Do you believe in Baptism ????

[Sinthesis]

• Act 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
  Act 10:45 - 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.
  Act 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
  Act 10:47 - Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  Act 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Hmm...

Here we have Peter (an Apostle) sharing the Gospel with gentiles, who then receive the Holy Spirit just as the believing Jews, at which point Peter commands them to be water baptized.

He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. <<

Yes, using water, which is why the word 'baptized' is used:
Strong's G907 - baptiz? - ???????
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

 

[glorydaz]

Water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer.

John's baptism was not the same baptism we receive when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
After we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we may be water baptized as an expression to the world that we are the Lord's.

 

[Mysteryman]

Water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer.

John's baptism was not the same baptism we receive when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
After we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we may be water baptized as an expression to the world that we are the Lord's.

The world will think that you are still dirty, and that is why you went and took a bath, to cleanse your outward part of your body.

The manifestations of the Spirit are the outward signs and these are from the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire

Bless

 

[Mysteryman]

• Act 10:44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
  Act 10:45 - 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.
  Act 10:46 - For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
  Act 10:47 - Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
  Act 10:48 - And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Hmm...

Here we have Peter (an Apostle) sharing the Gospel with gentiles, who then receive the Holy Spirit just as the believing Jews, at which point Peter commands them to be water baptized.

He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. <<

Yes, using water, which is why the word 'baptized' is used:
Strong's G907 - baptiz? - ???????
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

The word "baptize" does not -- mean --- water !

Christians were baptized into his death . His shed blood cleansed us from all unrighteousness. The word baptize means to -- cleanse

 

[awaken]

Water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer.

John's baptism was not the same baptism we receive when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
After we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we may be water baptized as an expression to the world that we are the Lord's.

If water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer (which is how I was taught)...question...when the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost..did they get water baptized again??

 

[glorydaz]

Water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer.

John's baptism was not the same baptism we receive when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit.
After we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we may be water baptized as an expression to the world that we are the Lord's.

If water baptism is an outward sign to the world of what has transpired in the heart of the believer (which is how I was taught)...question...when the disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost..did they get water baptized again??

None were that I know of, although they were told to baptize and make disciples...I consider that to be the outward sign so others would know who were the followers of Christ. Personally, I liken it to confessing with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. Still the one baptism necessary for salvation is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cornelius]

Yes , obviously the will of God.The eunuch did not have a clue about anything he was reading let alone baptism. How on earth would he even have brought the two together, if Philip did not tell him?

I cannot believe I am even explaining this to a grown up man. .....well I presume you are more than a teenager ? If you are a youngster : you are then off the hook but you still then have to work on your attitude and please get help with your doctrine

Just for the record : This argument is way up there when it comes to being stubbornly refusing the truth, even when clearly seen in the Bible if indeed you are an adult.

Hi C.

It was not a secret that John baptized with water for the remission of sins. Why do you believe that the eunuch didn't have a clue ? This eunuch was a well educated and highly responsible man who , because of his status (being the treasurer in charge of the queen of Ethioppia) was allowed to travel freely, and worship in Jerusalem as well. As you can see by reading the record here in Acts 8:27 <<

And what are these childish comments of yours good for ? Still speaking as a child C. ?

I have no idea how old you are. I have learned on forums, that sometimes we are harsh to people when they are in error and they turn out to be children or teenagers who have little or no knowledge. Some are just lonely and are here for the chat.Then they get bashed for being wrong.

But seeing that you indicate that you are mature and grown up, you have to take care of what you say .

So back to why I said the eunuch did not understand :because...... He said so !

Act 8:30 And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him.

So you can see that being an accountant for a queen, does not always mean you have wisdom or knowledge regarding the ways of God. God sent Philip to this man to educate him in the ways of the gospel ..................and then Philip baptized him in water.

 

[Mysteryman]

Yes , obviously the will of God.The eunuch did not have a clue about anything he was reading let alone baptism. How on earth would he even have brought the two together, if Philip did not tell him?

