I suggest you look up 'lie' in a dictionary since you don't seem to know what it means.
Indeed I did.
Read the post. I'll give you a little hint though. There's only one text mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Strange Fire
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
'Those who gladly received his words were baptized.'
There are four possibilities:
1. No one who had been baptized by John was present in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost Perhaps a little unlikely in the light of Matthew 3:5-6.
2. None of those who had been baptized by John 'gladly received' Peter's words but rejected them.
3. Those who had been baptized by John were baptized again.
4. The Scriptures are wrong and quite a few of those who gladly received his words were not baptized.
'I suggest you don't know what you are talking about. There is a difference in accusing a person of lying versus accusing a theological position of being a lie. As I said, you may be very sincere in promoting a lie but it is still a lie/untruth.
Look, I am not going down a rabbit trail with you just to avoid the real issues in this thread. The doctrine you are teaching is NOT TRUE, thus it is a UNTRUTH or a LIE. If you want to take that as a personal attack, so be it, go for it.
Look, I am not going down a rabbit trail with you just to avoid the real issues in this thread. The doctrine you are teaching is NOT TRUE, thus it is a UNTRUTH or a LIE. If you want to take that as a personal attack, so be it, go for it.
Last edited:
See my thread on the identity of the 3000. Those baptized on Pentecost are explicitly identified as those Jewish men who lived OUTSIDE Palestine who came to Jerusalem for Passover and Pentecost. John's ministry was over a year and half previous and Jesus administration of baptism (through his disciples) was long before the Passover. Both John and Jesus administered baptism to those INSIDE of Palestine whereas these are OUTSIDERS. For more details to prove my points see my thread on this very subject.
You have nothing but SILENCE and PRESUMPTION as the basis of your thinking while I have supplied hard cold facts, that I noticed you did not even try to address.
Have you read Hercules Collins?
In his Believers-Baptism from Heaven, and of Divine Institution; Infants-Baptism from Earth, and Human Invention (London, 1691) p. 40:
"That which is called the Reformed Religion, had better deserved that Name, had they shut out that Relique of Antichrist, Infant-Baptism. . . .Where-ever Christ commands the Baptizing Believers, there is an implicit prohibition of all others not so qualified. Nadab and Abihu had no prohibition from using Strange Fire, yet destroyed for not using that Fire upon the Altar which was commanded, and using that which the Lord commanded not."
Yes, several years ago I did peruse his article and have it filed away.
So all the Jews from Judea had been expelled? Right! Got that!
Try using sound hermeneutics to overthrow what I said OR is the bible no longer final authority for you? Have you replaced it with the "wisdom of men"?
Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Some have inferred that the 3000 saved and baptized on the day of Pentecost were all the ones previously baptized by John, thus being rebaptized in "Christian" baptism which they presume began on the day of Pentecost.
However, these were those who had come into Palestine from OUTSIDE of Palestine from the countries that are listed in verses 9-11. Note the contrast "all these...speak Galileans" but the audience hearing are not Galileans but rather hear "in our own tongue, wherein we were born" and then the nations where they are born are listed.
These were jews of the dispersion who lived OUTSIDE Palestine but had come to Jerusalem for the Passover and Pentecost which was required for all Jewish males.
John administered baptism WITHIN Palestine over a year and half ago. Jesus had baptized (through his disiples) long before Passover or Pentecost.
The 3,000 were not those that either John the Baptist or Jesus had administered baptism unto. There is no REBAPTISM here. The ONLY possible baptism existing when the Great Commission was given was the baptism of John. The ONLY possible baptism which Christ "HAVE" commanded was the baptism of John.
The rebaptism 20 years later in Acts 19 was not administered by John the Baptist. Whoever administered that baptism did so in reference to John, while John baptized in reference to Christ, requiring repentance and faith in Christ (Mt. 3:8; Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4).
These are called upon to "repent" (Acts 2:38) but all baptized by John and Christ already repented and believed the gospel (Mt. 3:6-8; Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4).
