poured over 3 times...but one time only. Also, what about if they were sprinkled.

Just a question. I am NOT opposed to infant baptism at all.

The Anglican and Orthodox and Roman Catholic requirements are:
1. water
2. that it is done in the name of the Trinity.

Age, and amount of water are not important.

The Baptism formula is from the Didache - written by apostles, including some of the original 12.

 

[Stinker]

Actually, in Acts 2 Peter DOESN'T preach that the cross was something to be repented of. Rather, it is their rejection of Jesus as being Lord and Christ that needed to be repented of. Notice, the command is two-fold: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Compare this passage to Acts 10:47-48. That text clearly reveals to us that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ -- the same as in the name of the Lord -- is in water. And, we learn from Acts 2:38 that baptism was necessary to have their sins taken away (from the expression "for the remission of sins). Now, go over and note Romans 6:3-11. It explains what occurs during baptism. Note verse 7. We die to sin and are freed from it -- in baptism. This harmonizes with Acts 2:38 (in water - determined from Acts 10:47-48), which teaches that baptism is necessary "for the remission of sins." Compare this thought also to Acts 22:16. See the harmony that exists between the Scriptures?

Another angle to consider concerning 1 Cor. 12:13. Who directs us to respond to the gospel through the word of God? Isn't it the Spirit? Wasn't he the one directing the words of the apostle Peter in Acts chapter 2 when he preached and stated the terms for salvation in 2:38? And, didn't 3,000 Jews obey what they were told to do (verse 41)? And, weren't they saved and added to the church (verse 47)? Now, what baptism did the Spirit baptize them with with in the text of this discussion? Wasn't it the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in verse 38 -- which was in water (Acts 10:47-48)? See my point?

Concerning the one baptism: look at the purpose for the baptism in the name of the Lord and compare it with the purpose for the baptism with the Holy Spirit? It seems to me that your reasoning would conclude that we don't have a need today to have our sins taken away, because that is what occurs in baptism i.e. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:7, 1 Peter 3:21. [DRA #44]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)


Your angle on 1Cor.12:13 suggesting that it is the Holy Spirit's teaching on how we come to know how one enters the corporate body (church) that being water baptism, would make the actual event of one's salvation 100% dependent on symbolic act.

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Excellent job of laying the Scriptures out there so clearly DRA... I applaud you for your accuracy.

When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)

Stinker... I was wondering when I'd run into you again. I'll be quick because DRA is doing such a wonderful job of rightly dividing the Word.

Your conclusion of what Acts 2:37-38 says could only be true if you eliminated part of the passage. Have you even bothered to investigate the Greek text? Take a look at any you wish... they all are the same with this passage.

I just don't understand why you would not take the passage for what it says instead of trying to have your ears tickled.

I'm done here!

Keep up the good work DRA!

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: Stinker

When Peter commanded the people who had cried to have Jesus crucified and the vicious criminal Barabbas set free, to turn (repent) and be water baptized (this time in the name of Jesus Christ) unto the remission of sins. It wasn't the act of water baptism that was unto the remission of sins...but repentance. (Acts 2:37-38)

Excellent job of laying the Scriptures out there so clearly DRA... I applaud you for your accuracy.

Stinker... I was wondering when I'd run into you again. I'll be quick because DRA is doing such a wonderful job of rightly dividing the Word.

Your conclusion of what Acts 2:37-38 says could only be true if you eliminated part of the passage. Have you even bothered to investigate the Greek text? Take a look at any you wish... they all are the same with this passage.

I just don't understand why you would not take the passage for what it says instead of trying to have your ears tickled.

I'm done here!

Keep up the good work DRA!

Sonny,

Thanks for your support. I am humbled. The truth deserves the best we can give it. My philosophy is simply to try to keep from messing it up. I pray that God will accept my efforts to give the attention to His word that it deserves.

Stinker,

You seemed to have overlooked the word "and" in Acts 2:38. It is a coordinating conjunction that connects equal parts. Thus, if repentance is necessary for the remission of sins, then so is baptism -- because they are connected by the word "and." Note Romans 10:9. It says: "That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (NKJV). Now, let's apply your reasoning to this passage. Let's NOT connect confession and baptism. Let's treat the passage just like you are proposing that we do in Acts 2:38. If we use this approach, belief is eliminated. In essence, your approach to Acts 2:38 eliminates baptism all right, but then eliminates belief in Romans 10:9. Like Regis asks, "Is that your final answer?"



