Sacraments...Does your church respect them?

[cyberjosh]

What's funny about sacraments is that they are used in too ritualistic a way. I recall talking to a Catholic once (who was able to laugh about this) but she was telling me that she mentioned the near-by (to our city) location named "Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament" to her friend, and her friend looked at her and asked, "So... is there a least blessed sacrament?"

Another thing is, I don't fully understand the use of the word "sacrament." It used to refer to a tangible manifestation or representaiton of something of religious significance, like an actual splinter from the cross or the Shroud of Turin or the like, but other things like baptism or communion are called Sacraments also. Why? It there some superstitious idea that touching the water physically during baptism becomes a sacrament (as in accomplishing your salvation) or that the bread and wine become in sustance Jesus' actual blood and flesh?

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Vic.

Hi Lewis!

I’d like to state first off that I don’t see this as a salvation issue. For me, it’s just an interesting topic to explore. Here’s a little bit of the research I’ve done in the recent past.

According to http://wikipedia.com and http://bible.org, Luke was not Jewish. Actually, some believe that he was actually born in Traos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist
From http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1329

Assuming that Luke penned the gospel which bears his name, and the book of Acts, what do we know about him (apart from his occupation)? First, he was probably a Gentile since he is mentioned separately from the “men of the circumcision†in Colossians 4.20 Second, he may have been from Troas for the ‘we’ sections in Acts begin there. 21 Beyond this there is very little information within the NT. However, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (found not infrequently attached to Latin MSS of the gospel) adds some interesting information: (1) Luke was a native of Antioch, (2) he wrote the gospel in Achaea, (3) never married, (4) and died at age 84 in Boetia. since the same source adds other, extremely doubtful information, all of the above is suspect as well

20 There is another subtle indicator of Luke’s race. In Acts 16, after the beginning of the first “we†section (16:11-17), Luke mentions that he was with Paul in Philippi up to the time that Paul cast out the evil spirit from the servant girl (v. 17â€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“she followed Paul and usâ€Â). Then, in 16:19, the person changes from first to third (“her owners . . . seized Paul and Silasâ€Â). In vv. 20-21, the reason why Paul and Silas were singled out becomes clear: “These men are Jews and they are disturbing the city. They advocate customs which it is not lawful for us Romans to accept or practice.†On the assumption that the “we†sections should be taken at face value, and that Luke was a Gentile, the fact that Luke was not seized makes perfect senseâ€â€for the point of vv. 20-21 has its sting in the fact that Paul and Silas are Jews. (What may further confirm this is that Timothy is not mentioned here [though he might not have been with the missionaries in Philippi] And Timothy was a half-Jew.) In the least, if one wants to deny that Luke was a Gentile, he must explain why the first person plural is used in 16:17, but is immediately switched to third person when the Philippians make their accusation against the missionaries on the basis of their race.

No, read the verse real carefully and see if a morning interpretation actually fits. It doesn't to me. I doubt Paul preached the whole day away, a day that would otherwise be better spent traveling, during daylight.

Acts 20:7 On the first day 29 of the week, when we met 30 to break bread, Paul began to speak 31 to the people, and because he intended 32 to leave the next day, he extended 33 his message until midnight.

29: On the first day. This is the first mention of a Sunday gathering (1 Cor 16:2).
30: Or “assembled.â€Â
31: The verb διαλέγομαι (dialegomai) is frequently used of Paul addressing Jews in the synagogue. As G. Schrenk (TDNT 2:94-95) points out, “What is at issue is the address which any qualified member of a synagogue might give.†Other examples of this may be found in the NT in Matt 4:23 and Mark 1:21. In the context of a Christian gathering, it is preferable to translate διελέγετο (dielegeto) simply as “speak†here. The imperfect verb διελέγετο has been translated as an ingressive imperfect.
32: 1.c.γ has “denoting an intended action: intend, propose, have in mind…Ac 17:31; 20:3, 7, 13ab; 23:15; 26:2; 27:30.â€Â
33: Or “prolonged.â€Â

Luke was Jewish and wrote from a Jewish perspective, did he not? What difference would it make to a group of Jewish converts which city they were in, in regards to their calendar? Whenever a Jew, especially in the first century, spoke of the first day, they are referring to the day following the sabbath, which ended at sunset.

