The Water Baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13

[praise_yeshua]

I see. And Matthew was the author of the Gospel with his name on it? I thought all Scripture was inspired by God. That makes God the author, not Matthew. And with God as the author, then nothing in Matthew's Gospel is in error or "doesn't matter".

Matthew repeated what he believed. It is accurate to what he believed. Even apostles believed traditions over Truth. Matthew was no different.

Inspiration involves several aspects of communication. There are inspired words of men and "thus sayeth" the Lord style inspiration. Paul mentioned the difference.

1Cor 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

A choice MUST be made between the genealogies. They are not compatible with one another. The husband of Mary had nothing to do with Jesus.

Nope, I'm not skilled enough. That is why I rely on the Holy Spirit to show me the truth in His Word..

Claiming your can't get things wrong because you're "led by Spirit" is rather rudimentary of you. I can claim the same thing. We can "reason" together or not.

Lydia was also not a Jew. She was a Gentile who feared God, this is the same situation that Cornelius was in; a Gentile who feared God (was proselytized).

Not true at all. I see you didn't provide any evidence to establish this. It is just conjecture on your part.

I am sorry that you feel God has not sent you to convert people to Him. I pray that you will feel that sending, and obey it..

Don't conflate. Baptism doesn't convert anyone. The message of the Gospel does.

If what you say is true, we'd just dunk everyone in the "sea" or in the "cloud".... Get it?

What didn't matter? The fact that he was sent to the Jordan? Yes it mattered. He had to go to the "dirty" river, and do something humbling (not fight a mighty battle, or conquer a massive peak). And when he did what was commanded (100% of it) he was healed. We are in the same boat (as it were).

That makes no sense.

So the condition of the water mattered? Or was it the place??????

Keep trying. You're not making any sense trying to attach baptism to Naaman while excluding the place.

Where did John Baptize? Where did Jesus Baptize?

 

[praise_yeshua]

That makes no sense.

The Gospel is preached from faith to faith. Faith is generational.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

2Ti 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Timothy's faith BEGAN with his mother Eunice. Eunice's faith began with Lois. All faith begins this way or it is entirely NEW... to those who hear the Gospel for the first time.

The message of John the Baptist represented the need to return to what they had be taught. The faith of Abraham. This was different for them. They had expressed such faith in Messiah for all their lives.

NOW.... Jesus was here.

Now fast forward to Gentiles, the message is largely the same but the circumstances are not. They had never heard....... NEVER. Sure they had "heard" about it but not "heard" like the faithful had passed to their own descendants.

This requires a change. Israel was baptized as a collective in the sea and in the cloud. You must consider why they had been baptized multiple times.

You're mostly a dispensationalist of some sort. You've crafted hard boundaries that do not exist.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What is the Greek word from which "believed" is translated? "Pistis", which means "faith". This is not the American conception of "intellectual assent". This is the active, obedient faith spoken of in James 2:14-26, and in John 3:36.

Your stuck on works my friend.. Works has you imprisoned within it.

Yes it is Faith. Faith acted the moment it received. It did nto have to do anything else. at that moment the child was born again and sealed.

Not according to Acts 8:36, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:5, Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16, and many other passages.

Now you sound like Inigo; "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." LOL

Which requires water and the Spirit (John 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21, Acts 8:36).

Sure it is. There is only one baptism, and it is in that baptism that we are united with Christ and our sins are removed. And that baptism REQUIRES that water be involved, because if it is not then the three passages above are lies. If we can be reborn with just the Spirit, and not the Spirit and water, then Jesus lied to Nicodemus, Philip lied to the Eunuch, and Peter lied to all of us.

Not at all. Back to the gift of the car. I buy a car, pay 100% of the cost of the car and all of the upkeep, fuel, tires, etc. to keep the car running for the rest of your life upfront, and have a dealer in our city hold the car for you. You must go to the dealer to receive the car. What part of the value of the car does you showing up cover? Did you "pay for" even the wiper blades by showing up to receive the car? NO!!!! But if you don't show up, then you don't have use of the car. And you won't have use of it until you show up. This in no way "merits" the car. You don't deserve it. You haven't earned it. According to God you deserve to be burned alive for all eternity for sinning against Him (sorry, off of the analogy). But if you do show up, then you receive the gift that I have given to you, and you get to use it forever because I have covered ALL of the cost of it.

