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.