And, you also failed to harmonize your understanding of Acts 2:38 with other relevant passages of Scripture. Like Romans 6:3-11. And Acts 22:16. The truth should harmonize when you accept that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16a).

 

[Stinker]

Anyone can become 'locked in' to seeing only one way of interpreting certain scriptures. I know this because I was at one time.

An example of being mentally 'locked in' on such a scripture as Acts 2:38 would be to take it out of it's 33A.D. context and give it a 21st century interpretation.




Here is how Acts 2:37-38 would have been seen in 33A.D.

The people in Acts 2:37 well understood that water baptism was being performed by John and that it was a sign that they had repented (turned) unto the remission of their sins, to the Lord. It would have been shocking to this crowd to then turn to the very person that they had screamed to be crucified, in order to the remission of their sins, and be baptized in His name as well!

 

[- DRA -]

Your angle on 1Cor.12:13 suggesting that it is the Holy Spirit's teaching on how we come to know how one enters the corporate body (church) that being water baptism, would make the actual event of one's salvation 100% dependent on symbolic act.

First off, do you believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the words of the apostles as they were teaching what was necessary to be saved under the gospel of Christ? Either you do or you don't. Which is it? If you believe that He is guiding them to all truth as Jesus promised He would (John 16:13), then you have to give credit to whom credit is due. I sincerely believe that this is the sense in which the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the church in 1 Cor. 12:13. Look at Acts 2:47. The Lords adds those to the church who are saved. Thus, it all comes down to being baptized into the church by the Holy Spirit involving what it takes to be saved. That's it in nutshell. Now, do you something credible for us to consider? Consider your response. You don't tell us what you understand the passage to say. Give us something to work with.

Baptism is indeed symbolic. By faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12-13), we can be united with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to die to sins, be freed from them, and be alive to God (Rom. 6:3-11). Baptism is an act of faith. It is based on faith. Without faith, all that one sees is the water. Not Jesus. Not His death. Not His burial. Not His resurrection. Remember the words of our Lord: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."

 

[- DRA -]

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. (Mk.1:4)

Note Acts 2:38. The Jews on Pentecost were commanded to be baptized "in the name of the Lord" -- not with John's baptism. There is a sense in which John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins." In what sense? It surely didn't take sins away before Jesus shed His blood on the cross i.e. Matt. 26:28, Heb. 9:22b. What John's baptism did was to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. Those that did would obtain the remission of sins made possible by the blood of Christ. Jesus died on the cross and made the one-time sacrifice for sin. After Jesus' death, His testament (or will) went into effect i.e. Acts 2:38. Then, instead of John's baptism, the baptism in the name of the Lord was commanded. This baptism was designed by God to unite us with the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection and to free us from sin (Rom. 6:3-11). Assuming, of course, that we are willing to obey the Lord.

And, don't forget to consider Acts 18:24 through 19:5. Note how John's baptism falls into the scheme of things under the gospel of Christ. It doesn't.
It served its purpose and is no longer applicable.

 

[Edouard]

DR:

Why is so hard to accept the fact that Christ commanded us on two occasions to be baptized???

One to a teacher of the Law Nicodemus, who understood more of what Christ was saying then we ever will!

Second AFTER he was ressurected from the dead... appearing to the disciples!!

Faith is an outward expression and is commanded by Christ.
A choice to follow him...now how can one make that choice as an infant...
and you still did not respond to my actual questions..but gace me your answer as to why you believe that...

If infant baptism was important and needed to be done...would not the angels have told Mary or Joseph - but they didn't why? the Jews had a similiar practicew..which early christians carried over -- most likely jewish christians..

Secondly... for those that may believe in original sin -- would it not have been imperative that Christ would have to have sinned, just by being born???

Third..O.T. times..God rewarded with earthly measures and there was no concept of Heaven or Hell.. In the NT we are promised eternal rewards! Difference in concept..
Christ fulfilled the law.. by being the ultimate sacrifice..

Fourth.. Corinthians does talk about the renewing of our mind.. being buried with Christ then raised... hmm... baptism sound familiar.. how can we be buried by the Holy Spirit then raised up?

