Acts 10: The Smoking Gun?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

But, what if a soul cannot be baptized for physical reasons?

I can't think of any such case, but His grace is sufficient - yes.

[RevDWW]

A baby in vitro is alive correct?
If the baby never comes out of the water can they live, much less mature to an adult?


Could one be born into the house of Israel and not have a part in the covenant because of disobeying the command of God to be circumcised?

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

A baby in vitro is alive correct?
If the baby never comes out of the water can they live, much less mature to an adult?


Could one be born into the house of Israel and not have a part in the covenant because of disobeying the command of God to be circumcised?

I am a so called "Three-stepper" but Acts 10 is not a problem for my belief system. Being born of the water and the spirit is not necessarily a matter of step #1, step #2 but a matter of obedience. When the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost/Spirit the question was asked.."How can we forbid water baptism to these whom Christ has filled with His spirit [paraphrased]." Christ infilling the Gentiles was proof to the Jews that this gospel was also for the Gentile...just like Acts 2:38 portrays...whosoever will.

A Baby, before birth is alive is it not? A baby after birth was already alive but had to complete the process to mature into an adult. Be careful how you respond to this because you may or may not give a good argument for pro-choice people.

Just like communion/the sacriments, we do these as remembrance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. If we believe ..."That He [Christ] is, and is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him", then we will do the things asked us out of obedience. You have the belief first, which leads to only one act/behavior we are responsible for...baptism. Christ is the one who fills us with his spirit. That is his promise to those who believe and are baptized.

In summary, the act of baptism is an act of obedience if we believe Christ to be who he says he is. This is identifying with him in death/burial, this act of obedience gives us remittance of our sins, past, present, and future. The infilling of his spirit is His responsibility/promise to the believer who obeys. The order is not as important as the act of obedience. The infilling of the Holy Ghost to a dead person [spiritually] can be likened to an embryo that has life, but has not yet been born. The life before water birth is in the body and blood/umbilical cord to our creator.

Blessings, Rhoni
[Avid 3-stepper]

Post #57 was a great one

[OneAccord]

Has the smoking gun run out of bullets?

[mfblume]

I would never go so far as to say people seeking God, with all they know, and are not baptized, will be lost. That is not for me to judge either way. Personally, my opinion is that anyone who loves Jesus with all their hearts, will be saved. But I strongly preach Acts 2:38 in entirety for salvation. And always will, God willing.

I think it does great damage when people are so judgmental and so casually cast people into hell. It makes me shudder. God gave us the keys of the Kingdom, but the keys of death and hell were kept for Himself.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Prax, That seems to be part of the disconnect here. Some think it is either/or.... Either baptism alone is efficacious for remission of sin, or it is a discardable novelty...

I think not.

I would question the faith of a newly converted believer who rejects baptism. It is the most holy rite of passage for the new Christian. After all, it is the public demonstration and declaration of ones new found faith. If one rejects Christian initiation publicly, it does - by default, speak of his heart's condition.

I have seen disagreements but I still think there is a strong connection between being baptized in jesus name and Jesus saying "he that confesses me before men I will confess before my Father and he that denies me before men I will deny before my Father...

Regardless of what exactly happens at baptism it is by no means an option or a recommendation. Only a fool would look for loopholes.

On a side note, I could not find that article but basically DS makes a distinction between the forgiveness of sins received at repentance and the Spiritual work of circumcision at baptism of the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh if I remember correctly.

Is salvation a process? What about Holiness?

Can God make exceptions to the normative order of repentance, baptism and Spirit baptism?

Can a man receive a Spiritual work in their lives without yet having been filled with the Spirit?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Acts 10 indeed proves many people incorrect. But it also validates the NEED for baptism, though not in the way many think.

Peter had a vision of unclean animals whom he must "slay and eat". Peter refuses in the vision, and God rebukes him, telling him to not call "unclean" what God cleansed. Peter has no clue what God is trying to say.

So he goes with Cornelius' servants to the house and realizes THEN what the vision meant. GENTILES were considered unclean in the O.T., and God was changing all that and bringing them into the church.

Now, what would SLAY AND EAT represent, if the unclean animals represented gentiles?