This is what God has done for us. He has given us the gift of eternal life and forgiveness, but to receive it we must repent of our sins as Acts 3:19 says. We must confess Jesus as Lord verbally ("with the mouth") as Rom 10:9-10 says. And we must be baptized in water as Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:5, Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, Acts 22:16, Acts 8:36, Gal 3:26-27, Eph 5:26-27, and many others state.

And you have water on the brain.

I feel sorry for you

 

[Doug Brents]

Matthew repeated what he believed. It is accurate to what he believed. Even apostles believed traditions over Truth. Matthew was no different.

Inspiration involves several aspects of communication. There are inspired words of men and "thus sayeth" the Lord style inspiration. Paul mentioned the difference.

1Cor 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

Wow, you are way out there. The books and letters of the Bible were inspired by God. That means that there is no error in them; no conflict, no contradiction, they are 100% reliable. Matthew was not putting down his own thoughts. He was writing what God gave him to write.
Paul makes the distinction between things Jesus taught while He was among us, and things God is telling him to teach that Jesus did not teach while among us.

A choice MUST be made between the genealogies. They are not compatible with one another. The husband of Mary had nothing to do with Jesus.

No choice need be made at all. One is the genealogy through Mary, the other through Joseph. Joseph, as the head of the household in which Jesus was raised has very much to do with Jesus. He raised, educated, instructed, coached, and mentored Jesus throughout His youth.

Don't conflate. Baptism doesn't convert anyone. The message of the Gospel does.

If what you say is true, we'd just dunk everyone in the "sea" or in the "cloud".... Get it?

LOL, nope, being dunked in the "sea and cloud" did not save the people of Israel that left Egypt. Many of the rebelled and were killed for their transgressions, and all of them died in the wilderness without ever even seeing the Promised Land.
Scripture says that we are saved in baptism (1 Pet 3:21), that we cannot be born again without both water and the Spirit (John 3:5), that it is in baptism that the Holy Spirit cuts our sin from us and unites us to Jesus death and resurrection (Col 2:11-14), that in baptism we die to sin and are resurrected with Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:1-7), and I could go on. I am conflating nothing, I am simply reporting what the Word of God says.

So the condition of the water mattered? Or was it the place??????

It was his obedience to the command of God that mattered. It did not matter where on Jordan he went. It did not matter when he went. It did not matter that he had his cloths on or off. None of those things were part of the instruction passed to him from God. What mattered was his obedience to the command of God.

Keep trying. You're not making any sense trying to attach baptism to Naaman while excluding the place.

The same connection can be made with the nation of Israel marching around Jericho and the walls falling down.
The same connection can be made with the widow who poured oil from the small jar into all the jars she could beg, borrow, or whatever, and still the small jar had oil in it.
The same connection can be made with the widow who gave her last morsel of food to the prophet and then ate on the flour and oil in her pantry through the rest of the famine.
The same connection can be made with the many other stories of God's gifts to people because of their faith in the OT.
It is not the water, or the place, or anything else that you are trying to make significant. What mattered was the fact that the people exhibited faith in God, and did what He commanded, and they received what was promised.

Where did John Baptize?

Jordan.

Where did Jesus Baptize?

He didn't. Many of His disciples did, but He did not. And we are not told where they baptized, because they moved around a LOT, and baptized wherever they were when they had need. Again, the location doesn't matter, the kind of water doesn't matter, the circumstance doesn't matter. What matters is that God said that we must be immersed in water and the Spirit to be born again. No immersion, no salvation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Wow, you are way out there. The books and letters of the Bible were inspired by God.

Lies. Lies told so you would do what you're doing. Your bible of choice is a collection of writings that were chosen my men. Some canonical council made those choices for you. I know the manuscripts myself. I'm the expert. You don't have the knowledge necessary to have this discussion with me. You're just repeat false claims.

That means that there is no error in them; no conflict, no contradiction, they are 100% reliable. Matthew was not putting down his own thoughts. He was writing what God gave him to write.

Even if that were true, you have other obstacles to overcome. You're not reading what Matthew wrote. You're reading a translation that came through multiple languages and varying manuscripts. Not that I believe that has anything to do with this particular instance. You're preaching the doctrine of Inerrancy. Which you don't obviously understand. Most don't.

Paul makes the distinction between things Jesus taught while He was among us, and things God is telling him to teach that Jesus did not teach while among us.