I cannot believe I am even explaining this to a grown up man. .....well I presume you are more than a teenager ? If you are a youngster : you are then off the hook but you still then have to work on your attitude and please get help with your doctrine

Just for the record : This argument is way up there when it comes to being stubbornly refusing the truth, even when clearly seen in the Bible if indeed you are an adult.

Hi C.

It was not a secret that John baptized with water for the remission of sins. Why do you believe that the eunuch didn't have a clue ? This eunuch was a well educated and highly responsible man who , because of his status (being the treasurer in charge of the queen of Ethioppia) was allowed to travel freely, and worship in Jerusalem as well. As you can see by reading the record here in Acts 8:27 <<

And what are these childish comments of yours good for ? Still speaking as a child C. ?

I have no idea how old you are. I have learned on forums, that sometimes we are harsh to people when they are in error and they turn out to be children or teenagers who have little or no knowledge. Some are just lonely and are here for the chat.Then they get bashed for being wrong.

But seeing that you indicate that you are mature and grown up, you have to take care of what you say .

So back to why I said the eunuch did not understand :because...... He said so !

Act 8:30 And Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some one shall guide me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him.

So you can see that being an accountant for a queen, does not always mean you have wisdom or knowledge regarding the ways of God. God sent Philip to this man to educate him in the ways of the gospel ..................and then Philip baptized him in water.

Hi C.

Your double talk will not work with me C. I even told you in this forum that I was a retired farmer ! You have known me for quit a while now, and you knew my approx. age, as I have never kept my age a secret. You just decided to speak as a child and belittle with your immature mind.

Now back to what we were talking about.

You claimed that this eunuch didn't know about John's baptism. I took you to task on it , and you failed to give a reasonable reply (answer). The eunuch said he didn't understand the book of Esai-as the prophet. There is no mention of him not knowing about John's baptism. In fact he more than likely did know about John's baptism because he worshipped in Jerusalem. And it was the eunuch who talked Philip into water baptizing him, which shows us that he did know of John's baptism !

You need to stop twisting the scriptures to support your view !

 

[Cornelius]

You need to stop twisting the scriptures to support your view !

By twisting you mean I said that Philip baptized the eunuch in water ?

Well, by now everybody knows you have not been baptized and that you most probably will not either. I for one, am done talking with you about it.

Blessings
C

 

[Mysteryman]

You need to stop twisting the scriptures to support your view !

By twisting you mean I said that Philip baptized the eunuch in water ?

Well, by now everybody knows you have not been baptized and that you most probably will not either. I for one, am done talking with you about it.

Blessings
C

Hi C.

You know perfectly well what I meant ! You said that it was Philip who taught the eunuch about John's baptism. And the scriptures are clear that he did not teach the eunuch about John's baptism !

He taught Jesus out of the scriptures, starting with the place where the eunuch brought up about the book of Esai-as.

And I am baptized, being bapized into Christ's death ! So you need to be more careful with your words sir ! And I have been baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and have manifested the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues is only one of the nine. And I have operated all nine manifestations. And one needs to be baptized into the Holy Spirit first !

Now you might believe in water baptism, but water baptism does not save you ! It was never intended to save you ! It was for the remission of sins only, and it was only performed by John the baptist, by the power of God. Anyone else who performs water baptism is without the power of God ! God does not indorse it ! God does however indorse the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, and Jesus is the baptizer - Matt. 3:11

And I say again, you most certainly knew my approx. age. ! You just decided to speak as a child, and speaking childish things. As you continue to do so !

 

[westtexas]

Hi C.
You claimed that this eunuch didn't know about John's baptism. I took you to task on it , and you failed to give a reasonable reply (answer). The eunuch said he didn't understand the book of Esai-as the prophet. There is no mention of him not knowing about John's baptism. In fact he more than likely did know about John's baptism because he worshipped in Jerusalem. And it was the eunuch who talked Philip into water baptizing him, which shows us that he did know of John's baptism !

