Axe and two 38's

[dwight92070]

Correct Doug. The Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family only had the purpose to ratify to Peter AND the rest of the Jews that God has a plan for the Gentiles contrary to what they had been mistakenly taught by the Jewish leaders’ traditions of men.

Also as has been adequately stated, the work that occurs in baptism Is BY God. Water is spiritually inert. HE simply prescribed it. I might have done something totally different.

Some will NEVER accept or admit the difference in the indwelling Spirit and the Spirit UPON for witness.

Wrong, Peter speaks about the incident in Cornelius' house, when he was before the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15:6-9:
"God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith." (Not by confession and baptism)

So Peter is clearly telling us when Cornelius' household and friends got saved - when they heard the word of the gospel and believed - and this was BEFORE the Holy Spirit fell on them. He goes on to say that God, who knows the heart, testified to them (that indeed they were saved) by giving them the Holy Spirit.

Peter even adds that their hearts were cleansed by faith - not by faith plus baptism or anything else - only faith.
He adds even more: But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (he already mentioned faith, but notice he doesn't mention confession or baptism here), in the same way as they also are.

If there ever was a time when the apostles wanted to make it crystal clear (specifically for the Gentiles, but also for all men) how to be saved, it was at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. BUT THEY ONLY MENTION GRACE AND FAITH. THERE'S NO MENTION OF CONFESSING JESUS AS LORD OR WATER BAPTISM.

If confession and water baptism were indeed required for anyone to be saved, then NOT mentioning it here is essentially consigning ALL the believing Gentiles to hell. Not only did Peter NOT mention those things here (Acts 15:6-11) but James' final WRITTEN instructions to the Gentiles "who are turning to God" (through grace and faith) (Acts 15:19) ALSO DOES NOT MENTION THEM EITHER.

THESE FACTS ALONE SHOULD BE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION IS A FALSE AND EVEN HERETICAL DOCTRINE. May God have mercy on those who do not heed this warning.

In Acts 15 Judaizers were causing trouble in the church, saying that the believers among the Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved.
It's the same today, we have people on this forum, causing trouble in the church, who are saying that you must repent and believe AND confess Jesus as Lord AND be baptized or you cannot be saved.

It's the same sin as the Judaizers. God said that He hates "one who spreads strife among brothers" Proverbs 6:19. And that it is an abomination to Him.

 

[Jaime]

No he gave the Spirit upon to BOTH Cornelius and the disciples at Pentecost for a witness. The disciples to communicate with the diaspora of Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot or Pentecost and to Cornelius to witness God’s plan for the Gentiles to the stiff necked Jews. Peter even said what then prevents water baptism to those who received the spirit upon just as we did. He obviously thought Water baptism was for forgiveness of sin AND the INDWELLING gift of the spirit as he preached in Acts 2. Peter was not confused and recognized two different manifestations of the Spirit. The salvation paradigm did not change with Cornelius. He and his family just got BOTH manifestations. The miraculous manifestation is ALWAYS for a witness. The indwelling gift helps us live as as Christ would have us live and act. God had a very specific purpose for his miraculous gift upon the disciples and upon Cornelius. In both incidences the purpose is made clear in the scripture passage, and unrelated to the indwelling gift and forgiveness of sin promised at baptism. Again not my prescription but God’s. The water is still inert H2O, but God’s miracle in the water has nothing to do with the water except by what God said we put him on in baptism, we identify with him in his death, burial and resurrection in the H2O of baptism. And we comenup out of the water a new creature, not because of a mystical reaction with the H2O, but because of what God himself does IN the watery grave of our former selves in baptism. The transformation is BY God IN the water, the inert substance chose by God to demonstrate what HE DOES. Taking our old selves we have died to and cleansing our sin stain by the blood of Christ, raising us up out of the watery grave ANEW to walk in newness of life as born anew creatures. It’s a picture, a demonstration to us of what HE did. All we donis drop our clenched fist of resistance and submit to His will and His work in us. Water is a prop chosen by God to enact physically HE does to us spiritually. The H2O has zero power. Christ’s blood has 100% of the power to wash is white as snow.

 

[FreeInChrist]

FreeinChrist, although I agree with your conclusion, I differ a bit on how you got there. If Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, He would have used the word baptism, or baptized since baptism was practiced both by John the Baptist and even Jesus' disciples. John 4:1 However His disciples baptized new believers into Jesus, not into John's baptism. So I differ a bit with you FreeinChrist - baptism was very prevalent at this time, both John's baptism, but also baptism into Jesus, which was a Christian baptism.

