Baptist Commentator

--As far as the household of Cornelius, they must have repented and believed when God filled them with His Spirit in Acts 10:44-46. Keep in mind that Peter also commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They also had to finish the process of salvation by being baptized.

www.altupc.com/articles/nojsig.htm

Excerpt:
5. Baptism is part of our personal identification with
Jesus Christ. "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death" (Romans 6:3). "For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ" (Gal 3:27). If we seek to be identified with
Him. we should take on his name.
6. Baptism is a part of the new birth by which we are
born again into the spiritual family of God (John 3:5;
Titus 3:5). We can also view the conversion experience,
of which baptism is a part, as an adoption into the
spiritual family of God (Romans 8:15-16). A newly born or
adapted child always takes on the name of his new family.
Since we seek to enter into the church of Jesus Christ,
which is called His body and His bride, we should take on
His name. (See Ephesians 5:23, 29-32.)

Bro. Curtis, I don't want to make an enemy, but this is what I believe.

MEE

 

And you do realize that you quoted your church, not to word of God don't you? We believe the Bible, not your church.

Once you have the Spirit you are saved? Peter commanded them to be baptized, because Christ told him to do that. That doesn't meant that baptism saves you. He told the apostles to teach people to observe what Christ commanded, does that mean in order to receive salvation one must be a teacher first? Absolutely not. Just because we do something out of obedience, that doesn't mean that the action then saves us. That is a salvation by works, not grace.

~Lorelei

 

Hi DHK, I see that this subject always brings you out.
OK, if the word "water" in John 3:5 doesn't have anything to do with "water baptism" what do you say that the scripture is referring to? Please don't give me that thing about "amniotic fluid." I've heard that too many times and it is simply irritating.

MEE

 

And you do realize that you quoted your church, not to word of God don't you? We believe the Bible, not your church.

--No, I didn't just quote what my church believes. The last time I looked Romans, Galatians, John, Titus, and Ephesians were still in the Bible.

Once you have the Spirit you are saved? Peter commanded them to be baptized, because Christ told him to do that. That doesn't meant that baptism saves you. He told the apostles to teach people to observe what Christ commanded, does that mean in order to receive salvation one must be a teacher first? Absolutely not. Just because we do something out of obedience, that doesn't mean that the action then saves us. That is a salvation by works, not grace.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]--Where did you get the impression that I thought one had to be a teacher? You can do what you want. As far as water baptism being a must, I will stay with Matthew 28:19 which was commanded, by the Lord, and was first fulfilled in Acts 2:38.

Peter and the other apostles knew what was meant by Matthew 28:19 and carried out what was expected of them, starting out with Acts 2:38, as leaders of the NT Church.

Lorelie and others, you can believe what you want, I believe what I see and attend to keep my beliefs, as long as they line up with the Word. If you and the others don't see it, according to the Word, don't fall out with me. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, just as you all think that is all one has to do to be saved. So, why do you think of me as being an 'outcast?'...at least that is how I feel, on this BB. But that's OK! Love you all anyway.

MEE

 

Carol, I sure do not want you to feel like an outcast. Sometimes you come across a little "snooty" (for lack of a better word) on your posts. When you do that it makes others get defensive. Whenever you post things like "go ahead and believe what you want"(not a direct quote) you don't do anything for the case you are trying to make. Deal with your brothers and sister here with love and you will not feel like an outcast.

On the topic of "water" I am one of the silly people that believe the water does refer to amniotic fluid. Look at the verses: John: 3:

[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

In verse 4 we have the idea of natural birth suggested. In verse 5 we have the reply from Jesus comparing the natural birth that N. talked about to the spiritual re-birth that is needed. In verse 6 Jesus combines the ideas and explains what he meant. A birth of flesh(water) and a birth of spirit(Spirit-spiritual re-birth - which happens on the inside of a person). Verse 7 then has Jesus conclude by saying it's true there are two births and you do not need to marvel at that fact, it is simple truth(my paraphrase of verse 7).

Carol, this is just a simple comparison of the two different births in the life of a believer and a witness to the fact that people need the second birth to enter the Kingdom of God. People want to make these verses fit into their theology instead of just taking them for what they are. Why do you think people do that? I wonder

Carol, the word amnionic fluid did not exist 2000 years ago. We say in the year 2002 "her water broke" and it seems we got that saying from a long time ago.

Sister Carol, I think you have a lot to offer the BB and hope you continue to post. Don't get annoyed at us who disagree but take the position that you are open to growth which may mean changing your mind on an issue or two. I always keep an open mind when studying God's word and pay close attention to what others say. I don't know it all and want to learn more everyday.

Take care and God bless,
Brian

[ October 18, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

I didn't get that impression, I was trying to show you how silly it was to imply that because Peter commanded them to be baptized, that had to mean they weren't already saved.

Peter commanded them to be baptized, because Christ told him to make disciples and baptize them. That is why he did it, he already said that the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit just like the apostles had, he never said they still had to be baptized or else the Spirit that sealed them as a child of God would unseal them and they would not go to heaven.

