The Tabernacle in the Wilderness

[Deade]

You are missing the fact that in both verses presented, Peter is discussing water baptism specifically.

Peter's question in Acts 10:47 "Can any man forbid that Cornelius and others should not be water baptized since God has filled them with His Spirit? He is saying is there anyone that thinks we should refuse to water baptize these people.

And secondly, Peter tells the Jewish leaders that since God had filled them with His Spirit who was he to withstand God by refusing to administer baptism. (Acts 11:17) After Peter's explanation as to why he administered water baptisms, the leaders hold their peace and glorify God, saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18

There is nothing wrong with your summation Wansvic. Acts 10:47 is plain language. Then some here turn around and start posting doublespeak. Like this:

The question in Acts 10:47 had nothing to do with water baptism being more than a public display and procuring remission of sins.

Just keep sharing what you know to be true. Most here are already baptized but still want to argue it is not necessary. Everyone agrees that receiving the HS is the real baptism. But the HS seems to lead some to go ahead and seek water baptism and maybe others it does not? I know there is only one HS. C'est la Vie.

 

[mailmandan]

There is nothing wrong with your summation Wansvic. Acts 10:47 is plain language. Then some here turn around and start posting doublespeak. Like this:

There was no double speak in my post. The question in Acts 10:47 had nothing to do with water baptism being more than a public display and procuring remission of sins. The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (which is a spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid these Gentiles from being baptized because of their unacceptance of the Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. (Romans 8:9; 1 John 4:13)

 

[Deade]

There was no double speak in my post. The question in Acts 10:47 had nothing to do with water baptism being more than a public display and procuring remission of sins. The evidence is overwhelming that these Gentles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues (which is a spiritual gift that is ONLY for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved BEFORE water baptism. Certain Jews may have wanted to forbid these Gentiles from being baptized because of their unacceptance of the Gentiles, but Peter clearly states that SURELY NO ONE CAN REFUSE. These Gentiles were clearly SAVED BEFORE WATER BAPTISM and the Holy Spirit was proof of this. (Romans 8:9; 1 John 4:13)

Okay, tell me where in that scripture does it tell us that baptism is "just" a display?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Paul's epistles were written to people who had already been obedient to the instructions given on the day of church was birthed. (Acts2:1-41)

that's is not even beginning to be true

Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles

so how were all the Gentiles at the Jordan being baptized by John

your heretical beliefs have blinded you to the truth

are you just trying to save face at this point?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

How can one's instructions to others of the need to be obedient to commands clearly presented to those who asked what was required of them be a detriment to their salvation?

Notice what is conveyed in Acts 2:40-41:
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Then THEY THAT GLADLY RECEIVED HIS WORD WERE BAPTIZED: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

The message in the above scripture can not be any clearer. After complying with the instructions given three thousand people were added to the NT church.

when were they added? READ it! AFTER they received the word Peter spoke

you are scrambling to try to make sense to fit your narrative


people were baptized when? AFTER AFTER AFTER they received the word spoken by Peter...how does salvation come? BY HEARING...nowhere in scripture does it state people were baptized and then received salvation

they heard, they accepted, they were baptized

faith, receiving, comes by hearing. who did they hear preach the gospel? Peter what comes AFTER accepting? baptism

every person in the Bible who was baptized...that is with a written record....were baptized AFTER receiving Christ

including the 3000


I'm baptized...AFTER I believed

you just put your foot in your mouth.

you just illustrated the truth by accident

you are so confused! it is written plainly but you cannot or will not accept it

amazing!

 

[7seasrekeyed]

There is nothing wrong with your summation Wansvic. Acts 10:47 is plain language. Then some here turn around and start posting doublespeak. Like this:



Just keep sharing what you know to be true. Most here are already baptized but still want to argue it is not necessary. Everyone agrees that receiving the HS is the real baptism. But the HS seems to lead some to go ahead and seek water baptism and maybe others it does not? I know there is only one HS. C'est la Vie. View attachment 202256

deade, that is not what wansvic is teaching

she is teaching that baptism comes before salvation

she is teaching that the blood of Christ is not enough

she is teaching that baptism cleanses from sin

is that what you believe?

NO ONE has stated we should not be baptized

has she bamboozled you?

absolutely nothing here to do with whether or not a person should be baptized

smh

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Okay, tell me where in that scripture does it tell us that baptism is "just" a display?

wake up

no one has said that

no one

these people are teaching that baptism comes before salvation

the blood of Christ is not enough is what they say

 

[bluto]

You are missing the fact that in both verses presented, Peter is discussing water baptism specifically.