Lastly, what is the greek definition of baptism???
bap: to sink, for a ship to be submerged under water
( there is no differencing on opinions on what the word actually means linguistically speaking)

Edouard

 

[Edouard]

One more thing..
IF Christ was baptized as an adult, and the disciples baptized with water after Christ came.. why?? what would be the purpose if it wasn't needed?? and at Pentecost why baptizre if not necessary..???

out of our faith and belief in our Lord comes action..
why are we so afraid to be baptized?

Edouard
I will respond to your post at a later date...

 

[Dispy]

:
The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 . . . just as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14. For a totally different reason, the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:47-48. Look at Peter’s conclusion in verse 47. He asks if anyone can forbid water. Why? Obviously, God had shown that He approved of the Gentiles having the gospel preached to them. They are candidates for baptism. So, like the Jews in Acts chapter 2, the Gentiles are COMMANDED to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). Acts 2:38 explained what resulted from this baptism -- the remission of sins.

John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I willl send him unto you."

It appears to me that the Comforter will come after His departure.

However the same author says in 20:22 "And when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto themReceive ye the Holy Ghost.

In Luke 24, Jesus instructed His disciples to remain in "Jerusalem, until ye be enduded with power from on high.

In Matthew 3:11 John the Baptist said that it would be Jesus that baptized with the Holy Ghost. Therefore at Pentecost, those in the upper room received the Holy Ghost as a result of the promise that John the Baptist mentioned. They had, no doubt, already been baptized by John earlier for the remissions of sins. Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Ghost. (Jesus baptized the 12 in water earlier []John 4:2]).

At Pentecost, those that repented and believed were water baptized by the disciples and Jesus was still the baptizer with the Holy Ghost. It was a promised gift and not a ceremony. I know of no one else that was given that authority.

In Acts 2:38 the "formla was: repent-be baptized-and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If they did not repent, they would not have been baptized, and if they were not baptized, they would not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now lets look at what happened in Acts 10. First of all, in verses 1 and 2 that Cornelius, a gentile, was a devout man and one that feared God, and prayed to God always.

Before Peter was given the vision in 10:9-16, it was still unlawful for a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation (cf. vs28).

Yes, Jesus, when He was upon the earth did bless Gentiles. However, they came to Him, He did not go to them. Even when Israel was God's chosen people, one that was a Gentile had to become a Jew (proselyte) in order to serve the true and living God. Also they had to place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses in order to receive Isreal's blessings. Yet we know that God had never turned away a Gentile that sought after Him. That was the case of Cornelius.

You will notice that the formula of "repent, be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is starting to fall apart.

Cornelius, a devout man and one that prayed to God, knew all about the God of Israel and that Peter and the others were with Jesus. That is why Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and worshiped him. Isn't that a little strange that a non-Jew, and one with authority over the Jews, would bow down to a Jew? That is evidence to me that he "feared God."

Now in vs 44 we find that while Peter was yet speaking the Holy Ghost fell upon all that heard the word. There is no evidence that repentance was made, or that water baptism was performed prior prior to these non-Jews receiving the Holy Ghost. That is why those of the circumcision were so astonded.

We find in chapter 11 when Peter when back to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him and blamed him for going to one that was uncircumcised and also ate with them. It appears that Peter's actions were contrary to the Law. No wonder Peter rehearsed the matter on his way back to Jerusalem. How was he going to explain what happend? But, we learn in vs 18 that they learned something that they never knew before.

Now lets go back a little. In Luke 24:45, prior to HIs going back to heaven, we learn that Jesus opend the understanding of the Scriptures to the disciples. Also, in John 16:13 says: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:..." Aso, at Pentecost they spoke "as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4).

Based on the above, Why are the happening of Acts 10 and 11 so astonishing to the disciples if it wasn't something new and different?

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

:Later, Peter explains these events to his Jewish brethren in Acts chapter 11. Acts 11:15-16 identifies the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles as being the same as what occurred to the apostles in Acts 2:1-4 -- the baptism with the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus.

Dispy inserts: I do belsieve I have covered the above in my last post.