Peter baptized them out of obedience, and they were baptized out of obedience and Peter taught them out of obedience. These are all things that are done as Christians because we are saved, not to get saved.

Look at the verse one more time.

If you want to look at the significance of this verse, look at the order in which things were to be done.

1. Make disciples
2. Baptize them
3. Teach them

Now if one needs baptism in order to become saved, he can't be a disciple until after baptism. If we were to believe that baptism saves, this verse should read, go ye therefore and baptize them, making them disciples and teaching them. As we can see, it clearly says we are to make disciples and baptize them (those who are already disciples).

Again you ignore my request to show me where a baptism of repentance is practiced anywhere else in the book of Acts.

You ignore my requests to show me how one can have the Spirit and not be saved.

You keep spouting off this one verse that has no other verses like it in the book of Acts. Your doctrine is based upon one phrase that is taken out of context.

As we examined the order of the verse in Matthew, let us examine the order of this verse.

1. Repent
2. Be baptized
3. Receive the Holy Ghost

Now why does Peter teach in this verse that a person should repent and be baptized before they receive the Holy Spirit?

Remember, Later Peter says that the gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as the apostles did, so he let the Jewish community know that they gentiles should be allowed to be baptized, which was a Jewish rite up until this time.

So which is it? Must we be baptized with water in order to receive the remission of sins and then receive the Spirit, or do we believe and receive the Spirit and then get baptized out of obedience? Peter appears to have taught both.

I don't believe that you are an outcast but I believe that you are deceived. I just want you to see the truth, but you appear to be happy believing what you do, and that is your choice. I do, however, hold people accountable when posting. We all have a right to believe what we want, but when someone posts here, they are not only professing a belief, they are in a way teaching that belief as truth. I often feel led to expose that false belief in light of the scripture. That is why I post what I do.

Some people are right, we may never change each other's minds, but it isn't necessarily for your sake alone that I comment as I do. I worry about others who are reading, who may not know which is truth and which is a deception. In posting I allow them to see both sides, and hopefully they will examine the scriptures more closely themselves in finding that truth.

As for what I beleive, I believe that a person must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as He is presented to us in the scriptures. (This must be a belief in the heart, not just head knowledge) The gospel, as presented in the Bible is what we must believe, for it is only that gospel which saves us. Paul said if anyone preached any other gospel than the one He preached, that person should be eternally condemned. John said that if we don't believe the testimony that God gives about His Son, then we make God out to be a liar.

So, our belief isn't as broad a term as many would like to make it out to be. Believe is all you must do, but you must believe in the truth, not in one of the deceptive gospels that the Bible clearly warns us about.

In having studied the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine I have not found it has added much to the gospel that Paul preached, and therefore is a false gospel.

It's nothing personal with you, I have many friends who do not believe as I do, we get along great and they know that I love them dearly, but when we talk about doctrinal issues, they know we will disagree. The problem here is, this message board is to talk about the Bible and in this forum we all talk about what we believe, and as such, we constantly disagree. You are a Oneness believer who is posting on a Baptist Board, surely you didn't expect us to hear your words and covert did you?

So please, don't take my comments as a personal affront, please try to realize that I am motivated much like you are, we both seem to want to share the truth, we just have different truths that we are trying to teach. The problem comes from the fact that there is only one truth, therefore one of us wrong. Telling someone they are wrong doesn't sound very loving, but the Bible is clear that we are to stand up for the truth anyway.

I hope that at least clarifies some things. In looking at the title of this thread, I wonder how we got to this topic anyway.

~Lorelei

 

Briguy (Brian) do you feel that Lorelei needs a little tongue lashing too? She was mean to me today!

I think I'll just turn into a 'lurker' and just see how much more I can learn about why you all believe what you do.

Still trying to show a sweet spirit.

Later,
MEE

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to read what I posted from my heart. I am glad you decided to use my heart felt post to lash out and accuse me of being mean. Thanks so much for trying to understand me, like I hoped that you would.

You take a post that was intended to try to heal wounds and turn it into an attack against me, and this is trying to show a sweet spirit?

~Lorelei

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to read what I posted from my heart. I am glad you decided to use my heart felt post to lash out and accuse me of being mean. Thanks so much for trying to understand me, like I hoped that you would.

You take a post that was intended to try to heal wounds and turn it into an attack against me, and this is trying to show a sweet spirit?

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]--Trying to heal wounds? Lorelei, if you were trying to be nice, I'd hate to have you as an enemy.
--Let me refresh your memory. In your last post, you told me I was "silly." Then you proceeded to say that I "spout off" and that my doctrine is taken out of context. Also, that I'm deceived and that you have the truth and that I have a "false doctrine." Now, don't you think that sounded mean?

Maybe you should try to look at how you sound as Brian suggested to me. Right Brian?

Ok Brian, remember I'm human! Enough is enough! I'm trying very hard to keep my cool.

MEE

 

I said it was silly to imply what you did, I did not call you silly. You always call me mean or say I post in a mean spirit when I am the one that tries to word things that show the error in a less personal manner. You flat out have called me mean and have said I post in a mean spirit. But I reckon that is ok, because you are allowed to interpret my behavior, but I get yelled out for doing the same thing.