I think that C. gave you a reasonable answer that the eunuch didn't know about baptism because of the eunuch's answer "How can I unless someone guides me?" But let's skip that for now and talk about another problem I see with your interpretation to come up with your view. We have a man here (Philip) who was chosen for his position because he was full of the spirit and wisdom. After being taught by Philip, they came to water and the eunuch asked a simple question, "WHAT HINDERS ME FROM BEING BAPTIZED?" Acts 8:36 You state above that the eunuch talked Philip into baptizing him, not true. He asked a question of a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT according to scripture. At this point Philip could have said, God doesn't want you to get baptized with water (as you seem to believe) but this was not his answer. He stated, "If you believe, you may." A Godly answer from a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT and was taught by the 12, who were taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Westtexas

 

[glorydaz]

I think that C. gave you a reasonable answer that the eunuch didn't know about baptism because of the eunuch's answer "How can I unless someone guides me?" But let's skip that for now and talk about another problem I see with your interpretation to come up with your view. We have a man here (Philip) who was chosen for his position because he was full of the spirit and wisdom. After being taught by Philip, they came to water and the eunuch asked a simple question, "WHAT HINDERS ME FROM BEING BAPTIZED?" Acts 8:36 You state above that the eunuch talked Philip into baptizing him, not true. He asked a question of a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT according to scripture. At this point Philip could have said, God doesn't want you to get baptized with water (as you seem to believe) but this was not his answer. He stated, "If you believe, you may." A Godly answer from a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT and was taught by the 12, who were taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Westtexas

Amen for the Lone Star State. :amen

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi C.
You claimed that this eunuch didn't know about John's baptism. I took you to task on it , and you failed to give a reasonable reply (answer). The eunuch said he didn't understand the book of Esai-as the prophet. There is no mention of him not knowing about John's baptism. In fact he more than likely did know about John's baptism because he worshipped in Jerusalem. And it was the eunuch who talked Philip into water baptizing him, which shows us that he did know of John's baptism !

I think that C. gave you a reasonable answer that the eunuch didn't know about baptism because of the eunuch's answer "How can I unless someone guides me?" But let's skip that for now and talk about another problem I see with your interpretation to come up with your view. We have a man here (Philip) who was chosen for his position because he was full of the spirit and wisdom. After being taught by Philip, they came to water and the eunuch asked a simple question, "WHAT HINDERS ME FROM BEING BAPTIZED?" Acts 8:36 You state above that the eunuch talked Philip into baptizing him, not true. He asked a question of a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT according to scripture. At this point Philip could have said, God doesn't want you to get baptized with water (as you seem to believe) but this was not his answer. He stated, "If you believe, you may." A Godly answer from a man who was FULL OF THE SPIRIT and was taught by the 12, who were taught by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Westtexas

Your implying something that is not within scripture. It is apparent that you are assuming by your interpretation of scripture. Philip did not say I will baptize you with water.

This is the way it went down. The eunuch said, what hinders me to be baptized. Philip still teaching Jesus said that if you believe in your heart. Philip is teaching the heart, not water. Then the eunuch replied that he did believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Which is a reply to Philip's response to believe in his heart.

The eunuch commanded the charriot to stand still , and then Philip went down into the water and water baptized him. Instead of the Holy Spirit coming upon the eunuch and him speaking in tongues. The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch never say Philip anymore. And the eunuch went on his way rejoicing. What we are to draw away from this, is that the eunuch did not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he didn't speak in tongues. And Philip was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, because he was not suppose to water baptize the eunuch.

WE must remember that water baptism is John's baptism. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is the baptism by Jesus Christ - Matt. 3:11

Philip started out by teacing this eunuch about Jesus , and the eunuch believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. But he did not believe into manifestation of the Holy Spirit. And remember Acts 8:5 thru verse 17 of which Philip was there as to the witness of the baptizing of the Holy Spirit !!