Also the context of Jesus' talk with Nicodemus is a reference to childbirth - using the word "born". Jesus Himself initiated that context when He said, "... unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

After Jesus said that, what else would Nicodemus be thinking of but childbirth? And of course he was, because he said, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Is Jesus going to totally change the subject now and speak about baptism? Of course not.
He picks up right where Nicodemus left off with the same topic of childbirth, only now He's contrasting between natural child birth and spiritual birth, and says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So how do we know that when Jesus said "born of water" that He was referring to natural childbirth? Very simple, Jesus clarifies it in his next sentence: "That which is born of the flesh (natural childbirth) is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Then He reiterates it once again: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' "

This is not the only place where Jesus compares childbirth or natural birth with spiritual birth. Look at Luke 7:28:

"I say to you, among those born of women (natural childbirth) there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (those who have been spiritually born) is greater than he."

This verse more than confirms the truth found in John 3, which we have already referred to.

Water baptism is not mentioned or even referred to in either passage. Not only that but water baptism is never referred to elsewhere in the Bible as being "born of water".

I can agree mostly with as you see things. It is the conclusion that matters.

 

[dwight92070]

No he gave the Spirit upon to BOTH Cornelius and the disciples at Pentecost for a witness. The disciples to communicate with the diaspora of Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Shavuot or Pentecost and to Cornelius to witness God’s plan for the Gentiles to the stiff necked Jews. Peter even said what then prevents water baptism to those who received the spirit upon just as we did. He obviously thought Water baptism was for forgiveness of sin AND the INDWELLING gift of the spirit as he preached in Acts 2. Peter was not confused and recognized two different manifestations of the Spirit. The salvation paradigm did not change with Cornelius. He and his family just got BOTH manifestations. The miraculous manifestation is ALWAYS for a witness. The indwelling gift helps us live as as Christ would have us live and act. God had a very specific purpose for his miraculous gift upon the disciples and upon Cornelius. In both incidences the purpose is made clear in the scripture passage, and unrelated to the indwelling gift and forgiveness of sin promised at baptism. Again not my prescription but God’s. The water is still inert H2O, but God’s miracle in the water has nothing to do with the water except by what God said we put him on in baptism, we identify with him in his death, burial and resurrection in the H2O of baptism. And we comenup out of the water a new creature, not because of a mystical reaction with the H2O, but because of what God himself does IN the watery grave of our former selves in baptism. The transformation is BY God IN the water, the inert substance chose by God to demonstrate what HE DOES. Taking our old selves we have died to and cleansing our sin stain by the blood of Christ, raising us up out of the watery grave ANEW to walk in newness of life as born anew creatures. It’s a picture, a demonstration to us of what HE did. All we donis drop our clenched fist of resistance and submit to His will and His work in us. Water is a prop chosen by God to enact physically HE does to us spiritually. The H2O has zero power. Christ’s blood has 100% of the power to wash is white as snow.

You harden your heart to the truth in favor of…

 

[Jaime]

You harden your heart to the truth in favor of heresy.

I could say the exact same thing about you!

 

[dwight92070]

So I was born again and 2 weeks later I was baptized. According to your doctrine, I got saved when I was baptized, but I believe I was saved 2 weeks before that. But again, according to your doctrine, I'm still saved, because I was baptized, right? Even if I don't believe I was saved at baptism, but two weeks earlier, just the fact that I was baptized means I am saved today, right?

 

[Jaime]

As Anaias told Paul, why tarry? Right? Unless you believe Ananias was sent by God unequipped with the truth. Paul still had his sins to be dealt with after his face to face with the risen Christ. Might not have been the way I would have prescribed it, but nonetheless what scripture says. I don’t believe we are saved until our sin stain is handled and we receive the indwelling gift of the Spirit. In answer to your question, I would say to you what Ananias said to Paul, what was the purpose of your tarrying, without calling you a heretic? I don’t know your circumstances.

 

[Doug Brents]

So I was born again and 2 weeks later I was baptized.

Not possible, according to Scripture.

According to your doctrine, I got saved when I was baptized, but I believe I was saved 2 weeks before that. But again, according to your doctrine, I'm still saved, because I was baptized, right? Even if I don't believe I was saved at baptism, but two weeks earlier, just the fact that I was baptized means I am saved today, right?

