The Kerygma - God's Requirement for Salvation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The NT water baptism command has nothing to do with the OT law.

Jesus prophesied concerning when the NT water baptism would begin,
And (Jesus) said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:46-47)

This happened in Jerusalem just as Jesus said it would.

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 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.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts 2:36-42

My understanding is that WB came to be practiced during the intertestamental period and yes the first NT church was in Jerusalem. I have already explained why one should not base normative Christian doctrine or practices upon historical Acts but rather on didactic passages in the gospels and epistles.

TBC
 
Please take the time to read this. It's a real eye-opener for some, hopefully it will be for you as well:

"Most of Christendom has decided that water baptism is neither a prerequisite, nor necessary, to salvation. Influenced largely by the Protestant Reformation, people have become convinced that forgiveness of sin by the blood of Christ is achieved at the very moment a person “believes”—by which they mean when a person, in his or her own mind, “accepts” Christ as Lord and Savior. To them, the external act of water baptism is considered to be simply an after-the-fact outward “symbol” or “badge” that “declares” the Christian’s already-secured salvation. One passage used to support this thinking is the account of the conversion of the Roman jailer in Philippi (Acts 16). However, a careful study of the entire episode yields quite a different conclusion.

Paul’s response to the jailer’s question Sirs, what must I do to be saved? was, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31). What did Paul mean by this statement? If he meant what many within Christendom think he meant, that is, if the jailer already knew who Jesus was, and if Paul was urging him simply to believe (i.e., simply to “accept Christ into his heart as his personal savior”), then we should next expect the text to provide the jailer’s response—something to the effect that the jailer accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, or that he believed on Jesus right then and there and was saved.

However, to the contrary, the text says: “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (vs. 32). Why? Didn’t Paul just do that by telling the jailer to believe? Apparently not! Paul later wrote that “faith comes by hearing…the word of God” (Romans 10:17). So the jailer needed to hear additional information that would enable him to know what it means to believe in Jesus. It follows, then, that the instruction, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” was simply a broad, sweeping statement intended to redirect the jailer... toward the true object of belief—Christ.... But simply telling the jailer (or anyone today) to “believe on Jesus” does not provide sufficient information on how to believe. In other words, there is more to “believing on Jesus” than simply affirming in one’s mind that Jesus is Lord and Savior (a fact readily conceded even by Satan and the demons—Genesis 3:15; Matthew 4:3,6; Luke 22:31; Hebrews 2:14; James 2:19; Revelation 12:4ff.).

It was only in speaking the word of the Lord to the jailer that he could understand who Christ is, what Christianity is about, and the proper response to the preached Word—i.e., what it means to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Since the jailer could not be saved before Paul spoke the Word of the Lord to him, observe the sequence of events that the text reports immediately after the Word was spoken to him.

(1) The jailer took Paul and Silas “the same hour of the night and washed their stripes” (Acts 16:33). Here is evidence of repentance (e.g., Matthew 3:8). Here is evidence that the jailer was convinced by the information that had been given to him, to the extent that he wanted to make things right. That is repentance—a change of mind resulting in appropriate outward actions (Matthew 21:29; 2 Corinthians 7:10).

(2) The text then states: “And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” Three aspects of this sentence are noteworthy. First, if baptism is unnecessary to salvation, why even mention it with regard to the conversion of the jailer? Why not simply proceed in the narrative to the outcome of conversion—i.e., some indication that he was now saved? If baptism is nonessential, instead of reading, “And immediately he and all his family were baptized,” one would expect the text to read, “And immediately he and all his family accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.” Second, where did the jailer get the idea that he needed to be baptized? It had to have been included in Paul’s “speaking the word of the Lord” to him. But if the jailer could not be saved until Paul “spoke the word of the Lord” to him, and if Paul included in that “word of the Lord” the doctrine of baptism, then it follows that the jailer’s salvation depended in part on baptism. Third, why “immediately”? Many within Christendom wait a week, a month, or longer before baptizing believers. Why was the jailer baptized immediately in the middle of the night? The implication is that baptism is more crucial and more urgent than many today think.