Yeah. You're a follower of man. So much for "inspiration". It doesn't really matter to you. You replace the teachings of God you read with your own conjecture. Inspiration means nothing to you. It is nothing more than an excuse for you to falsely claim victory.

No choice need be made at all. One is the genealogy through Mary, the other through Joseph. Joseph, as the head of the household in which Jesus was raised has very much to do with Jesus. He raised, educated, instructed, coached, and mentored Jesus throughout His youth.

Like I don't already know what the person you're following taught you...

Joseph wasn't the head of the family of Christ. Jesus left that family and said the following.....

Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

 

[praise_yeshua]

LOL, nope, being dunked in the "sea and cloud" did not save the people of Israel that left Egypt.

According to your doctrine it did. Pay attention.

Many of the rebelled and were killed for their transgressions, and all of them died in the wilderness without ever even seeing the Promised Land.
Scripture says that we are saved in baptism (1 Pet 3:21), that we cannot be born again without both water and the Spirit (John 3:5), that it is in baptism that the Holy Spirit cuts our sin from us and unites us to Jesus death and resurrection (Col 2:11-14), that in baptism we die to sin and are resurrected with Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Rom 6:1-7), and I could go on. I am conflating nothing, I am simply reporting what the Word of God says.

According to your teaching they were all alive through baptism and then fell. Pay attention.

It was his obedience to the command of God that mattered. It did not matter where on Jordan he went. It did not matter when he went. It did not matter that he had his cloths on or off. None of those things were part of the instruction passed to him from God. What mattered was his obedience to the command of God.

The command was Jordan. Stop this nonsense. WHERE was important. Why do you dismiss what God said?

The same connection can be made with the nation of Israel marching around Jericho and the walls falling down.
The same connection can be made with the widow who poured oil from the small jar into all the jars she could beg, borrow, or whatever, and still the small jar had oil in it.
The same connection can be made with the widow who gave her last morsel of food to the prophet and then ate on the flour and oil in her pantry through the rest of the famine.
The same connection can be made with the many other stories of God's gifts to people because of their faith in the OT.
It is not the water, or the place, or anything else that you are trying to make significant. What mattered was the fact that the people exhibited faith in God, and did what He commanded, and they received what was promised.

"That is your tail. I sit on mine."

You're making connections that don't exist. Now Jordan.... that was important. How about giving some thought to why. Ask the Spirit to help you. Don't listen to the voices of those who taught you.

He didn't. Many of His disciples did, but He did not. And we are not told where they baptized, because they moved around a LOT, and baptized wherever they were when they had need. Again, the location doesn't matter, the kind of water doesn't matter, the circumstance doesn't matter. What matters is that God said that we must be immersed in water and the Spirit to be born again. No immersion, no salvation.

Joh_3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

So this is different than what happened to Naaman....

Glad you agree. Why did YOU connect it?

 

[Doug Brents]

Lies. Lies told so you would do what you're doing.

This tells me all I need to know about you.

Your bible of choice is a collection of writings that were chosen my men. Some canonical council made those choices for you. I know the manuscripts myself. I'm the expert. You don't have the knowledge necessary to have this discussion with me. You're just repeat false claims.

A self-confessed expert. lol The councils did not choose what was Scripture and what was not. They recognized what had already been accepted as Scripture. Paul recognized Luke's writings are Scripture (Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16). And Peter recognized all of the Apostles writings as being equal to the writings of the "Holy Prophets" from the OT in 2 Pet 3:2.

Even if that were true, you have other obstacles to overcome. You're not reading what Matthew wrote. You're reading a translation that came through multiple languages and varying manuscripts. Not that I believe that has anything to do with this particular instance. You're preaching the doctrine of Inerrancy. Which you don't obviously understand. Most don't.

You don't know what I know or understand.

Yeah. You're a follower of man. So much for "inspiration". It doesn't really matter to you. You replace the teachings of God you read with your own conjecture. Inspiration means nothing to you. It is nothing more than an excuse for you to falsely claim victory.

I have yet to claim victory. I am not in a battle with you. I will claim victory when I stand before the Throne of God and Jesus welcomes me on His right hand with the rest of His sheep.

Like I don't already know what the person you're following taught you...

Joseph wasn't the head of the family of Christ. Jesus left that family and said the following.....

Luk 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luk 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Jesus did not leave that family. Read the full context. He went with them and was subject to them until He was around 30.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This tells me all I need to know about you.

What. That I know what you don't know?

