Inter-Denominational Fellowship

[utilyan]

]

Acts 10:44, 46. 'While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.........For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.'
Acts 19: 6. 'And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.'
I am very happy for people to consider these two texts and make their own minds up. In Acts 10, the identification with the baptism of the Spirit is not given. The explanation is only given in 11:15-16 when Peter is being cross-examined. But the two events are two similar not to have the same meaning. To prophesy means to forthtell as well as to foretell. To magnify God is, if it is done Biblically, prophecy.

To try and divorce v.4 from Acts 1-3 is very artificial. Verses 3-4 are joined by the conjunction kai and there is no reason why all four verses should not be one sentence.

OK.

I can agree with most of this, I think. There seems to be another mini-Pentecost in Acts 8:14-17 with the coming of the Gospel to the Samaritans. There must have been something visible in the receiving of the Holy Spirit for Simon Magus to observe in v.18.

As I have already said, I see no difference between Acts 10:44, 46 and Acts 19:6. When the Shekinah Glory came down to the temple in 2 Chronicles 7:1-3, it remained until Ezekiel saw it leave in Ezekiel 10. The priests who entered the Holiest Place once a year were entering the very presence of God whether they were aware of it or not. Likewise, at Pentecost, the Spirit came down 'on all flesh' (Joel 2:28) but He did not disappear again. Every believer is baptized in the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). 'He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.' The 'you' here applied to the Jews of Matt. 3, to the as yet unbaptized Cornelius and his friends of Acts 10, and to the recently baptized disciples in Ephesus, and it applies to new believers today. It is true that Pentecost can never be repeated, but Pentecost has never been rescinded.

I think you misunderstand what I am arguing for here. I agree that there is only one Pentecost, with a small number of mini-repetitions to bring the news to various different areas and/or peoples. The 'sign gifts' were there to bring attention to it (and to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11-12). Those gifts have served their purpose and disappeared. The Holy Spirit remains in and with believers forever (John 14:16).

You have been very naughty here. Baptizo in Matthew 3:11 is Present Tense, not Aorist. Luke 3:7 shows that he spoke to the people before baptizing them. The whole point of what John is saying is that water baptism will do them not a penny's worth of good unless they possess what water baptism signifies- baptism in the Holy Spirit. And the very same thing is true today. What distresses me most about Baptist churches today is that they baptize people who show no signs at all of being converted. That is a dreadful wickedness, sending people to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands, and the Pastors of such churches will not escape judgement for it (Ezekiel 2:18; James 3:1).

There is no promise whatever attached to water baptism unless one is converted. Simon Magus could tell you that.

"What distresses me most about Baptist churches today is that they baptize people who show no signs at all of being converted. "

So what? If you actually believe what you say you believe no one can worsen or better a person's chance at salvation since it is solely based on God acting.


"That is a dreadful wickedness, sending people to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands, and the Pastors of such churches will not escape judgement for it (Ezekiel 2:18; James 3:1)."

So what? Once saved always saved. whoops, well they got saved to begin with.

Did you confront and warn this pastor?

As long as your pulling up Ezekiel

Ezekiel 33

7“Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me. 8“When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. 9“But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

 

[The Biblicist]

I don't have time this morning to go through the whole of 'Biblicist's' post, but I must comment on this briefly.
The Holy Spirit did come down on 'all flesh' on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:15-17. 'For these are not drunk as you suppose.......but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh........' This is it, says Peter, this is the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy, here today! The reason that the Apostles waited in Jerusalem was precisely that this pivotal event would take place before a vast crowd of Jews, not only from Judea but from all over the Roman world.

More later D.V.

I see you have chosen to divert from the rest of the post in order to escape down another rabbit trail.

Peter is quoting this portion of Joel's prophecy to explain the speaking in tongues and sign gifts that were being heard that day but the baptism in the Spirit was confined to an upper room that was neither seen or heard by the crowds. This is not an explanation of the baptism in the Spirit but the manifestation of spirtiual gifts which followed the filling of the Spirit. He is not explaining the "baptism" but the "pouring out" of the Spirit in spiritual gifts. Note the contextual reason Peter quotes Joel:

For these are not drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath;

"THIS IS THAT"! What is that? What the crowd was describing due to being drunken - speaking in tongues - or the sign gifts of the Spirit not the baptism in the Spirit but the POURING OUT of the Spirit in sign gifts.