(3) At this point in Luke’s narrative, we are informed that the jailer brought Paul and Silas into his home, and then he set food before them. Next, we are informed that the jailer “rejoiced” (vs. 34). When does the text indicate that the jailer manifested signs of joy and happiness (that naturally follow conversion)—before or after baptism? After baptism! In fact, every time rejoicing is explicitly alluded to in the conversion accounts of Acts, it is always after baptism (e.g., 2:46—“gladness”; 8:39—“rejoicing”).

(4) Everything up to this point leads one to the conclusion that baptism was part and parcel of the jailer’s conversion, and preceded his salvation as the culminating act. But here is the clincher. Look carefully at the phrase in verse 34: “having believed in God.” Here is a clear, explicit indication that the jailer was now a saved believer. In the Greek, the expression “having believed” (pepisteukos) is in the perfect tense. There is no English tense corresponding to the Greek perfect. Consider the following brief explanation by Greek grammarians Dana and Mantey.

The perfect is the tense of complete action. Its basal significance is the progress of an act or state to a point of culmination and the existence of its finished results. That is, it views action as a finished product…. It implies a process, but views that process as having reached its consummation and existing in a finished state (1927, p. 200, emp. added).

Greek scholar Ray Summers offered another helpful explanation of the Greek perfect tense:
t indicates a completed action with a resulting state of being. The primary emphasis is on the resulting state of being. Involved in the Greek perfect are three ideas: an action in progress, its coming to a point of culmination, its existing as a completed result. Thus it implies a process but looks upon the process as having reached a consummation and existing as a completed state (1950, p. 103, italics in orig., emp. added).

In light of the thrust of the Greek perfect tense, Luke was making the point that the jailer went through a process of several actions before it could be stated that he was in possession of a saving faith in God. His initial belief that came as a result of hearing the Word of the Lord preached to him, led to his repentance (as evinced by his attending Paul and Silas’ wounds), and then culminated in his baptism in water—bringing his faith to a completed result. Only at this point could the Greek perfect tense be used to indicate that the jailer now stood in a completed state of having believed. Luke was careful to refrain from labeling the jailer as a “believer” until all of the prerequisites to salvation had been completed, thereby bringing his faith to its finished state. This observation was acknowledged by R.J. Knowling while professor of New Testament Exegesis at King’s College in London: “[T]he word pepisteukos, perfect participle, shows that this fullness of joy was caused by his full profession of belief; it was the joy of the Holy Ghost which followed his baptism” (n.d., 2:353, italics in orig., emp. added).

This understanding of the conversion account of the Philippian jailer is in perfect concord with the other conversion accounts given in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:12-13,36-39; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15; 18:8; 19:5). The New Testament designates water immersion as the point in time at which God cleanses the sin-stained spirit of the penitent believer by the blood of Christ (cf. Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4)." Excerpts from AP Article

Yes my understanding of NT agrees with that of most Protestants, which is based on the teachings in Paul’s epistles as well as on what he said in Acts 16:31. The jailer got the idea of being WB the same way that I did—because it was common practice. He was not WB ASAP due to not being saved until it was done, just like the thief on the cross also was not condemned because of not being WB.

TBC
 
The scriptures you reference do not contradict the truth concerning the NT rebirth. Those who accept God's word concerning the NT rebirth are not making an offering for sin, Jesus alone did that. And, God alone established what a believer must do in order to take hold of what Jesus died to provide. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)


FYI, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Being filled was temporary and used by God used to illustrate/demonstrate certain spiritual truths, in certain specific situations; on the other hand, being indwelt occurs to everyone saved and is permanent. From that indwelling, certain Christian attributes are imputed by God which eventually become manifested in thoughts and actions.
Anyway, according to you, if God's word is not accepted, then the offering cannot be applied, correct? So, whether it is applied, or whether it is not applied - both options - are the prerogative of, and alone within power of the person in view, not God, thereby making them savior depending upon choice made. IOW - and again based on your belief not mine - the question becomes: can someone still be saved should they choose not to accept God's word? If the answer to that is no they cannot become saved, then salvation is dependent upon their choice, making them savior, not Christ. That however turns Christ solely into only the executor of their choice and not Savior as scripture tells us He is - for a Savior but truly be a Savior, He alone must have accomplished EVERYTHING necessary for salvation to include its execution, not just the doing of certain parts of it. No one saved by Christ before salvation, accepts His word. Part of the salvation process is that God gives those saved a renewed mind, a new heart and a new spirit, from which, they come to accept it, but that is as a result of salvation, not its cause.
 
