Baptism - Salvation - Bible Contradictions ... ???

[justvisiting]

How do you think the believers in the old testament were justified, seeing as how Christ had not yet died? Acceptance with God has always been by faith and trust in Him. Always. They believed on Christ who was to come. Yes they knew about the Messiah.
The thief on the cross gained acceptance with Christ AT the cross. He requested that Christ would let him come into his kingdom. I don't know why water baptism is such a big deal to some. Just do it. Your real acceptance with God comes from a desire to be his friend and accept him as Lord. This silliness over water baptism isn't much different than the pharisees and saducees arguing over how many angels could fit onto the head of a pin. Do you also believe in wearing robes... only thonged sandals are allowed in the tub... you must shower before you enter. This is all part of legalistic nonsense. If you really know the Spirit of God, you should know that the most important relationship you can have is that The Holy Spirit dwells IN you. Such nonsense with washings and phariseeical entrapments. I have been baptized in water. I don't regret it. It was a confession before believers. If I had died before it ever happened, I was confident I was a Christian. These are the end of my statements. When people decide they want to believe a certain way... especially if they were taught that way... they won't change. Christ had it happen to him constantly when he dealt with pharisees. Every miracle was either considered untrue or from the devil or something else... just so they wouldn't have to believe. It's called blindness. In fact it says God even did it to them purposely.

 

[francisdesales]

How do you think the believers in the old testament were justified, seeing as how Christ had not yet died? Acceptance with God has always been by faith and trust in Him. Always. They believed on Christ who was to come. Yes they knew about the Messiah.
The thief on the cross gained acceptance with Christ AT the cross. He requested that Christ would let him come into his kingdom. I don't know why water baptism is such a big deal to some. Just do it. Your real acceptance with God comes from a desire to be his friend and accept him as Lord. This silliness over water baptism isn't much different than the pharisees and saducees arguing over how many angels could fit onto the head of a pin. Do you also believe in wearing robes... only thonged sandals are allowed in the tub... you must shower before you enter. This is all part of legalistic nonsense. If you really know the Spirit of God, you should know that the most important relationship you can have is that The Holy Spirit dwells IN you. Such nonsense with washings and phariseeical entrapments. I have been baptized in water. I don't regret it. It was a confession before believers. If I had died before it ever happened, I was confident I was a Christian. These are the end of my statements. When people decide they want to believe a certain way... especially if they were taught that way... they won't change. Christ had it happen to him constantly when he dealt with pharisees. Every miracle was either considered untrue or from the devil or something else... just so they wouldn't have to believe. It's called blindness. In fact it says God even did it to them purposely.

I suppose this comes down to whether someone is looking for a LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR, the bear minimum to "get in with God", or whether they seek the FULLEST RELATIONSHIP with Christ. Yes, the Jews before Christ were justified, and Hebrews says that those who seek God in faith please God. Those who seek to go beyond that obey God, as well. They don't ask "what is the minimum I need to do", a la, "I don't have to be baptized, the thief on the cross wasn't" attitude.

Does one want a true and deep relationship with someone, they go the entire way, they don't worry about such things about the exceptions and make that the rule. If Jesus taught that one had to get wet to enter into eternal life, then one who truly loves does it. One doesn't worry about the exceptions like some loving Mexican in Tenochitlan in 1300 AD who was not baptized but God decided to save. One does what has been presented to them and lovingly do it. Baptism was not presented to some people and we are very fortunate that God has chosen to give us this ritual. God doesn't command us to do worthless things...

Thus, while people say, in the absolute sense, one can be saved without baptism, this misses the point of God's gradual and full revelation He has chosen to give US. Something even hidden from angels has been taught to the Apostles and made known to us via their teachings. Let's not discard these teachings with the excuse that "well, Elijah wasn't baptized, so I don't either..." mentality. It is not becoming of love.

Regards

 

[follower of Christ]

I suppose this comes down to whether someone is looking for a LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR, the bear minimum to "get in with God", or whether they seek the FULLEST RELATIONSHIP with Christ. Yes, the Jews before Christ were justified, and Hebrews says that those who seek God in faith please God. Those who seek to go beyond that obey God, as well. They don't ask "what is the minimum I need to do", a la, "I don't have to be baptized, the thief on the cross wasn't" attitude.