Remember the very words of our Lord on the day of his ascention - Acts 1:5 - "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence"

Connect Matt. 3:11 and Acts 1:5 and the the acts of the apostle Paul in Acts chapter 19:2 thru 7 and it is clear that Philip should not have baptized the eunuch with John's baptism.

The Lord reproved Philip in his own way, and sent Philip to Azotus till he came to Caesarea.

Water cleansing is and was a fulfilling of the law of water cleansing. We have been baptized in Christ's death and put - baptized into the body of Christ where it pleases God - I Corinth. 12:13

 

[westtexas]

The Lord reproved Philip in his own way, and sent Philip to Azotus

I won't even address the rest of your post yet, you say that I assume things that are not in scripture, please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Lord reproved Philip by sending him to Azotus without using mere assumption on your part. Maybe it was a blessing, what happened in Azotus?????

Westtexas

 

[Mysteryman]

The Lord reproved Philip in his own way, and sent Philip to Azotus

I won't even address the rest of your post yet, you say that I assume things that are not in scripture, please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Lord reproved Philip by sending him to Azotus without using mere assumption on your part. Maybe it was a blessing, what happened in Azotus?????

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas

The key words, or should I say word is --- "caught away" ---- it is the one greek word -- "harpazo" for these two words combined. "harpazo" means -- "to carry off by force" or "snatch out of the way"

The Lord wanted him to preach, which is what he was called out to do. Now, like I said in my previous post. Philip was there as a witness of them being baptized with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues in Acts 8:4 thru verse 17. Philip told the eunuch that he just needed to believe. And Philip taught him about Jesus, not John's baptism. It is abundantly clear that the eunuch already knew about John's baptism as he worshipped in Jerusalem. But Philip knew better than to baptize him with John's baptism when he already knew that he was to be baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit and then speak in tongues. Philip knew this !

Then the Lord "caught away" Philip = "carry off by force" or "snatch out of the way"

Then notice Philip doing the will of the Lord in Acts 8:40 - "preaching"

 

[westtexas]

The Lord reproved Philip in his own way, and sent Philip to Azotus

I won't even address the rest of your post yet, you say that I assume things that are not in scripture, please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Lord reproved Philip by sending him to Azotus without using mere assumption on your part. Maybe it was a blessing, what happened in Azotus?????

Westtexas

Hi Westtexas

The key words, or should I say word is --- "caught away" ---- it is the one greek word -- "harpazo" for these two words combined. "harpazo" means -- "to carry off by force" or "snatch out of the way"

Now it is your turn to assume. The word "harpazo" is also the key word in 2 Cor. 12:4--1 Th. 4:17--Rev.12:5 and here is used to be snatched away or carried off to paradise or to heaven, depending on the verse. In the 1 Thessalonians verse all believers are "caught away' at the second coming of our Lord. If this is not a blessing, there will never be one.
Once again, except for MERE ASSUMPTION on your part, how do you justify that Philip was reproved and not blessed.
Westtexas

P.S. edited to add--I suppose it doesn't matter for this discussion but what denomination do you belong to that believes that water baptism is unbiblical after the death of John the Baptist? I've seen discussions about wheter baptism was necessary for salvation or not, but I'm not sure I've ever heard this point of view before.
Westtexas

 

[Mysteryman]

[/quote]
I won't even address the rest of your post yet, you say that I assume things that are not in scripture, please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Lord reproved Philip by sending him to Azotus without using mere assumption on your part. Maybe it was a blessing, what happened in Azotus?????