A self-confessed expert. lol The councils did not choose what was Scripture and what was not. They recognized

I am an expert. I've debating this issue for thirty years. So you really think this is the first time I've heard this? So lets go with this.....

What council recognized the canon?
Just realize that when you chose one, I'm going to show where another council "recognized" another. So tighten up. Lets do this.

BTW. I accept Peter and Paul. So do what you should do and deal with each instance of Scriptures as they are different in manuscript.

Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus. It was all about Mary. Joseph wasn't "highly favored" among men. ( and no. I don't worship Mary.)

I have yet to claim victory. I am not in a battle with you. I will claim victory when I stand before the Throne of God and Jesus welcomes me on His right hand with the rest of His sheep.

So you don't think I'll be there? How nice of you. Doesn't this show your intent?

Jesus did not leave that family. Read the full context. He went with them and was subject to them until He was around 30.

He most certainly did leave them. They were not with Him the entire time. If they had been, they would have noticed he wasn't there.

Also, the idea that Jesus was "owned" by Joseph is contrary to any sense of Divinity within Jesus Christ.

Again. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Hey.... but keep trying.

 

[Doug Brents]

What council recognized the canon?
Just realize that when you chose one, I'm going to show where another council "recognized" another. So tighten up. Lets do this.

I have already answered this. I am not interested in what council recognized what. The councils took place starting in the 300s, but most of what we call Scripture today was already recognized as such before 100 AD. So it doesn't matter what the men in the 300s said.

BTW. I accept Peter and Paul. So do what you should do and deal with each instance of Scriptures as they are different in manuscript.

Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus. It was all about Mary. Joseph wasn't "highly favored" among men.

Have it your way.

( and no. I don't worship Mary.)

Well at least there is that.

So you don't think I'll be there? How nice of you. Doesn't this show your intent?

Again, I am not in contest with you. You may be there on the right, or you may be there on the left. That is between you and God.

He most certainly did leave them. They were not with Him the entire time. If they had been, they would have noticed he wasn't there.

He did not leave them. They left Him, and thought He was in the company going home. But when they came to get Him, He submitted to them and went home with them.

Also, the idea that Jesus was "owned" by Joseph is contrary to any sense of Divinity within Jesus Christ.

When did I ever say He was "owned" by Joseph?

Again. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. Hey.... but keep trying.

Keep trying what? Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Goodby.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have already answered this. I am not interested in what council recognized what. The councils took place starting in the 300s, but most of what we call Scripture today was already recognized as such before 100 AD. So it doesn't matter what the men in the 300s said.

No you haven't. You made a claim that demands more than just such claims.

So you recognize the Epistle of Barnabas? I bet your preferred bible doesn't have it.....

The Epistle of Barnabas relative to manuscript dating practices is about as old as they come.... It is found in Codex Sinaiticus and is a vital part of early church father's teaching. At least from tradition.

Not saying I accept it. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Most people don't. Just like with water baptism, you're just repeating what someone else told you. I know the evidence myself. I didn't get it from someone's teaching. I reviewed the evidence myself.

He did not leave them. They left Him, and thought He was in the company going home. But when they came to get Him, He submitted to them and went home with them.

No one in their right mind doesn't pay attention to a boy of that age. He slipped away from them. He didn't even care to try and "track them down'. He had other things to do. Things that didn't concern Mary nor her husband.

When did I ever say He was "owned" by Joseph?

The fact you don't realize that your claiming that Joseph had paternal rights to Jesus is telling. Your teaching/belief requires it.

Keep trying what? Your arrogance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Goodby.

Whatever. You're the one claiming water regenerates. You're doing a poor job of it. Apart from supposed "early church" tradition. There really is not evidence whatsoever that what you're teaching is true.

Which means you're not Sola Scriptura in practice. So why are you mad that I reject the idea that the genealogies of Matthew mean anything?

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

 

[Doug Brents]

No you haven't.

I have, but I don't care to do so any further. You are the self-proclaimed expert in all things Scripture, so I defer to your superiority, oh high and mighty one.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have, but I don't care to do so any further. You are the self-proclaimed expert in all things Scripture, so I defer to your superiority, oh high and mighty one.

I can prove it. Who are you following for information? I'll discuss it with them. Where are you getting your information from?

You're deflecting from the real evidence. It happens all the time. I decided many years ago to know it myself. I've spent many years examining evidence. I haven't just read what other say about it. I looked at the issue myself.