Now, can you find any other place in the N.T. where this particular baptism occurs and is identified as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit? And, I need some Scriptural information about this baptism that the Holy Spirit is supposed to baptize with. Others I have studied with have explained 1 Cor. 12:13 as being the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised, but you claim that it is a totally different baptism than this -- the one you say is “not for the remission of sins and [not to] receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost, but it is for entrance into The Body of Chris [sic], the Chruch [sic] for today.” Frankly, I only find in the Scriptures that Jesus promised to build one church (singular) -- not two churches -- in Matt. 16:18, and that He built the church in Acts chapter 2 when the Jews repented of their sins and were baptized to be saved (Acts 2:38,41,47). Especially note verse 47. Once one meets the terms of salvation one is added to the church. The church is identified as the body of Christ in Eph. 1:22-23, and Eph. 4:5 declares that there is one body (church). The Scriptures reveal that the one church is made up of individual Christians (1 Cor. 12:27) who live in different geographical regions e.g. the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters 2-3. In the plural sense, churches are referred to as the churches of Christ in Romans 16:16. To summarize my point, the church of Christ and the body of Christ are one in the same. The church is the (spiritual) body of Christ. And, if you study and carefully consider Ephesians chapters 2 through 4:6 you will find that this spiritual body is made up of both Gentiles and Jews.

At Pentecost the baptism with the Holy Ghost is the same baptism that John the Baptist said: "...he that cometh after me is mightier then I,...; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matt.3:11).

As I stated earlier, there are at least 12 baptisms mentioned in the Bible. However, Paul tells us in Ephesiand 4:5 that today there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism. It is the bapitism of 1Cor. 12:13. The Holy Spirit baptizing the believer into the Body of Christ. I would take God's Word over anyone that I study with. Read for yourself what 1Cor.12:13 says. I don't recall reading anywhere else in Scripture were anyone, beside Jesus, that baptize with the Holy Spirit. All others that I recall reading about baptized in the name of Jesus/Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

The word "Church" just simply means: a called out assembly. Even satan has a church. Surely you don't think that is the one Chruch that Jesus spoke of do you? I'm sure you don't. Wasn't Isreal "a church in the wilderness?"

The Church at Pentecost, I believe, was strictly a Jewish Church under the Law. For one that was a Gentile who wanted to become a member of that Church; that one had to become a Jew (proselyte) and place themselves under the Law. The Gentiles at that time were considered "unclean," "heathen," "dogs," and "outside the gate."

The Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of believing "set aside Gentiles (Genesis 11, at the Tower of Babel) and set aside Jews (Romans 11:7-12). They are on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law. That condition didn't exist at anytime in the OT, the Gospels or the first 8 chapters of Acts.

According to Matt.16:18 Jesus said "And I say unto thee (Peter), That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Paul said in 1Cor.3:10 "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and other buildeth thereon. But let every man take head how he buildeth thereupon."

Both the Jewish Church and the Church, the Body of Christ are both built upon Jesus. He (Jesus) is the foundation that both Church are built upon.

I consider myself a non-denominational dispensationalist. I'm sure you see me as a "futurist." My views are somewhat different from most denominationalist. From your posting I do believe you consider youself a "Preterist."

I believe in the rapture, and apparently you don't. You believe the Tribulation has already happened, and I believe it is still future. Therefore, we look at the book of the Revelation from different viewpoints.

My belief is: Being the Chruch, the Body of Christ, is raptured to heaven prior to the Tribulation, there is no need for them to be mentioned in the book because they will have been raptured prior.

Paul's Epistles tell me that the Church for today is "the Body of Christ," free from the Law, and not the Jewish Church under the Law.

:
As for the Ethiopian eunuch, I encourage you to consider his conversion from a different perspective. After Jesus was preached to him, the eunuch confessed his faith in the Lord and was baptized in water. This harmonizes with what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 – “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Frankly, I don’t understand how can say that belief and baptism made the eunuch a Jewish proselyte. Did you possibly overlook Acts 8:35? Philip “preached Jesus.” Somehow, you have concluded that Philip preached the need to be a proselyte to Judaism. The Scriptural evidence does not support this. In fact, considering that the eunuch was traveling to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27) suggests that he was a Jew or a already a proselyte. Note the context. After worshipping in Jerusalem, the eunuch was returning. Then Philip met up with him and “preached Jesus.” In response to hearing Jesus preached -- not Judaism -- the eunuch desired to be baptized in water.

I agree with you as to the Ethiopian eunuch's salvation. "The gospel of the kingdom" was still being preached and for one that wanted to serve the ture and Living God, at that time, were still required to repent (believe) and be water baptized. "the Body of Christ," Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law, wasn't "MADE" yet (2Tim.2:15). Therefore, the enuch became a Jewish proselyte, the economy of that day. The Church, the Body of Christ, was still future revelation to the Apostle Paul. It is not proper to read future revelation into a past event.