Peter's question in Acts 10:47 "Can any man forbid that Cornelius and others should not be water baptized since God has filled them with His Spirit? He is saying is there anyone that thinks we should refuse to water baptize these people.

And secondly, Peter tells the Jewish leaders that since God had filled them with His Spirit who was he to withstand God by refusing to administer baptism. (Acts 11:17) After Peter's explanation as to why he administered water baptisms, the leaders hold their peace and glorify God, saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 11:18

I'm not missing anything wansvic. Acts 10:37, "Surely no one can refuse the water "SINCE" God has filled them with the Holy Spirit." That word "since" means, "after a time in the past or subsequently." It also can be defined as, "In view of the fact."

This means that in view of the fact that they received the Holy Spirit first, there is no reason why they should not be water baptized. Again, I am NOT arguing that since or in view of the fact that Jesus commanded us to get water baptized but rather if you don't or cannot get baptized it means like you and your church teaches the person is not considered saved despite getting the Holy Spirit first before water baptism.

This is what the words/text/context says and teaches. Why am I wrong? I am not just giving my opinion but commenting on the clear teaching of the words and their meaning/definition.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Nehemiah6]

Acts 10:47 - Peter questioned other Jews present: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Why question if it was ok to water baptize someone if water baptism is nothing more than a public display? God's designed water baptism is much more than a public display, it is a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and is one's act of obedience that opens the door to eternal life. (Mark 1:4) We see this truth again in Peter's conversation with Jewish leaders:

You have simple PERVERTED the teaching of Acts 10 (which I clearly spelled out earlier on). Those Gentiles had already been saved and received the gift of the Holy Ghost BEFORE they were baptized. Which means that this incident THOROUGHLY DEMOLISHES your false doctrine. To receive the Holy Spirit means that a persons sins have already been forgiven, and he or she has received the gift of eternal life. All that happened BEFORE baptism.

 

[bluto]

There is nothing wrong with your summation Wansvic. Acts 10:47 is plain language. Then some here turn around and start posting doublespeak. Like this:



Just keep sharing what you know to be true. Most here are already baptized but still want to argue it is not necessary. Everyone agrees that receiving the HS is the real baptism. But the HS seems to lead some to go ahead and seek water baptism and maybe others it does not? I know there is only one HS. C'est la Vie. View attachment 202256

Ok mr. "plain language," tell us all here about the plain language of Acts 10:45? "And all the circumcised "BELIEVERS" who had come with Peter amazed, (why were they amazed deade?) because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. Vs46, "For (or because) they wre hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then (Then means "at that time, or soon after that") After they were saved Peter commnaded them to be water baptized.

So, were they saved before or after they recieved the Holy Spirit, yes or no." Your choice does not include the lame statement they "maybe some are lead to get water baptized and others are not." The Holy Spirit is not "doubleminded" like you.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[eternally-gratefull]

wake up

no one has said that

no one

these people are teaching that baptism comes before salvation

the blood of Christ is not enough is what they say

Why is it they can not see this?? Why do they make it appear people teach things they do not teach? NUTS!

 

[Deade]

Ok mr. "plain language," tell us all here about the plain language of Acts 10:45? "And all the circumcised "BELIEVERS" who had come with Peter amazed, (why were they amazed deade?) because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. Vs46, "For (or because) they wre hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then (Then means "at that time, or soon after that") After they were saved Peter commnaded them to be water baptized.

So, were they saved before or after they recieved the Holy Spirit, yes or no." Your choice does not include the lame statement they "maybe some are lead to get water baptized and others are not." The Holy Spirit is not "doubleminded" like you.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

Well bluto, what is the argument? If the Holy Spirit leads everyone to the baptism water, why does it matter which one comes first? All I can attest to is what the Holy Spirit directed me to do once I was baptized by the selfsame Spirit. It made me think water baptism was very important. I can't say it did the same for everyone else, but most I have talked with say the same thing. Why argue? Just get baptized if you can.

 

[mailmandan]

Okay, tell me where in that scripture does it tell us that baptism is "just" a display?

I was responding to Wansvic who said: Acts 10:47 - Peter questioned other Jews present: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Why question if it was ok to water baptize someone if water baptism is nothing more than a public display?

Can you tell me where in that scripture it tells us that baptism is the actual cause of receiving remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit? At what point did these Gentiles receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Not until AFTER they were water baptized (Acts 10:48) or when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ PRIOR to receiving water baptism? (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18)

 

[Wansvic]

Ok mr. "plain language," tell us all here about the plain language of Acts 10:45? "And all the circumcised "BELIEVERS" who had come with Peter amazed, (why were they amazed deade?) because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. Vs46, "For (or because) they wre hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then (Then means "at that time, or soon after that") After they were saved Peter commnaded them to be water baptized.