Thats sort of what I was talking about earlier.
I do want to know what is *required* for salvation because I dont want to be told I have to speak in tongues when nothing is further from the truth. But I also dont want to do the bare minimum just because I can get away with it.

There ought to be a joy in the believer in going beyond what is *required*. It should be second nature.

 

[follower of Christ]

Water Baptism...just do it
By Wm Tipton

Instead of discussing whether water baptism 'saves' a person...an issue we personally believe is conditional seeing that some folks repent of their sins yet are unable for whatever reason to be baptised...Id like to discuss whether water baptism was practiced AFTER Jesus had ascended and after Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Some seem to think that after a time that water baptism was removed from our faith or something, but I personally do not believe that is the case.

The day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit is recorded in Acts 2, as we well know, so do we see any water baptisms going on after this baptism of 'fire' spoken of in Gods word?

6 entire chapters later we have a very clear baptism in water being practiced still. If Spirit baptism is all that is *required* or expected at this point, then why is this even occurring? (of course we expect some to come up with illogical reasoning's and excuses, but read it for yourself and take no ones word for anything. Does it make sense to YOU that this water baptism is taking place *IF* it is no longer of any issue? )

Act 8:36-39
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

This next passage is quite clear. These HAD already recieved the Holy Spirit and yet WERE going to be baptized in WATER as well.

Act 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (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. (46)
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Now, dear reader, is there any doubt in your mind about what is clearly shown there?
These who HAD already received the Holy Spirit were commanded to be baptized in water. we know its water since they had ALREADY received the Holy Spirit.

Here is yet more evidence that water baptism is practiced in the church

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ should be deprived of its power.
(1Co 1:12-17 EMTV)

Are we to believe that Christ did not send Paul to baptize men into His name and Spirit ?
Paul shows us here that he did not baptize men himself, nor was he called to, and this conclusively shows us that he is referring to water baptism as it would be absurd for Paul to claim that Jesus did not call him to 'baptize' men into the Spirit.

These who argue against water baptism do so with their own personal agendas.
Do not let these who teach falsely rob you of the blessing of water baptism...

 

[Sinthesis]

I agree with this. I have no doubt Jesus had the power to save people in person while on earth. However, the Thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant. Matthew 26:28 mentions the shedding of Christ's blood forming a new covenant that allows our sin to be covered by his blood... we are justified by his blood (Romans 5:9). We can't be justified by his blood if Jesus has not died yet (his blood had not been shed). Today, we live under this new covenant.

In addition, Baptism does not apply to the thief on the cross because baptism for remission of sins had not been commanded by Jesus yet. It was commanded during the great commission in Matthew 28:16-20. Peter relays this message to the people in acts 2:38. If we are baptized into Christ's death and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6), allowing his blood to cover our sins, again why would the command to be baptized apply to the thief when Christ had not died or been raised from the dead yet?

Jesus died before the thief; His legs were not broken as were those of the thieves to hasten their deaths(also fulfilling prophesy). It was Jesus' death which atoned for sin and brought into effect the new covenant. The thief believed Jesus was the Messiah even though they were both being crucified, which is as great a faith as that which could be said of the disciples' at that moment. As the temple curtain was ripped at Jesus' death, I believe the new covenant covered the thief when he died later that evening. Further, Jesus did not have to baptize to forgive sins.

Luk 5:20 - And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

However, if you want to be legalistic about the gruesome scene, for all we know Jesus flicked some of his blood over to the thief.

 

[bstrong]

I agree with this. I have no doubt Jesus had the power to save people in person while on earth. However, the Thief on the cross was saved under the old covenant. Matthew 26:28 mentions the shedding of Christ's blood forming a new covenant that allows our sin to be covered by his blood... we are justified by his blood (Romans 5:9). We can't be justified by his blood if Jesus has not died yet (his blood had not been shed). Today, we live under this new covenant.

