water baptism in Jesus' Name.

[Wansvic]

I have not read anything beyond the first page. And, I am not so sure that I really care to. Because, I do not wish to waste time arguing with you.

In 50 pages - has no one told you that the phrase "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" tells us explicitly that it is not talking about 'soul-salvation'...?!?!?!

I am guessing someone has but you are not listening.

You need to exit 'teaching' mode and enter 'learning' mode on this topic. Go back and study it again in the context of the chapter and the book.

The statement actually confirms baptism in water for a purpose other than taking a bath. The word is clear, God established the purpose of water baptism. Those who believe and obey have their sins remitted/washed away/destroyed as made possible through Jesus sacrifice. Paul explain this in Romans 6:3-6.


Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?...

if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." Rom 6:3-6

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The meaning of the word 'for' in this verse is in the sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain'.

You have a bad bible translation - which has twisted "Luke's simple words" into something the original greek does not actually say.

And - yes - it really does matter what bible version you use.

So what word should be changed in Acts 22:16: "Why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord?"

 

[Wansvic]

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)

So faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

The word establishes obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus is what brings about the washing away of an individual's sin in association with Jesus sacrifice. Jesus paid the penalty for all, but not all take hold of what He died to provide. In addition, to having one's sin remitted, all are required to receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is a separate experience from water baptism as scripture attests.

 

[Wansvic]

Man takes a step in obedience to God's command to be water baptized AFTER man has believed the gospel, received the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins. (Acts 10:43-47) Believers drink into one Spirit prior to receiving water baptism. You continue to confuse the picture with the reality.

Not so. See the conversion experiences. (Acts 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-6, 22:16)

Paul made it clear that not all receive the Holy Ghost upon belief. "Have ye received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed? (Acts 19:1)
No need to ask the question if in fact everyone is indwelt with the Holy Ghost the moment they believe.

 

[mailmandan]

The word establishes obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus is what brings about the washing away of an individual's sin in association with Jesus sacrifice. Jesus paid the penalty for all, but not all take hold of what He died to provide. In addition, to having one's sin remitted, all are required to receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is a separate experience from water baptism as scripture attests.

False. You seem unable to see anything beyond your biased church doctrine.

 

[mailmandan]

The word establishes obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus is what brings about the washing away of an individual's sin in association with Jesus sacrifice. Jesus paid the penalty for all, but not all take hold of what He died to provide. In addition, to having one's sin remitted, all are required to receive the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is a separate experience from water baptism as scripture attests.

Paul asked them in verse 2 if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed.

Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith, they were then "afterwards" baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

This isn't about salvation by water baptism here. Again, they had received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. They also had not even heard there is a Holy Spirit. (vs. 2) They needed to believe the gospel before they were re-baptized.

 

[Nehemiah6]

This isn't about salvation by water baptism here.

A total waste of time discussing this with Wasnvic. He is convinced that he is the only one with a proper understanding of water baptism.

 

[mailmandan]

A total waste of time discussing this with Wasnvic. He is convinced that he is the only one with a proper understanding of water baptism.

Yes, thoroughly indoctrinated and unteachable. Truly sad.

 

[Dino246]

As I said before, I believe that the 66 books in the Bible correspond to the 66 chapters in Isaiah.

There's a fatal flaw in your theory: the chapter divisions are human additions from the 16th century. They are arbitrary and have no "scriptural weight".

 

[DJT_47]

Act 19:1, And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3, And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4, Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5, When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6, And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Act 19:7, And all the men were about twelve.

It seems to me like it is kind of redundant.

If, in verse 5, they were baptized in the Holy Spirit rather than in water, are they baptized in the Holy Ghost again, immediately afterward, in verse 6?

Do we need a 2nd baptism of the Holy Spirit seconds after the first?

Also, it must be understood that there is a difference in receiving the of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and manifestations of the Spirit, the miraculous gifts. The Spirit itself is receivied upon baptism into Christ (Acts 2:38) but as you can see by the scriptures you cited in Acts 19, that the manifestation of the Spirit required the laying on of Paul's hands (an apostle's hands).

