Baptism

...
The text in Acts 15 you quote is referring to The account in Acts 10. In Acts 11, Peter explains why they baptized the Gentiles. He makes it clear that they were unwilling to baptize them until they saw the miraculous sign of the Spirit falling on them which convinced they they should not “withhold” baptism. So, this was the first time Gentiles were being welcomed into the church and God gave them the sign of the miraculous gift of the Spirit because the Jewish believers were unwilling to baptize them.
....

...The text in Acts 15 you quote is referring to The account in Acts 10. In Acts 11,.

I never said it was offensive to God to repent. The opposite is true. But receiving in no way means something is done on our part. When the Holy Spirit indwells an individual, they receive the Spirit. But they do nothing in receiving Him. It only means something was done in the individual. You see an example of this in Acts 2:37...when they heard this...the mind...they were pricked in their hearts...the heart...what shall we do...the will.
By the time you get to verse 38, God had already given hearing and circumcised the heart, which affected the wills of these individuals. That's why they responded as they did...repented and were baptized.
Verse 37 is the work of God that leads to verse 38, the response or work of man.

Try to get one baptism

It is the main one-into Christ's Body

Your statement that Peter made it clear in Acts 11 that he and the others were unwilling to baptize the Gentiles until they saw God give them the Holy Ghost is not accurate.

There is nothing in the account that suggests that Peter and those with him had decided against water baptism and then changed their mind when they saw God give the Gentiles the Holy Ghost. However, what is true, is the experience they witnessed made them realize that God expected them to give the command to be water baptized. The individuals obeyed and, as such, were granted repentance unto life upon being baptized in water in the name of Jesus. (Both receiving the Holy Ghost and obedience to the water baptism command are essential for those who believe in Jesus to experience being reborn)

Acts 10:46–48 (ESV): For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Acts 11:9 (ESV): 9 But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’

Acts 11:17 (ESV): 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Well, there are two ways to look at that. If you are talking about prevenient grace in the sense that the Spirit works on the heart to enable the believer to respond, I suppose that would be true. This is still (from the Armenian perspective) different that salvation and the indwelling Spirit. The Spirit can move on a person‘s heart so they are able to respond to the Gospel and yet it is still incumbent upon them to accept Christ as their Lord. In which case, baptism is part of the response. And, IMO, the Spirit is yet to “dwell” in them until they repent and are baptized. This still isn’t a “work” since the act of baptism isn’t an effort to “earn” anything.

However, if you are a Calvinist and see it such that God predetermines the elect and only moves upon those He will ultimately save, then I suppose from that perspective, the person does absolutely nothing (since they CANT do anything). But that isnt really the point I am trying to make.

Baptism is not a ”work.” Even if you are a Calvinist, how could you consider a command Christ gave to his disciples to be “works” and contrary to grace? If baptism does absolutely nothing, and everything is already done at the moment of God’s sovereign election, why all the Scriptures discussing baptism as dying with Christ, being washed, being raised or receiving the Spirit (Acts 2:28)? If God had already “quickened” them by evidence of their being “cut to the heart” why would Peter say they would receive forgivness and Holy Spirit on account of their baptism? Wouldnt they already have been forgiven and received the Spirit if the moment of their being “cut to the heart” was evidence that they had been elected?

Going back to the present illustration, opening a gift is not a work. Suggesting that any response at all to the Gospel is considered a “work” if the person had not already been chosen and elect is contrary to everything Scripture teaches on the topic of conversion imo.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I'd rather not characterize views as falling in some ideological camp or other, but merely discuss ideas if you are so inclined.
As to works, anything we do is a work. Obeying any commandment is an act of the will which constitutes a subsequent action on our part. This is not surprising because we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works. So Obeying a commandment does not negate grace, but is a testimony to it. And the grace that births our faith will most certainly have attending works. But by works of the law no flesh is ever justified.
As far as a gift, it certainly can be as you suppose. But receiving in this way is better suited to sanctification wherein we work out our salvation in lieu of the work God is doing in us...Philippians 2:12-13. There is another receiving that is passive. For instance, suppose someone deposited money into your bank account. In this case, you have received a gift without needing to do anything.
This is what I believe happens in Acts 2:37. The Holy Spirit has been placed in our bank account.
I am curious...in Ephesians 2 it says we are dead in our trespasses and sins and are quickened. How do you understand the dead estate and what occurs in quickening?