Slaying is obviously a connotation of death with Christ. EATING, I think, refers to receiving the GENTILES into the BODY.

Now, God KNEW Peter would hesitate to deal with the gentiles properly. Hence, the need for the vision. Think about it. Would Peter have baptized these gentiles without the vision?

Baptism is sort of like a covenant contract. Two signatures OR SEALS are required on every contract. There is the SEAL of the Holy Ghost and the SEAL of baptism. God's signature and our own. Yes, they would have been Spirit-filled, but somehow BAPTISM is part of putting one into the BODY of the Church.

Peter had to both slay AND EAT.

...Some ramblings of my own.

Here is another question I am reminded of....was King Saul regenerated? When Saul prophesied did that indicate he had the Spirit of God and in his seeminly reprobate condition was in fact regenerated?

[Praxeas]

BTW I don't know if anyone mentioned this , but if this verse is the basis of Dan's argument at face value then has he not shot himself in the foot in his belief that a person is saved before speaking in tongues too?

Or am I wrong in saying Dan believes you can be saved before or without speaking in tongues.

It seems the "proof" here is that these people received the baptism of the Spirit evidenced by tongues before baptism...right? How is it that the disciples of John can have faith enough to be baptized in Jesus name and NOT have the Spirit yet only until AFTER they are baptized?

If a person receives the Spirit AT faith?

Dan, don't you believe in a difference between receiving the Spirit at initial faith and repentance and the baptism of the Spirit with tongues?

[Brother Price]

I posted this on my blog this early morning...

This morning, I rose up and considered the grace of God and salvation.

I had been in discussion with individuals over the issue of whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The discussion was kind of strong, because I was coming against some religious spirits who think that we must add our works to the salvation equation. This spirit is detrimental to the doctrine of the grace of God and the truth of our salvation.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. {Ephesians 2:8-9}

It is only by the grace of God that we are saved, and this is through our faith. This one single solitary truth takes to task both the works salvation belief, and the universal restoration doctrine (Carlton Pearson heresy). It is ONLY by the grace of God that we are saved, through our faith.

To say that one must be baptized TO BE SAVED is to make man a co-redeemer with Christ, and says that the grace of God is insufficient for our salvation. Does this mean a believer does not need to be baptized? No, for I believe that a BELIEVER should be baptized for the sake of righteousness, but not for salvation. We are baptized because we are saved, not in order to become saved. This is where religion and Christ come to a head, and Christ wins every time.

Baptism is for the believer, those who are already saved by grace. It is not for those who have yet to taste the goodness of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are only saved by grace through faith in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[deacon blues]

Acts 2:38 is not an exclusively UPCI scripture. It is Scripture. Why didn't Peter just say, "Believe on the Lord and accept Him as personal Lord and Savior"? He said it clearly, and in response to the question, "What shall we do?" Notice the emphasis was on what they needed to DO.

Salvation does not come by the WORKS OF THE OT LAW, that is by animal sacrifice, observation of dietary laws, observation of feasts, etc. That is not to say that the salvation Jesus secured for us does not require action on our part.

How is it any different to say one must confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus (action on our part) or that one must be water baptized? Those who propose that we are saved by grace alone (a statement the Bible NEVER makes) agree that one must verbally confess to be saved, and yet claim that we can do NOTHING in order to be saved. That is contradictory. We can do nothing in regards to paying the price for salvation. Neither you nor I could go to the cross and pay the price that is required for our salvation.

We are required to DO something for salvation: repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The promise is to us that we shall receive the gift of the HG.

The converts at Samaria repented and were baptized and received the HG in Acts 8.
The Ethiopian eunuch believed and weas baptized in Acts 8.
The house of Cornelius were filled with the Spirit and were baptized in Acts 10.
The house of the Phillippian jailor believed and were baptized in Acts 16.
The disciples of John the Baptist were baptized and recevied the Holy Ghost in Acts 19.

The pattern is repeated over and over in the only book of the Bible that records ACTUAL CONVERSIONS. It is not a trite point that the epistles were written to believers. There is plenty of passages within the epistles to support that the apostles doctrine included water baptism when preaching the gospel as well as Spirit baptism.