Yes, I’d agree about the Jewish perspective to a degree, but Luke wasn’t a Jew. He may have had Jewish influence, but he wasn’t a Jew. Also, if we want to get real confused, let’s look at who the letter was written to. It was written to Theophilus. Now, there’s a bunny trail. I’ll lean toward Theophilus being a Gentile. All this (plus much more) leads me to believe that Acts 20:7 is directed at what we Gentiles call Sunday.

Roman customs hadn't fully infiltrated all of the known world at that time and I doubt if the Jews were obligated to keep their calendar. The notion of calling the first century 1 AD didn't not even happen for a few hundred years after His birth.

Ok. I’m not up on that, but your trustworthy.

We have lost touch with our Hebrew roots. If Rome didn't have such a stranglehold on much of what we do, we would probably still be using the Hebrew calendar. Besides, it is more inline with the calendar God instituted.

I checked out that link you gave me a long time ago on the calendar and it’s pretty cool. I’m not going to pretend I understand it though.
One thing that I found while studying Leviticus was in chapter 23:9-14. I want to do some more study in this area (Pentecost) because here is where the offering of the first fruits is mentioned. I don’t have the NT verse handy (it’s in my bible in another location currently), but I believe it is Paul? That calls Jesus the First Fruits. I think it’s in 1 cor. What caught my eye, was that it was to be waved the day after the Sabbath. This would be our Sunday Morning and would seem to support a Sunday AM resurrection.

I think you know that I enjoy this subject as it relates to the Lord’s Supper. Luke was the Author of Acts, as well as the book of Luke. Therefore, his language transfers as far as hermeneutics are concerned. Luke’s account of Christ instituting the Lord’s supper is very specific. Luke 22. Christ “Broke Bread†and said, “THIS†is my Body. “This†referring to the bread. You are correct, bread was very common to the people. Jesus also referred to himself as the bread of life. But notice how he says that he would not partake of it again until it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Now, look at Luke 24. First, Jesus is “Revealedâ€Âhen the bread is “BROKEâ€Â. Though a common meal, there was nothing common about either of the meals in which the bread was broke when viewed through hermeneutics. It has become my conclusion that the “Breaking of Bread†took on a new dimension and Luke uses this dimension throughout his writings as evident in both Acts 2:46 and Acts 20:7

Sorry for the long one here… Hey, I really did try to keep it short.

 

[Vic C.]

Good stuff Jeff. Hey, there's something interesting about Acts 20:7. It says they came together to break bread before midnight. So, did they break bread before or after Paul's speech? This is important if we want to use a Roman calendar, though I'm still convinced they didn't. If they did, this may suggest a Monday breaking of bread. ouch! I say they broke bread twice; before and sometime after the speech.

In vs. 11 we see bread has been broken and eaten, so did they break bread twice or is this in reference to the breaking of bread alluded to in vs. seven? Again, I believe twice.

Hey, check this out:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/343

If Paul, then, waited to “break bread†until after midnight (20:7,11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper? Regardless of whether the memorial feast was observed before or after midnight, one can be assured that it took place on Sunday, because it was “on the first day of the week†that the disciples met “to break bread.†The reason that eating the Lord’s Supper after midnight would have been acceptable conduct for many Christians is because the Jewish method of counting time was still widely acknowledged. The Jews and the Romans used different standards for calculating the hours of the day, and although both systems split the day into two periods of twelve hours, a new day for the Romans began at midnight (cf. Pliny, n.d., 2:79), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at sundown and lasted until sundown the following day.

Luke, like Matthew and Mark, used the Jewish method of reckoning time in both his gospel account and in the book of Acts (cf. Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 23:23; cf. also John 19:14; 20:1,19). Thus, Paul’s pre-midnight preaching corresponded to our Saturday evening, but was the beginning of their “first day.†Regardless of whether they observed the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day or the morning of the first day, it was observed on the proper day, the day on which Jesus rose from the grave (Luke 24:1)â€â€the first day of the week.

