FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[BillyBob65]

The word translated "divide" in the KJV had a different meaning from what it does today. Loosely it meant "cut a straight furrow" an agricultural term. So yes, to your post. The better translation into modern language is rightly handling the word of God. If that is done there will be no contradictions. It aligns with letting scripture interpret scripture.

So @BillyBob65 if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47); if the Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41); if it shows that biblical figures have believed and not been immediately baptized (Thomas, John 20:28-29;John 12:42-no mention of baptism); if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31); if Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

then

“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”

cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

if there are scriptures that show salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before water baptism (Acts 10:44,47);

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that. This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. See it was the Jews that was astonished. Why? because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says this is the ONLY time this has happened since it was poured out on them at Pentecost. It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48. This is the textual context of Acts 10. It is you that is blinded by the context and can't see that the spirit coming upon in verse 44 is not the giving of the indwelling but an outpouring of witness.

The Bible shows baptism following belief and repentance (Acts2:37,41);

Yes this is the whole of teaching the baptism in the name of Christ. It is the way it is taught all through Acts in all the conversions recorded. Just as recorded in Mark 16:15,16. This is one that lots of people reject saying it is an addition to the end of Mark 16 jut this is not the only place we see this pattern. All the new testament teaches believe and be baptized if you let the scriptures talk.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

You did not rightly handle this for you cut out the context and only used the paer you wanted to back your bias but the rest of the context is

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

See Jesus said to believe in him is to believe his WORDS. Not just pick and chose but to trust in his words as he has given them. So to believe in him you must also believe him when he says baptism is for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit which is promised to all Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

if scripture declares that the way of eternal life is believing and does not mention baptism in those same scriptures (Acts 16:30-31)

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Again you mishandled the scriptures. You try to build your doctrine on a half truth. You cut off the context again trying to make it say what it does not. They did not just say Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but they preached the gospel to them telling them what to believe.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And apparently They taught the same gospel as of Act 2 with the same results. You see you are doing a poor job of rightly handling the scriptures. You are butchering them up and using only the tidbits that you try to build your own doctrine on because if you would have read the next two verses you would have seen that baptism was taught.

f

Scriptures tells us that when we believed we were sealed by the Holy Spirit and no baptism is mentioned (Eph 1:13}

And again you mishandle scripture. You try to make this as an exclusion of the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but again remember if you have believed in Jesus you have believed and submitted to baptism (see Acts 19:1-5) See scripture will back itself if you let it. It has made it clear what the teaching on baptism is and what blessing we receive in the act. You just have to trust and obey what the Lord has said. That is the only way to have faith in Christ is to trust his words for they are truth and life. It is not me that is not rightly handling the word of truth. I have shown where we disagree and gave the scriptures to support it. I have use full context not just cutting off context where I want. Let the public see if I have not given the full context of scriptures.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
cannot mean that water baptism is when our sins are forgiven (saved) and receive the Holy Spirit. Rightly handling the word of God will solve the "riddle" Give it a go.

See here is the proof that you are not rightly handling the word of God and you lose all credibility in your words. That is exactly what it says. There is many other scriptures that back that and show it is true as recorded. Your rejection of what Jesus has said is very telling. This is why scripture is over your head you do not trust in the recorded word but try to make it fit your bias. I have shown you where do this with many many scriptures but your eyes are blinded by your bias. You telling me that God cannot mean what he said is just to much but very telling so your words are empty with out scriptural support.

How was that for give it a go?

 

[makesends]

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that. This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. See it was the Jews that was astonished. Why? because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter says this is the ONLY time this has happened since it was poured out on them at Pentecost. It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48. This is the textual context of Acts 10. It is you that is blinded by the context and can't see that the spirit coming upon in verse 44 is not the giving of the indwelling but an outpouring of witness.

Mod Hat: Please (for the sake of your own argument, and for clarity) do something visible— color, quotes, italics, maybe even more than one thing, to delineate when what you post is quoted from scripture (or others), and what is not. This will help this site be more readable and enjoyable to others, and, if your reasoning is valid, it will help your argument.

 

[Arial]

How was that for give it a go?

Petty much a pile of word salad full of category mistakes, red herrings, ad hominin etc. But I will have to deal with unraveling the massive knot of language later.

 

[Arial]

This is proof you are not rightly handling the word of God. The spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling and if you would just get past your bias and let the scriptures do the talking you would see that.

In all your quotes I will mark in bold those things that are unnecessary, ad holmium, and only serve to make the discussion an argument and a pitting of wills against each other. The conversation should be straight forward and stick to points being made, and that is what I will attempt to do. As an opening statement I will say that the "proof" you provide to show that I am not rightly handling the word of God, consists of simply telling me what your interpretation of various scriptures is, without ever touching on the original issue and question. My premise in giving the scriptures I did, letting the words of the scriptures speak for themselves, was, if they are compared to your interpretation of Acts 2:38 meaning that we do not receive forgiveness of our sins or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are baptized, does that create a contradiction within the Bible. It was not given for you to then prove that I was not rightly handling the word of God. It was not about me at all. It was not even about you. It was a question that you have not answered, though I realize you think you have.

In the spirit of good will and hopeful that the exchanges can become profitable, let's look at what you say. You say that the Spirit coming upon Cornelius was not the indwelling. This is not dealing with the issue of my question about does the presence of a specific interpretation of one scripture contradict the clear meaning of others given without any biased interpretation laid over them. Instead, it just finds a way to begin to use the scriptures given to contradict the clear meaning before ever addressing the clear meaning. I believe in what follows you make an attempt to support the claim that Cornelius was not receiving the indwelling (which indeed needs to be supported) so we shall see.

