Baptism was important enough for God to give Peter a vision in Acts 9. It was important enough that Paul asked the Ephesian disciples of John whether they were Spirit Filled and Water baptized.
__________________ ...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."
Baptism was important enough for God to give Peter a vision in Acts 9. It was important enough that Paul asked the Ephesian disciples of John whether they were Spirit Filled and Water baptized.
Truly said...there is a precedent throughout the Book of Acts for the message stemming from Peter on the Day of Pentecost...
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Ordering baptism, or commanding, makes it optionless.
__________________ ...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."
In the initial post of this thread, Dan writes the following:
"1. In Acts 10, we find those in the house of Cornelius showing evidence of being indwelt w/ the Holy Spirit yet had not, as some teach, been buried their body of sin ... or carnal man. Some would even say because they had not been baptized they are not yet declared righteous/justified and/or their slate not wiped clean through a properly administered baptism that would effectuate sin remission.
Furthermore, those w/ this sacramental mindset [a rite that mediates grace] are the first to say that unless one does not have the Spirit of Christ they are not His as it applies to speaking in tongues ... yet we see Cornelius being declared His, prior to water baptism.(Romans 8:9)
We see the the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus setting him free from the law of sin and of death prior to re-enacting a burial of the body of sin???? (Romans 8:2)
2. Also we see that he is declared righteous before God and he is alive because of Christ's imputed righteousness ... by the Spirit indwelling. ....
Romans 8:10 - If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."
I have not taken the time to read everything that others have written here concerning this matter. However, seeing it appears Dan is asserting that one is considered to be "righteous" prior to immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord" [with this being based upon their having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost]; and endeavors to use the example of the experience of those of Cornelieus' household as evidence to support this, therefore I wish to address the manner in which I believe his application of the words of Romans 8:10are grossly amiss.
When the apostle Paul penned this statement - "the body is dead because of sin," he was NOT [IMHO] either asserting or suggesting that one has attained "righteousness" solely upon the fact that they have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Instead that which he is asserting, although many fail to recognize it as such, is that even those who have been blessed with this most cherished "gift of God" must undergo the "common" experience of death, for this is a judgment that even water baptism does NOT remit!
Oh yes, I know, there will be many that would be quick to refute this assertion [including Dan], however, I would beg the reader to pause and reflect upon the indisputable fact that ALL must die, saint and sinner alike. While the act of immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord" is, I most solemnly believe, for the express purpose of the remission of sins, we must also note that even the apostle Peter himself [the same one who was the first to make this public pronouncement of this requirement following the birth of the New Testament church], explicitly asserts that water baptism does NOT remove the penalty of God's judgment of death which God imposed upon ALL flesh [as evidenced by the statement - "not the putting away the filth of the flesh" [I Peter 3:21].
While there are many who embrace the belief that Peter's statement implies/infers that water baptism does not "cleanse" the body of dirt [as is the case when one "takes a bath"], nevertheless we must discard such carnal minded approach to the interpretation of his words, and endeavor to discern his pronouncement to the sound principles of the Bible. When one takes the time to do so I believe it can only be concluded that Peter was asserting, albeit in "veiled" esoteric terms, that water baptism is only for the purpose of the remission of sins, and does absolutely nothing to negate the penalty of death which God imposed upon all flesh as a consequence of Adam's willful act of disobedience.
Base upon this understanding, then I must ask - How is it possible [or proper] for anyone to assert, and/or suggest, that Paul's statement of Romans 8:10 implies that a person attains "righteousness" [i.e., is considered to be in "right standing" before God], after receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and without having their sins "remitted" through water baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Peter certainly was aware that this was not possible, hence his commandment to Cornelius and the member of his household to be baptized. Peter knew that it is only through the completion of both "baptisms" [water and Spirit], that we attain the "righteousness of God."
Will everyone agree with this understanding of the matter? Of course not! Nevertheless I submit it here for the consideration of its merits to all who occasion to read.
In the initial post of this thread, Dan writes the following:
"1. In Acts 10, we find those in the house of Cornelius showing evidence of being indwelt w/ the Holy Spirit yet had not, as some teach, been buried their body of sin ... or carnal man. Some would even say because they had not been baptized they are not yet declared righteous/justified and/or their slate not wiped clean through a properly administered baptism that would effectuate sin remission.
