Posted on 05/28/2005 1:04:07 PM PDT by jer33 3
Because the baptism Acts 2 put those who were baptized into the body, which is exactly what the baptism in Ephesians did.
You are assuming too much in that statement. Paul freely admitted he baptized some of them there, just that his primary role was to preach. The problem that the Christians were facing there was a problem of taking the name of the one who baptized them, which is what Paul was addressing. He had been given a special gift to preach, but any of the fellow Christians there could baptize.
*** It does not prove what you are saying. The Holy Spirit came up on Cornelius "while he(Peter) was still speaking". You can't be a Christian without belief,".***
I'm sorry my friend, but that argument doesn't hold up. The passage tells us what Peter had alread said...
"...how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Clearly they had heard the gospel... the very gospel as Paul defined it.
They believed what they heard and were instantly born again.
The Bible doesn't teach we are immersed into the Holy Spirit. It does teach we are to be immersed into water. The necessary conclusion is that when Scripture teaches that we are buried in baptism, it must be water baptism.
In the scriptures, ... the word translated 'baptize' means 'immerse'.A. LINGUISTIC CONTEXT:Therefore ... when we are 'baptized' in the Holy Spirit, ... we are 'immersed' in the Holy Spirit.
"Baptize" is not a true translation. It is an anglicized spelling of the Greek term (replacing the letters of the Greek alphabet with letters from the English alphabet) baptizo = baptize. Such a process obscures the meaning of the word.
A true translation is "to submerge, immerse, dip, wash, dunk, plunge; metaphorically--to overwhelm".
If a Greek speaker wanted to say "sprinkle" he would use 'rhantizo'. Should she wish to convey the idea of "pouring" she would say 'ballo' or 'epicheo'. If the idea was to
"apply water only to part of the body", the correct term was 'nipto'.
Baptizo's secular uses included references to drowning, to sunken ships, and to dyeing cloth by immersing it in a vat of dye.
Jesus said we can only get to heaven through Him. The way that is provided for us to do that is by obeying the Gospel. No other way is provided.
I agree.John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You are of course correct. I had my timeframes mixed up.
We have discussed this over and over. You are speaking of the case of Cornelius, and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit there is not for salvation, but to fulfill prophecy.
Your quotes here are from Acts 10, where Luke tells us everything that Peter said. In Acts 11, Peter is defending himself to the Jewish Christians, and he says that the Holy Spirit came upon them "as I began to speak". If he had just begun to speak, he had not finished saying everything that is recorded in Acts 10.
But Jesus told the thief he would be with him in paradise before he died, therefore, he was saved at that point in time, not after Christ died. Also, the thief obviously died before Christ was buried and resurrected, and since we are baptized into Christ's death and raised like his resurrection (Romans 6:3-4), that baptism could not have been in effect until after the resurrection.
Do you not see that being this technical with the mechanics of salvation (how would you even know such things ?) ... is veering toward the very legalism that Paul was so striving to keep his readers from ?Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, ...
For reference to what you are saying, please include a verse talking about Holy Spirit baptism that uses the word "baptizo". Thanks.
Then you must agree that the only way this is accomplished is through obeying the Gospel.
It is not legalistic to want to do do the will of God.
The Holy Spirit came up on Cornelius "while he(Peter) was still speaking". You can't be a Christian without belief, and you can't have belief without hearing the Word of God. Peter was not done teaching the Gospel when Cornelius started speaking in tongues.
You know ... that they hadn't heard enough ?
***You are assuming too much in that statement***
Am I assuming too much or is it possible that you are not seeing something because it conflicts with your theology?
***Paul freely admitted he baptized some of them there, just that his primary role was to preach.***
But further, he claims to have given them birth through the gospel. And he is not concerned that he didn't do (many) baptism. If baptism is REQUIRED how in the world could he even begin to be unconcerned about it. Could you imagine him having such an attitude towards the gospel???
Something like, "I thank God that I preached the gospel to none of you,"???????
***The problem that the Christians were facing there was a problem of taking the name of the one who baptized them, which is what Paul was addressing.***
The problem was factions, not baptismal identification. No one would claim that they believed that "Paul [was] crucified for you?" Nor would they claim to have been baptized ito Paul's name.
***He had been given a special gift to preach, but any of the fellow Christians there could baptize.***
But if new birth was dependant on baptism then he couldn't claim to have given them new birth.
It is not legalistic to want to do do the will of God.
You are quite right.
It is legalistic to to make it a cause for our salvation, however.
I know Peter had just started to speak. I also know that Peter said that the Holy Spirit coming upon Cornelius was like what happened to him and the other Apostles at Pentecost. Was that "baptism" of the Holy Spirit for salvation? No. Neither was this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.