Westtexas[/quote]


Hi Westtexas

The key words, or should I say word is --- "caught away" ---- it is the one greek word -- "harpazo" for these two words combined. "harpazo" means -- "to carry off by force" or "snatch out of the way"
[/quote]
Now it is your turn to assume. The word "harpazo" is also the key word in 2 Cor. 12:4--1 Th. 4:17--Rev.12:5 and here is used to be snatched away or carried off to paradise or to heaven, depending on the verse. In the 1 Thessalonians verse all believers are "caught away' at the second coming of our Lord. If this is not a blessing, there will never be one.
Once again, except for MERE ASSUMPTION on your part, how do you justify that Philip was reproved and not blessed.
Westtexas

P.S. edited to add--I suppose it doesn't matter for this discussion but what denomination do you belong to that believes that water baptism is unbiblical after the death of John the Baptist? I've seen discussions about wheter baptism was necessary for salvation or not, but I'm not sure I've ever heard this point of view before.
Westtexas[/quote]


Hi Westtexas

This greek word does not mean blessing - okay ? It means to snatch up, and we must leave the meaning stand as it is. As when Christ comes to get the church, at the gathering, we will be snatched up - "harpazo". This is a forceful event. You don't choose to be caught up, but you are forced up, or snatched up. The same with Philip, as Philip was not asked or told to leave, but snatched away by force. An example of this in the OT would be Jonah, as God told Jonah to go to Nineveh. Jonah decided to go in the other direction , and in so doing disobeying God. God sent a great fish or whale and "snatched up" Jonah , and this is how Jonah ended up in Nineveh. God didn't just tell Jonah to go to Nineveh, he ordered him to go to Nineveh. Some might think that this takes away from one's free will. But we need to remember that we are talking about men of God here. When God says go, he means go. He does not mean if you choose to go, when dealing with a man of God.

God snatched up Philip because he stop doing what he was told to do, and that was to preach. If you read earlier in chapter 8 of Acts. Philip was only to preach. The apostles came down to lay hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit into manifestation and spoke in tongues. Philip's ministry was for a certain purpose, and that purpose was to preach. He was an evangilist. An Evangilist does not stay in one place. Neither does an apostle or a prophet. But a teacher and especially a Pastor does stay in one place.

Philip was a called out man of God, and he was called out to preach the gospel of Christ. When he decided to listen to the eunuch, and perform water baptism, of which God did not call him out to do. God forcefully snatched him away , so that he (Philip) would do what God called him out to do. Just as he did with Jonah and the whale. An evangilist does not do the work of an apostle, nor a prophet, nor a teacher, nor a Pastor. An evangilist preaches unto salvation through Jesus Christ. This is what God called Philip out to be.

Water baptism is John's baptism. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, Jesus is the baptizer - Matt. 3:11

 

[francisdesales]

Yes , obviously the will of God.The eunuch did not have a clue about anything he was reading let alone baptism. How on earth would he even have brought the two together, if Philip did not tell him?

I cannot believe I am even explaining this to a grown up man. .....well I presume you are more than a teenager ? If you are a youngster : you are then off the hook but you still then have to work on your attitude and please get help with your doctrine

Just for the record : This argument is way up there when it comes to being stubbornly refusing the truth, even when clearly seen in the Bible if indeed you are an adult.

Agree. It is a mystery to me... :yes

 

[westtexas]

Hi Westtexas

This greek word does not mean blessing - okay ? It means to snatch up, and we must leave the meaning stand as it is. As when Christ comes to get the church, at the gathering, we will be snatched up - "harpazo". This is a forceful event. You don't choose to be caught up, but you are forced up, or snatched up. The same with Philip, as Philip was not asked or told to leave,

I know what the meaning of the word is. At the second coming you are going to be forced to go???Anyway, I agree with C. and I believe that I have said all I will say.

If you would though, I am still curious what denomination it is you belong to that believes that water baptism is un-biblical.
Westtexas

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi Westtexas

This greek word does not mean blessing - okay ? It means to snatch up, and we must leave the meaning stand as it is. As when Christ comes to get the church, at the gathering, we will be snatched up - "harpazo". This is a forceful event. You don't choose to be caught up, but you are forced up, or snatched up. The same with Philip, as Philip was not asked or told to leave,

I know what the meaning of the word is. At the second coming you are going to be forced to go???Anyway, I agree with C. and I believe that I have said all I will say.

If you would though, I am still curious what denomination it is you belong to that believes that water baptism is un-biblical.
Westtexas

Christian , which is what the first century Church was. Non-denominational (no division)