But you have no references in scripture that would indicate that could have occurred.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And you cannot mix doing something with works of law. After all, Jesus said believing in God is a work, but certainly not a work of law.
But you apparently don't believe what the bible says is the purpose of baptism.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Actually Yes I do
The baptism of the spirit saved me
The baptism in water is an outward testimony for those around me..
I think your the one who does not understand it?
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
a work is a work is a work
We work to earn a wage or reward. be it a work of the law or a work of righteousness..
Even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sin.
Mar 1:4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luk 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
In Christian baptism, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, such as Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 not only are sins forgiven but the indwelling Holy Spirit is given as a gift to the repentant believer. This of course is the explanation of what we read in Acts 19:1-5.
We do a lot of things that that we do that are not considered to be works of the law or for a wage, such as eating, drinking, sleeping, thinking, conversing with one another, hearing, confessing, loving, etc., etc., including being baptized.
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
it was because of remmision of sin, not in order to recieve it.
Thats why James called certain jews a brood of vipers.l and demanded they show proof of repentance before he would save them
BECAUSE OF
Acts 2: 38 is not for remission of sin. It is because they received remission of sin.
If water baptism is required. alot of people will go to hell. Including Abraham, Daniel, David and other OT prophets.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
I do not always do those things in order to recieve a wage or reward..
- Romans 4:4
Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
- Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
It can not be both, it can only be one or the other
Any credible Greek Scholar will tell you that you are wrong. It was not because of forgiveness of sin. It was unto the forgiveness of sin. i.e., in order to receive forgiveness of sin.
Jesus says that you are wrong.
John 6:28 Then they said to him, "What must WE do, to be doing the works of God?"
John 6:29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
In regard to John's baptism in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3, was this baptism of repentance for "in order to obtain" remission of sins or was it for "in regard to/on the basis of" the forgiveness of sins received upon repentance? *Be careful. John's baptism took place BEFORE Pentecost. I know about your thief on the cross being baptized under the OT mandate argument.
Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - I baptize you with water "for" repentance.. *Now was this baptism for "in order to obtain" repentance? OR was this baptism for "in regard to/on the basis of" repentance? Getting water baptized in order to obtain repentance makes no sense at all. Repentance precedes water baptism.
In regard to Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 see post #600 from the link below:
OSAS being False Doctrine!
Yes 2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus Amazing here is that the only scriptures available to Timothy as a child owuld be the OT. Not amazing. But that is why Timothy...
www.christianityboard.com
In regard to Acts 19:1-5, Paul asked them 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 in Christ, they were then (afterwards) baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (which was not the case in Acts 2 and Acts 10, so this is the exception, not the rule, just as it was in Acts 8).
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
I understand John 6:29 as a play on words by Jesus when he said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent," in response to the Jews (who were taking a legalistic approach) when they asked, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus was simply saying, this is what God requires/that you believe in Him whom He sent. Jesus was not saying that believing is just "another work" in a series of works in a quest to obtain salvation by works, which would contradict Ephesians 2:8,9 - "saved through faith, not works."
Two thoughts here:
1. So you are saying the scripture is not true.
Ac 2:38 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, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
changes to:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because Jesus said so, and you already have the Holy Spirit.
2. Yahweh's requirement for His Old Covenant people was that the males be circumcised. It was the New Covenant that no longer distinguished between male and female. For them, Jesus commanded water baptism in His name.
Your understanding is not according to scripture.
The purpose of the laying on of hands by the apostles was to impart the empowering Holy Spirit giving the ability to work signs wonders and miracles. It is indicated by "speaking in tongues and prophesying". That was separate from and independent from the indwelling Holy Spirit. The indwelling Holy Spirit is the gift given to all who are saved. The empowering Holy Spirit was limited to only a select few. To not understand the difference and the significance of that difference is to be terribly confused in so much of the salvation experiences presented in the NT. And unfortunately, there are so many who seem to be totally ignorant of that difference and significance.
Additionally, the empowering Holy Spirit was not new and unique to the New Covenant, not unique to believers. Even in the OT there is the occasion of the empowering Holy Spirit coming upon Baalam's ass. On the other hand, the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit to all who believed and were saved is strictly a New Covenant feature.
Thus in the occasion of Acts 19:1-5, as in Acts 2:38, we would conclude that the disciples received the indwelling Holy Spirit upon being baptized. Then Paul additionally imparted the empowering Holy Spirit upon them by the laying on of his hands. That is indicated by the fact that they then proceeded to work the miracles of speaking in tongues and prophesying.
So much more to be said about this important distinction in the roles and work of the Holy Spirit but I will leave it there for now. I will add that the occasions of Acts 2 and 10 are the only times in the NT when the empowering Holy Spirit is given apart from the laying on of hands of the apostles.
Peter was not water baptized in Acts 2, nor were any in the upper room.
This is why its not stated in Act 2, regarding the entire chapter.
The anointing that came upon Peter and those who were in the upper room, was already prophesied by Jesus, when He said..."Go to Jerusalem and wait for it".
Notice that Jesus didn't tell them..>"Go and get in the Wait baptismal, and wait for it"., as the Catholics and all water cult's would try to rewrite the verse.
So, Do you think that Jesus forgot to mention the water?
No, He didnt forget.
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
In regard to these Samaritan believers in this unique situation in Acts 8, there was a delay in receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit until the apostles laid their hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:17) Again, exception, not the rule (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13). The Jews were hostile towards the Samaritans and the laying on of hands by the apostles would authenticate God's purpose and bring church unity. So, empowerment by the Holy Spirit was not the only purpose for the laying on of hands.
It's folks who attend the church of Christ that typically bring up Balaam's donkey in their efforts to "get around" the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:43-47 had received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues and were saved before water baptism. The Lord simply opened the mouth of the donkey in (Numbers 22:28-30) in order to rebuke Balaam. The donkey did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17) or the spiritual gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12) which is only for believers.
Your eisegesis does not refute what I shared with you in regard to Acts 2:38 and Acts 19:1-5 in post #413.
