Acts 10

[BillyBob65]

You would have to demonstrate that the race-nation of Jews at that time was already the kingdom.

Read the gospel where John is preaching the gospel of Christ. He repeatedly said the kingdom is to come it is at hand so once again you got the cart before the horse

 

[Josheb]

Here is our problem, the thief on the cross is still in the transition era of John the baptist. He is not on the side of the cross where the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with the one in his name has been given. There is no way this could have applied to the thief. Now grant it it doesn't say he submitted to the baptism of John, but that is irreverent because Jesus was still alive this side of the new covenant, and could forgive sins as he pleases, but that only happened while he was still post cross. After the cross he set the plan of salvation in play. The gospel was to be preached and the believers were to submit in the manner that was commanded. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jews first and was according to scripture then the gentiles were to be added in and Acts 10 records the fulfillment of that.

Acts 19 teaches that even though the gentiles were in Gods favor they still had to enter into the covenant the same way the Jews did. God sent Peter to preach the gospel just as he did on the day of Pentecost. The same gospel found in Acts 2. The accompanying Jews doubted that God would have the gentiles included in the new covenant so God sent a sign to the Jews that this was his will. While Peter was still preaching the gospel of Acts 2 the spirit came UPON the gentiles the same way it did the Jews way back at Pentecost. This is the only time ever recorded that this happened after Pentecost and was to show the Jews that this was Gods will.

Was the thief saved or not?

After this outpouring onto the gentiles that was foretold happened, Peter resumed the mission he was sent to do, and said that being God has chosen these gentiles who among the Jews could refuse water, He made it clear there that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ the only one he was commanded to baptize with for it is the baptism that John said Jesus would baptize the one in his name.

In all examples of the gospel being preached in Acts it always ends with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. If you are unfamiliar with these I can look them up for you.

It does say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the water baptism and being the spirit works through the word, and the indwelling is attached to the baptism in the name of Christ, and it is God doing the transformation makes this the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with. So they are one and the same.

Yes, I was mistaken. The texts has Peter asking, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" However, I would not be so quick as to say Peter was 1) speaking on behalf of God (Peter often did things his own way and scripture often reports His leaders saying and doing things of their own opinion rather than God's directive), or 2) establishing a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions. All those baptized in the name of Jesus are reported to already have had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and having spoken in tongues. What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized? You yourself have already stated he was re-baptized. That alone makes Cornelius an anomaly, and exception to the rule.

Why are the Ephesians of Acts 19 the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism?

Because they were disciples of Christ and had not had the baptism of the Spirit.

It is because they were baptized with the wrong baptism.

The "wrong" baptism? I am unaware that scripture ever calls any baptism "wrong."

Cornelius had been baptized in water and, by your own acknowledgment, he was re-baptized. The Acts 19 group is re-baptized and then the Holy Spirit came and they spoke in tongues. The exact opposite order as Cornelius.

Johns baptism was no longer effective it served it purpose to usher in the baptism in Christ, name the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with, the one that gives the indwelling spirit. It says that right there in the chapter.

Got scripture for that?

There is a lot more to deal with in you post but being it is already long I will try to break it down in sections.

No worries. Let's stick with the above for now.

• Was the thief saved?
• Were the disciples of Acts 19 saved?
• Was John the Baptist saved?
• Is there scripture calling water baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture calling John's baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture stating John's baptism, the baptism of repentance, "no longer effective"?
• Since the thief, the apostles, Cornelius, and the Acts 19 disciples each portray a different experience of salvation and a different sequence of Spirit baptism how can a standard practice be established?

You stated the point the op is trying to make is there is a difference in the spirit upon and the indwelling spirit. I agree. Acts 10 states the Spirit was poured "on" those Gentiles. The Acts 19 also states "on." Neither text makes any statement about indwelling. Is this to be assumed? Upon what basis is that assumption made?

.

 

[Josheb]

Here is our problem, the thief on the cross is still in the transition era of John the baptist. He is not on the side of the cross where the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with the one in his name has been given. There is no way this could have applied to the thief. Now grant it it doesn't say he submitted to the baptism of John, but that is irreverent because Jesus was still alive this side of the new covenant, and could forgive sins as he pleases, but that only happened while he was still post cross. After the cross he set the plan of salvation in play. The gospel was to be preached and the believers were to submit in the manner that was commanded. The Gospel was to be preached to the Jews first and was according to scripture then the gentiles were to be added in and Acts 10 records the fulfillment of that.

Acts 19 teaches that even though the gentiles were in Gods favor they still had to enter into the covenant the same way the Jews did. God sent Peter to preach the gospel just as he did on the day of Pentecost. The same gospel found in Acts 2. The accompanying Jews doubted that God would have the gentiles included in the new covenant so God sent a sign to the Jews that this was his will. While Peter was still preaching the gospel of Acts 2 the spirit came UPON the gentiles the same way it did the Jews way back at Pentecost. This is the only time ever recorded that this happened after Pentecost and was to show the Jews that this was Gods will.

Was the thief saved or not?

After this outpouring onto the gentiles that was foretold happened, Peter resumed the mission he was sent to do, and said that being God has chosen these gentiles who among the Jews could refuse water, He made it clear there that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ the only one he was commanded to baptize with for it is the baptism that John said Jesus would baptize the one in his name.