Hey Cameron,

I apologize if it came across wrong. I was just trying to respond to different ways people view prevenient grace (grace that goes before) as it relates to someone being “cut to the heart.” Some view it as evidence of God’s predetermined election and some see it as a grace provided to all who hear the Gospel, yet that moving of the Spirit can be resisted and/or rejected. I wasn’t trying to label you but just trying to provide a response to the different ways people understand the Spirit’s moving in these instances.

First, let me address the concept of “works” as it relates to salvation and sanctification. When the Bible speaks of “works” as a means of obtaining salvation, it is generally addressing those who believe they can be righteous in God’s eyes as a result of their merit. For the Jews, this generally involved covenant obedience (circumcision, diet, obedience to commands, participating in feasts, Temple sacrifices and so forth). I think we both agree that no amount of good deeds or adherence to the Old Covenant is sufficient to merit righteousness. Those who were declared righteous by God were declared righteous by virtue of their faith, not their flawless obedience to the covenant. Of course, part of the expression of their faith was adhering to the covenant, but Romans 2-4 that even the most diligent in regards to the covenant were still under sin and in need of God’s forgiveness.

So I think the above is I am sure where we agree. I would argue that no where does Paul or the other NT writers indicate that Christian baptism, prayer, believing, confessing sins and so forth would fall in the category of “works.” In fact, the whole picture of baptism is that of being “buried with Christ” and “raised with Christ.” Thus, the person is not doing something to earn God’s favor but embracing and participating in God’s work through Christ. As Martin Luther put it in his argument with Zwingli on this very topic, “If baptism is a work, it is God’s work.”

On the topic of sanctification, while this may be considered “work” or “good works” we are saved to do, I think it is wrong to classify these “works” as similar to “works based righteousness.” For me, not only is the focus that the Spirit is empowering the believer to do good works, but even more than that, these acts are not the believer’s effort to merit righteousness. That is the most important difference. I think the most crucial thing to understand is that we are dealing with two entirely different covenants. In the first covenant, the law was the standard for what righteousness and holiness looked like. It was crucial for Jews to adhere to circumcision, dietary laws and other elements laid out in their contract with God. Romans 7 makes it clear that the law was good and God upheld his end of the contract. The problem was the people were not good (no one is) and could not uphold their end of the contract. The reason Paul gets so upset in with the Galatians is they were trying to blend the two contracts together as if they needed Jesus and the requirements of the previous deal with God.

The New Covenant is a different contract all together. It is based on grace. When one enters that contract, the agreement apart from law. The believer‘s agreement it to put their faith in Jesus, trust in his work to provide righteousness, and make him Lord of their lives. God’s agreement is to save them, adopt them and raise them on the last day to be their God forever and ever. So, there is no such thing as “works” from the first covenant perspective, in the second covenant. It is all based on grace. The question we are debating (at least as I see it) is: “How does one enter the New Covenant.” According to my understanding of the texts we have been discussing (Acts 2:38-42; Romans 6:1-6; etc), repentance and confession are the ways in which a believer enters the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, someone entered that agreement with God through circumcision and adherence to the Law. But because the New Covenant has NOTHING to do with works-based righteousness in its framework, the entire notion of a Christian “working” to enter the covenant or maintain the covenant is a misunderstanding of the covenant parameters. Jesus said to make disciples (adherents to the new covenant) by teaching and baptizing them. Learning the words of Jesus or being baptized in his name is how people enter the new contract of grace and is by no means an effort to earn righteousness because the New Covenant has nothing to do with earning righteousness. I am arguing that those who say that baptism does nothing and one does not need to respond in any way (lest they try to earn righteousness) are misunderstanding the teaching of the NT on this topic. Repentance, confessing sins and baptism are a means of entering the New Covenant (according to my reading of these Scriptures) and are CERTAINLY not an effort to supplant that covenant with the Old Covenant works-based efforts at righteousness.