Christians should count it a privilege and honor to observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:22), and commune with the Lord and His people (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Sadly, some in the twenty-first century may attempt to justify observing this sacred supper on some occasion other than the first day by alleging that the early Christians observed it on Saturday night or Monday morning. The important thing to remember in this discussion, however, is that the early disciples came together on the first day of the week to observe this memorial feast. In the first century, when the Jewish method of reckoning time was still widely accepted, the first day began on what we call Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. In the twenty-first century, most (if not all) people count time from midnight to midnight. Since God did not specify which method of time to use, but did specify the numerical day of the week in which the supper of the Lord is to be kept, Christians should abide by the standards of time wherever they reside.

[For discussion on whether or not Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, see Miller, 2003]

That last paragraph addresses what Steve alluded to when he suggested an every first day observance. Taking all scripture into account, I may have to agree.

 

[Vic C.]

What's funny about sacraments is that they are used in too ritualistic a way. I recall talking to a Catholic once (who was able to laugh about this) but she was telling me that she mentioned the near-by (to our city) location named "Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament" to her friend, and her friend looked at her and asked, "So... is there a least blessed sacrament?"

Another thing is, I don't fully understand the use of the word "sacrament." It used to refer to a tangible manifestation or representaiton of something of religious significance, like an actual splinter from the cross or the Shroud of Turin or the like, but other things like baptism or communion are called Sacraments also. Why? It there some superstitious idea that touching the water physically during baptism becomes a sacrament (as in accomplishing your salvation) or that the bread and wine become in sustance Jesus' actual blood and flesh?

In the Southern Baptist Church I attend, we call the ordinances. We see them as more the just symbolic but not actually something physical or "tangible" ... good word, shark. 8-) I guess "spiritual" is how I view them. There is something very spiritual about the Communion as well as Baptism.

 

[thessalonian]

What's funny about sacraments is that they are used in too ritualistic a way. I recall talking to a Catholic once (who was able to laugh about this) but she was telling me that she mentioned the near-by (to our city) location named "Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament" to her friend, and her friend looked at her and asked, "So... is there a least blessed sacrament?"

Nope. Sacraments are grace.

Another thing is, I don't fully understand the use of the word "sacrament." It used to refer to a tangible manifestation or representaiton of something of religious significance, like an actual splinter from the cross or the Shroud of Turin or the like,

Actually these are not called sacraments but sacramentals. They help us think about Christ and the saints but they confer no grace in themselves.

but other things like baptism or communion are called Sacraments also. Why? It there some superstitious idea that touching the water physically during baptism becomes a sacrament (as in accomplishing your salvation) or that the bread and wine become in sustance Jesus' actual blood and flesh?

Sacraments are defined as "an outward sign of an inward grace. They are not magic. The water is not magic. It is simply a sign to help us understand what God does by the power of the Holy Spirit when we are baptized by grace. Peter says "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit.". It is the Holy Spirit that is the active agent in baptism. The water is the sign. Peter said "baptism now saves you" and the Holy Spirit and grace is the mechanism by which this is accomplished. It is "not the removal of dirt" (as Peter continues) which the water could only accomplish but which is actually a sign of what goes on in our souls, but the washing away of sin so that we have a clean conscience and a new start on life. See 1 Pet 3:20-21.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

What's funny about sacraments is that they are used in too ritualistic a way. I recall talking to a Catholic once (who was able to laugh about this) but she was telling me that she mentioned the near-by (to our city) location named "Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament" to her friend, and her friend looked at her and asked, "So... is there a least blessed sacrament?"

Another thing is, I don't fully understand the use of the word "sacrament." It used to refer to a tangible manifestation or representaiton of something of religious significance, like an actual splinter from the cross or the Shroud of Turin or the like, but other things like baptism or communion are called Sacraments also. Why? It there some superstitious idea that touching the water physically during baptism becomes a sacrament (as in accomplishing your salvation) or that the bread and wine become in sustance Jesus' actual blood and flesh?