In all examples of the gospel being preached in Acts it always ends with the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. If you are unfamiliar with these I can look them up for you.

It does say that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the water baptism and being the spirit works through the word, and the indwelling is attached to the baptism in the name of Christ, and it is God doing the transformation makes this the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with. So they are one and the same.

Yes, I was mistaken. The texts has Peter asking, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" However, I would not be so quick as to say Peter was 1) speaking on behalf of God (Peter often did things his own way and scripture often reports His leaders saying and doing things of their own opinion rather than God's directive), or 2) establishing a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions. All those baptized in the name of Jesus are reported to already have had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and having spoken in tongues. What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized? You yourself have already stated he was re-baptized. That alone makes Cornelius an anomaly, and exception to the rule.

Why are the Ephesians of Acts 19 the exception to the rule with Spirit baptism?

Because they were disciples of Christ and had not had the baptism of the Spirit.

It is because they were baptized with the wrong baptism.

The "wrong" baptism? I am unaware that scripture ever calls any baptism "wrong."

Cornelius had been baptized in water and, by your own acknowledgment, he was re-baptized. The Acts 19 group is re-baptized and then the Holy Spirit came and they spoke in tongues. The exact opposite order as Cornelius.

Johns baptism was no longer effective it served it purpose to usher in the baptism in Christ, name the spirit baptism that Jesus was to baptize with, the one that gives the indwelling spirit. It says that right there in the chapter.

Got scripture for that?

There is a lot more to deal with in you post but being it is already long I will try to break it down in sections.

No worries. Let's stick with the above for now.

• Was the thief saved?
• Were the disciples of Acts 19 saved?
• Was John the Baptist saved?
• Is there scripture calling water baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture calling John's baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture stating John's baptism, the baptism of repentance, "no longer effective"?
• Since the thief, the apostles, Cornelius, and the Acts 19 disciples each portray a different experience of salvation and a different sequence of Spirit baptism how can a standard practice be established?

You stated the point the op is trying to make is there is a difference in the spirit upon and the indwelling spirit. I agree. Acts 10 states the Spirit was poured "on" those Gentiles. The Acts 19 also states "on." Neither text makes any statement about indwelling. Is this to be assumed? Upon what basis is that assumption made?

 

[Josheb]

.

When John was telling people to believe in the one who would come after (John). John was referring to the baptism that JESUS would baptize with. The spirit baptism that Jesus baptizes with is that of Acts 2:38 that he put his name on. It is the only one he commanded his Apostles to baptize with. Ephesians 4:4 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Yep. And, withstanding my earlier mistake, nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

Here is where your train goes of the rails. If as you want to believe that is was at the initial belief in the Gospel that they got the spirit then why did Paul connect it to the baptism. He clearly did if you are honest with your self.

This conversation is not about me. Please refrain from making personal comments that are wrong. Please make a conscious and conscientious effort to keep the posts about the subject being discussed.

Paul did not ask then in what did you put your faith, he asked thenm then unto what were you baptized. be real with the scriptures or you will always miss the point. There was something wrong with the baptism they submitted tp not there faith. It was because they were baptized with the baptism of John. Johns baptism could never give the spirit cause Christ had not yet been glorified, The text is clear it was the baptism that was off.

I think assumeptions are being made based on some unidentified sectarian teaching and not on what is stipulated in the text. I also think this conversation will digress into a tangent on water baptism if all the comments on water beaptism are not kept relevant to the point of the op: there is a difference in the spirit upon and the indwelling spirit. We appear to agree there is also a difference between water baptism, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the "spirit upon," as you put it.

In your own words, what is the difference?

 

[Josheb]

I am going to have to take a break.

No worries. I'll see you in the morning. Rest well.

I have already dealt with the thief on the cross please read ghere.

The html tags in Post #38 are messed up and the link is missing. Please repost the link.

 

[EarlyActs]

Read the gospel where John is preaching the gospel of Christ. He repeatedly said the kingdom is to come it is at hand so once again you got the cart before the horse

Did he confine that kingdom to the race-nation of Israel?

Dan 2 said the kingdom was coming during the Roman rule over Israel. It is not a kingdom that is confined to any one nation. Instead it topples that idea.

The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ, its king. Acts 2:30,31 and the conclusion of Peter’s speech there. He reigns in the imperative sense of Ps 2 and 110; all people should ‘honor the Son’ even rulers, or they will be smashed.

 

[BillyBob65]

Was the thief saved or not?

Yes, I was mistaken. The texts has Peter asking, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" However, I would not be so quick as to say Peter was 1) speaking on behalf of God (Peter often did things his own way and scripture often reports His leaders saying and doing things of their own opinion rather than God's directive), or 2) establishing a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions. All those baptized in the name of Jesus are reported to already have had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and having spoken in tongues. What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized? You yourself have already stated he was re-baptized. That alone makes Cornelius an anomaly, and exception to the rule.

Because they were disciples of Christ and had not had the baptism of the Spirit.

The "wrong" baptism? I am unaware that scripture ever calls any baptism "wrong."

Cornelius had been baptized in water and, by your own acknowledgment, he was re-baptized. The Acts 19 group is re-baptized and then the Holy Spirit came and they spoke in tongues. The exact opposite order as Cornelius.

Got scripture for that?

No worries. Let's stick with the above for now.

• Was the thief saved?
• Were the disciples of Acts 19 saved?
• Was John the Baptist saved?
• Is there scripture calling water baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture calling John's baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture stating John's baptism, the baptism of repentance, "no longer effective"?
• Since the thief, the apostles, Cornelius, and the Acts 19 disciples each portray a different experience of salvation and a different sequence of Spirit baptism how can a standard practice be established?

You stated the point the op is trying to make is there is a difference in the spirit upon and the indwelling spirit. I agree. Acts 10 states the Spirit was poured "on" those Gentiles. The Acts 19 also states "on." Neither text makes any statement about indwelling. Is this to be assumed? Upon what basis is that assumption made?

Yes, I was mistaken. The texts has Peter asking, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" However, I would not be so quick as to say Peter was 1) speaking on behalf of God (Peter often did things his own way and scripture often reports His leaders saying and doing things of their own opinion rather than God's directive), or 2) establishing a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions. All those baptized in the name of Jesus are reported to already have had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and having spoken in tongues. What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized? You yourself have already stated he was re-baptized. That alone makes Cornelius an anomaly, and exception to the rule.

1.I think that I will have to go with the fact that Peter was speaking by the authority of God being that is why he was there to begin with. I understand you need to question that. 2.Peter did not need to establish a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions God has already done that and sent the Apostles to carry it out and this is what we see Peter doing.

All those baptized in the name of Jesus are reported to already have had the Holy Spirit poured out on them and having spoken in tongues. What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized? You yourself have already stated he was re-baptized. That alone makes Cornelius an anomaly, and exception to the rule.

I do not believe you understand what is being said here. Those that the spirit came upon had not got saved yet had not got the indwelling spirit yet but had the spirit come upon them just as the donkey did when God made it speak. Did that mean the donkey was baptized into Christ? No first off the indwelling spirit could not be given in the old covenant so that comparison needs to be remembered. The holy spirit came upon Cornelius with signs of witness to witness to the Jews that Jesus was ready to bring in the gentiles it was not a sensational move but a move for witness just as happened also in the old covenant. Cornelius needed the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the same reason everyone from Pentecost forward needed it for the reason Peter said in Acts 2:38 it had a specific reason.

I have never said that Cornelius had to be re-baptized I said the Ephesians of Acts 19 had to be re-baptized and gave scripture to prove it and to as why.


. I ask you why the Ephesians of Acts 19 had to be re-baptized and your answer was

Because they were disciples of Christ and had not had the baptism of the Spirit.
The "wrong" baptism? I am unaware that scripture ever calls any baptism "wrong."

Why had they not had the spirit baptism? Okay maybe wrong baptism was not the correct word but let me explain. The baptism of John was used to set the stage for Jesus to fulfill the reason for baptism. Johns only pointed to what Jesus was going to do to give baptism it true purpose. Jesus completed the work God had sent him to do to put the cross in the baptism he started with John. The baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is now complete as God had planed it to be so the baptism of John is now obsolete it has severed it purpose and no longer needed so the disciples of Ephesians that Apollo baptized with Johns baptism was ineffective thus the wrong baptism that is why Paul re-baptized them with the baptism in Christ name for that is where God put the power of the cross thus why Paul said in Romans six that when we are baptized we are baptized into Christ death.

You asked "What need did cornelius have of water baptism he'd already been water baptized?'" He had not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (water baptism) until Peter commanded it in verse 48. You misunderstand as most do You have to understand that when the Power of witness is used it does not mean that they were saved. In this case as in that of the donkey it was poured out to show the Jews not to save the gentiles they will have to submit to the gospel mjust as everyone before them. The only time the power was given to the saved is when the Apostles laid hand on them to transfer the power but even then it was not for salvation but to be witness to confirm the word.

Cornelius had been baptized in water and, by your own acknowledgment, he was re-baptized. The Acts 19 group is re-baptized and then the Holy Spirit came and they spoke in tongues. The exact opposite order as Cornelius.

False I have never said Cornelius had to be re-baptized it was the Ephesians of Acts 19 that had to be re-baptized.Note the difference of the power spirit in play. With Cornelius the spirit came upon them to be a witness that it is Gods plan to bring the gentiles into the kingdom. It was the first and only time this happened since Pentecost because Peter had to go all the way back there to say as it came upon us. Now in Acts 19 Paul re-baptized the Ephesian in the baptism in Christ name per the gospel so they can receive the indwelling spirit and then Lays hand on them to transfer the power of witness so the Ephesians can grow the church in Ephesus. Same reason for witness just given differently. he Gentiles was a pouring out on the gentiles as was foretold so that they could enter the kingdom the other was a transfer of power so they can be a witness to grow the building of the new testament church.

• Was the thief saved?
• Were the disciples of Acts 19 saved?
• Was John the Baptist saved?
• Is there scripture calling water baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture calling John's baptism "wrong"?
• Is there scripture stating John's baptism, the baptism of repentance, "no longer effective"?
• Since the thief, the apostles, Cornelius, and the Acts 19 disciples each portray a different experience of salvation and a different sequence of Spirit baptism how can a standard practice be established?