Sorry this is so long. I will respond to the final part about “dead in sins” in a second. Gotta eat. Thanks for reading all this. I need to work on being more concise!

Well, I supposed they could've immersed the young children, but probably not the best idea.

Do I believe one should be baptized? Yes, of course. As you have said, it is a public proclamation
of one's identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. And I believe there
is grace communicated to the individual who obeys the command. But like circumcision,
it remains an outward sign of an inward reality that is its evidence and not its cause.

Also, immersed strawberries taste immersier.

Okay, well I am still waiting for an alternate definition of the word.

Not sure what you mean by “Theology by word definition.” If we can’t develop our doctrine by the meaning of the words used in Scripture, how else do you propose we develop it? The whole point of studying Scripture is to understand what the Bible teaches, and one of the ways we do that is by understanding what the words mean. Should we just ignore word meanings in favor of personal preferences? This is Bible study 101. Understand the meanings of the words, how they relate to the sentences, how the sentences relate to the paragraphs and how the paragraphs relate to the context of the books. Seems like a bad idea to suggest the meaning of the words are irrelevant to the intent of the author. One can make the text mean whatever they want if the words used by the author are irrelevant to the interpretation derived by the reader.

Ephesians 4:5-6
:

Water?

Who put your spirit in Christ?

No.


He did.

Thanks for your reply. However, I dont think these verses contradict New Testament passages which tie baptism to the regenerating work of the Spirit, viz., John 3:5; Romans 6:3ff; Colossians 2:12; and Titus 3:5.

I have already written on Acts 10, but suffice it to say, the context in chapter 11 makes it clear that Peter was unwilling to baptize Cornelius until he saw the miraculous falling of the Spirit on his listeners. This supernatural act affirmed to Peter (along with his vision) that he should not withhold baptism.

Also, I think it is clear that Acts distinguishes the gift of the indwelling Spirit that happens at baptism and supernatural gifts given by the Spirit that results in manifestations such as tongues and gifts of healing, etc when the Spirit “fell” on hearers. I think this is evident in Acts 8:18-19 when it says, 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” Clearly Simon saw miraculous powers at work and wanted to purchase that ability. This is very different than the normal giving of the Spirit at the moment of salvation. Pentecost is compared to these verses you are quoting as “proof.” Consider the following below…



So, as you can see, the verses you are citing as “proof” that the Spirit comes independently from baptism not only are contrary to what Scripture teaches, but each of these instances indicate a supernatural encounter where people are given “gifts” such as tongues and prophecy. This is what Simon wanted to buy and Peter even indicates that this is a unique type of event because he compares the falling of the Spirit in Acts 10 to what happened to them at Pentecost in Acts 2. If this was “normative” why would it stand out to Peter as a unique and unusual event?

I think we should be cautious indicating the Scripture is contradicting clear teaching it provides in numerous locations when there is a very simple explaination that indicates both the Spirit indwells the believer at baptism, yet the Apostles had the unique ability to grant supernatural gifts of the Spirit by the laying on of their hands due to their unique gifts received at Pentecost.

Baptism one that which saving

Saving baptism which put you in Christ

Which one?

By hands of human hands in water?

Who put your spirit in Christ?

Water?

Thanks for your reply. However, I dont think these verses contradict New Testament passages which tie baptism to the regenerating work of the Spirit, viz., John 3:5; Romans 6:3ff; Colossians 2:12; and Titus 3:5.
...

Then there was another loud shout,

Well imagine so

And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins