You recognize that "HOLY-SPIRIT-BAPTISM", or more properly worded, "HOLY-SPIRIT-IMMERSION", has nothing to do with waterbaptism. Since Holy Spirit Immersion equates to salvation, and since Immersion into Christ also equates to salvation, why is it such a stretch for you to understand that immersion into Christ is ALSO a spiritual thing---and just like Holy-Spirit-Baptism, ALSO has nothing to do with water? Holy-Spirit-Baptism errr, Immersion, is a spiritual thing; so too IMMERSION-INTO-CHRIST is a spiritual thing. NEITHER has anything to do with water...
Again, there is only 1 baptism that saves. That is either your saved at the point of HS baptism or at the point of water baptism. Yet you can't make up your mind. On the one hand you want to call it HS baptism then on the other hand you want to say "well immersion into Christ". Which is it? You have indicated that these 2 things are different from one another. I belive that we are immersed into christ at the point of water baptism as recorded in Rom 6. Even though you are being physical baptized it is spiritual in nature. You do not literly die in the water and the water itself is not what washes away your sins. It is your faith and obedience to God that makes this work as you OBEY and HUMBLE yourself into the water and at that point of your obedience your past sins are washed away, your joined with Christ, added to the church, and being raised up a new creature. This is a sybolic act of the death, burial, and resurection of Jesus. Why can't you grasp this concept from other accounts throghout the bible.
The walls of Jerico. God gives them the city but they must march around it for 7 days and blow their insturments and shout. Do you think their marching and shouting with in itsself did any good? Of course not it was because of their faith in God that they knew if the obeyed him and marched and shouted that the walls would fall down.
Nammen. I have already pointed these examples out before. Nammen was told if he wanted to get rid of his leporsey to dip 7 times in the Jordan. Was there anything magical about the water? Of course not. The freedom from leporsey was offered to him and was given to him once he OBEYED. It was his faith in God that he would be cleansed when he came up that 7th time.
If you have this HS baptism that they did in the 1st century prove it. The apostles did'nt have any problems using signs and miracles to confirm what they were saying was true. Rom 15:19, Mark 16:20.
You say "they were believers in God"---do you think that they realized Jesus was the MESSIAH? I submit they did. You think you have refuted the passage because you make three assumptions:
1. They had not heard enough of the Gospel to believe---Peter had only STARTED speaking
2. They did not believe/receive Jesus.
3. They were filled with the Holy Spirit WHILE THEY WERE UNBELIEVERS
You reason, "Peter had only STARTED to speak, Peter hadn't TIME to tell them the Gospel". But let's look more closely at Acts 10, may we?
"And opening his mouth, Peter said: 'I understand God is not one to show partiality, but ...those who respect Him ...are welcome to Him. The word ...through Jesus Christ (HE IS LORD OF ALL)---you yourselves know what took place. You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power; He went doing good and healing a who were oppressed---God was with Him. We were witnesses ...and they put Him to death on a cross, and God raised Him up on the third day, seen by us. He ordered us to preach ...that this is the One who has been appointed by God as the judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that THROUGH HIS NAME EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM receives forgiveness of sins.' "
THIS is the context that Peter UTTERED, BEFORE they received the Holy Spirit. Thus your FIRST assumption (of the three listed just above), evaporates. They heard MORE THAN ENOUGH to understand the Gospel. Perhaps Peter had a WHOLE SPEECH written---and this is all they heard, the "archomai", the beginning. BESIDES, as Peter boldly declared, they had SEEN Jesus, they already KNEW much about Him. So they already knew much about Jesus, Peter actually said ALL THESE WORDS to them BEFORE they were FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT---they therefore had MORE than enough knowledge of the Gospel.
Assumption #1 gone---they knew, they heard enough, they understood Jesus WAS THE MESSIAH.
Come on now Ben. How many times do I have to correct you on this? You can try and throw logic and hermunitics out the door as you have done here or you grasp the reality that Acts 11 is recount IN ORDER of what happened in Acts 10. (acts 11:4). So you try and jump over to Acts 10 and try to claim that you know exactly how much of these words were spoken before the HS fell on them. This is a bold claim my friend and one which you have absoultly no way of proving. I like how you left out
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
No where in this text can you find any support for your dreamed up view of how many words were spoken before the HS fell on them. Do you really think a HS apostles whos words are guided by the HS would need to have a written speech? As I said before in Acts 11 we see that Peter just began to speak when he was interupted. I showed the meaning of this word before, but you ignored it because it is crippling to your view. The idea here is that Peter barely started that is barely even began to speak before the HS fell on them. I think I will belive what the bible clearly points out to be truth. It is not a assumption my friend.