I have made stupid mistakes in the past, that does not make me stupid. You made a comment that I found silly, that does not mean you as a person are silly.

I am sorry if you didn't like my choice of words "spout off", but you do keep "quoting" that verse and ignoring the questions I have raised about your interpretation of them. Instead of crying everytime I post something in opposition to what you say, why don't you answer the questions that raised the comments to begin with?

Do you think my doctrine is true? Do you think that I have the Holy Spirit even though I haven't spoken in tongues? Do you think that I will go to heaven even though I haven't received this baptism of the Holy Spirit you teach? If I believe my doctrine (which is directly in opposition to yours) then wouldn't you classify me as deceived? If not what would you call it?

I just did not water down my belief, I did not compromise on what I believe the Bible teaches and in doing so I honestly stated that I believe you are deceived. You, however, choose to sit here and call me a meanie when you believe the exact same things about me, you just didn't actually say it. Does that truly make you any better?

So please clarify with me which one is meaner:

Believing that a person is deceived and keeping it to yourself all the while gloating how you are right and they are not, or believing that a person is deceived and sharing that belief with them so that they can learn the truth?

You keep trying to play the innocent victim and each time you do, you call me names. Just let it be noted, that when you are talking about how others are being so mean to you, you are acting in the exact same attitude that you are accusing them of having.

Believe it or not, I have feelings to, but it appears that the only feelings that matter are yours.

~Lorelei

 

Well, thank you very much. I'm glad you feel that way.

 

DHK:
You said,The word "water" is used 396 times in 363 verses of the Bible. You can rest assured that every time you see the word "water" it does not mean "baptism," and this happens to be one of those times.
Prove by the harmonious evidence of the totality of the scriptures that your ASSERTION is true. Prove by the same standard that John 3:3-5 has nothing to do with baptism.

 

Carol and Lorelie, Sorry I didn't get here earlier to break up your fight

Sorry, I was trying to lighten up your hearts with humor before I blast you both OK, that was supposed to be funny too, I hope you both smiled a little. I think it is funny how our words can so easily lead to hurt feelings. When posting sometimes we write so fast that the "heart" of what we are saying gets lost in wrong words. You both proclaim to have a "heart" for the Lord and I have seen you both show that in this thread. In Heaven we will know the answers to all of our questions and we won't have to "wrestle" with eachother anymore. How increadible is that? To be in the presence of Jesus himself, who paid a horrible death just for us. I am humbled by that and try to remember that when I post, though I wish I could remember it when my kids act up

Carol, you know that scriptually speaking I agree with Lorelie, I ahve seen many of her posts and I can't recall one I disagreed with. I do not consider you less of a sister because of how you see certain scripture.

Lets move forward with "kindness" as we are instructed by scripture to show.

Frank, It seems to me that it is easy with John 3:4,5,6 to try to make the verses say what you already believe. I can only see those verses for what they are, a heartfelt conversation between Jesus and N. I don't believe in that setting he would have been anything less then direct, as he was in 3:16.

In love and truth,
Brian

 

Brian, thanks for trying to straighten things out. I agree, we should move on with "kindness."

BTW, I'm not your sister. Can you figure that one out? ...but I love you as a person, ah...maybe as a poster.

MEE

 

MEE, Did I get the Carol name wrong?

Are you a male with the name Carol?
(like in Carol O'Conner)

Are you not a Christian and been funning with us?

Do you not think of me as a Christian?

In the words of Vinnie Barbarino(sp?), of the old Welcome Back Kotter show,

"I'm so confused"

--Brian (I think I am Brian anyway)

 

Briguy:
Can you harmonize your belief with the rest of the evidence on this subject? If so, Post it and Prove It. I doubt you will do it as it will prove your positon to be false. However, should you choose not to do so. I will present the totality of the evidence myself for the sake of those interested in truth. To say John 3:3-5 has nothing to do with baptism in water is to make an unsubstantiated assertion. To say the same scriptures teach it is baptism In or by the Holy Spirit is an unsubstantiated assertion.
First, the definitive article the is not a part of the original text.
Two, the original language, the Greek does not employ capital letters.
Three, The word for Holy is absent from original text.
Therefore, one must rationally conclude that the evidence does not support the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion, one who states it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit has made an unsubstantiated,unsupported, assertion based on the inspired language the Holy Spirit delivered.
More later!

 

MEE, If you want it dropped, consider it dropped. But if you want to send me a private message to explain yourself that would be cool too. OR-- be brave and start a new topic explaining your position on the term "sister" in the church.

Frank, I didn't capitalize the word Spirit, the 70 writers of the KJV Bible did. I think the verses totally expalin themselves. There are two births, one is natural and one is supernatural. It is a simple message. To introduce water Baptism and say that Jesus would be so round about with old N. seems to be the "far-fetched" interpretation. Maybe tomorrow I can post some "proof verses" but would you acccept them anyway? I have never seen you tell anyone who didn't post exactly what you believe that you can see their point. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

In Truth,
Brian