After all, I will answer for it. What are you going to do? Are you going to try to tell God that you trusted what someone else "said" about it or are you going to seek the information yourself?

I'm not a novice. Do you not want me to treasure the time I've spent seeking God?

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Now I would follow Paul. I would. At least till he "got tired of me"... I'd follow Jesus if He were alive on this earth today.

I decided a long time ago to accept Truth for what it was. I look for Truth. I don't often get into arguments about "inspiration" because I offend people. If something is true, then why even start the conversation?

If you care to dig deeper.... study the word Gramma and Graphe. You'll find them used in context to "holy writings". If you can work through that study yourself, you'll see why I say what I say. I can't tell you about it because you've "blocked it off". You must learn it yourself. I encourage you to do so. Don't accept what I say. Get it yourself. Then it will be real to you. Not before.

 

[TomL]

You think that the miraculous empowerment of the Holy Spirit is "Spirit baptism", but it is not. "Spirit baptism" is the indwelling of the Spirit, and that occurs when we are brought into the family of God when we are baptized in water. In Acts 19, we see this clearly. When the men were baptized in water, they received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but then the Apostles laid hands on them and they received miraculous empowerment of the Spirit; two different functions of the Spirit.

There is, because there is only one baptism in the NT Church, and it is the baptism in which we are saved, and it requires human action and water according to Acts 8:36, 1 Pet 3:21, Matt 28:19, John 3:5, and other passages.

Newsflash

Scripture

Acts 11:15–16 (NASB95) — 15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

show the spirit's falling on the gentiles was the baptism en the Spirit

The Samaritans were water baptised but had not received the Spirit

Acts 8:14–16 (NASB95) — 14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Doug Brents]

I can prove it. Who are you following for information? I'll discuss it with them. Where are you getting your information from?

Scripture

You're deflecting from the real evidence. It happens all the time. I decided many years ago to know it myself. I've spent many years examining evidence. I haven't just read what other say about it. I looked at the issue myself.

After all, I will answer for it. What are you going to do? Are you going to try to tell God that you trusted what someone else "said" about it or are you going to seek the information yourself?

I'm not a novice. Do you not want me to treasure the time I've spent seeking God?

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Now I would follow Paul. I would. At least till he "got tired of me"... I'd follow Jesus if He were alive on this earth today.

I am not a novice either. I do, in fact, follow Jesus, for He is still alive, and His Spirit lives within me. I also follow Paul, and Peter, and John; for they in turn follow Jesus. Yes, I have done the research myself. I have read the Scripture and from it discovered the truth. After that, I went on to read thousands of papers, articles, pages, and sites about what I had studied. And I found that when people disagreed with what I had discovered, they invariably ignored or "explained away" many of the passages of Scripture that showed the error of their thinking.

There were a couple of places where I had missed something, and the other's research helped me to correct my own conclusions, but this was rare indeed.

I decided a long time ago to accept Truth for what it was. I look for Truth.

Welcome to the club.

 

[TomL]

When does Eph 1:13 say we are sealed? After we exhibit our faith. When does 1 Cor 12:13 say we are made part of the one body? When we are baptized into it.

I don't have to ignore any of Scripture, because it all says the same thing.

Um when we believe not when we are water baptized

You have a problem with scripture.

 

[Doug Brents]

Newsflash

Scripture

Acts 11:15–16 (NASB95) — 15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

show the spirit's falling on the gentiles was the baptism en the Spirit

The Spirit fell UPON them. He did not enter their hearts, indwell them, or resurrect them. He empowered them with the gift of tongues and praise.

The Samaritans were water baptised but had not received the Spirit

Acts 8:14–16 (NASB95) — 14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

These had been baptized into Christ, but (as far as I can tell from Scripture) only the Apostles could pass on miraculous empowerment, and Philip, who baptized these Samaritans, was not an Apostle. So these men had the indwelling of the Spirit of the Spirit, but not the empowerment that the Apostles alone could convey.

Um when we believe not when we are water baptized

When they expressed their faith (pistis). You still want to make "belief" a purely mental thing. It means "faith", not just intellectual assent.

You have a problem with scripture.

Nope, I have a problem with people like you you bastardize it for your own ends.

 

[TomL]

The Spirit fell UPON them. He did not enter their hearts, indwell them, or resurrect them. He empowered them with the gift of tongues and praise.