Yes my understanding of NT agrees with that of most Protestants, which is based on the teachings in Paul’s epistles as well as on what he said in Acts 16:31. The jailer got the idea of being WB the same way that I did—because it was common practice. He was not WB ASAP due to not being saved until it was done, just like the thief on the cross also was not condemned because of not being WB.

TBC

Regarding what happened after Paul answered the jailer's question: In the context of Paul's teaching in the epistles such as Romans 10:17, it is likely that he would have said (v.32), "Now that you have been saved right here and now because of confessing faith in Jesus as Lord, God's HS has entered your heart, which SB is good to be professed outwardly via WB.

I am delighted that you recognized that "the jailer needed to hear additional information that would enable him to know what it means to believe in Jesus". This is what I do via the 5-point elaboration of the kerygma, because as you said, the instruction, “ 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ' was simply a broad, sweeping statement." Again, I agree that simply saying “believe on Jesus” should mean the implied comprehensive creed that I have tried to state as succinctly as possible.

However, I would disagree with saying someone is not saved unless they understand the comprehensive version, because the Gospel kerygma is simple enough for a child to understand. It is just that following rebirth a Christian needs to grow spiritually toward moral maturity and the perfect love that will be attained in heaven. Thus, the jailer as a new Christian had a childlike understanding that would increase rapidly as long as he hungered after learning GW.

I have explained why WB is emphasized as much as SB in Acts. The "simply proceed in the narrative to the outcome of conversion—i.e., some indication that he was now saved? If baptism is nonessential" was done in the epistles, which is why their silence regarding the necessity of WB speaks volumes.

"Why immediately" was because Paul wanted to depart for Thessalonica immediately after meeting with the believers in Lydia's house (Acts 16:35-17:1. And joy is a theme, especially in Philippians, without being linked to WB. Thus, everything does NOT necessarily lead to your conclusion, which results from a myopic and imperfect hermeneutic that focuses almost exclusively on Acts.

Over...
 
My understanding is that WB came to be practiced during the intertestamental period and yes the first NT church was in Jerusalem. I have already explained why one should not base normative Christian doctrine or practices upon historical Acts but rather on didactic passages in the gospels and epistles.

TBC
John the Baptist preached baptism for repentance. At that point he, nor his listeners, had any idea who the messiah was or what He would suffer. However, after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection water baptism was modified to include His name. Those who submit to the NT water baptism in the name of Jesus have their sins remitted through faith. Peter revealed this when he presented the NT gospel message after Jesus shed forth the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. This was what Jesus prophesied concerning repentance and remission of sin being preached in His name. (Luke 24:46-47) As Jesus said, repentance and water baptism started to be preached in His name in Jerusalem, and from there the same message was carried into other nations, (Acts 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7) and continues even unto today. (also see Romans 6:3-6)
 
Yes my understanding of NT agrees with that of most Protestants, which is based on the teachings in Paul’s epistles as well as on what he said in Acts 16:31. The jailer got the idea of being WB the same way that I did—because it was common practice. He was not WB ASAP due to not being saved until it was done, just like the thief on the cross also was not condemned because of not being WB.

TBC
The thief on the cross died while the Old Testament was still in effect.
 
John the Baptist preached baptism for repentance. At that point he, nor his listeners, had any idea who the messiah was or what He would suffer. However, after Jesus' death, burial and resurrection water baptism was modified to include His name. Those who submit to the NT water baptism in the name of Jesus have their sins remitted through faith. Peter revealed this when he presented the NT gospel message after Jesus shed forth the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. This was what Jesus prophesied concerning repentance and remission of sin being preached in His name. (Luke 24:46-47) As Jesus said, repentance and water baptism started to be preached in His name in Jerusalem, and from there the same message was carried into other nations, (Acts 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7) and continues even unto today. (also see Romans 6:3-6)

Close, but per Paul in the epistles those who believed in Jesus as Lord (also per Acts 16:31) received the HS/had their sins remitted and then were WB instead of PC (physically circumcised) as the NT way of signifying such dynamic--so no cigar.

