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...
**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 Gods 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 couldnt withstand Gods 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!