These had been baptized into Christ, but (as far as I can tell from Scripture) only the Apostles could pass on miraculous empowerment, and Philip, who baptized these Samaritans, was not an Apostle. So these men had the indwelling of the Spirit of the Spirit, but not the empowerment that the Apostles alone could convey.

When they expressed their faith (pistis). You still want to make "belief" a purely mental thing. It means "faith", not just intellectual assent.

Nope, I have a problem with people like you you bastardize it for your own ends.

Do you have a problem sticking to the issue?

First

The Spirit's falling on them was the baptism en the spirit

Acts 11:15–16 (LEB) — 15 And as I was beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, just as also on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

Second

and they did in fact receive the spirit

Acts 10:44–47 (LEB) — 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!”

Acts 15:8–9 (LEB) — 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us. 9 And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Third you will not their hearts were cleansed by faith not water baptism

 

[mailmandan]

These translations make faith sound like a purely mental exercise. But it is not. Without action faith is dead and worthless, and cannot bring justification to anyone (James 2:20, 22, 24, 26).

It just sounds that way to you because you don't understand and you promote salvation by faith (your version of faith) and works. Faith is from the heart and not just from our head. Man is justified (accounted as righteous) by faith apart from works (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6) and also justified (shown to be righteous) by works. (James 2:21-26)

Faith demands that we step onto the bridge, sit in the chair, get in the wheelbarrow, sacrifice our only son, etc. If we don't act, then we really don't have faith, we really don't trust, we really don't believe.

Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness in Genesis 15:6 (also see Romans 4:2-3) many years before he offered up his son Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham did not have some kind of intrinsic merit to account him as righteous, but it showed or manifested the genuineness of his faith. (James 2:18) That is the "sense" in which Abraham was "justified by works." He was shown to be righteous.

Exactly, as soon as we obey Him in faith, and do the things He said lead to receiving His gift is when we are saved. Not when we think that His Gospel is true. Not when we think that He will do what He says.

You continue to trust in what you DO for salvation rather that what Jesus has already DONE. We receive the gift of the Holy Spirt prior to water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47) We are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise the moment we believe the gospel. (Ephesians 1:13)

You keep saying the right words, but by "faith" you mean "think".

I mean believe, trust, reliance.

When we in America say, "I believe that it will rain today", what do we mean?
We mean that we "think" that it will rain today.
But if we really have faith that it will rain today, we will take our raincoat or umbrella when we leave the house. If we don't take the raincoat or umbrella, we don't really have faith, we just have a thought.

True about the umbrella. If I truly believed it was going to rain today then I would take a raincoat or an umbrella.

That is not what Jesus said. He said that we can only be born again through the Spirit AND water. You want to skip half of what Jesus said, but He didn't use extra words, or throw out phrases that don't mean anything. Everything He said has a purpose and a power, but you are missing half of it, which results in you getting none of it.

I did not skip the water part in John 3:5 and why would I assume that Jesus meant baptism? Jesus already connected receiving eternal life with believing "apart from baptism" multiple times in John chapter 3 and in John 4:10,14 and John 7:38-39 Jesus connects living water with the Holy Spirit and with eternal life. Plain, ordinary H20 has no power to cleanse the heart from sin and only living water reaches the heart.

Absolutely not. I have assurance because I trust that God will do what He promised. Just as Abraham trusted that even if he killed his only son, God could resurrect him, so he was willing to sacrifice his ONLY son. He had seen God's actions and trusted Him to be able to do what He said. I have seen God's faithfulness as well, and I have put my full hope, trust, and confidence in Him to do what He says He will do. But I also trust that He is a God who will not do what He says He will not do. And He has said that if I don't obey Him then I won't get what He offers. If I don't confess Him He will not confess me. If I do not repent He will not forgive me. If I do not continue to walk in His Light He will not continue to wash me clean.

You have a misguided assurance that trusts in your works/performance for salvation instead of Jesus Christ alone.

Is it exalting myself to submit to being washed in His blood? Is it exalting to subordinate my will below His? Is it exalting myself to claim Him as my Lord and Master, and to do what He commands instead of what I want?
I didn't think so.

It is exalting yourself by trusting in works for salvation instead of humbling yourself and seeking mercy as a sinner, looking to Jesus Christ alone as the ALL-sufficient means of your salvation. (Luke 18:13-14; John 3:15,16,18; 10:9; 14:6)

Nope, neither one of those is what repentance means.
Repentance is from the Greek word metanoia which means "a change of mind" or "a transformative change of heart".