In addition, Baptism does not apply to the thief on the cross because baptism for remission of sins had not been commanded by Jesus yet. It was commanded during the great commission in Matthew 28:16-20. Peter relays this message to the people in acts 2:38. If we are baptized into Christ's death and raised to walk in newness of life (Romans 6), allowing his blood to cover our sins, again why would the command to be baptized apply to the thief when Christ had not died or been raised from the dead yet?

Jesus died before the thief; His legs were not broken as were those of the thieves to hasten their deaths(also fulfilling prophesy). It was Jesus' death which atoned for sin and brought into effect the new covenant. The thief believed Jesus was the Messiah even though they were both being crucified, which is as great a faith as that which could be said of the disciples' at that moment. As the temple curtain was ripped at Jesus' death, I believe the new covenant covered the thief when he died later that evening. Further, Jesus did not have to baptize to forgive sins.

Luk 5:20 - And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. While hanging on the cross, Jesus promised the thief would be with him in paradise (he would be saved). Which is the same as happened in Luke 5:20. Those in Luke 5:20 were also saved when Christ said their sins were forgiven, yet they still lived under the old covenant. Christ did not die in Luke 5, yet he had the power to save. I have 100% faith that he saved those he said he saved. We don't have the luxury of standing next to Christ, having him forgive our sins in person (as in the thief on the cross and the man in luke 5:20). Christ showed mercy by forgiving the sins of the thief while they were living under the old covenant.

We are left with Christ's instructions given/relayed throughout the book of Acts by his apostles on the salvation message and what is necessary for forgiveness and be made justified. If we follow his instructions, his commands, then we will be saved.

 

[Sparkey]

I am convinced that you must look at the whole picture of salvation. But I have a tough time trying to show people who believe that baptism is essential for salvation that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

However, I believe that baptism is something that all believers should do. I have been baptized. But how do you explain to others that there really is no contradiction in the Bible regarding salvation by faith alone ... ???

Some people claim that within that faith alone is baptism. That if you truly believe, then you will be baptized, at which point you will receive salvation. But if you continue to say that you believe in Jesus as your Savior, have confessed your sins, but have not yet been baptized, then you have not yet been saved ....

I understand clearly that my salvation has nothing to do with my getting baptized. I believe and am convinced that if baptism is a must for one's salvation, then that is a works doctrine, which is a false teaching.

Personally I do not believe, because of things like the Acts passage I quoted, that lack of water baptism will prevent one from being saved.

I do believe that most Christians will just end up wanting to be baptised in water because it has been something we have just done from the beginning to profess our new found faith. If Jesus did it, it's good enough for me....especially knowing that He certainly did not do so for remission of sin, so I think He was, in part or in whole, setting an example to the church...

You have touched on a very important issue ... I would agree with you, and like to add that too many people/churches today are adding all kinds of things to salvation. Why can't we simply believe the Bible, when it tells us that if you believe you will be saved ... ???

What is so difficult about that ... ??? Well, when we look at many of the world's religions, we see that they do the same thing. They add all kinds of stuff that you must do in order to attain to salvation, nirvana, or perfection, or to be accepted in their group. Like the Muslims, who advocate the journey to the holy place. Other groups insist that you knock of more doors than anyone else, in hope that you just might get lucky enough to be accepted.

Others enforce the teaching that you must be baptized in their church, even if you have already been baptized; or that you must be baptized by a certain formula, or by a certain person.

There are so many things that people add to the formula of salvation. And I think that some people actually feel good when they know that they are somehow part of the equation for salvation. Makes them feel good when they did something. They met the requirements of the church, and are now accepted into the church, and so God most certainly will accept them now, right ... ???

I'm still struggling with trying to figure out how to explain the alleged contradiction between the scriptures that do seem to imply that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the scriptures on the other hand that tell us we are saved by faith alone.

There must be a logical explanation that will settle this issue ....

A logical explanation?

Well it's entirely possible that "Spock" from the starship Enterprise might not agree but...
Consider the nature of groups themselves. Sociologists will help us know that a group is defined by who they exclude. Think about that for a minute. Prove the truth of it.

Okay? Can we see that groups are defined by those who don't qualify to join? The Royal Order of the Grand Poobah are a group of old men (who don't allow youth or females) - right? BTW (by the way), I just made them up - please don't write me complaining if you are a member in good standing of the ROGP <----- I'm not picking on you intentionally! But the point is the point.

