I think the important point to be made here is that baptism in Jesus name is taught and practised at the church where this man faithfully attended for 8 years.
Why and how he never heard or realized he needed to be baptized is a question. But others who attend that church or who have started to attend that church have heard about it, gotten the message and been baptized in Jesus name.
I'm glad the man was baptized regardless which church it happened at.
I think the important point to be made here is that baptism in Jesus name is taught and practised at the church where this man faithfully attended for 8 years.
Why and how he never heard or realized he needed to be baptized is a question. But others who attend that church or who have started to attend that church have heard about it, gotten the message and been baptized in Jesus name.
I'm glad the man was baptized regardless which church it happened at.
You're from the area I take it?
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Despite all words said, Acts 10 shows people commanded to be baptized after Spirit baptism. This obviously shows that SOME opinions of what baptism does are wrong, since they DID get the Spirit BEFORE they were baptized. The Spirit will not come into the life of a person whose sins are not dealt with. But on the other hand, it also shows BAPTISM IS A MUST.
A must!
The Old Testament is full of rites that are unnecessary today, since these were TYPES or FORESHADOWS of the spiritual realities in the New Testament. So, when a NEW TESTAMENT activity is demanded, it is MORE than a mere type of something. Face it, those who do not think baptism is part of salvation will not urge it to be done. Soon it will not be done at all. For the apostles to have continued to stress baptism as they did throughout Acts, it tells me that they felt it was soteriological. Otherwise, they would have dropped it.
If baptism is a mere outward act depicting an inward state of the heart, why did the Eunuch experience baptism when NO ONE WAS AROUND TO VIEW IT, but Philip?
Baptism is like Communion Supper. But communion Supper is not soteriological as baptism is. nevertheless, it is an outward activity urged by the Lord and Apostles. Don't question it. Just do it!
We can question its PURPOSE, and LEARN about it. But questioning it so far as saying, "Do we have to?" is out of order, I think.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I think the important point to be made here is that baptism in Jesus name is taught and practised at the church where this man faithfully attended for 8 years.
Why and how he never heard or realized he needed to be baptized is a question. But others who attend that church or who have started to attend that church have heard about it, gotten the message and been baptized in Jesus name.
I'm glad the man was baptized regardless which church it happened at.
I would have to agree.
The church in question has baptized dozens in Jesus Name in the past eight years. Dozens of others got the message that the faithful attender missed.
The statement of faith posted on their web site plainly states that they baptize in Jesus name.
I add my hearty amen to, "I'm glad the man was baptized regardless which church it happened at."
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.
That said, if Abraham refused to be circumcised what would of been the outcome? What would happen if Abraham wouldn't of taught and passed on the knowledge of being circumcised? Wouldn't the covenant be broken by man?
Read what almost happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son in Exodus.
__________________
When a newspaper posed the question, "What's Wrong with the World?" G. K. Chesterton reputedly wrote a brief letter in response: "Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely Yours, G. K. Chesterton." That is the attitude of someone who has grasped the message of Jesus.
If the question has not changed, why should the answer?
When the jews asked Peter "What must we do?" it was obviously about salvation, because the text continues to say that Peter told them WITH MANY OTHER WORDS how to be saved.
Quote:
Acts 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
WITH MANY OTHER WORDS, means that the words he already spoke from verses 38-39 were considered along with the MANY OTHER WORDS concerning how to be saved. If the MANY OTHER WORDS regarded salvation, then the previous words, WITH these many others, also concerned salvation.
Otherwise, were the words about HOW TO BE SAVED considered as no important as WORDS NOT TO DO WITH SALVATION that WERE written, for the writer Luke to discard them?
People still ask "What must we do?" Why give them a different response than Peter gave? The question has not changed. Why should the answer?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
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 was baptized in Acts 8.
The house of Cornelius were filled with the Spirit and were baptized in Acts 10.
The house of the Philippian jailer believed and were baptized in Acts 16.
The disciples of John the Baptist were baptized and received 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.
Read what almost happened to Moses when he didn't circumcise his son in Exodus.
Right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
If the question has not changed, why should the answer?
When the jews asked Peter "What must we do?" it was obviously about salvation, because the text continues to say that Peter told them WITH MANY OTHER WORDS how to be saved.
Quote:
Acts 2:40 KJV And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
WITH MANY OTHER WORDS, means that the words he already spoke from verses 38-39 were considered along with the MANY OTHER WORDS concerning how to be saved. If the MANY OTHER WORDS regarded salvation, than the previous words WITH these many others, also concerned salvation.
Otherwise, were the words about HOW TO BE SAVED considered as no important as WORDS NOT TO DO WITH SALVATION that WERE written, for the writer Luke to discard them?
People still ask "What must we do?" Why give them a different response than Peter gave? The question has not changed. Why should the answer?
You're from the area I take it?
Linear Mode