Not necessarily. As has been stated before, if you are "baptized" without understanding what it means, without belief in Jesus, without repenting of sin, then you just get wet and the Holy Spirit does not meet you in the water to remove your sins. The water is not some mystical, "holy water" that removes your sins. It is your faith in obedience to God's command that causes the Holy Spirit to take action. But He only does so when you are in the water, not two weeks before when you committed yourself in your heart to God. That is like Naaman when he choose to go to Jordan to dip. He wasn't cleansed when he turned from the road home to go to Jordan. He wasn't cleansed when his foot first hit the water. He wasn't cleansed when he dipped the sixth time. He was cleansed when he completed what was instructed and dipped the seventh time. That is when his leprosy was removed. And it is when we are dipped (having already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord) that we are cleansed of sin.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Not possible, according to Scripture.

Not necessarily. As has been stated before, if you are "baptized" without understanding what it means, without belief in Jesus, without repenting of sin, then you just get wet and the Holy Spirit does not meet you in the water to remove your sins. The water is not some mystical, "holy water" that removes your sins. It is your faith in obedience to God's command that causes the Holy Spirit to take action. But He only does so when you are in the water, not two weeks before when you committed yourself in your heart to God. That is like Naaman when he choose to go to Jordan to dip. He wasn't cleansed when he turned from the road home to go to Jordan. He wasn't cleansed when his foot first hit the water. He wasn't cleansed when he dipped the sixth time. He was cleansed when he completed what was instructed and dipped the seventh time. That is when his leprosy was removed. And it is when we are dipped (having already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord) that we are cleansed of sin.

Everyone should be really happy that no Presbyterian is saved.

I know.... I am one

 

[dwight92070]

Not possible, according to Scripture.

Not necessarily. As has been stated before, if you are "baptized" without understanding what it means, without belief in Jesus, without repenting of sin, then you just get wet and the Holy Spirit does not meet you in the water to remove your sins. The water is not some mystical, "holy water" that removes your sins. It is your faith in obedience to God's command that causes the Holy Spirit to take action. But He only does so when you are in the water, not two weeks before when you committed yourself in your heart to God. That is like Naaman when he choose to go to Jordan to dip. He wasn't cleansed when he turned from the road home to go to Jordan. He wasn't cleansed when his foot first hit the water. He wasn't cleansed when he dipped the sixth time. He was cleansed when he completed what was instructed and dipped the seventh time. That is when his leprosy was removed. And it is when we are dipped (having already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord) that we are cleansed of sin.

Doug said: "And it is when we are dipped (having already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord) that we are cleansed of sin."

So I had already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord (2 weeks earlier) when I was dipped. So I guess I am cleansed of sin.

 

[Jaime]

My response is the same as before and the same as Ananias’ response to Paul why did you tarry?

 

[dwight92070]

As Anaias told Paul, why tarry? Right? Unless you believe Ananias was sent by God unequipped with the truth. Paul still had his sins to be dealt with after his face to face with the risen Christ. Might not have been the way I would have prescribed it, but nonetheless what scripture says. I don’t believe we are saved until our sin stain is handled and we receive the indwelling gift of the Spirit. In answer to your question, I would say to you what Ananias said to Paul, what was the purpose of your tarrying, without calling you a heretic? I don’t know your circumstances.

Peter said that God "cleansed their hearts by faith", speaking of Cornelius and his family and friends. Acts 15:8-9 This was before they were baptized. It's when God gave them the Holy Spirit, again before they were baptized. Then in verse 11 he says: "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are."

So Peter is saying that their hearts were cleansed of sin by faith through grace, even before they were baptized.

Also Jesus said that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. So our sins are forgiven when we repent of them, not later when we are baptized. Luke 24:47

 

[dwight92070]

My response is the same as before and the same as Ananias’ response to Paul why did you tarry?

Tarry or not, I was baptized, having already repented and confessed Jesus as my Lord, and so also are millions of other Christians in my same situation. Are we lost or are we saved?

By the way, no one told me or taught me anything about baptism when I repented and believed - until about 1 1/2 weeks later - a church secretary called and asked if I wanted to be baptized. Since I had read about Jesus getting baptized, I said "Yes." I did not know that I was supposed to be baptized. If I had known, I would have immediately done so.