ALL FLESH did not speak in tongues when Peter quoted this BUT the baptism had already occured BEFORE he quoted it. ALL FLESH did not prophesy when Peter quoted this BUT the baptism had already occurred BEFORE he quoted it. The only flesh that he applied it to was those who were speaking in tongues. The Spirit was not poured out on "LOST" flesh but only those speaking in tongues.

At the end of the day the Spirit had not been poured out on "ALL FLESH" because not ALL flesh had been saved on Pentecost.

Moreover, reception of these sign gifts was not merely based on being saved but being baptized into the congregation (Acts 2:38-39) showing they were not automatic at the point of salvation but sign gifts are for SERVICE.

Moreover, it would seem these sign gifts were restricted to the 12 apostles as it is only through THEIR HANDS such gifts were being manifested up to Acts 6 and it is not until they laid their hands on others did others receive these gifts.


Finally, this is PARTIAL fulfillment of Joel as Peter stopped right in the middle of Joel 2:31 before its final fulfillment at the Second Coming of Christ.

Joel's prophecy about "all flesh" at this point in time was merely potential with regard to ultimately Gentiles being recipients rather than merely just the Jews.

The coming of the Spirit had many different facets with regard to the establishment of a visible covenant administration. The baptism of the new public house of worship was just one facet. Spiritual gifts as signs of the apostolic office was another facet (2 Cor. 12;12) in connection with completing the Bibical canon is another facet. You are confusing the various facets. Baptism and filling are not the same as filling occurred before Pentecost. If you think not try to use the terms interchangably when you are at the gas station next time. Pouring out spiritual gifts and baptism are not the same as the Spirit was poured out or came upon people for spiritual gifts previous to the baptism in the Spirit. However, this is first time the Spirit is poured out to this extent upon "all flesh" that would eventually include the Gentiles.

 

[The Biblicist]

Happy Thanksgiving to all! I will be taking a break until Friday, so if I don't answer that is why.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"What distresses me most about Baptist churches today is that they baptize people who show no signs at all of being converted. "

So what? If you actually believe what you say you believe no one can worsen or better a person's chance at salvation since it is solely based on God acting.

You have no understanding of Free Grace theology. Although God is sovereign, everyone is still responsible for his actions.

"That is a dreadful wickedness, sending people to hell with a pocket-full of false promises in their hands, and the Pastors of such churches will not escape judgement for it (Ezekiel 2:18; James 3:1)."

So what? Once saved always saved. whoops, well they got saved to begin with.

1. 'Once saved, always saved' is an erroneous teaching. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.
2. If people show 'no signs at all of conversion' the chances are that they are not converted.

Did you confront and warn this pastor?

As long as your pulling up Ezekiel

Ezekiel 33

7“Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me. 8“When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. 9“But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

I have flagged it up on this forum, thereby warning dozens of pastors.

 

[Yeshua1]

So, water baptism of believers, which is one of the Baptist Distinctives, "doesn't count?"

If it doesn't count why are you a baptist?

It does count in that itis 1 of he 2 Ordinances Jesus commanded to us, bu does NOT count in salvation, nor in who is in the Body!

And Immersion isthe best way, but do allow for other modes as long as the person knows Jesus is thei Savior/Lord!

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you read English? every single passage prior to Pentecost denies the Spirit baptizes anyone. Instead it is Christ who is the administrator and Holy Spirit is the ELEMENT into which Christ immerses water baptized believers and I quote:

Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Lu 3:16 John answered, saying to them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I comes, the lace of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

There are three aspects to any baptism. (1) The administrator; (2) The subject; (3) the Element

1. In every verse it is Christ, not the Holy Spirit who baptizes.
2. In every verse it is water baptized believers who are being baptized (except last case)
3. In every case it is the Holy Spirit which is the element

Yeshua, the Holy Spirit is not the administrator of this baptism. However, he is the administrator of scriptural water baptism.as I have demonstrated with clear explicit scripture in 1 Cor. 5:5-8 and I quote again:

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that plants any thing, neither he that waters; but God that gives the increase.
8 Now he that plants and he that waters are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9 For we are laborers together with God: you are God’s husbandry, you are God’s building.

