FOUNDATION, the 12 apostles or Pauls?

[sawdust]

No you didn't, why do you try to keep talking using your own opinion it's not story time??

You have in your mind that sins are remitted with we are BAPTIZED (filled who cares) with the Holy Ghost PROVE IT.

Let me help you, Peter and JESUS said this is what happens.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

So PROVE them to be wrong and your right.

So he baptized them for NO REASON at all, a commandment.

Like I said story time.

What is the root of your problem with not accepting HIS word?

Baptism in water remittes our sins, baptized in the Holy Ghost is JESUS filling us with HIS SPIRIT.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

John 3:5
King James Version
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be (1. born of water) (((and))) (2. of the Spirit), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and (1. be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins), (((and)) (2. 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.

DO YOU NOTICE, THE WORD "AND" TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

1. Keep it simple PROVE to me where are sins are remitted when we are BAPTIZED with the Holy Ghost.

2. We know that Peter did in fact baptism them and there, WHY???? Was it for show?

Same questions.

I quote scriptures and explain how they fit together and you call it story time and opinion but you quote scripture and insinuate it's meaning but that's the word of God. You gave your opinion when claiming baptism in water remits sin and baptism in the Spirit is simply being filled with the Spirit. You ignore that water for remission of sins was John's baptism and was for Israel, not the Church. Jesus made it very clear before He left that was to change. Acts 1:5

What is the root of your problem with not accepting HIS word?

Learning to differentiate between the filling of the Spirit and being baptized in the Spirit is crucial in understanding, yet your attitude is "who cares". Well the Lord God cares because He knows without correct understanding people will be deceived.

We are in a new covenant, not the one that applied to Israel and we are baptized into Christ, into His name, by means of the Spirit. Israel was baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and the sea. 1Cor.10:2

It is no longer water that remits our sins but the death of Christ. Are you truly willing to say the blood of Christ is insufficient that you must add water to see your sins pardoned?

Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:22
And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

We are baptized into Christ (not the Spirit) which is why the scriptures can say AND receive the Holy Spirit. Two different things where one (baptism) effects the other (in Christ). We are indwelt bodily, filled, given a spiritual gift and sealed. All works of the Spirit at baptism which is what places us in Christ. 1Cor.6:9 Eph.5:18 1Cor.12:7 Eph.1:13

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.


It is being baptized into Christ that remits our sins today by His blood, water does nothing. Acts 2:38

Christ said it is with the Spirit we are to be baptized, not water. Acts 1:5

If you cannot add two and two and see that being baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ is what pardons our sins today? I cannot help you anymore.

grace and peace.

 

[sawdust]

You said, and I quote: "The command is indeed to be baptized into the name of Jesus for it His death and resurrection that pardons our sin and gives us life but there is no mention of water."

Notice the Word of God is specific, it reveals baptism in the name of the Lord is water baptism.
"Can any man forbid WATER that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. ..." Acts 10:47-48


Also, I am not reading anything into the scripture, rather I am accepting what it reveals. In Acts 11;1-18, Peter stated who was I to withstand God AFTER seeing Him fill the Gentiles with the Holy Ghost? Peter is commenting on what occurred in Acts 10:43-48. What did Peter do AFTER he witnessed God fill the people? Peter commanded that they be baptized in water in the name of the Lord. Had Peter refused to water baptize the Gentiles he would have been going against the wishes of God.

The account, as well as others, reveals:

1. Being filled with the Holy Ghost did not replace water baptism. Both are essential elements of salvation. (Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
2. Baptism in the name of Jesus/Lord/Jesus Christ is a reference to water baptism. (Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
3. Baptism in the name of Jesus is a New Covenant/Testament command. (Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
4. Baptism in the name of Jesus remits sin. (Acts 22:16, 2:38, Luke 24:47)

Peter thought at the time (Acts 10) that water baptism was what was required as that is what they had been doing through Christ's ministry on Earth.

Jn.4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

But before Christ ascended, He told the disciples it was to change. John's baptism with water was to be replaced with His baptism with the Spirit.