I already acknowledged what happened in Acts and explained how it can be understood in a way that jibes with the later epistles. Remember that Peter was checked by Jesus (in MT 16) and by Paul (in Acts 15) and checked himself in his epistles (by NOT saying WB is required/essential for salvation), and Romans 6:3-6 does not say WB is r/e either--which it would if it were.
 
Yes my understanding of NT agrees with that of most Protestants, which is based on the teachings in Paul’s epistles as well as on what he said in Acts 16:31. The jailer got the idea of being WB the same way that I did—because it was common practice. He was not WB ASAP due to not being saved until it was done, just like the thief on the cross also was not condemned because of not being WB.

TBC
You are too funny, being baptized in JESUS name was a common practice???

Be great if it was a common practice TODAY!

According to HIS word it's how we get rid of our sins and the only way.

Do you really think that Paul would be just wasting his time baptizing people if it wasn't necessary???

Why does he explain in detail the purpose of baptism in Romans 6?

You really don't know why the thief didn't need to be baptized?

We need to rightly divide the word.

When the thief on the cross died, he died OT laws. Where people had to take a sacrifice to the high priests ones a year to have their sins forgiven GOD RULES.

JESUS is our high priest and he became our sacrifice our lamb.
When JESUS was on this earth and forgave sins as he wished like the thief.

JESUS preach app 3 years, died on the cross, buried and rose again. Then he ascended to Heaven to put his blood on the mercy seat.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

He then returned to earth and was here app 40 days and ascended again commanding his disciples to wait because they will be filled with the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:3-4

He ascended the second time and this was the first message of how to be reborn.
Acts 2:38-39
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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Since then until he returns again, we live in NT laws and how to be saved we need to repent, get baptized in JESUS name to get rid of our sins and receive the Holy Ghost like JESUS gave his disciples in Acts 2:4.
 
FYI, being filled with the Holy Spirit is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Being filled was temporary and used by God used to illustrate/demonstrate certain spiritual truths, in certain specific situations; on the other hand, being indwelt occurs to everyone saved and is permanent. From that indwelling, certain Christian attributes are imputed by God which eventually become manifested in thoughts and actions.
Anyway, according to you, if God's word is not accepted, then the offering cannot be applied, correct? So, whether it is applied, or whether it is not applied - both options - are the prerogative of, and alone within power of the person in view, not God, thereby making them savior depending upon choice made. IOW - and again based on your belief not mine - the question becomes: can someone still be saved should they choose not to accept God's word? If the answer to that is no they cannot become saved, then salvation is dependent upon their choice, making them savior, not Christ. That however turns Christ solely into only the executor of their choice and not Savior as scripture tells us He is - for a Savior but truly be a Savior, He alone must have accomplished EVERYTHING necessary for salvation to include its execution, not just the doing of certain parts of it. No one saved by Christ before salvation, accepts His word. Part of the salvation process is that God gives those saved a renewed mind, a new heart and a new spirit, from which, they come to accept it, but that is as a result of salvation, not its cause.
I disagree with your belief that being filled is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God reveals that the initial infilling is when Holy Ghost comes to dwell in a person. All detailed conversion accounts reveal this to be true. 100% were indwelt/filled with the Holy Ghost in a single experience, one that was evidenced by speaking in tongues.

"Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) (Water baptism)
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." (Acts 8:12-18)


Acts 10:43-48 (Gentiles)
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
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. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God."

Acts 11:17 (Peter's explanation)
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ;" (Acts 2:4 records they were filled with the Holy Ghost)



Acts 19:1-7 (12 men of Ephesus)
"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since you believed?,.. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ouch
You are too funny, being baptized in JESUS name was a common practice???

Be great if it was a common practice TODAY!

According to HIS word it's how we get rid of our sins and the only way.

Do you really think that Paul would be just wasting his time baptizing people if it wasn't necessary???

Why does he explain in detail the purpose of baptism in Romans 6?

You really don't know why the thief didn't need to be baptized?

We need to rightly divide the word.

When the thief on the cross died, he died OT laws. Where people had to take a sacrifice to the high priests ones a year to have their sins forgiven GOD RULES.