The churches today are missing the point, missing the purpose of God - they are excluding and being exclusive where we are told to be inclusive. Who is my neighbor Lord? Who are your "other sheep"? Can it be that in an effort to define ourselves we have missed the point? Has the word of God really gone out to all men? Is there truly One body? One Spirit? One Baptism? One Church?

So when we (as little Christian lawyers) mishandle the Word of Truth it cuts us and we can be seen (and should be shamed to be seen) as missing the mark. Jesus died for all. When we focus on these things (and I'm not being a proponent of universalism here, trust me) but when we focus on the fact that God is not a respecter of persons but judges hearts and when we understand that we are not "special" in any way greater than somebody else who is also loved by God and stop trying to make distinctions but instead try to include others and interpret the Word in a new paradigm -- one of a more Godly way... then logically(?) we will conclude that the necessity of Baptism is one of being well ordered and rightly expected that those who follow will comply with and follow in ---- BUT does that make the requirement of being immersed a REQUIREMENT of the LAW (which has been replaced by Grace)?

No, because we are like our Father and are inclusive in nature and no longer need to be exclusive to define ourselves or set ourselves apart. When we begin to understand Godly Holiness we no longer need the artificial store-bought Parasitical kind. There is truly One Mediator of the new agreement --> the only Worthy, the Lamb of God, our Christ, our Messiah, the God of Salvation. He is the Omega and the Finisher. Yes, the end was declared from the Beginning and yes we can see this and know that He alone is God. Our thanks to our God who has declared all things and who inhabits our praise and dwells amongst us, His people.

Just my two-cents there... offered with the hope that it will be taken not as criticism but in love. As the word "Hosanna" is heard and as the song of the turtledove is heard so will the invitation by the Groom and the Bride be heard: "Come."

And yes, the word that I speak today is too high for me and it is too holy for me but it is the truth none-the-less. :amen

:2cents

~Sparrow

 

[stovebolts]

Well said Sparrow,

And if I could add, Baptism should not be looked at as a legal requirement much less a line in the sand as if some where in while others were out... Rather, Baptism is much better viewed when viewed as a response to the gospel where as it is true that God is more so in the business of transforming lives as He saves them, than He is in saving a life as if it were a single event.

 

[bluegrey]

If baptism is not required for salvation why is it mentioned in the same sentence with salvation so many times? After all, even Jesus himself was baptised
as in Matt 28:19"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit" or Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for forgivness of your sins and you will receive the Holy Spirit"

 

[bleitzel]

What is required is belief. But what is belief? Belief as outlined in the Bible is to be understood with two parts, the assention of our will AND the following with our actions. The two parts are intertwined. We must assent to God's authority over our lives, AND repent of our sins, be baptized, and follow his commands.

That is the true path to salvation. I'll take your arrows of 'works-based salvation' now, thank you.

 

[bluegrey]

I wasn't talking about "works based salvation". I was simply wondering why these(and many others) passages mention these two things together. I'm afraid you haven't really answered my question. If I was to interpret these passages literally, that means baptism is required, right? :help
I go to evangelical christian church and they teach salvation by faith alone however I'm having hard time understanding why because these passages do contradict those teachings.

 

[bleitzel]

Hi bluegray,

Actually, I completely feel for you. You're right to see difficulties in the scriptures when it comes to faith alone teaching. Because the way you are probably being taught 'faith alone' is a misunderstanding. We do have to have faith in God. Many teachers have said that works has nothing to do with it, but they are wrong. Because, as I said, faith is a two-parter. The mind part, believing in God...and the body part, putting your money where your mouth is so to speak.

Baptising is consistently referred to as a sure sign of faith, but it's not the only one, repentence is also consistently called for. All of the passages that say these things do contradict the faith alone teaching you are receiving.

 

[vja4Him]

Acts Chapter Ten ...

In Acts Chapter 10 you have people receiving the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Obviously, salvation does come before baptism, or else that would mean that unbelievers were receiving the Holy Spirit.

 

[bstrong]

Re: Acts Chapter Ten ...