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

When Peter saw Cornelius etc baptized with the Spirit just as they had, he simply followed his usual course and baptized them with water but it was later, when recounting the incident, that he finally remembered what the Lord told him about baptism.

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’


Yes, baptism is necessary to salvation. You keep assuming when you see "baptize in the name of Christ" that it means getting dunked in water whereas it means to be placed in Christ which happens when we are baptized with the Spirit as that is Christ's baptism.

John's baptism is long gone.

 

[Inquisitor]

This process is the starting point for us to start walking in newness of life, having a clean conscience toward God which is what actually saves us.

Not sure I understood what you were saying in that sentence above?

 

[Ouch]

What I am or am not is irrelevant I can read with comprehension and I'm still waiting for one of you to show evidence your understanding not scripture is authoritative. Because you think so doesn't cut it.

My only goal was to show you how to be reborn.

If you follow Peter, follow him he knows the way.

I will always pray for JESUS to open eyes so they can see.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[Ouch]

I read it differently to you.

I view John the Baptist as the last prophet from the older covenant era.

The old covenant era was the law and prophets (including John).

John preceded the messiah therefore John was not a new covenant participant.

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance and that's all it was.

John was sent to straighten the path of the Lord.

Water baptism is an external ritual.

John was preparing Israel for the arrival of the messiah and the baptism of the Holy Spirit
and fire.

That is the spiritual baptism and an internal statement by Jesus of your citizenship in heaven.

The ONLY human born with the Holy Ghost and you don't think what he was doing had any inportance to us?

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

As you can see he was in fact preaching remission of sins.

His mission was just for JESUS to set HIS path stright, YET JESUS was sin free.

Do you think we are to follow JESUS in every way EXCEPT IN THE WATER???

Make since you said this,

"Water baptism is an external ritual."

Since the only way to get rid of our sins is being baptized in JESUS name why do you say.

You say that as it's true, BUT CAN'T back it up with HIS word so it's STORY TIME.

So show me in HIS word where it's a ritual.

How do you think we get rid of our sins if it's not the way JESUS laid in out in the water?

Looks like you point out the catholics errors and don't know your own!!

 

[Ouch]

Peter thought at the time (Acts 10) that water baptism was what was required as that is what they had been doing through Christ's ministry on Earth.

Jn.4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

But before Christ ascended, He told the disciples it was to change. John's baptism with water was to be replaced with His baptism with the Spirit.

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

When Peter saw Cornelius etc baptized with the Spirit just as they had, he simply followed his usual course and baptized them with water but it was later, when recounting the incident, that he finally remembered what the Lord told him about baptism.

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’


Yes, baptism is necessary to salvation. You keep assuming when you see "baptize in the name of Christ" that it means getting dunked in water whereas it means to be placed in Christ which happens when we are baptized with the Spirit as that is Christ's baptism.

John's baptism is long gone.

It's hard to fight against JESUS and HIS word making up stories because you will not follow HIS word.

So I understand you correctly, you said,

When Peter saw Cornelius etc baptized with the Spirit just as they had, he simply followed his usual course and baptized them with water but it was later, when recounting the incident, that he finally remembered what the Lord told him about baptism.

At the same time JESUS FILLED the Gentiles with the Holy Ghost PETER COMMANDED them to be baptized right.

Then days maybe weeks later when he was speaking to fellow Jews explaining to them why he went to the dirty dog Gentiles who they were not allow to speak with he remember he was supposed to baptism them???

If he forgot why did he baptize them?

If he did in fact forget, when he remember then did he go back to finish his job?

No Peter KNEW what he must do, I will bet he was in shock when JESUS FILLED THEM with the Holy Ghost like JESUS filled them in Acts 2:4, that was the only surprise going on.

Satan's plan keep them out of the water, if they get in the water keep JESUS name out of it.

Looks to me like you think when JESUS fills someone with the Holy Ghost they are saved why I have NO IDEA.

Since you can't see (John 3:3) I will make a bet JESUS has never filled you, has HE?

If you say yes, how do you know?