In the Southern Baptist Church I attend, we call the ordinances. We see them as more the just symbolic but not actually something physical or "tangible" ... good word, shark. 8-) I guess "spiritual" is how I view them. There is something very spiritual about the Communion as well as Baptism.

An assertion of the symbolic and the spiritual is completely consistent with Catholic theology. It does not require the denial of the reality. What is truth is the question. With regard to the sacraments or ordinaces it seems to me this is important. "Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you". "My flesh is true food, my blood is true dring" "this is my body..., this is my blood".\

"BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU".

 

[Atonement]

"BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU"

What do you mean by this??? Baptism is an outward declaration of an inward walk with Christ.. W/O Christ we all parish. If I got saved tonight and I was driving home and did not get the opportunity to get Baptized, the God I serve is full of Mercy and where sin abounds Grace much more abounds, I would enter Heaven w/o question...[/quote]

 

[Lewis]

No, read the verse real carefully and see if a morning interpretation actually fits. It doesn't to me. I doubt Paul preached the whole day away, a day that would otherwise be better spent traveling, during daylight.

Luke was Jewish and wrote from a Jewish perspective, did he not? What difference would it make to a group of Jewish converts which city they were in, in regards to their calendar? Whenever a Jew, especially in the first century, spoke of the first day, they are referring to the day following the sabbath, which ended at sunset.

Roman customs hadn't fully infiltrated all of the known world at that time and I doubt if the Jews were obligated to keep their calendar. The notion of calling the first century 1 AD didn't not even happen for a few hundred years after His birth.

We have lost touch with our Hebrew roots. If Rome didn't have such a stranglehold on much of what we do, we would probably still be using the Hebrew calendar. Besides, it is more inline with the calendar God instituted.

Good post and correct too.

 

[thessalonian]

"BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU"

What do you mean by this??? Baptism is an outward declaration of an inward walk with Christ.. W/O Christ we all parish. If I got saved tonight and I was driving home and did not get the opportunity to get Baptized, the God I serve is full of Mercy and where sin abounds Grace much more abounds, I would enter Heaven w/o question...

It's not what I mean but what Peter does. Does baptism have anything to do with one getting "saved". Unless you ignore these clear words of his the answer has to be yes.


Peter spoke to Christians here who have had the opportunity to be baptized. Baptism is the first act of obedience. Do you think that if you refused baptism or if you died knowing of baptism and intending not to go through it you would be saved? The Catholic Church does not limit God to his sacraments, yet we are to do as he commanded in obedience to him. (if you love me keep my commands). I will let God judge those who do not have an opportunity to be baptized but you obvuscate the plain words. BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU. How is that not clear.

 

[stovebolts]

Vic,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. Wife says I have A.D.D. lol.

Anyway, Just a couple of points that I wanted to bring up. (Lewis, some of this is for you too).
1. Taking many things into account, it’s extremely doubtful that Luke (The author of Luke and Acts) was Jewish. Evidence also leans in the direction that Luke was raised in Troas where Acts 20:7 takes place. Troas was not predominantly a Jewish community and used the Roman calendar.
2. Does Acts 20:7 occur on what we gentiles call Saturday night or does it occur on what we know as Sunday morning? We may never know with absolute certainty. The evidence that I’ve seen so far points to it occurring on what we call Sunday morning based on the high likelihood that Luke was a gentile from a gentile city writing to a gentile with a gentile audience in mind.

Acts 20:7. It says they came together to break bread before midnight. So, did they break bread before or after Paul's speech? This is important if we want to use a Roman calendar, though I'm still convinced they didn't. If they did, this may suggest a Monday breaking of bread. ouch! I say they broke bread twice; before and sometime after the speech.

I just wanted to contrast this with the quote you provided. My presupposition is that ‘Breaking Bread’ is in direct reference to the Lord’s supper within Luke’s letters.

If Paul, then, waited to “break bread†until after midnight (20:7,11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper?