The problem is they are divided over their adminstrator of water baptism and you can read that in 1 Cor. 1:14 ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Pauls solution to this division over who is the better adminstrator of water baptism is 1 Cor. 3:5-16 where Paul discusses the origin and work of preachers in the constitution and building up of the congregation at Corinth. His solution?

1. All adminstrators of water baptism used in adding members to their congregation "ARE ONE"
2. Meaning, they all work "TOGETHER" under God the Holy Spirit's leadership
3. Therefore, it is the Holy Spirit that receives the credit for their salvation AND BAPTISM
4. "YOU are God's building" as he is the builder from start to finish.


The Holy Spirit receives the credit for water baptism just as Jesus did in John 4:1-2 for the administration of water baptism under his leadship.

Furthermore, Paul did not say "WE are God's building" because he is speaking of the congregation at Corinth and its members and he was not a member of that church.

Now, Yeshua, do me a favor, read this post three times slowly to youself at least till you understand what is being said before you respond, and when you do respond demonstrate, show, where I am wrong in anything I said or any manner I have used these texts and if you can't do that, please don't waste my time and the time of others by simply reasserting your opinion when it is proven wrong??!!!?

Do you think the Holy Spirit does not set and seal each saved person in Christ then?

 

[TCassidy]

Do you think the Holy Spirit does not set and seal each saved person in Christ then?

Do you see setting and sealing to be the same as baptism?

Do you see filling to be the same as baptism?

 

[TCassidy]

It does count in that itis 1 of he 2 Ordinances

Yes. ONE of two ordinances. ONE baptism. Not TWO baptisms. ONE baptism.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nobody denies the church at Rome was not at one time a true church of Christ as the book of Romans proves it was. However, Rome departed from and perverted the doctrine of salvation plainly spelled out in the book of Romans.

Nobody responds to you because your responses are irrational and without the use of sound exegetical evidences.

That was not though the Roman Catholic Church, as it did not have the Papacy/Cardinals etc!

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you see setting and sealing to be the same as baptism?

Do you see filling to be the same as baptism?

Yes, as the sinner receives the Spirit/sealed/placed into Christ by Him at rebirth.
No, as we are to be refilled daily, but that other stuff happens one time when saved!

 

[utilyan]

That was not though the Roman Catholic Church, as it did not have the Papacy/Cardinals etc!

"POPE" is honorific title the office is Bishop of Rome. Now if you made out "pope" to mean king of the catholics, presdent of the earth, commander of Christianity. You are mistaken.

Cardinal surprisingly means what it is. "hinge" in the sense people pointed out as being integral, principal, chief. You are cardinal to your family.


Your argument is like saying there is no Christian Airplane Pilots in the bible.......therefore since you do have Christian Airplane Pilots , then you can't be Christian.


Here are the cardinals in the bible:

Acts 15

19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them,


Joe Blow couldn't stand up in this meeting and say well guys WE PAGANS think that holy spirit says we should worship ten more gods, because he is not hold a important or CARDINAL office in the church the church. Your heart is CARDINAL to keeping your blood pumping. You might have cardinal rules at home.



Look you say your are right and I am wrong, I say you are wrong and I am right.

Lets play this game by your rules WITHOUT CARDINALS.

As a church how do we decide? Lets hold a meeting I got 1.2billion votes ready to tell you, you are wrong. I know you won't agree to it.

You would only consider particular folks as CARDINALS in your own magisterium circle. I can't walk in and have a authoritive say in your congregation.

The main difference between us is, we're already ahead of the curb 2000 years naming stuff you always took for granted.

You have an authority made up of PEOPLE. Can we vote I am king of the Baptists? I got 1.2 billion votes and you got maybe 15-30 million votes.