There is no Biblical basis for rejecting the baptism of John as "Christian" baptism or the baptism of the Great Commission except pure theological bias.
I am in full agreement with that.
I think this language is very unfortunate. I have previously drawn attention to 2 Chronicles 30:17-20, and also to 1 Samuel 16:7. Godly paedobaptists are our brothers in Christ. We are going to have to live with them all through eternity in heaven, so we may as well get used to doing it now, gently and gracefully showing them the more excellent way.
1. Many who had been baptized by John were present in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost but none of them believed they lost their salvation and needed to be saved again and baptized again.
2. All of those who had been baptized by John were already saved and didn't need to be saved again.
3. None who had been baptized by John were baptized again.
4. You have conflated "gladly received his word" with being happy the gospel was preached rather than understanding it soteriologically.
2. All of those who had been baptized by John were already saved and didn't need to be saved again.
3. None who had been baptized by John were baptized again.
4. You have conflated "gladly received his word" with being happy the gospel was preached rather than understanding it soteriologically.
EVERY person who has been saved by the Grace of God is in the Body/Bride of Christ, regardless if they held to a differing mode on Baptism!
You cannot divide the Church up into those who are Baptists only, and others are this or that, for in Heaven we shall just be Christians...
Do we not have fellowship with those who agree on what all must to be aChritian, and yet disagree on other issues then?
You are conflating salvation with the local assembly which requires baptized believers for SERVICE not salvation. The new birth is an instanteous completed action, while church membership is a about progressive sanctification that requires the FIRST STEP of service for membership - immersion of believers in water. To argue church equality on the basis of salvation is Roman Catholic doctrine not Bible doctrine.
Oh really, then try to refute my thread on 1 Cor. 6:15 by sound Biblical hermeneutics. Try!
I agree. The immediate context makes it clear that the focus of the preaching was directed to those Jews who lived OUTSIDE of Palestine who came to Jerusalem for the Passover and Pentecost who are called upon to "repent" (Acts 2:38) whereas those baptized by John and Jesus (through is disciples) had to repent and believe in Christ in order to be baptized (Mt. 3:6-8; Jn. 3:36; Acts 19:4).
Martin has to simply ignore the biblical context of Acts 2 PLUS build his whole doctrine on absolute SILENCE in the face of both Biblical precepts and examples to the contrary.
No one is suggesting that 'all' the 3,000 were Israelites, but many of them must have been. This did actually take place in Jerusalem, right? Moreover Peter declared, "God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). He could hardly have said this unless at least the majority of these people were Israelites, and of course they were 'cut to the heart' (v.37) proving that many of them were present at the trial and crucifixion of our Lord.
These OUTSIDERS were INSIDE Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion. You think baptized believers in Christ were among those who crucified Christ?????? You think the apostles were among those who cried crucify him?????
You are wiggling in the mire of pure SILENCE. Even if some were Israelites, these are called upon to REPENT (Acts 10:38) whereas all baptized by John and the disciples of Christ HAD ALREADY REPENTED(Acts 2:38) and HAD ALREADY BELIEVED IN CHRIST (Mt. 3:6-8; Acts 19:4; Jn. 3:36).
So would you divide up the Body then based upon how we understanding the secondary issues that the Scriptures allow us to have different convictions and understandings on?
I do NOT agree with some Reformed that infants can/should be baptized, but does that exclude them from either being saved or having fellowship with?
In Revelation 17 the Bride of Christ is contrasted with the Whore of Babylon, the false religion.
Yet God says, in Revelation 18:4 "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
If all Christians are in the Bride, is it possible to be both in the Bride and in the Great Whore at the same time?
As the Bride is described as being "faithful" could you tell me what a "faithful whore" is? It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms.
First, the body of Christ is a metaphor for the visible localized assembly of Christ as my thread on 1 Cor. 6:15 demonstrates.
Second, you are confusing salvation with church membership which is a Roman Catholic Doctrine.
The body, the local, New Testament, body of believers belonging to Christ, is the local church and the local church has certain doctrinal imperatives to qualify for membership.