 

[dwight92070]

It is true that in the early church, baptism was done immediately when someone repented and believed. But there is not one place in Scripture where someone was baptized, who had not previously repented and believed. Because baptism was done immediately, it's easy to see how the order could get mixed up. Unsaved people could see others getting baptized, not knowing that they had previously (possibly even just minutes earlier) repented of their sins and believed in Jesus - and these unsaved people could easily deduce (mistakenly) that if they wanted to be a Christian, they must be baptized - totally overlooking the fact that repentance and faith in Jesus was necessary before being baptized. In fact, this is very likely how the baptismal regeneration doctrine first started.
This is why accurate teaching on baptism is so important.

 

[dwight92070]

Also when someone is confronted with the person of Jesus and His teaching, they are "forced" to make a decision -either they reject Him and His teachings or they accept Him and His teachings. To remain neutral is tantamount to rejecting Him. If they accept Him, they will repent of their sins and believe in Him and His teaching. If they reject Him, they are still in their sins and remain in unbelief.
The bottom line is that no one who accepts Jesus will repent without believing, nor will they believe without repenting. So whenever we see true repentance in the Bible, we know that person also believes in - puts their faith in Jesus. And whenever we see people believing in Jesus in the Bible, we know they also will, or have already repented of their sins.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug said: "And it is when we are dipped (having already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord) that we are cleansed of sin."

So I had already repented and confessed Jesus as Lord (2 weeks earlier) when I was dipped. So I guess I am cleansed of sin.

But not 2 weeks earlier. Sure, you are saved now (as far as I can tell), but for those 2 weeks, you were still condemned if you had died.

 

[Doug Brents]

Tarry or not, I was baptized, having already repented and confessed Jesus as my Lord, and so also are millions of other Christians in my same situation. Are we lost or are we saved?

By the way, no one told me or taught me anything about baptism when I repented and believed - until about 1 1/2 weeks later - a church secretary called and asked if I wanted to be baptized. Since I had read about Jesus getting baptized, I said "Yes." I did not know that I was supposed to be baptized. If I had known, I would have immediately done so.

That is the problem with so many modern "teachers". They teach a false doctrine, and leave so many people lost.

 

[Jaime]

Tarry or not, I was baptized, having already repented and confessed Jesus as my Lord, and so also are millions of other Christians in my same situation. Are we lost or are we saved?

By the way, no one told me or taught me anything about baptism when I repented and believed - until about 1 1/2 weeks later - a church secretary called and asked if I wanted to be baptized. Since I had read about Jesus getting baptized, I said "Yes." I did not know that I was supposed to be baptized. If I had known, I would have immediately done so.

Failure to teach aboutu baptism or the minimizing of it is usually the culprit. If scripture is taught to one seeking salvation, baptism is
Lat always something done fairly quickly in scripture. Which is why Ananias responded to Paul as he did.

Yes of course all of salvation is 100% by grace through faith. Baptism is a faith response. I am not arguing the nano second of salvation, but as scripture says in 1 Peter 3:21 it IS the calling upon God (that Ananias was referring to) and I believe it is where we contact the blood of Christ that washes our sins away. Other than Paul, everyone in a salvation story in scripture was immediatey or as soon as possible thereafter baptized. It was not an after thought but one continuous response. I would doubt for instance that any human being coming to faith in Christ failed or delayed in confessing with their lips that Christ was Lord, even if the salvation didn’t mention it. But if someone purposely teaches that baptism is not an immediate faith response, it would be expected a delay of time would be involved, if ever in some cases, especially if they studied on their on and discovered like you did about baptism. The first century respondents would never have contemplated parsing baptism away from salvation in my opinion from what I see in scripture. Like the Ethiopian Eunoch for instance. He was studying from the scroll of Isaiah. We are not told what Phillip said otherwise much, but baptism seemed to be an urgent thing to him. I don’t hold you at fault for your delay in baptism, but i would probably want to ask the person who taught you a few questions.

 

[dwight92070]

That is the problem with so many modern "teachers". They teach a false doctrine, and leave so many people lost.

So we are lost then?

 

[Doug Brents]

So we are lost then?

From the point when you/they "believe" until you/they are baptized, yes; just as Naaman was still a leper from the point he chose to go dip in Jordan to the point he dipped the seventh time. Salvation, just like Naaman's cleansing, is received when the qualifications to receive it are all fulfilled.