Everything you do you decide in congregation by vote, But hypocrites don't want a fair vote. A Nazi isn't going say Jew votes count. They going to say Jews are evil, greedy and thieves and worship pagan gods.

Accusation is a virtue of the Devil. Keep your eye on who finger points who with stories. You would not go to a Nazi to learn about Jewish culture. You went to a protestant to learn about Catholicism.....what a joke.

If I want to learn about what Calvinist think, I go James White, Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper.

I would be mistaken to learn from their opposition.

 

[Yeshua1]

Acts 18:25. 'This man [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in Spirit, he spoke accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.'
Apollos had been accurately taught, but there was something he did not understand about baptism. We might argue about what it was, but surely we can agree that there was something about baptism that he was not clear about.

My only point here is that Aquilla and Priscilla did not ostracize him or debar him from the church at Ephesus on account of his faulty understanding. On the contrary, they helped him to a proper understanding (v.26).

My assumption (and it can only be an assumption because the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to tell us more) is that Apollos had been baptized correctly in a Trinitarian manner, and so it was not necessary or proper to re-baptize him. However, wrong teaching is like a game of Chinese whispers, and if, as I suspect, Apollos had taught the Ephesian 'disciples' of Acts 19, he had given them this baptism of John which was deficient in some way, and so Paul found it necessary to re-baptize them The 'sign gifts' that came upon these disciples after their baptism was a reassurance to both them and Paul that he and they had done the right thing.

The Bible clear;y teaches tat Jesus will baptise His own in/by the Holy Spirit, and that is fo all who are saved, and tha we also will have water baptising going own!

 

[Yeshua1]

Only two opinions. #1 There are only two or #2 Paul is a liar. I vote for option #1.

Jesus stated that hwould baptize Hos own in/by the Holy Spirit,Paul stated that we are to be Baptized, ande did not evn make a big deal out of water baptising, somust be theone Jesu referred to it being!

 

[utilyan]

The Bible clear;y teaches tat Jesus will baptise His own in/by the Holy Spirit, and that is fo all who are saved, and tha we also will have water baptising going own!

There is only one baptism.


I find it amazing the folks who think baptism is symbolic and then insist a person has to be dunked or have a say in being baptized.


God isn't limited to neither physical or spiritual mechanics. The holy spirit doesn't have to punch a train ticket to visit your town.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is only one baptism.


I find it amazing the folks who think baptism is symbolic and then insist a person has to be dunked or have a say in being baptized.


God isn't limited to neither physical or spiritual mechanics. The holy spirit doesn't have to punch a train ticket to visit your town.

Even more incrdible that some would see original sin cleansed by mere water, and that the Holy Spirit coms into the baby a that tme!

 

[utilyan]

Even more incrdible that some would see original sin cleansed by mere water, and that the Holy Spirit coms into the baby a that tme!

God makes the final call on how he dispenses grace and salvation, even "mere water" if he wills it.

Even the Blood of Christ is "mere blood" its not that it had some radioactive sin forgiving holy juices, We don't dictate the mechanics of how things are done to God, He makes the calls.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is no prohecy at the house of Cornelius, but there is in 19:6. There is no stated baptism in 19:1-6 but there is in Acts 11.

I think there was prophecy at the house of Cornelius. Firstly, Acts 10:45-46 and 19:6 are of a piece; they are very similar. Prophecy, as I said before, is not always (or even usually) foretelling, but forthtelling- speaking forth the words of God. Secondly Acts 10:46, 'For they [Peter and his colleagues] heard them speak in tongues and magnify God.' The magnifying of God could certainly be a prophetic word. Thirdly, Acts 11:15, 'And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as on us at the beginning.' Consider Acts 2:36, 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.' This is a prophetic word, speaking forth publicly the counsel of God. If the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius & Co the same was he came upon the apostles, they must have prophesied.