JESUS is our high priest and he became our sacrifice our lamb.
When JESUS was on this earth and forgave sins as he wished like the thief.

JESUS preach app 3 years, died on the cross, buried and rose again. Then he ascended to Heaven to put his blood on the mercy seat.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

He then returned to earth and was here app 40 days and ascended again commanding his disciples to wait because they will be filled with the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:3-4

He ascended the second time and this was the first message of how to be reborn.
Acts 2:38-39
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.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Since then until he returns again, we live in NT laws and how to be saved we need to repent, get baptized in JESUS name to get rid of our sins and receive the Holy Ghost like JESUS gave his disciples in Acts 2:4.

Well, WB is commonly practiced in the churches I have attended for 75 years, but I guess not where you go.
Paul did not spend much time WBing converts, presumably because he thought it was not essential.
In Romans 6 Paul explained how WB portrays the atonement of Christ, which IS essential.
The thief didn't need to be WB just like it is not essential for any believer.
Scripture does not teach that Christ ascended to heaven twice, but only that He will descent twice of come again.
Until He returns, we need to repent/be SB, also be WB if we desire to profess faith thusly, then strive for moral maturity.
 
Close, but per Paul in the epistles those who believed in Jesus as Lord (also per Acts 16:31) received the HS/had their sins remitted and then were WB instead of PC (physically circumcised) as the NT way of signifying such dynamic--so no cigar.

I already acknowledged what happened in Acts and explained how it can be understood in a way that jibes with the later epistles. Remember that Peter was checked by Jesus (in MT 16) and by Paul (in Acts 15) and checked himself in his epistles (by NOT saying WB is required/essential for salvation), and Romans 6:3-6 does not say WB is r/e either--which it would if it were.
Your statement that the jailer and his family received the Holy Ghost and had their sins remitted prior to being water baptized is not consistent with the account. The scripture actually reveals the jailer and his family heard the word of Lord, submitted to water baptism. And rejoiced believing in God. And as scripture says, faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Also, relevant, it's by God's design that remission of sin occurs upon obedience to His command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I've mentioned many times, Paul was still water baptizing in the name of Jesus over 20+ years after the command was first introduced by Peter at Pentecost.

As to Paul's baptism explanation in Romans 6, it does indeed reveal water baptism is essential:
Verse 4 reveals we are buried with Jesus into his death.
Verse 5 makes it a condition, FOR IF we have been planted together in the likeness of His death...
Verse 6 indicates through baptism the body of sin is destroyed, meaning sins are remitted.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 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."

If you will recall Jesus said it is those who hunger and thirst after righteousness who will be filled...
 
Well, WB is commonly practiced in the churches I have attended for 75 years, but I guess not where you go.
Paul did not spend much time WBing converts, presumably because he thought it was not essential.
In Romans 6 Paul explained how WB portrays the atonement of Christ, which IS essential.
The thief didn't need to be WB just like it is not essential for any believer.
Scripture does not teach that Christ ascended to heaven twice, but only that He will descent twice of come again.
Until He returns, we need to repent/be SB, also be WB if we desire to profess faith thusly, then strive for moral maturity.
Being water baptized today is JESUS name to get rid of our sins as HIS word says it is not common practice.

Today being baptized for show in JESUS tiltles is.

Paul is explaining WHAT WE HAVE TO DO BECAUSE of what HE DID.

Yea, I just explained why the thief didn't need to be baptized! HE DIED OT LAWS, HE DIED OT LAWS, JESUS FORGAVE HIM OF HIS SINS.

If you see JESUS hear on earth, he could do the same for you.

Just believing is NOT ENOUGH HOW DO YOU GET RID OF YOUR SINS?
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

ARE DEVILS HEAVEN BOUND?


The first time.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The second time.

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

"Until He returns, we need to repent/be SB, also be WB if we desire to profess faith thusly, then strive for moral maturity."

BACK THAT UP WITH HIS WORD OR IT'S A LIE FROM SATAN!!!!

Not necessary about repent, or being filled with the Holy Ghost with evidence of speaking in tongues I know that is scripture. The rest of it.
 