Change of mind is correct. Why do you place repentance "after" belief/faith?

In the Hebrew Bible, the concept is often expressed by the word shuv, meaning "to return" or "turn back".
So it is a change of mind/heart from the sinful world back to seeking God. But it is not just a one time thing. It requires continual course corrections because we are continually being pulled off course again by the world.

Change of mind is once again is correct but now you are adding moral self-reformation to it. When we repent unto salvation, we "change our mind" and place our faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of our salvation. (Acts 11:17,18; 15:7-9)

The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions. Acts 26:20 declares, "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." This is the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8) and not the essence of repentance (change of mind). Folks who promote salvation by faith and works typically confuse the "fruit of repentance" with the "essence of repentance" (and also do the same thing with faith) and end up teaching works righteousness.

Almost, but not quite. Repentance does not result in immediate salvation, any more than turning around after walking into a mud pit results in being clean. You may walk back out of the mud, but you are still covered in it. You must then, after you have repented (turned around and walked out of the mud), be washed and purified.

You are in disagreement with Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31and Acts 11:17,18. The new direction of this change of mind in repentance is faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. (Acts 20:21) Two sides to the same coin. We receive remission of sins the moment we believe in Hin/place faith in Him for salvation and repentance is already implied or assumed. (Acts 10:43; Acts 26:18) When only repentance is mentioned in connection with remission of sins belief/faith is already implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.

No, I do not reverse that order. Repentance MUST come before salvation, but it is part of the faith that leads to salvation; just not the only part of it.

The CoC 4 step plan of salvation is 1. Believe 2. Repent 3. Confess 4. Be baptized. Only after all 4 steps are complete the person is finally saved according to that plan.

Wrong again. My faith is in Jesus Christ. But I understand that He has said that IF I confess Him then He will confess me, and IF I deny Him He will deny me. And notice, there are only these two options. Either we confess Him or by default we deny Him.

Are you confessing by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Lord or simply reciting those words from a check list of steps as an additional requirement for salvation?

The word of faith that we preach is in our mouth and heart together. It is not in the mouth and heart of the unsaved, because it must be put there first by the preacher and the Word of God.

And the Holy Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 1:5)

You are saying that the Holy Spirit is limited to only operating in those who are saved. I don't think that is true. I believe He can operate in anyone, and that He works in those who are unsaved to bring them to confess Jesus.

Unbelievers do not confess by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Lord until the moment of conversion. Anyone can simply call Jesus Lord but that does not necessarily mean they are saved. (Matthew 7:22-23) The Holy Spirit does operate in drawing lost people to Christ in order to lead them to conversion.

Rom 10:10 is very clear that confessing Jesus RESULTS in our receiving salvation, therefore confession MUST come before salvation is received; you cannot get the result without the things that bring about the result.

Like I said before, the word of faith is in our mouth and in our heart together. (Romans 10:8) Paul is not talking about rounding up folks at Walmart and reciting the words Jesus is Lord to them from a check list of steps as a work for salvation. Believes unto righteousness does not leave one in a lost state (see Romans 4:5) until one confesses Christ a days, weeks or months later. Believers confess by the Holy Spirit which is the point of why we will be saved. Water baptism comes after step 3 and you teach we are not saved until after water baptism which negates Romans 10:9,10.

Again with this stupidity? Seriously. We have been over this many times, and I will not stoop to dealing with it again.

My valid points there are not stupidity. You have bo rebuttal.

What does it mean to have a "deep personal conviction"? What is different between that and a simple acknowledgement?

A deep personal conviction is from the heart. Simple acknowledgement is from the head.

It is ACTION! If you have a "deep personal conviction" then you will act on that conviction and do what the one you would call Lord commands.

You cannot seem to grasp a deeper faith from the heart that involves trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation so you then add action/works to mental assent belief as if that will save you. It's important to understand the difference between commands for salvation and commands that come after salvation.

That is your eisegesis. But it is not supported by the Greek text. There is NO distinction between "repent" and "be baptized" with regard to the remission of sins. Both relate to remission of sins in the same way. The text does not say, Repent so that you can be forgiven and then be baptized because you have already been forgiven. What does it say? "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". Now, I will grant you that "for" (eis in the Greek) could mean "because you have been". But when we look at Acts 3:19, it is clear that repentance must be done "in order to receive", which means that both "repent" and "be baptized" both relate to the forgiveness of sins as "in order to receive".