1. Yes under the old law.
2 Yes after Paul corrected their baptism not before because as scripture say if you don't have the spirit you are not in Christ but Paul corrected that so yes.
3. yes under the old covenant
4. No water baptism is the baptism that Jesus baptizes with it is the the response to the gospel call.
5. Kinda as I pointed out above with the Acts 19 passages
6.Yes John himself said it was going to become obsolete see You really do need to do a better study on baptism Johns was only to bring in Christ I have dealt with this already
7. its called rightly dividing the word of God. You can not hold the thief to a command that was after his time. He was in the transition time before the cross and Jesus could forgive sins while he was still alive on this earth. Cornelius was when the gentiles were added to the kingdom just as the Jews on Pentecost the out pouring was for salvation but to show God was at work the gospel was preached and in both cases the Jews and gentiles were commanded to respond to it through baptism in Christ name. The Ephesians of Acts 19 heard the gospel but was baptized in an obsolete baptism so the baptism had to be corrected. See that alone should let you know that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ must have something to do with salvation other wise why would Paul have re-baptized them if it didn't remit sin and give the spirit just as we read in Acts 2;38

You stated the point the op is trying to make is there is a difference in the spirit upon and the indwelling spirit. I agree. Acts 10 states the Spirit was poured "on" those Gentiles. The Acts 19 also states "on." Neither text makes any statement about indwelling. Is this to be assumed? Upon what basis is that assumption made?First off you are failing to see the difference of the out pouring on Cornelius and the transferring of the Ephesians. The outpouring like on the gentiles only happened twice, first at Pentecost then on the gentiles in Acts 10 it came straight from God.The transfer of the same power was result of Paul laying his hands on the Ephesians after he corrected their baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. yes both were spirit upon but the delivery is different.

We have to follow the story line it is established in Acts 2:38 that the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is for the giving of the indwelling spirit. That fact stays the same through out the rest of the word when it says one is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is is also saying sin is remitted and the spirit is given. In Cornelius case we see Peter in verse 48 commanding them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so ye it means that they will relieve the remission of sin and the giving of the spirit just as was told for the time the gospel started being preached. In Acts 19 we see that they also we baptized in the name Of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) so they to recieved the indwelling spirit as Acts 2:38 teaches. Here is your proof that the spirit is given in the baptism in Christ name. When they were baptized with the baptism of John it could not give the spirit because Christ had not been glorified yet but after the cross the Glory of the cross was put in the baptism in Christ name and now complete so the remission of sin is given and the indwelling spirit is deposited.

 

[BillyBob65]

Did he confine that kingdom to the race-nation of Israel?

Dan 2 said the kingdom was coming during the Roman rule over Israel. It is not a kingdom that is confined to any one nation. Instead it topples that idea.

The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ, its king. Acts 2:30,31 and the conclusion of Peter’s speech there. He reigns in the imperative sense of Ps 2 and 110; all people should ‘honor the Son’ even rulers, or they will be smashed.

The kingdom that John said will come is at hand it the church
. The doors were opened on the day of Pentecost it is the new spiritual kingdom that Christ is king over and his throne is in heaven with God. We are added to the kingdom per the teaching of Acts 2 where God started adding to the church.

 

[BillyBob65]

No worries. I'll see you in the morning. Rest well.

The html tags in Post #38 are messed up and the link is missing. Please repost the link.

I have freshly dealt with this in post #47 today thank you for your questions.

 

[BillyBob65]

I have tried to respond to all comments and question but the post are starting to get long so if I have missed anyone's comment or question please bring it to my attention

 

[Josheb]

I have freshly dealt with this in post #47 today thank you for your questions.

Thanks

1.I think that I will have to go with the fact that Peter was speaking by the authority of God being that is why he was there to begin with. I understand you need to question that.

I do not need to question that. I do so because of the fact there isn't any scripture stating the things you say about baptism and the fact scripture tels us repeatedly Peter sometimes acts in a questionable manner. He resisted Paul when Paul appeared before the Jerusalem council. He was corrected over his Judaization and hypocrisy.

2.Peter did not need to establish a precedent about a ritual practice that should be applied in all conversions God has already done that and sent the Apostles to carry it out and this is what we see Peter doing.

I'm not saying Peter established ritual practices. I am wondering about you doing so.

I ask you why the Ephesians of Acts 19 had to be re-baptized and your answer was Why had they not had the spirit baptism? Okay maybe wrong baptism was not the correct word but let me explain. The baptism of John was used to set the stage for Jesus to fulfill the reason for baptism.

The question to be answered is whether or not those people needed to be baptized twice when there's no such precedent established by either John or Jesus. It is a fact of Acts 10 and Act 19 the two groups were baptized, but their being twice baptized is not explained and it is not something scripture previously establishes, nor a practice either text explains. Our "explanations" - your explanations - are speculations.

And I thought the point of the op was about the indwelling versus the pouring on of the Spirit, not water baptism?

Johns only pointed to what Jesus was going to do to give baptism it true purpose.

Never happened. John stated Jesus was going to provide an entirely different baptism. John's baptism using water versus Christ's baptism of fire (which most of us will agree is a figurative reference to the Holy Spirit, yes?).