Your statement that the jailer and his family received the Holy Ghost and had their sins remitted prior to being water baptized is not consistent with the account. The scripture actually reveals the jailer and his family heard the word of Lord, submitted to water baptism. And rejoiced believing in God. And as scripture says, faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Also, relevant, it's by God's design that remission of sin occurs upon obedience to His command to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

As I've mentioned many times, Paul was still water baptizing in the name of Jesus over 20+ years after the command was first introduced by Peter at Pentecost.

As to Paul's baptism explanation in Romans 6, it does indeed reveal water baptism is essential:
Verse 4 reveals we are buried with Jesus into his death.
Verse 5 makes it a condition, FOR IF we have been planted together in the likeness of His death...
Verse 6 indicates through baptism the body of sin is destroyed, meaning sins are remitted.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 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."

If you will recall Jesus said it is those who hunger and thirst after righteousness who will be filled...

I guess I will reply one more time in an attempt to escape the circular mode and move the discussion forward.
Again, the word the jailer heard, believed and caused him to be saved is stated in Acts 16:31: Believe in Jesus as Lord.
Afterward, whether a few minutes, hours or days, receiving WB was nice but not salvific, or else Paul would have said
WB is essential in more places than one debatable passage in Romans 6. 20+ years after Pentecost neither Paul nor Peter
were preaching the necessity of WB.

Next topic?
 
I disagree with your belief that being filled is not the same as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God reveals that the initial infilling is when Holy Ghost comes to dwell in a person. All detailed conversion accounts reveal this to be true. 100% were indwelt/filled with the Holy Ghost in a single experience, one that was evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Your prerogative. I disagree. Peter was "filled" on at least three separate occasions, so its occurrence was situation oriented, not once for all. Not everyone indwelt from spiritual rebirth is also filled.
On the other hand, to be born-again (and indwelt with the Holy Spirit) does occur only once and accompanies salvation.
Anyway, that was an aside to my post, and a topic that I'm not really interested in getting bogged down in again now. The whole baptism debate is one I've observed and participated in many times over the years, and one that usually accomplishes little but to waste time and effort, achieving no clear consensus. The primary point of my post and my interest was in Christ alone as Savior, not man.

[Act 2:4 KJV] 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[Act 4:8 KJV] 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
[Act 4:31 KJV] 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
 
I guess I will reply one more time in an attempt to escape the circular mode and move the discussion forward.
Again, the word the jailer heard, believed and caused him to be saved is stated in Acts 16:31: Believe in Jesus as Lord.
Afterward, whether a few minutes, hours or days, receiving WB was nice but not salvific, or else Paul would have said
WB is essential in more places than one debatable passage in Romans 6. 20+ years after Pentecost neither Paul nor Peter
were preaching the necessity of WB.
Next topic?
What you say is not true. You stated that the jailer and his family received the Holy Ghost and had their sins remitted prior to being water baptized yet the account does not reflect that.

Also, the gospel message as recorded in Acts 2 was still being preached 20+ years after Pentecost. The account in Acts 19 reveals Paul rebaptized 12 men in the name of Jesus. Afterward, he assisted them to receive the Holy Ghost. The experience was evidenced by their speaking in tongues.

The Apostle Paul knew the NT water baptism was essential. He was instructed by Ananias to be baptized in order to wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)
 
What you say is not true. You stated that the jailer and his family received the Holy Ghost and had their sins remitted prior to being water baptized yet the account does not reflect that.

Also, the gospel message as recorded in Acts 2 was still being preached 20+ years after Pentecost. The account in Acts 19 reveals Paul rebaptized 12 men in the name of Jesus. Afterward, he assisted them to receive the Holy Ghost. The experience was evidenced by their speaking in tongues.

The Apostle Paul knew the NT water baptism was essential. He was instructed by Ananias to be baptized in order to wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord. (Acts 22:16)

We are caught in the same loop as occurred with Ouch on the TOP thread, so I will say the same thing:

Quibbling over which is normative, the historical Acts account or the doctrinal epistles teaching
(regarding the necessity of WB), is getting boring, and I have been both WB and SB, so no worries
there per both Acts and the epistles. You can believe you need to wash off your sins--every day if you want,
as long as you don't think it earns forgiveness.