 

[sawdust]

It's hard to fight against JESUS and HIS word making up stories because you will not follow HIS word.

So I understand you correctly, you said,

When Peter saw Cornelius etc baptized with the Spirit just as they had, he simply followed his usual course and baptized them with water but it was later, when recounting the incident, that he finally remembered what the Lord told him about baptism.

At the same time JESUS FILLED the Gentiles with the Holy Ghost PETER COMMANDED them to be baptized right.

Then days maybe weeks later when he was speaking to fellow Jews explaining to them why he went to the dirty dog Gentiles who they were not allow to speak with he remember he was supposed to baptism them???

If he forgot why did he baptize them?

If he did in fact forget, when he remember then did he go back to finish his job?

No Peter KNEW what he must do, I will bet he was in shock when JESUS FILLED THEM with the Holy Ghost like JESUS filled them in Acts 2:4, that was the only surprise going on.

Satan's plan keep them out of the water, if they get in the water keep JESUS name out of it.

Looks to me like you think when JESUS fills someone with the Holy Ghost they are saved why I have NO IDEA.

Since you can't see (John 3:3) I will make a bet JESUS has never filled you, has HE?

If you say yes, how do you know?

Why would he go back to do something he should never have done in the first place?

There is only one baptism for the Church and that is the baptism of the Spirit. Cornelius and his household received that promise before Peter finished speaking. There was no need for a second remission of sins or another spiritual birth (water baptism). Cornelius and company received all they needed with the baptism of the Spirit.

Actually it's Satan's plan to keep you in the water because there you are fixated on a ritual rather than the reality of becoming a new creature in Christ which is what the Holy Spirit does when He baptizes us. I also just remembered the other thing the Spirit does when He baptizes us and that is regenerates us. Jn.3:6

Why you think the Lord God would fill anyone who is not saved baffles me. What has light to do with darkness?

The context of John 3:3 is comparing physical and spiritual birth, it is not speaking of two spiritual births. One only needs to be born spiritually once, just as one is only born physically once.

It looks to me you think that water is more powerful than the Holy Spirit and that the blood of Christ is not enough to pardon your sin. I will pray for your enlightenment.

grace and peace.

ps. I see little point in sharing my conversion experience with you as you believe I am in error and therefore are not likely to believe me anyway.

 

[Ouch]

Why would he go back to do something he should never have done in the first place?

There is only one baptism for the Church and that is the baptism of the Spirit. Cornelius and his household received that promise before Peter finished speaking. There was no need for a second remission of sins or another spiritual birth (water baptism). Cornelius and company received all they needed with the baptism of the Spirit.

Actually it's Satan's plan to keep you in the water because there you are fixated on a ritual rather than the reality of becoming a new creature in Christ which is what the Holy Spirit does when He baptizes us. I also just remembered the other thing the Spirit does when He baptizes us and that is regenerates us. Jn.3:6

Why you think the Lord God would fill anyone who is not saved baffles me. What has light to do with darkness?

The context of John 3:3 is comparing physical and spiritual birth, it is not speaking of two spiritual births. One only needs to be born spiritually once, just as one is only born physically once.

It looks to me you think that water is more powerful than the Holy Spirit and that the blood of Christ is not enough to pardon your sin. I will pray for your enlightenment.

grace and peace.

ps. I see little point in sharing my conversion experience with you as you believe I am in error and therefore are not likely to believe me anyway.

How does HIS word tell us how we get rid of our sins?

Or don't we have to?

Don't feel bad, I don't believe any man unless it lines up with HIS word.

To ever think that we don't need to get rid of our sins is Satan finest work.

 

[Ouch]

Why would he go back to do something he should never have done in the first place?

There is only one baptism for the Church and that is the baptism of the Spirit. Cornelius and his household received that promise before Peter finished speaking. There was no need for a second remission of sins or another spiritual birth (water baptism). Cornelius and company received all they needed with the baptism of the Spirit.