I am not trying to divorce any of these actions from happing on the day of Pentecocst. I am distinguishing between being immersed in the Spirit which happened in Acts 2:1-3 as the house was filled in which they were sitting - thus immersing them. This is distinct from the Spirit's work of being "filled' as filling has occurred previous to Pentecost and therefore cannot be interpreted to be the promised baptism which did not occur before Pentecost. It is AFTER they were "filled" that these gift of tongues occurs again showing this is not the baptism in the Spirit but an additional work of the Spirit which Paul later explains in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 with Isaiah 28:11-14 that has to do with SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit. You fail to make these distinctions.

It would make as much, if not more sense to divorce verse 3 from verses 1 & 2. Verse three starts with kai just as verse 4 does and deals with the effects of this immersion just as much as verse 4.

No, He did not come down on "all flesh" on the day of Pentecost but upon only 120 that had gathered on the Day of Pentecost "in one accord in one place."

I can't believe that you are calling Peter a liar just to support your theory!! The people ask, "Whatever could this mean?' (Acts 2:12); Peter answers, "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel (v.16). The Holy Spirit came down on that day and He has never withdrawn Himself.

If the Holy Spirit had come down upon "all flesh" on that day there would have been no need for them to wait in Jerusalem, as they could have waited anywhere. The Joel prophecy is referring to the extent of the commission or salvation that would extend to the Gentiles as described in Acts 1:8 which is another work of the Spirit after His coming.

They waited in Jerusalem so that the coming of the Spirit could be witnessed by thousands of people from all over the Roman world at Pentecost and 3,000 could be saved in one day. The Spirit came down in a new, more powerful way and in that same way He has continued ever since.

You have been very naughty here. Baptizo in Matthew 3:11 is Present Tense, not Aorist. Luke 3:7 shows that he spoke to the people before baptizing them.

Luke 3:7 shows only that he refused to baptize a certain group that came to him - unrepentant Jews. However, the use by Jesus shows it refers only to those who had been water baptized by John (Acts 1:4-5). Furthermore, the practice of John shows that this promise is directed only to water baptized believers. As for the present tense it shows concurrent action or action in progress whereas your are attempting to interpreted as a future action.

Luke 3:7. 'Then [John] said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?........."' There is no mention that these people were 'a certain group' or that John refused to baptize them. This seems clearly to have been his approach to all who come out to be baptized. He told them they were sinners and told them to 'bear fruits worthy of repentance.' He answered questions as to what this meant (Luke 3:10-14) and then presumably he baptized them if they professed repentance. Nowhere does it say that he refused to baptize anybody. Even the Pharisees seem to have made the decision not to be baptized, rather than being refused by John (Luke 7:29-30). Now bearing in mind that all this was pre-Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit in a fuller way, it is my contention that most of these people were not saved and that most of them turned away from the Lord (John 1:11; Matthew 11:18-20ff; John 6:66; John 8:31ff; Matthew 21:43). I do not believe that John 1:4-5 proves anything. It is my contention in the light of Matthew 3:5-6 that many of those repenting in Acts 2:37 would have previously been baptized by John and were given Trinitarian baptism by the apostles.

The whole point of what John is saying is that water baptism will do them not a penny's worth of good unless they possess what water baptism signifies- baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Nothing in any of these texts even imply your conclusion. Your conclusion is drawn from theological deductions from other passages and then read back into this text. You are obviously wrong because it was not baptism that obtained eternal life PRESENT TENSE but their belief in the gospel (Jn. 3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 10:27-29) and so the baptism in the Spirit HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SALVATION - meaning "eternal life." Hence, it must be interpreted as someting totally apart from personal salvation.

On the contrary, I do not see that JTB's words can have any other connotation. John is not saying that water baptism gives eternal life; he is saying the exact opposite. He is warning the Jews that coming out to him to be baptized will do them no good if their repentance is not genuine.

Your view would have to deny their present tense possession of eternal [life?] as you are claiming they could have no such salvation apart from the baptism in the Spirit.

I absolutely deny that these people had eternal life absent repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, which no one without the Spirit can have (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Your view contradicts the Biblical doctrine of salvation that PRECEDES the baptism in the Spirit proving the baptism in the Spirit has nothing to do with salvation and agrees with my position.