As for how Gentiles compare to Jews under the gospel of Christ, Romans 3:23, Gal. 3:28-29, and Ephesians 2:19 (fellow citizens) address this issue.

In Romans 11:7-12 we find that God had set the nation of Israel aside temporarily (vs 25). The fulness of the Gentiles is when the Church, the Body of Christ, is raptured. Then, according to vs 26, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written. There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer (Christ's 2nd coming) and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

Verse 32 says: "For God hath concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles), in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

If all are now in unbelief, how is the good news of the Gospel going to go out to the nations. Here is where God Plan that was formed before the foundation of the world comes into play. It was "the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began," and revealed to the Apostle Paul.
Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off (Genatiles) are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Law); for to make in himself of twain (Jew and Gentile) one new man (a new creation), so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God (believing Jew and Gentile) in one body (the Body of Christ) by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (Gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Jews).
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Two things I think you’ve overlooked:
1.) The kingdom was set up that Jesus promised (see Mark 9:1, Col. 1:13, and Rev. 1:9)

Jer.23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth."

Where and how is the above happening today?

Matt.19:28 "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Where are these twelve thrones and how are the disciples of Christ judging the 12 tribes of Israel today?

Today the Body of Christ is not under the Law. So, what are the disciples doing judging? Don't there have to be Laws to judge by?

2.) The great commission was fulfilled (see Mark 16:15 and Col. 1:23)
Accepting what the Scriptures say about these things should help rethink your reasoning on Gal. 2:9. Paul is referring to the events after his conversion to Christ. Paul and Barnabas went on what is commonly called Paul’s first missionary journey to preach the gospel (see Acts chapters 13-14) while the apostles continued to labor among the Jews. This is what the passage is alluding to. The passage does NOT say what you say it says. You said, “James, Cephas (Peter) and John recognized that their commission could not be carried out,” but this is NOT what Gal. 2:9 says. Evidently, your misunderstanding of the apostles’ fulfillment of the great commission has allowed you the liberty to read something into the passage that simply is NOT there.

IMHO the "so called" great commission was never fulfilled. That commission was given to the 12, not Paul.

There is only one incident where I find the Jews going to a Gentiles. That was Peter going to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10. In Acts 11:19 we find the "...preaching the word to non but unto the Jews only." Check out Acts 1:8 and show me where they accomplished that. Paul wasn't even saved yet when that commission was given.

Just think, Jesus appointed the twelve to preach to the world. But we find them agreeing with Paul, in Gal.2:9 that they would stay with the circumcision (Jews) and that he should go to the heathen (Gentiles.)

Why would God raise up Saul/Paul to go to the Gentiles, Kings and Jews when He had already commissioned 12 others to do it? Wouldn't it have seemed more logical to have 12 go to the world and one to stay with the Jews?

Not only that, the 12 were commissioned to preach "the gospel of the kingdom." Paul was sent to preach "the gospel of the grace of God." Can't seem to find where Paul ever offered the kingdom to anyone.

Your quote in the last paragraph of your post deserves some attention -- “The gospels, and early Acts, have to do with the nation of Israel under the Law.” Generally speaking, the Gospels occur while the law of Moses was in effect. However, Jesus nailed that law to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Consider Heb. 9:15-17. Jesus’ covenant went into effect after His death. In fact, if you think of it in the terms that this passage uses, you can view Acts chapter 2 as the reading of Jesus’ will.

We don't learn about the Law being nailed to the Cross until it was revealed to Paul. Paul wasn't even saved until approx 7-10 years after Pentecost. So, How can the Law not be in effect prior to it being revealed?

The first covenant was made with the nation of Israel. However in Jeremian 31:31-34 it is prophesied that God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

In Matthew 15:24 Jesus said: "I am not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

We find Jesus celebrating the new covenant (testament) in Matthew 26:28-29. Also it is referred to in Hebrews 8:7-8. No where do I find the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile on equal footing, without distinction and not under the Law in any of these vereses.

Isn't Jesus saying that the Law will be written upon their heart? Can you tell me of a time when Israel, after Moses, was never under the Law, and won't be under the Law in the kingdom?