From the Net Bible
Acts 20:7-12 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight. 20:8 (Now there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.) 20:9 A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, was sinking into a deep sleep while Paul continued to speak for a long time. Fast asleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked up dead. 20:10 But Paul went down, threw himself on the young man, put his arms around him, and said, “Do not be distressed, for he is still alive!†20:11 Then Paul went back upstairs,46 and after he had broken bread and eaten, he talked with them a long time, until dawn. Then he left. 20:12 They took the boy home alive and were greatly comforted.

I don’t get it. According to what I’m reading, Paul didn’t wait until after midnight to break bread so what apologeticspress has to say in textually inaccurate.
They broke bread before midnight, Paul spoke, the boy fell asleep and died [must have been one of those sermons huh?], he was brought back to life, they broke bread again and spoke until dawn. Roman or Jewish Calendar, I don’t see the problem. What am I missing?

(I edited this to Bold and highlight)

 

[cyberjosh]

It is the Holy Spirit that is the active agent in baptism. The water is the sign. Peter said "baptism now saves you" and the Holy Spirit and grace is the mechanism by which this is accomplished. It is "not the removal of dirt" (as Peter continues) which the water could only accomplish but which is actually a sign of what goes on in our souls, but the washing away of sin so that we have a clean conscience and a new start on life. See 1 Pet 3:20-21.

Ok, but you don't have the mistaken impression that the inward work of the Holy Spirit happens as you are physically baptised do you? The inward baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is salvation/regeneration) happens before, at the moment you believe, and only afterward are you baptised as a pledge of good conscience to God and testimony before men.

It's like Atonement said: "Baptism is an outward declaration of an inward walk with Christ."

 

[thessalonian]

It is the Holy Spirit that is the active agent in baptism. The water is the sign. Peter said "baptism now saves you" and the Holy Spirit and grace is the mechanism by which this is accomplished. It is "not the removal of dirt" (as Peter continues) which the water could only accomplish but which is actually a sign of what goes on in our souls, but the washing away of sin so that we have a clean conscience and a new start on life. See 1 Pet 3:20-21.

Ok, but you don't have the mistaken impression that the inward work of the Holy Spirit happens as you are physically baptised do you? The inward baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is salvation/regeneration) happens before, at the moment you believe, and only afterward are you baptised as a pledge of good conscience to God and testimony before men.

It's like Atonement said: "Baptism is an outward declaration of an inward walk with Christ."

Chapter and verse please? It says "baptism NOW saves you". Not baptism continues to save you or baptism saves you again or baptism is just a symbol of your being previously saved.

One can also site the following passage:

Mark 16
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Of course belief is paramont to salvation but you can't take baptism out of the and that preceeds beeing saved either.

 

[cyberjosh]

Chapter and verse please? It says "baptism NOW saves you". Not baptism continues to save you or baptism saves you again or baptism is just a symbol of your being previously saved.

One can also site the following passage:

Mark 16
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Matthew 3:11)

Spirit Baptism is promised as apart from John's method of water Baptism. That was foreshadowing this event. On the other side of the cross we are given 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." This describes Salvation, being crucified with Christ, the putting off of the old man, and putting on the new. That is when we become part of the body.

When the Gentiles underwent their version of Pentecost Peter realized that God had brought salvation to them and then declared, "Who can withstand them now being water baptized?"

"45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:45-47)

Peter recognized that they were brethren just as He and the Jews were. They had been Spirit baptized.

 

[howthingswork]

Too many preachers will highlight the same thing week after week. Instead, they should cover the entire bible. Skipping parts of the bible that don't conform to their preconceived beliefs can lead to not believing important scripture.


Baptism: John 3:3, 5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, ) Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required. Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

That's to bad for the theif on the cross ... i guess Jesus lied to him.

Reconciliation (Confession): Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

The Eucharist: John 6:31-70, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, Luke 24:30-35, 1st Corinthians 10:16-17, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

Confirmation: Acts 8:15-18, 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:2,

Matrimony: Genesis 2:20-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:22-32, Hebrews 13:4

Holy Orders: Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 2:7, John 20:21, Acts 9:17, 13:3, 14:23, 20:28, Ephesisns 4:11, 1st THessalonians 5:12, 1st Timothy 4:14, 1st Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 5:1 & 7:17.