Perhaps we will find a new to topic to disagree about another day. Happy trails for now!
LIC, Groovy :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
Your prerogative. I disagree. Peter was "filled" on at least three separate occasions, so its occurrence was situation oriented, not once for all. Not everyone indwelt from spiritual rebirth is also filled.
On the other hand, to be born-again (and indwelt with the Holy Spirit) does occur only once and accompanies salvation.
Anyway, that was an aside to my post, and a topic that I'm not really interested in getting bogged down in again now. The whole baptism debate is one I've observed and participated in many times over the years, and one that usually accomplishes little but to waste time and effort, achieving no clear consensus. The primary point of my post and my interest was in Christ alone as Savior, not man.

[Act 2:4 KJV] 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[Act 4:8 KJV] 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
[Act 4:31 KJV] 31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
Being filled with the Holy Ghost is an essential element of the NT rebirth.

Please take note to the following:
Acts 4:8 expresses Peter was filled with the Holy Ghost. This scripture doesn't indicate another filling took place, just that Peter was an individual who was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:29-Notice Peter 's prayer concerned other servants. His prayer was answered in verse 31. They, the other servants, were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It is the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost that makes healing, signs and wonders in the name of Jesus possible. Peter was not praying for himself, he was already doing this; he was already a born again believer. (Acts 3:6..., 4:7)

"And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness."
 
My understanding is that WB came to be practiced during the intertestamental period and yes the first NT church was in Jerusalem. I have already explained why one should not base normative Christian doctrine or practices upon historical Acts but rather on didactic passages in the gospels and epistles.

TBC
The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles are all in harmony:

The Gospels record the commandments of Jesus, and Acts is the interpretation and demonstration of those commands.

In order to understand what Jesus meant by preaching the gospel, teaching repentance and remission of sins in His Name requires study of the sermons and preaching recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

The commandments of the Great Commission were given by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:4) And the commission remains unchanged. The means of fulfilling it and obeying it is the same. The interpretation, as seen in the Acts and the Epistles is the same.

Unbelieving believers may argue over speaking in tongues, healing, casting out of devils, as "not for today," or "this does mean that." And others may argue over the purpose of water baptism and/or baptismal formulas and words, but the ACTS of the Apostles stands in its own Divine light as the answer to what Jesus meant in the commands of the Great Commission as given in the Gospels." (excerpts from "The Book of Acts" Kevin J. Conner)
 
The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles are all in harmony:

The Gospels record the commandments of Jesus, and Acts is the interpretation and demonstration of those commands.

In order to understand what Jesus meant by preaching the gospel, teaching repentance and remission of sins in His Name requires study of the sermons and preaching recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

The commandments of the Great Commission were given by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:4) And the commission remains unchanged. The means of fulfilling it and obeying it is the same. The interpretation, as seen in the Acts and the Epistles is the same.

Unbelieving believers may argue over speaking in tongues, healing, casting out of devils, as "not for today," or "this does mean that." And others may argue over the purpose of water baptism and/or baptismal formulas and words, but the ACTS of the Apostles stands in its own Divine light as the answer to what Jesus meant in the commands of the Great Commission as given in the Gospels." (excerpts from "The Book of Acts" Kevin J. Conner)

Re "The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles are all in harmony": At least we agree on that.
Too bad we differ regarding how to harmonize them. but at least our disagreement was amicable.

Too bad the NT did not head off future disagreements such as ours by making the correct doctrine clear
via saying several places in the epistles, for example in Eph. 2:8: "We are saved by faith and WB",
or somewhere in Acts: "WB and tongues were practiced for a while after Pentecost, but they are not necessary".
HAND
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
Re "The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles are all in harmony": At least we agree on that.
Too bad we differ regarding how to harmonize them. but at least our disagreement was amicable.

Too bad the NT did not head off future disagreements such as ours by making the correct doctrine clear
via saying several places in the epistles, for example in Eph. 2:8: "We are saved by faith and WB",
or somewhere in Acts: "WB and tongues were practiced for a while after Pentecost, but they are not necessary".
HAND
Actually Ephesians 2:8 reveals we are saved through faith. I'm sure you would agree by and through differ in meaning. Thanks for the discussion.