Your eisegesis negates (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 11:17,18) and salvation through faith. Speaking of the Greek text. As Greek scholar AT Robertson explains: And be baptized every one of you (κα βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve.

One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/acts-2.html

Again, that is you eisegesis, but not what the text says.

My exegesis of Acts 2:38 is in perfect harmony with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 26:18) Your eisegesis is not.

And the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in both cases refers, not to the indwelling of the Spirit, but to miraculous empowerment.

Absolutely false. It saddens me to see how you resort to blatant dishonesty in order to accommodate your biased church doctrine at all costs.

Compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift that is only for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and this was all BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

That is, again, your personal interpretation/eisegesis, but not the true harmony of Scripture.

My exegesis of Scripture here is in harmony. Its your personal interpretation/eisegesis that is not.

And again, eisegesis.

More irony.

If that were true, then you would be doing and teaching what He teaches in His Word, not your own personal interpretation of what He says.

I am doing and teaching what He teaches in His Word. I just don't subscribe to your eiseges/Campbell's soup theology that culminates in salvation by works.

Indeed, he who has faith in Him is not condemned. What is the contrast that Paul makes in John 3:36 (I find it interesting that you always skip that verse in your lists)? "The one who BELIEVES in the Son has eternal life; but the one who DOES NOT OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." Hmm. The opposite of "believe" is not "disbelieve", but "does not obey". Interesting. So what is the opposite of "does not obey"? That would be "obeys", right? So then "believes" is synonymous with "obeys".

Whoever believes/has faith in Him for salvation(and not in themselves or in works) is not condemned. Amen! I don't skip John 3:36 because the words "does not obey" appears in certain translations. I cite the verses in John where Jesus is personally speaking. John the Baptist cited the words in John 3:36, but I will still be more than happy to discuss that verse with you. The word "obey" really seems to tickle the ears of works-salvationists.

I often hear works-salvationists (including Roman Catholics, Mormons and Campbellites) cite John 3:36 in the NASB and "stress" the word "obey" to imply that we are saved "by" obedience/works in addition to believing in the Son. In regard to "does not obey the Son" in the New American Standard translation of the Bible, this does not mean that receiving eternal life is received based on the merits of our obedience/works which "follow" believing in the Son, but obey by choosing to believe in the Son. If John wanted to make obedience the central theme in salvation here, he would have said: "He who believes and obeys the Son has eternal life," but that is not what John said. To obey the Son here is to choose to believe in the Son.

The King James Version renders this same verse as: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that "believeth not the Son" shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. The NIV says "rejects the Son" and the CSB says, "refuses to believe in the Son." To refuse to believe in the Son is to disobey, rebel, be disloyal and refuse conformity. Strong’s definition of apeitheo is "to disbelieve willfully and perversely." *In the context of 3:36, to "not obey the Son" means to reject the Son by refusing to believe in the Son.

 

[Doug Brents]

Do you have a problem sticking to the issue?

First

The Spirit's falling on them was the baptism en the spirit

No, it was not.

Second

and they did in fact receive the spirit

Acts 10:44–47 (LEB) — 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. 45 And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!”

It has already been agreed that they "received the Spirit", but be specific about what part/manifestation of the Spirit they received. Did they receive the indwelling (baptism en the Spirit)? NO. They received miraculous empowerment, just as the Apostles did on Pentecost ("at the beginning").

Acts 15:8–9 (LEB) — 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he also did to us. 9 And he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Third you will not their hearts were cleansed by faith not water baptism

Again with the misunderstanding of what faith is?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Scripture

Geesh.... Stop this. You're defining Scriptures yourself. Don't claim God is with you in such things you do yourself.

I am not a novice either. I do, in fact, follow Jesus, for He is still alive, and His Spirit lives within me. I also follow Paul, and Peter, and John; for they in turn follow Jesus. Yes, I have done the research myself. I have read the Scripture and from it discovered the truth. After that, I went on to read thousands of papers, articles, pages, and sites about what I had studied. And I found that when people disagreed with what I had discovered, they invariably ignored or "explained away" many of the passages of Scripture that showed the error of their thinking.

So why didn't water change you before this "baptism" you say converted you?

There were a couple of places where I had missed something, and the other's research helped me to correct my own conclusions, but this was rare indeed.

Welcome to the club.

Then you have changed? You're not done changing. I can help if you like. I can certainly challenge your perceived notions.