In Acts Chapter 10 you have people receiving the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Obviously, salvation does come before baptism, or else that would mean that unbelievers were receiving the Holy Spirit.

Pay attention to the sequence of events. The holy spirit fell on the people at the beginning of the gospel message. As peter began to speak the spirit fell on the room:

In Acts 10:6 An angel appeared to Cornelius and told him that someone named Peter was coming who would tell him what he needed to do to be saved. In the same manner, Acts chapter 11 verse 14 recalls the angel saying Simon Peter "will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved."

According to Peter's account of what happened that day in Acts 11:15 the holy spirit came upon them as he began to speak. If the spirit came on them as he was beginning to speak Cornelius' household had not even heard the message of salvation yet, How could he have even "believed" let alone be baptized. If he had not heard the message he wouldn't believe, he wouldn't repent etc. This is an example in the bible where the Spirit fell on someone not for the purpose of salvation, but rather to show the jews that "unclean" people (gentiles) could receive the spirit too, that this gift (salvation) is for everyone irregardless of bloodline. In acts 11:15 peter compares it to the Holy Spirit baptism that fell on the apostles at pentecost. But remember what the angel said in Acts 11:13-14 "...call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved." Peter continued preaching the gospel of Christ which included, among other things, a command to be baptized in Acts 10:47-48.

As an aside, there are a few other examples of the Holy spirit coming upon people (not quite the same thing, as here though - as the cornelius story harkens back to pentecost and the holy spirit baptism) for purposes other than salvation. One example is Saul in 1 Samuel 10:10 which says "When they came there to the hill, there was a group of prophets to meet him; then the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them." The next verse continues with the people being like whoa what happened to this dude, is he a prophet too.

 

[bleitzel]

Thanks bstrong for the excellent post.

And vja4Him, I actually believe you're place in Heaven is reserved when you first decide to follow Him, but you don't actually receive everlasting life until your temporal life passes away. So in a sense, you can't ever lose your salvation, because it's not perfected until you die.

So when you said salvation precedes baptism, you are somewhat correct in that one can receive God's gift of justification and reserve a place in heaven. Then one needs to repent, be baptized, etc.

 

[vja4Him]

Various Stages of Salvation ... ???

Thanks bstrong for the excellent post.

And vja4Him, I actually believe you're place in Heaven is reserved when you first decide to follow Him, but you don't actually receive everlasting life until your temporal life passes away. So in a sense, you can't ever lose your salvation, because it's not perfected until you die.

So when you said salvation precedes baptism, you are somewhat correct in that one can receive God's gift of justification and reserve a place in heaven. Then one needs to repent, be baptized, etc.

So, is our salvation really progressive, that is going through various stages ...

 

[duval]

Hi to all and thanks to Bestrong

It was the baptism of the Spirit that fell upon Cornelius, not the "gift of the Holy Spirit" of Acts 2:38. Vast difference! Acts 11:14 says Peter was to gell Corneliul "words whereby thou shalt be saved", the baptism of the Spirit as Bestrong aptly pointed out came upon Cornelius AS PETER BEGAN TO SPEAK.

God bless,
duval

 

[Sparkey]

Hi to all and thanks to Bestrong

It was the baptism of the Spirit that fell upon Cornelius, not the "gift of the Holy Spirit" of Acts 2:38. Vast difference! Acts 11:14 says Peter was to gell Corneliul "words whereby thou shalt be saved", the baptism of the Spirit as Bestrong aptly pointed out came upon Cornelius AS PETER BEGAN TO SPEAK.

God bless,
duval

If it is your position that there is a "Vast difference" pray, do tell! I will now contend with you from the basis of the scriptures. I will now do as you have so oftentimes in the past asked me to and will show what the HOLY SPIRIT has taught me in part. I will do so with thanks to you for asking so insistently.


Certainly we can see that Jesus spoke to the apostles and others (Peter included) when he told them to wait (to tarry) in Jerusalem and they "shall" receive power.

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The words "The Holy Spirit is Come UPON you" are in reference to "The Promise of the Father" mentioned in Acts 1:4 right? Certainly we can agree that Jesus knew what he was talking about.

Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but "wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

So we see the terms "Promise of the Father" and "Holy Spirit is come upon you" used interchangeably, yes? The phrases are synonymous by definition and use <---- this being clearly seen.

But wait... there is more:
Peter also knew what Christ was speaking of and he also knew what the "Promise of the Father" was.

Peter spoke of prophesy by Joel and said "This is that which..."

So Peter equated what happened on the Day of the Feast of Shavuot /// Pentecost (a.k.a. "Feast of Weeks" -and- "Feast of Harvest" -and- "Feast of Latter Firstfruits") ... but Peter equated what happened then to what was spoken of by Joel (quoted below):

• Fear not, O land; be glad and rejoice. For Jehovah will do great things. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• Do not be afraid, beasts of the field; for the pastures of the wilderness grow green; for the tree bears its fruit, and the fig tree and the vine yield their strength. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• Be glad then, sons of Zion, and rejoice in Jehovah your God. For He has given you the former rain according to righteousness, and He will cause the rain to come down for you, the former rain and the latter rain in the first month. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the vats shall overflow with wine and oil. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And I will restore to you the years which the swarming locust has eaten, the locust larvae, and the stripping locust, and the cutting locust, My great army which I sent among you. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And you shall eat in plenty, and be satisfied, and praise the name of Jehovah your God, who has dealt with you wonderfully; and My people shall never be ashamed. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Jehovah your God, and no one else; and My people shall never be ashamed. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And it shall be afterward, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh. And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; your old men shall dream dreams; your young men shall see visions.
  And also I will pour out My Spirit on the slaves and on the slave women in those days. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And I will show wonders in the heavens, and in the earth, blood and fire and pillars of smoke.
  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of Jehovah. [/*:m:520wuxzl]
• And it shall be, whoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved; for salvation shall be in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, as Jehovah has said, and in the remnant whom Jehovah shall call. [/*:m:520wuxzl]

And as we consider the fuller prophecy of Joel which was written by the Holy Spirit through the prophet -- and as we consider the declaration of Peter who was one of the primary recipients of the benefit of the prophecy fulfilled we then turn our thought back to Jesus who Declared that this was the "Promise of the Father" and also said, "For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now," and also while speaking on the very same subject said, "Act 1:8 But you shall receive power, the Holy Spirit coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

It is then my considered assertion that when Peter mentioned the "Gift of the Holy Spirit" it was the very same gift that Jesus spoke to him about and told him to wait for, the very same gift that the Holy Spirit spoke about through the Prophet Joel and the very same gift that is called the "Promise of the Father" by Christ Jesus himself. When Peter spoke at the house of Cornelius he said, "Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

Later when he told about what had happened he said, "Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, "John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

and ...

Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

If it is Peter's testimony that God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, then who are we to argue about "Vast Differences"?

~Sparrowhawke

PS - to the casual reader my reference to duval's asking me to explain "my thought" can be found in a different thread: http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=39291&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p483207

 

[duval]

Hi Sparrowhawke

Yes, VAST DIFFERENCE!

Are you contending that all scripturally baptized in water receive the baptism of the Spirit??? Don't think so.

God bless,
duval

 

[Sparkey]

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth why don't you satisfy yourself by saying what you mean.

"It was the baptism of the Spirit that fell upon Cornelius, not the "gift of the Holy Spirit" of Acts 2:38. Vast difference!"

When you say there is a "vast difference" between "the gift" and the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit (ie. the 'gift of the Holy Spirit" and "the baptism of the Holy Spirit") what exactly do you mean? Maybe I don't understand what you have written? It's possible. I have specifically quoted scripture about what both Jesus and Peter and the Holy Spirit (by the Prophet Joel) declare and mean. Do you dare argue?

If you are saying (I'm asking here, not declaring) that the "gift" that Peter spoke about was not the "Gift of the Father - also known as "The Promise of the Father" but was only in reference to the "Gift of Salvation" and not any other work you must say so in plain speech - so that I can understand your declaration. It's possible that we don't disagree at all. Sometimes these things (disagreements between brothers) are a mere matter of language and semantics. If that is the case I would quickly apologize and ask you to forgive me for my tone here.

Please?

~Sparrow