 

[GaryA]

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The meaning of the word 'for' in this verse is in the sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain'.

You have a bad bible translation - which has twisted "Luke's simple words" into something the original greek does not actually say.

And - yes - it really does matter what bible version you use.

I looked at all of the translations that are used at blue letter bible, and all of them say "for" except two of them...the ASV says "unto" and the YLT says "to"....and these latter two have literally the same meaning as when it is translated "for". Certainly none of them renders it "because of".

So, that is a big red "X"...

I disagree because no translation renders it the way you want it...

It is a made-up doctrine given by teachers that those with itching ears want to hear.

This just goes to show how much you do not pay attention to what other folks are actually saying...

You hear/read what you want to hear/read instead of what other folks are actually saying.

I did not say one word about any translation whatsoever rendering it as 'because of' or 'in order to obtain'.

It is painfully obvious that it was indeed-and-in-fact translated as 'for'.

I said that the meaning of the word 'for' in this verse is in the sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain'.

 

[GaryA]

I think I am done here now...

 

[heartwashed]

You're short, and it is obvious that you need to pervert the gospel with your doctrine to get a rise.

It is my desire to preach only the truth in the name of the Lord.

 

[heartwashed]

There's a fatal flaw in your theory: the chapter divisions are human additions from the 16th century. They are arbitrary and have no "scriptural weight".

If you really think that chapter and verse are not inspired, then I would encourage you to read Proverbs thirty two (in the nkjv)..

 

[heartwashed]

Also, it must be understood that there is a difference in receiving the of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and manifestations of the Spirit, the miraculous gifts. The Spirit itself is receivied upon baptism into Christ (Acts 2:38) but as you can see by the scriptures you cited in Acts 19, that the manifestation of the Spirit required the laying on of Paul's hands (an apostle's hands).

However, clearly, when they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, it was baptism in water. If it was baptism in the Spirit, then scripture is redundant...they receive the baptism of the Spirit and then another baptism in the Spirit, seconds later.

 

[heartwashed]

This just goes to show how much you do not pay attention to what other folks are actually saying...

You hear/read what you want to hear/read instead of what other folks are actually saying.

I did not say one word about any translation whatsoever rendering it as 'because of' or 'in order to obtain'.

It is painfully obvious that it was indeed-and-in-fact translated as 'for'.

I said that the meaning of the word 'for' in this verse is in the sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain'.

So, why don't any of the translations translate it "because of" if that is the intended meaning of the verse?

 

[heartwashed]

Yes, thoroughly indoctrinated

Nothing wrong with that if you are indoctrinated with sound doctrine.

 

[heartwashed]

There's a fatal flaw in your theory: the chapter divisions are human additions from the 16th century. They are arbitrary and have no "scriptural weight".

Also, there is a perfect division in Isaiah that corresponds to Old and New Testaments. Chapters 1-39 speak of the law and correspond to the Old Testament. Chapters 40-66 speak of grace and correspond to the New Testament.

And there are 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New, which correspond to the final 27 chapters in isaiah.

I don't think of that as being a coincidence.

I will say also that,

Act 15:18, Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

...including the chapter divisions in the Bible and the corresponding verse numbers.

 

[heartwashed]

This just goes to show how much you do not pay attention to what other folks are actually saying...

You hear/read what you want to hear/read instead of what other folks are actually saying.

I did not say one word about any translation whatsoever rendering it as 'because of' or 'in order to obtain'.

It is painfully obvious that it was indeed-and-in-fact translated as 'for'.

I said that the meaning of the word 'for' in this verse is in the sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain'.

You told him that he had a bad Bible translation....which implied that there was one "better" that translated it the way you would like for it to be translated.

Unfortunately for you, there are no such translations.

 

[mailmandan]

Nothing wrong with that if you are indoctrinated with sound doctrine.

Baptismal regeneration, as taught by multiple false religions and cults (including Roman Catholicism and Oneness Pentecostalism) is not sound doctrine.