Bottom line. The kingdom was set up that was promised. The kingdom is the church. Both Jews and Gentiles make up the church. The apostles only taught one plan of salvation under the gospel of Christ. God has done what He promised He would do. Simple as that. And, if it is necessary for us to be united with Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to die to sin, be freed from it, and become alive to God, then baptism is still necessary today (see Romans 6:3-11).

The kingdom upon the earth is still future. It is believing Jews and Gentiles without distinction and not under the Law that make up the Church for today. The Jewish Church has an earthly kingdom to look forward to; while the Body of Christ has a heavenly hope to look forward to. Also, the rite of water baptism is not a requirement for members of the body of Christ.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Dispy]

DRA:

THANK YOU for correcting me about the birth place of Jesus. I did know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and why I wrote Jerusalem is beyond me. Must have been one of my "senior moments."

I feel that by anwering your last post that we will again be covering "old ground." Therefore, instead of me writing another long posting, it would be better to have you understand my beliefs from a much better writer then I.

Tracy Plessinger, at the Grace Alive web-site has written 3 very good articles that express my veiws quite acurately. These are views that I have held many years prior to reading his articles, however, I will say that they have helped me greatly in broading my understanding of the Bible. There are many good articles at that site.

The three articles that I wish for you to read are "Lets Get Things Started Right" at http://www.gracealive.us/startedright.html, "The Bible's Most Misunderstood verse" at http://www.gracealive.us/misunderstood.html, and "Giving Dignity to the Dogs" at http://www.gracealive.us/dignity.html.

To understand what God's will for our lives should be we must first know how to study the Bible. This is what the 1st article is about.

The second article tells us what was God's plan when He created the earth, and how we fit into that plan.

The third article explains how we "set aside" Gentiles (Genesis 11) are blessed through the Cross work of Christ.

I strongly recommend that you read each article twice for a really good understanding in what they say. That is what I do when I read articles that are foreign to me. I get a good idea what the article is about in my first reading, and in my 2nd reading I have a better understanding and see things that I don't recall reading the first time.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[ServantMatthew]

Huh?
Please excuse my ignorance in this matter but I'm getting a bit confused from this thread that some believe that you MUST be baptized in water to be saved?

I believe it is a symbolic act that SHOULD be done. But you can be saved without it.

Now I firmly believe that every thing, every action, every word Jesus said was very very important to us. I think that most of us believe that.

When the Lord Jesus Christ died upon the cross, he said to the thief dying next to him that asked him to remember him(Luke 23:43) that he would be with Him from that day in paradise.

Now if we jump over to John 19:32 the solders went to brake the legs of the 2 that were with him. It doesn't specifically say who died first, (and I DON'T know for sure order in which they died), but they did not break his legs(prophecy fulfilment) because they saw he was dead already(John 19:33).

I hate to assume anything cause I am always wrong it seems when I do, but I take this as this man was saved(without water baptism) because he accepted Christ. His sins were covered by the blood Christ shed?(and the promise he gave the thief)

He also gave us this promise. I guess that is why I take it more in a symbolic nature that should be done.(personal belief, but I'm wrong alot)

Please forgive my ignorance in this, but i have not been "rebaptized" in water since accepting Christ.(I was baptized at a young age)

May God bless you all

 

[Dispy]

Huh?
Please excuse my ignorance in this matter but I'm getting a bit confused from this thread that some believe that you MUST be baptized in water to be saved?

I believe it is a symbolic act that SHOULD be done. But you can be saved without it. (SNIP)

Welcome Servant Matthew.

If you go back to my postings #18, 19 and 20, you will learn that the rite of water baptism is not required in this dispensation of grace.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[- DRA -]

John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart, I willl send him unto you."

It appears to me that the Comforter will come after His departure.

However the same author says in 20:22 "And when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto themReceive ye the Holy Ghost.

In Luke 24, Jesus instructed His disciples to remain in "Jerusalem, until ye be enduded with power from on high.

In Matthew 3:11 John the Baptist said that it would be Jesus that baptized with the Holy Ghost. Therefore at Pentecost, those in the upper room received the Holy Ghost as a result of the promise that John the Baptist mentioned. They had, no doubt, already been baptized by John earlier for the remissions of sins. Jesus was the baptizer with the Holy Ghost. (Jesus baptized the 12 in water earlier []John 4:2]).

At Pentecost, those that repented and believed were water baptized by the disciples and Jesus was still the baptizer with the Holy Ghost. It was a promised gift and not a ceremony. I know of no one else that was given that authority.