Furthermore, those w/ this sacramental mindset [a rite that mediates grace] are the first to say that unless one does not have the Spirit of Christ they are not His as it applies to speaking in tongues ... yet we see Cornelius being declared His, prior to water baptism.(Romans 8:9)
We see the the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus setting him free from the law of sin and of death prior to re-enacting a burial of the body of sin???? (Romans 8:2)
2. Also we see that he is declared righteous before God and he is alive because of Christ's imputed righteousness ... by the Spirit indwelling. ....
Romans 8:10 - If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness."
I have not taken the time to read everything that others have written here concerning this matter. However, seeing it appears Dan is asserting that one is considered to be "righteous" prior to immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord" [with this being based upon their having received the baptism of the Holy Ghost]; and endeavors to use the example of the experience of those of Cornelieus' household as evidence to support this, therefore I wish to address the manner in which I believe his application of the words of Romans 8:10are grossly amiss.
When the apostle Paul penned this statement - "the body is dead because of sin," he was NOT [IMHO] either asserting or suggesting that one has attained "righteousness" solely upon the fact that they have received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Instead that which he is asserting, although many fail to recognize it as such, is that even those who have been blessed with this most cherished "gift of God" must undergo the "common" experience of death, for this is a judgment that even water baptism does NOT remit!
Oh yes, I know, there will be many that would be quick to refute this assertion [including Dan], however, I would beg the reader to pause and reflect upon the indisputable fact that ALL must die, saint and sinner alike. While the act of immersion in the waters of baptism "in the name of the Lord" is, I most solemnly believe, for the express purpose of the remission of sins, we must also note that even the apostle Peter himself [the same one who was the first to make this public pronouncement of this requirement following the birth of the New Testament church], explicitly asserts that water baptism does NOT remove the penalty of God's judgment of death which God imposed upon ALL flesh [as evidenced by the statement - "not the putting away the filth of the flesh" [I Peter 3:21].
While there are many who embrace the belief that Peter's statement implies/infers that water baptism does not "cleanse" the body of dirt [as is the case when one "takes a bath"], nevertheless we must discard such carnal minded approach to the interpretation of his words, and endeavor to discern his pronouncement to the sound principles of the Bible. When one takes the time to do so I believe it can only be concluded that Peter was asserting, albeit in "veiled" esoteric terms, that water baptism is only for the purpose of the remission of sins, and does absolutely nothing to negate the penalty of death which God imposed upon all flesh as a consequence of Adam's willful act of disobedience.
Base upon this understanding, then I must ask - How is it possible [or proper] for anyone to assert, and/or suggest, that Paul's statement of Romans 8:10 implies that a person attains "righteousness" [i.e., is considered to be in "right standing" before God], after receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and without having their sins "remitted" through water baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Peter certainly was aware that this was not possible, hence his commandment to Cornelius and the member of his household to be baptized. Peter knew that it is only through the completion of both "baptisms" [water and Spirit], that we attain the "righteousness of God."
Will everyone agree with this understanding of the matter? Of course not! Nevertheless I submit it here for the consideration of its merits to all who occasion to read.
(Here I go again folks)
I believe I agree with the bolded... although I'd like to hear a bit more of your view...
I completely agree with your second bolded statement.
Dan statement is not that one is righteous after recieving the Spirit.. but righteous after believing on the Lord.
__________________ 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.
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.
Will anyone address the point in the original thread instead of resortng to emotionalism or reiterating their platform?
The only platform worth reiterating is the one upheld by the pillars of the apostles.
We obey the scriptures written by said apostles. They say to be baptized, they say to be filled with the spirit, they say to confess with our mouth, they say that new believers spoke with tounges.
Yes, we do desire to emulate that. Just because we don't understand exactly how it all works (we could explain it here, but books have been written on the subject and we don't have that kind of time), does not release us from obedience to God's revealed word.
You must have been a hoot to raise as a child. I can envision a conversation between a two year old Danny and his mother, "Mommy, I don't understand why I can run on the driveway but not on the freeway! They are both blacktop, aren't they? They both have cars don't they? If I can understand the reason behind your command to stay in the driveway only, then I will play in the freeway!" "Oh, well" mother says. "If you can't trust me, then you'll just have to learn the hard way."
We don't have the luxury of making a mistake. We obey.
If being good, paying tithes, believing in Christ, and giving alms to the poor were enough then why would God bother to send a prophet to Cornelious to have he and his house baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit?
Linear Mode