You are opening up a whole new can of worms here. Our definition of 'baptism in the Spirit' is obviously different and I don't have time to pursue it. I have one more of your posts to reply to on another thread and then I shall be taking time out from this forum for a while. I am spending much too much time here.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is nothing but a rabbit trail designed to avoidthe fact that the baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with union in Christ as I have proven that already and you and no one on this forum has been able to disprove and here is the proof again:

1. ALL "in Adam" are "in the flesh" (phsyical union) because they have been "BORN of the flesh" without any kind of baptism or church membeship

ALL "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" (spiritual union) because they have been "BORN of the Spirit" without any kind of baptism or church membership.

2. ALL "in Adam" had been CREATED in Adam, likewise, ALL"in Christ" have been "CREATED in Christ" by new birth (Eph. 2:1-10) not by any kind of baptism or church membership.

3.No baptism in the Spirit (as you define it) preceded Pentecost and so no one could be "in Christ" as you define it previous to Pentecost and there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at any time thus repudiating your theory altogether as your theory demands ANOTHER WAY of salvation OUTSIDE Christ before Pentecost.

4. The NT church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists of NT materials (apostles) FIRST being "set in" the church by God not OT people of God thus repudiating your whole theory as you define "in Christ" as synonymous with being in the church body of Christ. Thus again, your theory demands another way of salvation prior to Matthew.


5.ALL "in Adam" have been born into this world in a state of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and that is the how Paul uses the descriptive phrase "in the flesh" in Romans 8:8 and ALL who are "in the flesh" in that spiritual sense are "NONE OF HIS" - Rom. 8:9 - whereas ALL of his are "in the Spirit" which he defines as synonymous with "indwelt by the Spirit" or SPIRITUAL UNION - Rom. 8:9

6. Spiritual SEPARATION which is spiritual DEATH and this is the universal problem and the ONLY possible universal solution to this problem is Spiritual UNION which is spirtual LIFE and that is what BIRTH/quickening NOT any kind of baptism or church membership.

This is not a new can of worms as this part and parcel with any Biblical examination of spiritual union - one must define what they are talking about.

Now, to answer your rabbit trail arguments:

I think there was prophecy at the house of Cornelius. Firstly, Acts 10:45-46 and 19:6 are of a piece; they are very similar. Prophecy, as I said before, is not always (or even usually) foretelling, but forthtelling- speaking forth the words of God. Secondly Acts 10:46, 'For they [Peter and his colleagues] heard them speak in tongues and magnify God.' The magnifying of God could certainly be a prophetic word. Thirdly, Acts 11:15, 'And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as on us at the beginning.' Consider Acts 2:36, 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.' This is a prophetic word, speaking forth publicly the counsel of God. If the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius & Co the same was he came upon the apostles, they must have prophesied.

On Pentecost the promise is that those upon the Spirit is poured out shall prophecy in addition to tongues. Peter is the one speaking in this context not Cornelius. No prophetic utterances occurred in this context by Corneilus.

Not only so, but Acts 8 and 19 the gifts were not communicated directly by God as in Acts 2 and 10 but THROUGH THE LAYING ON OF APOSTOLIC HANDS.

It would make as much, if not more sense to divorce verse 3 from verses 1 & 2. Verse three starts with kai just as verse 4 does and deals with the effects of this immersion just as much as verse 4.

Deal with the issue I placed squarely in front of you instead of ignoring it. Baptism is not filling as filling occurs BEFORE pentecost so you are trying to confuse what Scripture separates distinctly from each other. The pouring out followed being "filled" and had to do with SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit. There are multiple facets of the promise of the Spirit that are distinct and seaprate from each other which you are attempting to confuse and fail to distinguish.

I can't believe that you are calling Peter a liar just to support your theory!! The people ask, "Whatever could this mean?' (Acts 2:12); Peter answers, "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel (v.16). The Holy Spirit came down on that day and He has never withdrawn Himself.

The contextual antecedent for "this" is not the baptism in the Spirit as that was neither seen or heard as it occurred in the upper room. It is after the "filled" apostles came down among the crowds where they were seen and heard, and specificall it was tongues they heard which they accused them of being drunk, it was "THIS" that Peter in context is referring to by the prophecy of Joel which also refers to ANOTHER facet of the coming of the Spirit which is SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit.

They waited in Jerusalem so that the coming of the Spirit could be witnessed by thousands of people from all over the Roman world at Pentecost and 3,000 could be saved in one day. The Spirit came down in a new, more powerful way and in that same way He has continued ever since.

Context!!!! ONLY the 120 were the objects of this baptism as they ALONE were in that upper room where this baptism occurred. ONLY these "galleans" were objects of the pouring out of the Spirit in SPIRITUAL GIFTS. NTHER BELEIVERS in Israel were the objects of these things and that is why Peter could tell Cornelius that the nearest reference point was "AT the beginning" becuase this was not a REPEATING action upon ANYONE ELSE since Pentecost.

Luke 3:7. 'Then [John] said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, "Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?........."' There is no mention that these people were 'a certain group' or that John refused to baptize them. This seems clearly to have been his approach to all who come out to be baptized. He told them they were sinners and told them to 'bear fruits worthy of repentance.' He answered questions as to what this meant (Luke 3:10-14) and then presumably he baptized them if they professed repentance. Nowhere does it say that he refused to baptize anybody. Even the Pharisees seem to have made the decision not to be baptized, rather than being refused by John (Luke 7:29-30). Now bearing in mind that all this was pre-Pentecost and the coming of the Spirit in a fuller way, it is my contention that most of these people were not saved and that most of them turned away from the Lord (John 1:11; Matthew 11:18-20ff; John 6:66; John 8:31ff; Matthew 21:43). I do not believe that John 1:4-5 proves anything. It is my contention in the light of Matthew 3:5-6 that many of those repenting in Acts 2:37 would have previously been baptized by John and were given Trinitarian baptism by the apostles.

On the contrary, I do not see that JTB's words can have any other connotation. John is not saying that water baptism gives eternal life; he is saying the exact opposite. He is warning the Jews that coming out to him to be baptized will do them no good if their repentance is not genuine.

These are rediculous arguments! Matthew 3:6-8 makes it clear there were those john was baptizing and there are those who showed up that he refused to baptize or the words "bring forth fruits of repentance" makes no sense if there were no obstacle to baptizing them.

Where have I ever said water baptism gives eternal life to anyone. Where does the text say that? Where does the text says baptism in the Spirit gives life to anyone? NOWHERE except in your fruitful imagination and theological biased mind.

I absolutely deny that these people had eternal life absent repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, which no one without the Spirit can have (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Readers take note of this denial by Martin as it is what he must deny to be consistent with his position. However, both Jesus and JTB contradict and repudiate Martin's position by using the PRESENT TENSE promise of eternal life upon faith in him (Jn. 3;16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:37-39; 10:27-30) and Jesus tells his water baptized believing disciples their names are aleady written in heaven (Lk. 10:40). He tells them as individuals they already "have" the Spirit with them.

Martin and his allies would have you believe Christ and John are lying when they promise eternal life in present tense to all who belief the gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

God makes the final call on how he dispenses grace and salvation, even "mere water" if he wills it.

Even the Blood of Christ is "mere blood" its not that it had some radioactive sin forgiving holy juices, We don't dictate the mechanics of how things are done to God, He makes the calls.

God already declared to us that salvation is by Grace alone, thru faith alone, and so no water or sacrament has ANYTHING to do with saving a sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is nothing but a rabbit trail designed to avoidthe fact that the baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with union in Christ as I have proven that already and you and no one on this forum has been able to disprove and here is the proof again:

1. ALL "in Adam" are "in the flesh" (phsyical union) because they have been "BORN of the flesh" without any kind of baptism or church membeship

ALL "in Christ" are "in the Spirit" (spiritual union) because they have been "BORN of the Spirit" without any kind of baptism or church membership.

2. ALL "in Adam" had been CREATED in Adam, likewise, ALL"in Christ" have been "CREATED in Christ" by new birth (Eph. 2:1-10) not by any kind of baptism or church membership.