So, were they saved before or after they recieved the Holy Spirit, yes or no." Your choice does not include the lame statement they "maybe some are lead to get water baptized and others are not." The Holy Spirit is not "doubleminded" like you.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

As seen in the record of Acts 10, and one last time...
Peter's instructions comprising of components of God's salvation plan are clearly recorded. Everyone is told to obey by believing the message, repenting, and getting water baptized in Jesus' name. God's promise is that He will pour out the gift of His Holy Spirit.

 

[Deade]

I was responding to Wansvic who said: Acts 10:47 - Peter questioned other Jews present: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Why question if it was ok to water baptize someone if water baptism is nothing more than a public display?

Can you tell me where in that scripture it tells us that baptism is the actual cause of receiving remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit? At what point did these Gentiles receive remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? Not until AFTER they were water baptized (Acts 10:48) or when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ PRIOR to receiving water baptism? (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18)

I agree with you Dan, that getting the HS is what seals our salvation. It is fully up to God when He gives His spirit out. When He does, it is at that moment we are sealed. I was also stressing that the Spirit was prompting me on the importance of getting water baptized. Maybe He doesn't do everyone that way, but I can share how He has dealt with me.

 

[mailmandan]

I agree with you Dan, that getting the HS is what seals our salvation. It is fully up to God when He gives His spirit out. When He does, it is at that moment we are sealed. I was also stressing that the Spirit was prompting me on the importance of getting water baptized. Maybe He doesn't do everyone that way, but I can share how He has dealt with me.

I received Christ through faith on a late Saturday night several years ago and knew without a doubt that I was born again that night (Praise God! ) but was unable to receive water baptism until Sunday morning. I actually could not wait to get water baptized on Sunday morning and I even gave a 5 minute testimony just prior to receiving water baptism on how I was raised in the Roman Catholic church and was taught the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but now finally understand what it truly means to believe the gospel.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Why is it they can not see this?? Why do they make it appear people teach things they do not teach? NUTS!

once you accept a lie and continue to accept that lie, you will go on to further deception

it takes alot to come back from that

when it hurts enough, you could not care less about your pride and you will do what it takes

if you never come back, perhaps you were never able to accept the truth to begin with

there really is no why though

people do what they gonna do since forever. a couple had a garden created by God and they could not obey one teeny simple little thing

the voice of the deceiver is seducing and enticing

hold fast that which is true is the rallying cry

one truth

 

[eternally-gratefull]

once you accept a lie and continue to accept that lie, you will go on to further deception

it takes alot to come back from that

when it hurts enough, you could not care less about your pride and you will do what it takes

if you never come back, perhaps you were never able to accept the truth to begin with

there really is no why though

people do what they gonna do since forever. a couple had a garden created by God and they could not obey one teeny simple little thing

the voice of the deceiver is seducing and enticing

hold fast that which is true is the rallying cry

one truth

The deceiver comes as an angel of light

 

[bluto]

As seen in the record of Acts 10, and one last time...
Peter's instructions comprising of components of God's salvation plan are clearly recorded. Everyone is told to obey by believing the message, repenting, and getting water baptized in Jesus' name. God's promise is that He will pour out the gift of His Holy Spirit.

So one last time huh? Acts 10:40-44, "God raised Him/Jesus up on the third day, and granted that He should become visible, vs41, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, who ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead.

Vs42, And He ORDERED us to PREACH to all the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Vs43, Of Him/Jesus all the prophets bear witness that through His name EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

vs44, While Peter was still speaking these words THE HOLY SPIRIT FELL UPON ALL THOSE WHO WERE LISTENING TO THE MESSAGE." Again and again wansvic, salvation first and then water baptism. The verses do not say that salvation and getting baptized is at the same time or one and the same action to get saved. Like I have said numerous times, it is impossible for some people to get water baptized based on their circumstances in life. Anyone, no matter their condition in life hears the word/message and can make a confession of faith in Jesus Christ, but not all can get baptized. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[7seasrekeyed]

from the op:

The New Testament parallel is as follows:

1. Acceptance of Jesus sacrifice and repentance

2. Water Baptism (receive the priestly garments)

3. Infilling of the Holy Ghost

4. Priestly office secured

5. Blood of Jesus sacrifice is applied

still wrong