Replies

Jesus tells of two categories here: (1) those who believe and are baptized, and (2) those who don't believe. But some people claim to see a third: (3) those who believe but aren't baptized. Well, Jesus apparently didn't know about this third category.

Here's the 3rd...

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism...Saved...Born again...

The question is: why did they get water baptized after they were already filled with the Holy Ghost???

Many of us have read the very same scriptures posted, many times...Yet we have a different view than you have...

What I have found over the years is when a person sides with one doctrine or another, he/she will seek out scripture to bolster that doctrine...

Trouble is, they are not giving God a chance to present ALL the evidence for a particular doctrine when they avoid or chuck aside scripture that doesn't line up with their chosen doctrine...

You make a good point: We're going to have to examine scriptures which might seem to disagree with our positions, and let God correct us where we need it.

I'm surprised when people turn to scriptures about faith or repentance, or confession of Christ when the question is about baptism. If we want to learn about baptism and its place in redemption, we need to look at what the Bible says about baptism. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that.

The case you brought up - Cornelius and his household - is a good one to look at. It is a peculiar one, being the first case of the gospel being preached to Gentiles.

Peter, being a Jew, would have been reluctant to preach to those folks, and had to be told by God to do so - hence the vision, etc. But he obeyed the Spirit's instructions, and went and preached to Cornelius. But even after preaching to them, he needed further instruction. So God poured out the Holy Spirit on these Gentiles.

It's important to note that what happened here was different from the usual receiving of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the only similar case Peter can think of is way back at Pentecost. (Recall Acts 8, where people were baptized into Jesus, and only later, when Peter and John come up and lay their hands on them, do they receive the Holy Spirit.)

As we've noted, Acts 10 is a notable case, and God gives them the Holy Spirit in a notable way. Why was this necessary? And what is the significance of it?

We find the answer in the reaction of Peter and those with him, in the reaction of the Jews in Jerusalem when Peter relates the story, and in the use Peter makes of it in Acts 15 when arguing against those who wanted the Gentile Christians to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses: It was God's demonstration that Gentiles were eligible for salvation just as Jews were.

So Peter then asks the rhetorical question: "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?"

Why would anyone have objected to their baptism before this? Because they were Gentiles, right? In pouring out the Holy Spirit "even as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15), God overruled that objection and showed that His offer of salvation was for Gentiles as well. Hence Peter's question, "who was I, that I could withstand God?"

What is he saying? What could Peter have done, at this point, that would've been withstanding God?

He didn't do it though. Instead, "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

**Filled with the Holy Ghost before water baptism...Saved...Born again...**

You apparently didn’t read what I posted on that event, so here it is again:

Acts 10:46,47,48 “...Then answered Peter, 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...”. (care to guess what that name is? AND, remember these words of Peter: “Can any man forbid water..”. That is the second detailed witness mentioning water baptism).

In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:

11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.

God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Peter HAD to do it, for it was required by God.

Under your ‘no works’ opinion, those souls were completely born again after the Spirit fell, so Peter had NOTHING to withstand. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.

Jesus said man must be born of the water, and of the Spirit. Peter says water baptism saves us.

Jesus commanded to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Matt. 28:19

He He says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16

He commands his disciples: “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in HIS NAME among all nations beginning at Jerusalem”.

The first post-ascension sermon to the lost is preached to the lost by Peter. In Acts 2:37, we find convicted souls asking, “what shall we do?”

2:38; “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (note the position of the commas in the KJV.)

In Matt. 28:19, what is foremost in the Lord’s command,.....”accept the Lord as your personal savior”?

His first detailed command is for the disciples to baptize.

They knocked themselves out, baptizing everybody that professes faith, pronto. And you folks say it’s just an outward sign of an inward cleansing. God expects obedience. If you refuse to obey HIS ordinance, then isn’t that unbelief?

Acts 2:38, and the absolute urgency that the disciples showed, would indicate that remission of sins is indeed in baptism in the name of Jesus. The blood would have to be applied at that point, or Acts 2:38 would not be worded the way it is.

**What I have found over the years is when a person sides with one doctrine or another, he/she will seek out scripture to bolster that doctrine...**

You mean like when folks point out certain passages that mention baptism, and say it isn’t water baptism? Or, when wanting to discount water baptism, they trot out 1Cor. 1:17, and end up making Paul look like a flip-flopper?

I covered a lot in post #209, but it is dismissed by tradition of men, or not even dealt with.

Keep following this thread. I have more to point out on this subject.

Thanks for the reply!