3.No baptism in the Spirit (as you define it) preceded Pentecost and so no one could be "in Christ" as you define it previous to Pentecost and there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ for anyone at any time thus repudiating your theory altogether as your theory demands ANOTHER WAY of salvation OUTSIDE Christ before Pentecost.

4. The NT church cannot precede its own "foundation" which consists of NT materials (apostles) FIRST being "set in" the church by God not OT people of God thus repudiating your whole theory as you define "in Christ" as synonymous with being in the church body of Christ. Thus again, your theory demands another way of salvation prior to Matthew.


5.ALL "in Adam" have been born into this world in a state of SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and that is the how Paul uses the descriptive phrase "in the flesh" in Romans 8:8 and ALL who are "in the flesh" in that spiritual sense are "NONE OF HIS" - Rom. 8:9 - whereas ALL of his are "in the Spirit" which he defines as synonymous with "indwelt by the Spirit" or SPIRITUAL UNION - Rom. 8:9

6. Spiritual SEPARATION which is spiritual DEATH and this is the universal problem and the ONLY possible universal solution to this problem is Spiritual UNION which is spirtual LIFE and that is what BIRTH/quickening NOT any kind of baptism or church membership.

This is not a new can of worms as this part and parcel with any Biblical examination of spiritual union - one must define what they are talking about.

Now, to answer your rabbit trail arguments:



On Pentecost the promise is that those upon the Spirit is poured out shall prophecy in addition to tongues. Peter is the one speaking in this context not Cornelius. No prophetic utterances occurred in this context by Corneilus.

Not only so, but Acts 8 and 19 the gifts were not communicated directly by God as in Acts 2 and 10 but THROUGH THE LAYING ON OF APOSTOLIC HANDS.




Deal with the issue I placed squarely in front of you instead of ignoring it. Baptism is not filling as filling occurs BEFORE pentecost so you are trying to confuse what Scripture separates distinctly from each other. The pouring out followed being "filled" and had to do with SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit. There are multiple facets of the promise of the Spirit that are distinct and seaprate from each other which you are attempting to confuse and fail to distinguish.



The contextual antecedent for "this" is not the baptism in the Spirit as that was neither seen or heard as it occurred in the upper room. It is after the "filled" apostles came down among the crowds where they were seen and heard, and specificall it was tongues they heard which they accused them of being drunk, it was "THIS" that Peter in context is referring to by the prophecy of Joel which also refers to ANOTHER facet of the coming of the Spirit which is SPIRITUAL GIFTS not the baptism in the Spirit.



Context!!!! ONLY the 120 were the objects of this baptism as they ALONE were in that upper room where this baptism occurred. ONLY these "galleans" were objects of the pouring out of the Spirit in SPIRITUAL GIFTS. NTHER BELEIVERS in Israel were the objects of these things and that is why Peter could tell Cornelius that the nearest reference point was "AT the beginning" becuase this was not a REPEATING action upon ANYONE ELSE since Pentecost.



These are rediculous arguments! Matthew 3:6-8 makes it clear there were those john was baptizing and there are those who showed up that he refused to baptize or the words "bring forth fruits of repentance" makes no sense if there were no obstacle to baptizing them.

Where have I ever said water baptism gives eternal life to anyone. Where does the text say that? Where does the text says baptism in the Spirit gives life to anyone? NOWHERE except in your fruitful imagination and theological biased mind.



Readers take note of this denial by Martin as it is what he must deny to be consistent with his position. However, both Jesus and JTB contradict and repudiate Martin's position by using the PRESENT TENSE promise of eternal life upon faith in him (Jn. 3;16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:37-39; 10:27-30) and Jesus tells his water baptized believing disciples their names are aleady written in heaven (Lk. 10:40). He tells them as individuals they already "have" the Spirit with them.

Martin and his allies would have you believe Christ and John are lying when they promise eternal life in present tense to all who belief the gospel.

John th Baptist decared Jesus would baptize His own in th eHoly Spirt, as did Paul, as THAT was when the sinner received the indwelling and sealing into Jesus and eternal life!