Baptism in Romans 6, what is the referent?

===

Could you explain how not believing in those tenets supports your view re 1 Cor 12:13? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The time of the origin of the church really has no bearing on it, I was just responding to your post. The view of universal church would affect the view of I Cor. 12:13, making the body the local church. Thank you for the spirit of your questions. I would appreciate your thoughts as to where you believe my understanding may be in error.

 

Hello to all.

I would point out that if "all flesh" in the above passages really means "ALL flesh", then it would have to include even non-believers. Obviously this cannot be the case. Rather, I think a more accurate understanding would be that both Jew and Gentile would be recipients of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

What needs to be determined is what does it mean to call on the name of the LORD? If we skip to the end of Peter's sermon, we see the audience ask, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

They were asking what to do to be saved. The implication is that they did not know how to call on the name of the LORD, since Peter had already told them to call on the name of the LORD.

Many times, the phrase "the name of" refers to the authority of the person referenced. Since Peter was preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is to His authority that he refers his hearers.

In response to their question, Peter told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

These are not "silly words", as you suggest. This is a true statement. Turn to Acts 11:15. Peter is expounding "by order" (11:4) the conversion of Cornelius. In verse 15, he says the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us [the apostles] at the beginning. "The beginning" is Pentecost of Acts 2. If Holy Spirit baptism was a common occurrence, Peter would not have had to refer to something that happened several years earlier for a comparison.

It is important not to confuse the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the conferring of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit by laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:18), which has also passed away.


In Christ,
bmerr

 

Hi bmerr,

Welcome to the Baptist Board!

I pray that we will be a blessing to you, and you to us.

Let’s begin by together looking at Acts 11:15 and why Peter spoke as he did,

Acts 11:15. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. (NASB, 1995)

The scene is the church at Jerusalem, a very Jewish church, and Peter is justifying his ministry to the Gentiles in the home of a Gentile, something that was absolutely forbidden. And as proof that his ministry was ordained of God, he says that the consequences of that ministry were the same as what the Jewish leaders of this church in Jerusalem had experienced themselves on the day of Pentecost. Peter could not possibly have cited a more compelling example of the baptism in the Holy Spirit than that particular example. There is absolutely no suggestion that that example was in any other way unique or rare. And we have the testimony of both Joel and Peter that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was neither rare nor temporal. And, as already been posted, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with signs following (especially speaking in tongues) was the normal, expected consequence of a man or woman being born again, and it continued to be the normal, expected consequence of a man or woman being born again for at least another three centuries.

 

Craigbythesea (Can I call you Craig?),

You make mention of an important point, sir. The objection of the saints at Jerusalem was not that Peter had preached the gospel to Gentiles, but that he had entered the house of a Gentile, and even eaten with Gentiles. Many don't realize what a big, hairy deal this was to those from a Jewish background.

One difference between the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 and Acts 10, and the miraculous manifestations elsewhere recorded is that in the cases of Pentecost and Cornelius, there is the absence of the laying on of hands by an apostle. In both instances, it was unexpected by man, and administered by Christ.

In every other instance where the gifts of the Spirit were given (most often mentioned is speaking in tongues), there is at least one apostle present to confer these gifts.

Also, (and this may have been covered already: forgive me for not reading through the whole thread yet) In the Acts 2 and 10 accounts, there were Jews that needed to be convinced that what was taking place was of God. In Acts 2, the audience that assembled upon hearing the sound like a mighty rushing wind, was compelled to listen to the message by the fact that these Galilleans were speaking in the native tongues of their hearers. In Acts 10, the Jewish brethren (and possibly Peter) were convinced that the Gentiles should hear the gospel by the fact that Cornelius and his household spake in tongues (my guess is they spoke in Hebrew) the wonderful works of God. In response to this spectacle, Peter asks if anyone could deny water for baptism. Apparently, none of them could.

In response to Peter's account of the events in Caesarea, the Jerusalem church "...held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

In contrast to these accounts, the other records of people receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 19:6) are always preceeded by the laying on of the hands of an apostle.

In Acts 8, there is the account of Phillip preaching in Samaria. He manifested miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but those who believed his preaching and obeyed the gospel did not receive the Spirit until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and layed hands on them. If Phillip had been able to confer these gifts, there would have been no need for these apostles to come down.

Since these gifts could only be conferred by an apostle, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit would have passed from existence at the death of the last person who received them through the laying on of an apostles' hands.

Lastly, Paul implies that not every Christian was a recipient of miraculous gifts. 1 Cor 12:29-30 read,

"Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

In asking these rhetorical questions, Paul implies that no, in fact, not everyone possessed miraculous gifts, not even the gift of tongues.

Gotta go. Talk to you later.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Many of the members of this message board abbreviate my screen name so that they don't wear out their keyboard, and their abbreviating of it does not bother me in the least.

Thomas ( )

 

I can fully AMEN AV1611JIM about the meaning behind the "baptism" being talked about in Romans 6:3. I would like to take a moment to recite the scriptures at topic.

"3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
"4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that LIKE as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 6:3-4.

I believe Paul is refering to water baptism in this passage. However, this verse tends to confuse a lot of people on what real biblical salvation is (as it once did me... a few days after a Church of Christ member recommended this passage to me). We need to understand one thing about this passage. There are two chapters in Romans that spend nearly their entires chapters explaining what biblical salvation is and how to receive it.

Nearly all of Romans 3 and 4, definitely Romans 3, spend most of their time explaining what biblical salvation is, where it comes from and how one receives it. It would be almost impossible to put a specific verse from Romans 3 up explaining what I'm saying because, again nearly the whole chapter is about it. But, I will... "26 To declare, I say, at this time him righteousness: that he might be just, and the JUSTIFIER of him that BELIEVETH in Jesus.
"27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. But what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
"28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT the deeds of the law." Romans 3:26-28.

"3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
"4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
"5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for rightoeusness." Romans 4:3-5.

There are a few passages from Romans 3 and 4. From what I understand, Romans 5 is basically a chapter which teaches the born-again believer about the difference between justification in Christ and sanctification in Christ. So, I will leave most of chapter 5 alone. So, we now have it clear that Paul first taught about what salvation is and how one receives it in chapters 3 and 4.

Now after chapter 5, going into chapter 6, we see Paul in nearly the very beginning of the chapter explaining the NEXT STEP for the Christian. It seems funny how placing these passages in order, it all works out, perfectly, huh? In Romans 6:3-4, Paul explains baptism is a necessary part, NOT FOR salvation, but BECAUSE OF salvation. Notice, Paul says in verse 4: "... LIKE as Christ..." The keyword in these passages of scripture is "like."

By saying like, which obviously, Paul made sure was said, it signifies that baptism is to be in likeness of Christ biblically proving that water baptism is to be undergone only by the born-again sinner as a picture to the church that he has received Christ. And that LIKE as Christ was dead, buried and rose again, we may also have newness of life. In my honest opinion, I think tyring to explain these passages of scripture in any other way would just make it's meaning stupid and above all, incorrect. Because, unless you drown (hopefully, you have enough sense to hold your breathe and swim), I don't think anyone is going to die, or have new life from immersing themself into a big pool, pond or lake of water.