Jesus completed the work God had sent him to do to put the cross in the baptism he started with John. The baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is now complete as God had planed it to be so the baptism of John is now obsolete it has severed it purpose and no longer needed so the disciples of Ephesians that Apollo baptized with Johns baptism was ineffective thus the wrong baptism that is why Paul re-baptized them with the baptism in Christ name for that is where God put the power of the cross thus why Paul said in Romans six that when we are baptized we are baptized into Christ death...................................

yada yada yada

I don't mean to be disrespectful but none of that is scripture. What the apostles did was rename water baptism, and they appear to have done so without any explicit verse instructing them to do so. Perhaps Jesus instructed them to do so in his post-resurrection teachings, or perhaps God inspired them to do so through the inspiration and instruction of the Holy Spirit but it's still water baptism. Water baptism of repentance and water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus is still water baptism. Repentance and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" are synonymous, according to Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, 1) Peter and Paul agree regarding the nature of water baptism, and 2) John's water baptism is for the repentance (the remission or forgiveness of sins and water baptism in the name of Jesus is for the forgiveness of sins. John was baptizing prior to Calvary but everything he said and did was for the sole purpose of witnessing to Christ crucified, resurrected and ascendant. John wasn't baptizing for himself or about himself. John baptized in the name of the one whose sandals he was not fit to tie. He baptized in the name of the coming Messiah (or "Christ" in our vernacular). Peter and Paul saw fit to re-baptize two different groups of people.

I think the most likely explanation is that baptism was a cleansing ritual in Judaism and many other surrounding cultures AND it was used in Judaism as part of the ceremony used when a Gentile became a Jew. Lots of Christians eschew this explanation for Christian baptism but what was occurring presuppositionally for both Jew and Gentile is that, for all intents and purposes, they were switching religions. Yes, it is true Christians were originally called followers of The Way (of Christ), which was considered a sect within Judaism until the Jewish leaders refused to collaborate and became persecutorial, but even within Judaism the change in thinking, doctrine, and practice was radically different..... with the exception of things like water baptism. It's very ironic give the fact so many of the other Jewish (or Old Testament) practices were discarded. Why not ditch water baptism, too? Well, the simple answer would be that water baptism is a baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins, and Jesus is the only one who can provide that remission.

Now how that gets us to the Holy Spirit remains to be explained..... and this is your op.

I think the op takes liberties with scripture (possibly due to the imposition of sectarian doctrine but I'll grant the benefit of the doubt until I read something confirming that suspicion) and does not well-articulate the distinctions between the Spirit indwelt and the Spirit poured on. If the point of the op is that indwelling and pouring on are not synonymous then more needs to be said about that. If the Acts 19 were saved then the implication is baptism in the name of Jesus, NOR Holy Spirit baptism are required for salvation . Luke called those people were called disciples and were treated as if that label is authentic. Is the implication of the Acts 19 text that they were followers of Jesus in name only? Or in the flesh only? If there is a distinction between Spirit indwelling and the Spirit later poured upon at "baptism of the Holy Spirit," then we can infer they were indwelt but not poured upon. The alternative is that a group that are called disciples are not saved from sin. There's no precedent for that in scripture. There are no unsaved disciples of Christ. Therefore, they must have been saved from sin and wrath and saved from sin and wrath by grace through their faith in Christ (and thereby also justified). Not to further muddy the waters (pun intended ), but there's no mention of the Ethiopian (Acts 8) having the HS poured on him at his baptism in water. Presumably, the Ethiopian's baptism in water was in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins so that he would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


Your point in writing this op is that there is a difference between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit being on a person. I agree. My point is that scripture's descriptions of conversion experiences is so diverse, so lacking in uniformity, that caution should be taken by anyone seeking to establish any kind of uniformity or anyone trying to establish a set of fixed practices for either water baptism OR Spirit baptism. The experiences of the Holy Spirit for the thief, those at Pentecost, the Ethiopian, Cornelius' party, and the Acts 19 group are different, yet all were saved.

 

[Josheb]

I am tired of having to go over and over the same scriptures, but your blinders are on to tight and you can not see the truth of what is recorded.
I will at this point do as Jesus has said and shake the dust from my feet and let you carry on in your man made false doctrine cause your heart is harden to the truth. It has been interesting to discuss this with you but it has become fruitless so i will kindly bow out. May God bless you and help you into all truth for his words are truth and life.

And yet, aside from the earlier matter of Peter and Paul re-baptizing (which has been corrected), not a single statement I've posted has been shown to be incorrect. None of the examples from scripture provided thus far are identical. That is a fact of scripture, not anyone's personal opinion. How can any uniformity be asserted with such diversity? The answer so far is I'm a hard-hearted blind man not worth the effort it takes to address the fact of diversity. Neither have the distinctions between the Spirit's indwelling someone and the Spirit being "on" someone been detailed (which is, supposedly) the point of the op). That lack of commentary is a fact objectively evident and verifiable in the posts here in this thread. After three pages of posts the results are ad hominem. It does not matter how many times you repeat yourself if the repetition never addresses the facts of scripture.


Do you often resort to personal attacks when tiring of the conversation?