In Acts 2:38 the "formla was: repent-be baptized-and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If they did not repent, they would not have been baptized, and if they were not baptized, they would not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now lets look at what happened in Acts 10. First of all, in verses 1 and 2 that Cornelius, a gentile, was a devout man and one that feared God, and prayed to God always.

Before Peter was given the vision in 10:9-16, it was still unlawful for a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation (cf. vs28).

Yes, Jesus, when He was upon the earth did bless Gentiles. However, they came to Him, He did not go to them. Even when Israel was God's chosen people, one that was a Gentile had to become a Jew (proselyte) in order to serve the true and living God. Also they had to place themselves under the Civil, Moral and Ceremonial Laws of Moses in order to receive Isreal's blessings. Yet we know that God had never turned away a Gentile that sought after Him. That was the case of Cornelius.

You will notice that the formula of "repent, be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," is starting to fall apart.

Cornelius, a devout man and one that prayed to God, knew all about the God of Israel and that Peter and the others were with Jesus. That is why Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and worshiped him. Isn't that a little strange that a non-Jew, and one with authority over the Jews, would bow down to a Jew? That is evidence to me that he "feared God."

Now in vs 44 we find that while Peter was yet speaking the Holy Ghost fell upon all that heard the word. There is no evidence that repentance was made, or that water baptism was performed prior prior to these non-Jews receiving the Holy Ghost. That is why those of the circumcision were so astonded.

We find in chapter 11 when Peter when back to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him and blamed him for going to one that was uncircumcised and also ate with them. It appears that Peter's actions were contrary to the Law. No wonder Peter rehearsed the matter on his way back to Jerusalem. How was he going to explain what happend? But, we learn in vs 18 that they learned something that they never knew before.

Now lets go back a little. In Luke 24:45, prior to HIs going back to heaven, we learn that Jesus opend the understanding of the Scriptures to the disciples. Also, in John 16:13 says: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:..." Aso, at Pentecost they spoke "as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4).

Based on the above, Why are the happening of Acts 10 and 11 so astonishing to the disciples if it wasn't something new and different?

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

When considering why the Jewish Christians (including the apostle Peter) were so astonished in Acts 10:45, I allow the text to speak for itself. The Holy Spirit had just come upon the Gentiles as it did upon the apostles in Acts 2:1-4. Peter's conclusion? Look at verses 47-48. What did Peter conclude in those verses? All I see is his conclusion that is based on what has just happened -- the Gentiles are now candidates for baptism in water. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord -- which is synonymous with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38, which was "for the remission of sins" (to have one's sins taken away -- see Matt. 26:28). Note who the promise is offered to in Acts 2:39 -- it includes "all who are afar off." This is referring to the Gentiles (see Eph. 2:13). What we see in Acts chapter 10 is the confirmation from God that the time is right for the gospel to be extended to the Gentiles. God first has to convince the apostle Peter. He sends him a vision that will help in this regard. Note Peter's conclusion in Acts 10:34-35. He realizes what the vision meant. When God sends the baptism with the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles, the proof is evident now to all the Jews who are there. Thus, Peter commands them to be baptized in the name of the Lord just like the Jews were commanded in Acts 2:38. That is the only conclusion I can draw as I consider the text of Acts 10, and Acts 11 when Peter later explained these things to his Jewish brethren that were NOT there to personally witness what had happened. And, like the Jews in Acts 2:47, the Gentiles were added to the Lord's church when they were saved from their sins i.e. Acts 2:38. What was new or different in Acts 10 compared with Acts 2. Gentiles. That was the difference.

Jesus nailed the law of Moses to His cross (Col. 2:14). It ended. Jesus' covenant or will was declared in Acts chapter 2. The old covenant was obsolete (see Heb. 8:6-13). Note Acts 2:42. Did the disciples continue in the law of Moses, or in the apostles' doctrine? I find that they were following the teaching of the apostles, not the law of Moses. This point should not be overlooked.

Why did Cornelius bow down to Peter? What does the text reveal to us? Doesn't it tell us about Cornelius' vision and whom God is going to send to Cornelius to tell him what he should do? And, isn't Peter the one that comes -- the one sent from God -- to tell Cornelius what he should do? That is the text as I see it. Peter doesn't accept Cornelius bowing down to him. He wasn't superior to Cornelius.