Assumption #2, which you largely base on #1, is that they HAD NOT BELIEVED. But I take Acts11:15-17 to be CLEARLY saying "they received the HS just as WE had, WE believed and received the HS, THEY believed and received the HS. I think your "assumption #2" has fallen flat. They heard, they knew, they believed.
I already answered this question before and I am not going to answer it again. I already showed you that your assumption was incorrect and not logical.
Assumption #3---this is the one that I cannot understand---how is it that you believe the Holy Spirit INDWELLS THE UNSAVED? Eph1:13 says "the SEAL of salvation, which is the Holy Spirit, is conditioned on BELIEF. Heb3:1 says "metochos/partners of a heavenly calling", 3:14 says "metochos/partners of Christ", and 6:4 says "metochos/partners of the Holy Spirit". Aren't the three PARTNERSHIPS, CONNECTED? Please explain to me how you believe the Holy Spirit INDWELT THE UNBELIEVERS?
Here we go again, Is there an echo in here? I already showed you several examples of people being filled with the HS who were unbelivers. I pointed out to you that Cornelius was a big beliver in God and that God choose him and his household to be the ones the first gentiles to be used to show that Gentiles would be accepted by God as well as the Jew. God knew there hearts and poured out the HS onto these Gentiles before they belived in Jesus as sign to the Jews. What I dont understand is why cant you let it sink in that the first thing that Peter does when he sees that the Gentiles can be saved he commands them to be water baptized just like he preached to the Jews at the day of Pentacost. Yes, this was a WATER BAPTISM, you can not deny it. Peter could not withstand God 11:17 and not allow them to be water baptized having their sins washed away. It very clear my friend it at the poing of water baptism that a person is saved and not before.
But I gave you an instance where they were WATERBAPTIZED but had not yet received the Holy Spirit---what I established with those two passages, is that waterbaptism is SEPARATE from salvation! You say "Acts 10 is only ONE INSTANCE"---but that it exists at ALL denies your view! John laments that "there were too many things to write down"---so this ONE is very arguably only one of MANY times they were SAVED, FILLED, before being DIPPED!
This the ONLY ONE instance of this happening which I have already with out doubt explained to you the reason why. Not to mention the fact that Peter had to remember all the way back to the day of Pentacost when the HS had fallen directly from heaven shows that it had not happened since that time. If it had he could of easily accounted some earlier time that the HS fell on someone else than going back around 7 years in the past. Your attempts to abuse John passage opens up a can worms that you cant stand on. Just thing of the claims people could make using your tactics. A Homosexual could say that there could of been account where a Homo was allowed to preach and teach and still maintain his homo relationship because God made him that way.
You don't believe spiritual gifts exist today? You don't believe in prophecy? "Earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." You don't believe that applies today?
You know where I stand on this. I wrote like 8 pages or so on this very subject I suggest you read them again. So I guess you would have me to beleive that we still have prophets today and that we can add pages to our bible since you would claim we still have prochecies today?
Its funny you always HEAR about someone getting raised from the dead but when it comes to proff there is always a flaw. No matter what supposed miracle you bring up it will lack the proof to show it to be a bible miracle which was alway instant and never took more that 1 hour. Just like I said produce a vidoe tape of a withered hand becomeing whole or anything visable like this and I will preach miracles tommorrow. In fact you could become a rich man because I know of website that offers a 1.1 million dollar reward to anyone that can produce a geniune bibical miracle.
In Matt18, Jesus promises that "wherever two or more of you are gathered, there am I in their midst; whatever you agree to bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven..." You don't believe that applies to us today?
You completly avoided my question. Here let me make it easier for you. Are there Apostles alive today? I dont mean in the generic sense as one sent out. I mean either a successor to the apostles or an apostle with the same authority as the 1st century apostles. If yes then can the impart the gift of the HS through the laying on of their hands just like the apostles of the 1st century did?
Then I want to know have you had a apostle lay his hands on you, because this is the ONLY way you could of receive the HS you keep boldly claiming you have. This is the only recorded way people received the HS in the 1st century execpt for the 2 instances where it came directly from heaven at the day of Pentacost on the apostles and on the house of Cornelius.