 

[BillyBob65]

And yet, aside from the earlier matter of Peter and Paul re-baptizing (which has been corrected), not a single statement I've posted has been shown to be incorrect. None of the examples from scripture provided thus far are identical. That is a fact of scripture, not anyone's personal opinion. How can any uniformity be asserted with such diversity? The answer so far is I'm a hard-hearted blind man not worth the effort it takes to address the fact of diversity. Neither have the distinctions between the Spirit's indwelling someone and the Spirit being "on" someone been detailed (which is, supposedly) the point of the op). That lack of commentary is a fact objectively evident and verifiable in the posts here in this thread. After three pages of posts the results are ad hominem. It does not matter how many times you repeat yourself if the repetition never addresses the facts of scripture.


Do you often resort to personal attacks when tiring of the conversation?

It is hard to talk to someone about the truth in scripture when they tell you ,Yes it kinda looks that way, but Peter doesn't always speak the truth the way God has given him, sometimes he goes out on a limb and speaks from his own accord, and not speak the oracle of God. The bible on the other hand says all scripture is by the inspiration of God
Mod Hat: Red strike through violation of rule 2.2
2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If the scriptures are not true but the Apostles just recorded what they thought God would say then they are no longer God breathed and full of falsehood. If that is the way one sees them it is of no use to discuss them any longer cause there is no truth to stand on.

 

[Arial]

I have tried to respond to all comments and question but the post are starting to get long so if I have missed anyone's comment or question please bring it to my attention

Post #32 in The Baptism of John.

 

[BillyBob65]

It is hard to talk to someone about the truth in scripture when they tell you ,Yes it kinda looks that way, but Peter doesn't always speak the truth the way God has given him, sometimes he goes out on a limb and speaks from his own accord, and not speak the oracle of God. The bible on the other hand says all scripture is by the inspiration of God

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If the scriptures are not true but the Apostles just recorded what they thought God would say then they are no longer God breathed and full of falsehood. If that is the way one sees them it is of no use to discuss them any longer cause there is no truth to stand on.

 

[Josheb]

It is hard to talk to someone about the truth in scripture when they tell you ,Yes it kinda looks that way, but Peter doesn't always speak the truth the way God has given him, sometimes he goes out on a limb and speaks from his own accord, and not speak the oracle of God.

No, it's not. It's not hard to talk to someone who says that at all. All anyone has to do is just be civil, polite and respectful and either discuss it or say, "I'm not willing to entertain that premise," and move on.

The bible on the other hand says all scripture is by the inspiration of God

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If the scriptures are not true but the Apostles just recorded what they thought God would say then they are no longer God breathed and full of falsehood. If that is the way one sees them it is of no use to discuss them any longer cause there is no truth to stand on.

Yes, scripture does say that but sometimes the scripture provides reports of God's people saying and doing stupid stuff. Moses, for example, refused to accept all that God commanded when he stood before God at the burning bush. As a consequence of Moses' "bargaining" with God the civil rule and religious rule became divided (Moses taking up the mantle of civic leader and Aaron taking on the role as forerunner of the Levitical priesthood). From that point on things were mucked up for the Jews. Even after God restored the civil and religious rule under the leadership of the Judges the Jews persisted in their desired for division. It's not until 1 Samuel 8 that God draws attention to this idiocy. There are no neon signs flashing an arrow that says, "Look here! Look here! Moses is being foolish. Mose sis is making a decision that will have profound and enduring adverse effect on God's people!" When Paul offers his personal opinions on marriage the scripture records it. What the scripture does not state is that Paul's opinion is contrary to the very first command God ever uttered to humanity. Jonah defies God, blatantly disobeying him, and not once does Jonah repent. The entire book of Jonah is about God's compassion amidst the stark contrast between an unrepentant prophet and an entire city of repentant pagans. There are no flashing neon lights to explain that. God expects the readers to understand because of all that He has stated previously in His word. Paul says, "It'd be better if a man remained unmarried," but scripture explicitly states, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it......." Even if we were to infer Paul was trying to speak to the pending suffering many would experience with the destruction of Jerusalem, his personal opinion is problematic, and God saw fit to put that in His word. God saw fit to include it in His inspired word without a flashing neon light announcing the discrepancy.

There is no precedent in scripture for double-baptism.

That is a fact.

And you may choose to discuss that fact or not, but all that hard-hearted blind dross is bad form.