Actually it's Satan's plan to keep you in the water because there you are fixated on a ritual rather than the reality of becoming a new creature in Christ which is what the Holy Spirit does when He baptizes us. I also just remembered the other thing the Spirit does when He baptizes us and that is regenerates us. Jn.3:6

Why you think the Lord God would fill anyone who is not saved baffles me. What has light to do with darkness?

The context of John 3:3 is comparing physical and spiritual birth, it is not speaking of two spiritual births. One only needs to be born spiritually once, just as one is only born physically once.

It looks to me you think that water is more powerful than the Holy Spirit and that the blood of Christ is not enough to pardon your sin. I will pray for your enlightenment.

grace and peace.

ps. I see little point in sharing my conversion experience with you as you believe I am in error and therefore are not likely to believe me anyway.

Why do you only use Acts 10 and put JESUS in a box?

Why not in Acts 8 where the semiratios were grafted in?

Why not Act 19 where the ephens were grafted in?

Peter says what happens when we are filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

JESUS says they shall speak with new tongues,

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

IF YOU DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME TO GET RID OF OUR SINS AND THE ONLY THING WE NEED IS TO BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST.

HAS JESUS FILLED YOU with the HOLY GHOST like HE filled the Gentles???

BEFORE BAPTISM?

Just like HE filled he 120?

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

 

[Dino246]

What they deny: Eat my flesh drink my blood.

Protestants don't deny that Jesus said this. We reject the Catholic corruption of it.

He established HIS church on the rock of Peter.

That's not what Scripture says... and you are well aware of this.

The apostles are authorized to forgive sins.

Again, no issue with what Scripture says, just with the Catholic corruption of it.

What they believe thats not in the Bible: sola file, sola scriptura.

The word "trinity" is not in Scripture either. The terms are summary statements of well-developed beliefs that are based in Scripture.

 

[Nedsk]

Protestants don't deny that Jesus said this. We reject the Catholic corruption of it.


That's not what Scripture says... and you are well aware of this.


Again, no issue with what Scripture says, just with the Catholic corruption of it.


The word "trinity" is not in Scripture either. The terms are summary statements of well-developed beliefs that are based in Scripture.

You ignore it's clear meaning.

Thats EXACTLY what Scripture says.

Since you haven't shown any evidence that your understanding of Scripture is the authoritative understanding I'll give your opinion it's proper consideration.

But you ignore eat my flesh and drink my blood. Yours is perversion of Scripture

 

[Dino246]

You ignore it's clear meaning.

Which part?

Thats EXACTLY what Scripture says.

Which part?

Since you haven't shown any evidence that your understanding of Scripture is the authoritative understanding I'll give your opinion it's proper consideration.

Why would I when I simply tell you what you already know but intentionally reject?

But you ignore eat my flesh and drink my blood. Yours is perversion of Scripture

What did Jesus literally drink? Wine. What did Jesus literally eat? Bread.

What do Protestants literally drink and eat? Wine and bread.

What do Catholics do? Play make-believe and make up a fancy word for it. The “perversion” is all on your end.

 

[Nedsk]

Which part?


Which part?


Why would I when I simply tell you what you already know but intentionally reject?


What did Jesus literally drink? Wine. What did Jesus literally eat? Bread.

What do Protestants literally drink and eat? Wine and bread.

What do Catholics do? Play make-believe and make up a fancy word for it. The “perversion” is all on your end.

So you have no way to prove to your understanding of Scripture is the authoritative understanding. Correct? So since you can't do that explain why anything you say about Scripture should be taken seriously? This is what I love most about you people. You talk like you know what you're saying but you have no proof that what you're saying is accurate or authoritative yet that doesn't stop you.

 

[Dino246]

So you have no way to prove to your understanding of Scripture is the authoritative understanding. Correct? So since you can't do that explain why anything you say about Scripture should be taken seriously? This is what I love most about you people. You talk like you know what you're saying but you have no proof that what you're saying is accurate or authoritative yet that doesn't stop you.

Jackdonkey comments will get appropriate replies.

 

[Wansvic]

Peter thought at the time (Acts 10) that water baptism was what was required as that is what they had been doing through Christ's ministry on Earth.