Annointing of the Sick: Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13 & 18, James 5:14-16.

:

 

[howthingswork]

Too many preachers will highlight the same thing week after week. Instead, they should cover the entire bible. Skipping parts of the bible that don't conform to their preconceived beliefs can lead to not believing important scripture.


Baptism: John 3:3, 5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, ) Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required. Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

That's to bad for the theif on the cross ... i guess Jesus lied to him.

Reconciliation (Confession): Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

The last words that Christ uttered from the cross was, "It is finished."
Man can not add anything or do anything to obain salvation, Jesus paid it all when he died on the cross.

The Eucharist: John 6:31-70, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, Luke 24:30-35, 1st Corinthians 10:16-17, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

Confirmation: Acts 8:15-18, 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:2,

Matrimony: Genesis 2:20-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:22-32, Hebrews 13:4

Holy Orders: Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 2:7, John 20:21, Acts 9:17, 13:3, 14:23, 20:28, Ephesisns 4:11, 1st THessalonians 5:12, 1st Timothy 4:14, 1st Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 5:1 & 7:17.

Annointing of the Sick: Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13 & 18, James 5:14-16.

:

 

[cyberjosh]

Welcome to the boards howthingswork.

Um... your post seems a little incomplete. Do you need help with something/figuring out concerning posting?

 

[stovebolts]

"45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:45-47)

Peter recognized that they were brethren just as He and the Jews were. They had been Spirit baptized.

Hello Cybershark5886 :D

Can I ask you a few questions? Have you considered the context and the belief system of the Jews and how that is portrayed in chapter 10? What do you think about when Peter makes the profound statment in verse 10:34 and why do you think that his 'vision' knocked him for a loop so hard?

Here's what I think.
Mt 15, somewhere around verse 22 upward makes a pretty clear statment what the desciples thought of the gentiles... Christ himself called them dogs. That's pretty harsh huh? Think about it... Acts 10:34 should make a bit more sense.
As far as the crowd that was baptised in the 'Spirit', what was Peter's response? Wasn't it something like, "Who can stop them from being baptised from water"? Why do you think he said that?

I'll be really interested in hearing your response.

Take care.

 

[Vic C.]

Vic,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this thread. Wife says I have A.D.D. lol.

Anyway, Just a couple of points that I wanted to bring up. (Lewis, some of this is for you too).
1. Taking many things into account, it’s extremely doubtful that Luke (The author of Luke and Acts) was Jewish. Evidence also leans in the direction that Luke was raised in Troas where Acts 20:7 takes place. Troas was not predominantly a Jewish community and used the Roman calendar.
2. Does Acts 20:7 occur on what we gentiles call Saturday night or does it occur on what we know as Sunday morning? We may never know with absolute certainty. The evidence that I’ve seen so far points to it occurring on what we call Sunday morning based on the high likelihood that Luke was a gentile from a gentile city writing to a gentile with a gentile audience in mind.

Jeff, this was covered above, in my post. My sources gave verses assuring us that Luke used a Jewish method of determining days. Bible before outside sources. So, I will post it again, in case you may have missed it:

Luke, like Matthew and Mark, used the Jewish method of reckoning time in both his gospel account and in the book of Acts (cf. Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; Acts 23:23; cf. also John 19:14; John 20:1,19). Thus, Paul’s pre-midnight preaching corresponded to our Saturday evening, but was the beginning of their “first day.†Regardless of whether they observed the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day or the morning of the first day, it was observed on the proper day, the day on which Jesus rose from the grave (Luke 24:1)â€â€the first day of the week.

I just wanted to contrast this with the quote you provided. My presupposition is that ‘Breaking Bread’ is in direct reference to the Lord’s supper within Luke’s letters.

If Paul, then, waited to “break bread†until after midnight (20:7,11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper?