What Peter and Paul did was unprecedented. That may or may not be significant because, after all, the apostles were doing a bunch of new stuff and it was not all explained . I asked the question to see if you'd considered the matter and what insights might be shaered due to that contemplation. If Peter and Paul had been provided with some form of standard operating procedures, then the episodes of Acts 10 and Acts 19 should have been more uniform but they aren't . It is a fact the two episodes are different. With one group the Spirit comes upon the believers prior to water baptism in the name of Christ and in the other the Spirit is poured out upon them afterwards. There's no mention of indwelling in either example, but the alternative is Cornelius' faith is a faith of his own flesh (and not due to the regenerative work of the Spirit) and the Spirit falls on undwelt people, one group of which is called "disciples." Those are the facts of the texts. If we say the normal operating procedure is for the Spirit to indwell and come upon a believer at the time of his/her conversion from death to life, then, again, there are some outliers in scripture. The thief never experiences a Pentecost moment (and I'm not sure we can say that's because the HS hadn't yet been sent). God's not bound by our schedule or the way we divide up His word. Which makes the Ethiopian example a little odder because he's brought to Christ after Pentecost. He's baptized (presumably) in Christ but there is no report of the Spirit coming on him. No tongues for that guy. He's left in the desert to go on his merry way alive in Christ instead of dead in sin. Those are the facts of those two events, and those facts could be discussed with manners and respect if the desire to do so existed. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.......... so look at what it states and discuss it with manners and respect. The fact Luke saw fit to record no Spirit falling on the Ethiopian was a fact included in God word that was inspired by God. Luke's reporting on the facts of Cornelius' baptism (both water and Spirit) was inspired by God. Luke's reporting on the disciples who had only John's baptism is inspired by God. Luke's report of Peter's disagreement with Paul and Paul's report of Peter's hypocrisy were inspired by God. Paul's use of the "thorn in my flesh" is inspired by God. Paul's use of an Old Testament idiom - an idiom that means Paul was under some unidentified judgment - was inspired by God and every single word of it is intended for us to be equipped. That equipping won't happen when the witness of Luke, Peter, and Paul are ignored, neglected, or denied. Every word of it could be discussed with manners and respect.

Try it sometime.


Even if you're tire of repeating yourself. You weren't repeating yourself because I didn't understand. You were repeating yourself because the matters broached hadn't been soundly addressed. Six episodes of conversion have been referenced in this thread and no two fo them are identical. No two of them are identically reported by the inspiration of God. God provided that diversity for a reason.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool."


That's what Discussion boards do. They bring people together to reason through the inspired word of God. You've been here two weeks. This is what it looks like sometimes. A small handful of people have responded to this op and most of them have some point of inquiry for you to address. Not only are we interested in your points of view, but we're also relying on your ability to reason through the scriptures. We'll learn nothing from you if you don't. Not only are we interested, but most of us are fairly patient - event when called hard-hearted and blind. The best case in the world is worthless if it does not make us better people.


Try it sometime .

 

[BillyBob65]

No, it's not. It's not hard to talk to someone who says that at all. All anyone has to do is just be civil, polite and respectful and either discuss it or say, "I'm not willing to entertain that premise," and move on.

Yes, scripture does say that but sometimes the scripture provides reports of God's people saying and doing stupid stuff. Moses, for example, refused to accept all that God commanded when he stood before God at the burning bush. As a consequence of Moses' "bargaining" with God the civil rule and religious rule became divided (Moses taking up the mantle of civic leader and Aaron taking on the role as forerunner of the Levitical priesthood). From that point on things were mucked up for the Jews. Even after God restored the civil and religious rule under the leadership of the Judges the Jews persisted in their desired for division. It's not until 1 Samuel 8 that God draws attention to this idiocy. There are no neon signs flashing an arrow that says, "Look here! Look here! Moses is being foolish. Mose sis is making a decision that will have profound and enduring adverse effect on God's people!" When Paul offers his personal opinions on marriage the scripture records it. What the scripture does not state is that Paul's opinion is contrary to the very first command God ever uttered to humanity. Jonah defies God, blatantly disobeying him, and not once does Jonah repent. The entire book of Jonah is about God's compassion amidst the stark contrast between an unrepentant prophet and an entire city of repentant pagans. There are no flashing neon lights to explain that. God expects the readers to understand because of all that He has stated previously in His word. Paul says, "It'd be better if a man remained unmarried," but scripture explicitly states, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it......." Even if we were to infer Paul was trying to speak to the pending suffering many would experience with the destruction of Jerusalem, his personal opinion is problematic, and God saw fit to put that in His word. God saw fit to include it in His inspired word without a flashing neon light announcing the discrepancy.

There is no precedent in scripture for double-baptism.

That is a fact.

And you may choose to discuss that fact or not, but all that hard-hearted blind dross is bad form.




What Peter and Paul did was unprecedented. That may or may not be significant because, after all, the apostles were doing a bunch of new stuff and it was not all explained . I asked the question to see if you'd considered the matter and what insights might be shaered due to that contemplation. If Peter and Paul had been provided with some form of standard operating procedures, then the episodes of Acts 10 and Acts 19 should have been more uniform but they aren't . It is a fact the two episodes are different. With one group the Spirit comes upon the believers prior to water baptism in the name of Christ and in the other the Spirit is poured out upon them afterwards. There's no mention of indwelling in either example, but the alternative is Cornelius' faith is a faith of his own flesh (and not due to the regenerative work of the Spirit) and the Spirit falls on undwelt people, one group of which is called "disciples." Those are the facts of the texts. If we say the normal operating procedure is for the Spirit to indwell and come upon a believer at the time of his/her conversion from death to life, then, again, there are some outliers in scripture. The thief never experiences a Pentecost moment (and I'm not sure we can say that's because the HS hadn't yet been sent). God's not bound by our schedule or the way we divide up His word. Which makes the Ethiopian example a little odder because he's brought to Christ after Pentecost. He's baptized (presumably) in Christ but there is no report of the Spirit coming on him. No tongues for that guy. He's left in the desert to go on his merry way alive in Christ instead of dead in sin. Those are the facts of those two events, and those facts could be discussed with manners and respect if the desire to do so existed. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.......... so look at what it states and discuss it with manners and respect. The fact Luke saw fit to record no Spirit falling on the Ethiopian was a fact included in God word that was inspired by God. Luke's reporting on the facts of Cornelius' baptism (both water and Spirit) was inspired by God. Luke's reporting on the disciples who had only John's baptism is inspired by God. Luke's report of Peter's disagreement with Paul and Paul's report of Peter's hypocrisy were inspired by God. Paul's use of the "thorn in my flesh" is inspired by God. Paul's use of an Old Testament idiom - an idiom that means Paul was under some unidentified judgment - was inspired by God and every single word of it is intended for us to be equipped. That equipping won't happen when the witness of Luke, Peter, and Paul are ignored, neglected, or denied. Every word of it could be discussed with manners and respect.