This whole chapter is about God bringing the gentiles into the kingdom as foretold of Joel. the chapter makes it clear that the spirit coming upon was for a sign of witness to the Jews. It was not for the benefit of the gentiles but to show the Jews (Peter and accompanying party) that Gods will is to add the gentiles. This we know by what Peter says. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I assume you are talking about chapter 10. There is no doubt that it was a sign to the Jews. And it was also a sign to the Gentiles that they were also, through faith, God's people. How does that prove that it was not the indwelling? The two are not mutually exclusive. Does the Scripture say that when they were baptized in vs.47-48 that their sins were forgiven and the Holy Spirit indwelt them? No. It does however in v 47 say that they had received the Holy Spirit. What does received mean?

It just so happens that this is also the LAST time it happened in this manner. No other place is it recorded as happening as this in scripture. This out pouring was never promised to all people what is promised is the indwelling spirit (See Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3ff Galatians 3:27 and Acts 19:1-5) and this happened in verses 47,48.

In verse 47 it says they had received the Holy Spirit. Verse 48 says they were baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit. The reason it is not shown as happening that way, is because one it had been made known by the sign that Jew and Gentile both received the Holy Spirit, it did not need to be repeated every time someone got saved. As to the other scriptures you give as "proof" for me to go through them and show what they are saying without yours or my presuppositions (iow no presuppositions) imposed on them would make a long post even longer. If you want to do that you are welcome to take them up in a separate post and I will respond. For now, I will simply say your use of them is presuppositional and in and off themselves, they do not prove that the outpouring is not the indwelling.

So, no proof of the claim that Cornelius did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when it came upon him has been provided. And no proof that he did receive the indwelling in the water baptism has been provided.

Yes this is the whole of teaching the baptism in the name of Christ. It is the way it is taught all through Acts in all the conversions recorded. Just as recorded in Mark 16:15,16. This is one that lots of people reject saying it is an addition to the end of Mark 16 jut this is not the only place we see this pattern. All the new testament teaches believe and be baptized if you let the scriptures talk.

That baptism is commanded of the believer is not the issue. The debate is not for or against baptism. The question attempting to be addressed is whether or not a person receives remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit through water baptism. And the original goal and question was whether or not saying it is how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling Holy Spirit contradicts other clear scriptures on the same subject and those that tell us how we receive remission of sin and the indwelling.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:

You did not rightly handle this for you cut out the context and only used the paer you wanted to back your bias but the rest of the context is

The subject is not me and whether or not I rightly handled the word of God when I gave those scriptures. I gave the scriptures for a particular purpose, and it did not require the context for that purpose. It was specifically to show that believing, therefore salvation, is mentioned without water baptism for the remission of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So, to further clarify, what good/purpose is believing if it does not bring the promised blessing of remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit unless one gets water baptized?

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

See Jesus said to believe in him is to believe his WORDS. Not just pick and chose but to trust in his words as he has given them. So to believe in him you must also believe him when he says baptism is for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit which is promised to all Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The debate here is not whether or not we should be baptized. No argument against baptism has been put forth. The debate is whether or not our sins are still held against us even though we believe, until we are water baptized. And whether or not we do not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until we are water baptized. And, to return to the original debate, whether if the Bible teaches the latter, is their a contradiction between that and other scriptures on the same subject.

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house

Again you mishandled the scriptures. You try to build your doctrine on a half truth. You cut off the context again trying to make it say what it does not. They did not just say Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved but they preached the gospel to them telling them what to believe.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And apparently They taught the same gospel as of Act 2 with the same results. You see you are doing a poor job of rightly handling the scriptures. You are butchering them up and using only the tidbits that you try to build your own doctrine on because if you would have read the next two verses you would have seen that baptism was taught.

Me and my handling of the word of God are not the subject. Your handling of the word of God is not the subject. I will answer the same way I answered above when the subject was changed by bringing context into the conversation instead of dealing with the issue. I quoted a small portion of that scripture for a particular purpose. That purpose had to do with the subject of the conversation. They show a place in scripture where believing was said to be the way of salvation, but baptism was not given as a way of salvation at the same time and in the same place. If baptism were needed in order to have sins remitted and to receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it would need to be said every single time the way of salvation is mentioned. Otherwise, a person can believe and at the same time not be saved. Salvation is the remitting of sins and "believe and you will be saved" has no meaning if it is incomplete.

Yes, the next two verses said they were baptized. No argument against that has been presented. The question is do the next two chapters say they were baptized in order to remit their sins and gain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

And again you mishandle

It isn't about me.

You try to make this as an exclusion of the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

I am not and never was arguing against baptism. So, everything that follows is a straw man defense. What I am arguing against is that our sins are remitted and we receive the Holy Spirit by water baptism.

See scripture will back itself if you let it. It has made it clear what the teaching on baptism is and what blessing we receive in the act. You just have to trust and obey what the Lord has said. That is the only way to have faith in Christ is to trust his words for they are truth and life. It is not me that is not rightly handling the word of truth. I have shown where we disagree and gave the scriptures to support it. I have use full context not just cutting off context where I want. Let the public see if I have not given the full context of scriptures.

You made clear your position, but you did not prove your premise. . Eph 1:13 was not given for exegetical comment but for the purpose that I named.


My post #137 was never handled properly by the opposition.

It was treated as though I were:

• Opposing baptism
• Gave the scripture I did for exegetical purposes
• Gave interpretations of those scriptures
• Assumed interpretations of those scriptures
• Was saying I was rightly handling the word of God

When in fact I was

• Asking a question about whether one thing contradicted a particular interpretation of another thing
• Gave small portions of scriptures that illustrated what I needed to be illustrated
• Was not denying baptism

What my opponent did was

• Never answer the question
• Devolve into personal remarks
• Change my scripture quotes from an illustration to a conversation about their context
• Present context as the issue