From the Net Bible
Acts 20:7-12 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight. 20:8 (Now there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.) 20:9 A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, was sinking into a deep sleep while Paul continued to speak for a long time. Fast asleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked up dead. 20:10 But Paul went down, threw himself on the young man, put his arms around him, and said, “Do not be distressed, for he is still alive!†20:11 Then Paul went back upstairs,46 and after he had broken bread and eaten, he talked with them a long time, until dawn. Then he left. 20:12 They took the boy home alive and were greatly comforted.

I don’t get it. According to what I’m reading, Paul didn’t wait until after midnight to break bread so what apologeticspress has to say in textually inaccurate.

I disagree. Their article made perfect sense. Where does it say in the verse when Paul first broke bread? Where does it say Paul did or did not wait until after 12 AM?

They broke bread before midnight,

Again, It doesn't say that. All it says is that they met before midnight to break bread. OK, we can assume they did and if they did, that puts them at the eve of the first day, which is our Saturday eve. Once again, scripture is provided above proving Luke did indeed use a Jewish calendar and Jewish way of telling time.

they broke bread again and spoke until dawn. Roman or Jewish Calendar, I don’t see the problem. What am I missing?

(I edited this to Bold and highlight)

I guess you missed the part in another post where I said almost the same thing?

The bottom line for me is; I believe Jesus rose somewhere after sunset of the first day, but before sunrise. So, regardless of when Paul broke bread, it was the first day and that's fine with me no matter what calendar is being used..

 

[D46]

It is the Holy Spirit that is the active agent in baptism. The water is the sign. Peter said "baptism now saves you" and the Holy Spirit and grace is the mechanism by which this is accomplished. It is "not the removal of dirt" (as Peter continues) which the water could only accomplish but which is actually a sign of what goes on in our souls, but the washing away of sin so that we have a clean conscience and a new start on life. See 1 Pet 3:20-21.

Ok, but you don't have the mistaken impression that the inward work of the Holy Spirit happens as you are physically baptised do you? The inward baptism of the Holy Spirit (which is salvation/regeneration) happens before, at the moment you believe, and only afterward are you baptised as a pledge of good conscience to God and testimony before men.

It's like Atonement said: "Baptism is an outward declaration of an inward walk with Christ."

Chapter and verse please? It says "baptism NOW saves you". Not baptism continues to save you or baptism saves you again or baptism is just a symbol of your being previously saved.

One can also site the following passage:

Mark 16
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Of course belief is paramont to salvation but you can't take baptism out of the and that preceeds beeing saved either.

Well, this is one Catholic doctrine I completely agree with as it is straight from the word of God. Baptism is essential for salvation and not just something that's done "with a good conscience toward God" as I've heard before.When Peter gave that great sermon in Acts 2:37-38, the question was asked, "Men and brethern, what shall we do?" Peter told them to repent (step 1) and be baptised(step 2) in the name of Jesus Christ..." In Acts 10:48 Peter, yet again, commanded that they be baptised in the name of the Lord. Likewise in Acts 19:2-5, Paul even sees the necessity of the proper way of being baptised or he wouldn't have commanded John's disciples to be re-baptised. No further proof of the need to be baptised should be given. This should be enough of its' own. I am in full agreement with Mark 16:16 as well. Jesus said it and that settles it.

 

[thessalonian]

Spirit Baptism is promised as apart from John's method of water Baptism.

In Acts 19 we see that the Holy Spirit was not given by John's Baptism. That is because before the resurrection the Holy Spirit was not given period. But as D46 quotes in Acts 2:38 it says "repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you shall recieve the Holy Spirit". They were water baptized. So was the Ethopian Eunuch in Acts 8 and the jailor and lydia in Acts 16. There is also for us as Catholic Confirmation which is more like the spirit baptism you are speaking of. So once again you give me scriptural opinions that are not authoritative and far from proven regarding how I see things. Baptism now saves you seems pretty clear to me. "not the removal of dirt" is a reference to water and so points to water baptism. Peter also refers to Noah and his family being "saved through the water".

20: who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

So you can't say that 1 Pet 3 is not speaking about water baptism.