Try it sometime.


Even if you're tire of repeating yourself. You weren't repeating yourself because I didn't understand. You were repeating yourself because the matters broached hadn't been soundly addressed. Six episodes of conversion have been referenced in this thread and no two fo them are identical. No two of them are identically reported by the inspiration of God. God provided that diversity for a reason.

Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool."


That's what Discussion boards do. They bring people together to reason through the inspired word of God. You've been here two weeks. This is what it looks like sometimes. A small handful of people have responded to this op and most of them have some point of inquiry for you to address. Not only are we interested in your points of view, but we're also relying on your ability to reason through the scriptures. We'll learn nothing from you if you don't. Not only are we interested, but most of us are fairly patient - event when called hard-hearted and blind. The best case in the world is worthless if it does not make us better people.


Try it sometime .

I don't think I need to discuss anything with you anymore. If my discourse is so unruly then I will not bother you with any more response to anything you post but thank you for the correction. This has become very unfruitful.

 

[Josheb]

I don't think I need to discuss anything with you anymore. If my discourse is so unruly then I will not bother you with any more response to anything you post but thank you for the correction. This has become very unfruitful.

Then you might consider what your future in this forum will look like. Three pages worth of posts, so ask yourself how effective do you think you were at communicating your point and then discussing it cogently with others no matter what they brought to bear on it, and how well the dissent was handled.

Method is just as important as content.

Partly because of this op and two others I recently glimpsed, I have started a thread on what a Bible study, a study of the Bible, should look like, what kind of consensus might be had on the matter, and to what degree we can expect ourselves to apply the study to how we live. I invite you to post a principle or two you think should be included in an internet forum's Bible Study board Bible study. Assuming there is some degree of consensus, I'll post the accumulated and agreed upon list.

As far as this op goes,

This proves it was the spirit upon and not the spirit within.

I think there's a false dichotomy in there. In the life of a Christian there is never the Spirit upon without the Spirit within.

 

[BillyBob65]

Then you might consider what your future in this forum will look like. Three pages worth of posts, so ask yourself how effective do you think you were at communicating your point and then discussing it cogently with others no matter what they brought to bear on it, and how well the dissent was handled.

Method is just as important as content.

Partly because of this op and two others I recently glimpsed, I have started a thread on what a Bible study, a study of the Bible, should look like, what kind of consensus might be had on the matter, and to what degree we can expect ourselves to apply the study to how we live. I invite you to post a principle or two you think should be included in an internet forum's Bible Study board Bible study. Assuming there is some degree of consensus, I'll post the accumulated and agreed upon list.

As far as this op goes,

I think there's a false dichotomy in there. In the life of a Christian there is never the Spirit upon without the Spirit within.

You see it is post like this that is hard to accept. You insinuate that it is me that has every thing wrong and I do not consider others thoughts and input when I feel it is me that is being treated this way. I post scripture which should have a clear meaning and follow it up with other scripture that verifies that they are saying the same thing but it is rejected and goes back to that can't be so because it is not faith alone. Maybe faith alone is not biblical just because one or two verses say believe and you will be saved. It then needs to be told what to believe and it is all God's word. But then I am told even though the Apostles are led by the spirit to record the things pertaining to salvation I am told that is not the case it is not all .
I try to politely discuss the word and am constantly told I know not what I am talking about . I respond the best I can to every post and am told I am not.

You said In the life of a Christian there is never the Spirit upon without the Spirit within. I see it different I see the word has many occasions where the spirit came upon with out the indwelling spirit. Most all but 2 were in the old testament. I say the word says that the spirit was never given until after Pentecost and you say that is not true but the bible makes it clear that is a fact.I can post the scripture that say that. I show with scripture backing scripture that baptism is for the remission of sin and you refuse to accept the clear writing of the passages. I show you where the Ephesians were baptized with Johns baptism then Paul re baptized them and you say that never has been recorded in history of he bible. I can go on and on where you can't see the teaching because you say I don't know hat I am talking about . With all of that just how am I suppose to go any further if I am not being heard.

I am just wore out of trying to get you to see why I see it the way I do as you are tired of me not agreeing with what you are teaching.I really do not know how to proceed.

 

[BillyBob65]

I have thought about this and I like discussing the word with all but as I was told I am not a teacher on this board just a guest and I need to stop with my false doctrine (I feel that shoe fits a lot on here) so I will no longer take lead but am willing to answer any questions. I have already stated my understanding so If any questions feel free to ask.