Jn.4:1-2
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),

But before Christ ascended, He told the disciples it was to change. John's baptism with water was to be replaced with His baptism with the Spirit.

Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

When Peter saw Cornelius etc baptized with the Spirit just as they had, he simply followed his usual course and baptized them with water but it was later, when recounting the incident, that he finally remembered what the Lord told him about baptism.

Acts 11:16
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’


Yes, baptism is necessary to salvation. You keep assuming when you see "baptize in the name of Christ" that it means getting dunked in water whereas it means to be placed in Christ which happens when we are baptized with the Spirit as that is Christ's baptism.

John's baptism is long gone.

The idea Peter made a mistake is simply not true. The Apostle Paul's interaction with the Ephesians reveals baptism in the name of Jesus is water baptism, as receiving the Holy Ghost is recorded as a separate experience. (Acts 19:1-7) This occurred some 20+ years after Peter supposedly made the mistake of continuing to water baptize. Paul performed water baptism in the name of Jesus as revealed in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. That account mentions that Paul baptized Crispus. And that is recorded in Acts 18:8. We know the baptisms are in water as only God can baptize people with the Holy Ghost.

In addition, Acts 1:5 does not state one experience would replace the other. And scripture elsewhere proves that was not the case. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

In Acts 11:15-18, Peter is reiterating what occurred in Acts 10:43-48. He remembered Jesus comment just prior to giving the command to be water baptized.

As noted previously, it is through acceptance of what Peter's rhetorical question reveals that the truth becomes clear, "Who was I to withstand God?". Peter understood to withhold water baptism in the name of Jesus from the Gentiles would have barred them from acquiring what Jesus died to provide. (Acts 10:43-48, 11:15-18)

And yes, John's baptism is long gone. The NT water baptism requires calling upon the name of Jesus affirming one's belief in His sacrifice and resurrection. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16) Jesus prophesied this change would occur, "...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 24:47

 

[Nedsk]

Jackdonkey comments will get appropriate replies.

Can you prove your understanding of Scripture is authoritative or not? If not you have to explain why a gone should listen to you. If you're just giving us your opinion that's fine we will.scceotmit for what it is, opinion.

 

[mailmandan]

What did Jesus literally drink? Wine. What did Jesus literally eat? Bread.

What do Protestants literally drink and eat? Wine and bread.

What do Catholics do? Play make-believe and make up a fancy word for it. The “perversion” is all on your end.

In regard to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, Jesus explains the sense of the entire passage when He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) As Jesus was accustomed, He used figurative language to emphasize these spiritual truths.

Jesus is not speaking of cannibalism here, but believing in Christ, as He makes abundantly clear by repeating the same truths both in metaphoric and plain language.

Compare for example the following verses:

John 6:47 - Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

John 6:58 - He who eats this bread will live forever.

“He who believes” in Christ is equivalent to “he who eats this bread” and the result is the same, eternal life.

The parallel is also seen in verses 40 and 54:

John 6:40 - Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6 does not support the false Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is a statement on the primacy of faith as the means by which we receive the grace of God. Jesus is the Bread of Life; we eat of Him and are satisfied when we believe in Him unto salvation.

Bread represents the "staff of life." Sustenance. That which essential to sustain life. Just as bread or sustenance is necessary to maintain physical life, Jesus is all the sustenance necessary for spiritual life.

The source of physical life is blood -- "life is in the blood." As with the bread, just as blood is the empowering or source of life physically, Jesus is all the source of spiritual life necessary.

 

[Aaron56]

This is what I love most about you people.

 

[Nedsk]

I mean people I always run into at these rodeos who speak authoritatively about Scripture with no evidence, other than they believe it, that their understanding of Scripture is in fact authoritative.

 

[Dino246]

Can you prove your understanding of Scripture is authoritative or not? If not you have to explain why a gone should listen to you. If you're just giving us your opinion that's fine we will.scceotmit for what it is, opinion.

Instead of answering my questions and responding rationally to my comments, you have just thrown shade.

That’s what immature people do.