The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

[Darrell C]

1. Luke says the Spirit "fell" on them (v. 44) and that term is never used to describe initial salvation of anyone but empowerment as in being filled and gifted (v. 46).

This is not borne out by Scripture:



Acts 10:39-44

King James Version (KJV)


39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


Peter will state exactly what happened when the Holy Ghost "fell" on them:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

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

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Cornelius and his house are saved when the Holy Ghost fell on them. While there is an element of validation of Gentile Inclusion, it does not change the fact that the Gospel was preached unto him and he received the Promised Spirit, properly identified as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and properly distinguished from the baptism with water performed by John, as it is four times in Scripture.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

So those who were baptized by John had received "initial Gospel conversion?"

John the Baptist preached the gospel as revealed in John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son HATH life, but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life but the wrath of God ABIDETH upon him"

Paul explicitly states that John preached the gospel of Christ- "saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." - Acts 19:4

John distinguishes between his baptism with water, and the Baptizer's baptism with the Holy Ghost. If you say they were converted through John's baptism to "initial conversion,"

You don't get it do you? John preached the gospel of Christ as proven above and the baptism of John could be "preached" ("That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;" - Acts 10:37 the very same word which was preached by all the prophets ("TO HIM give ALL the prophets WITNESS that whosever BELIEVETH UPON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43).

The very same gospel Jesus preached in John 3:16 is the very same gospel The Baptist preached in John 3:36 and if you don't believe these passages refer to the one and only true gospel then don't use them to share the gospel.

then you must also conclude John baptized with the Holy Ghost, because no-one who has not received the Spirit of God is converted.

Circular reasoning. You are basing this on your perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine rather than God's Word. The Baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with initial gospel conversion but solely with the confirmation and abiding presence in "the house of God" in the carrying out of the "new" public covenant administration that is declarative of "the blood of the Everlasting Covenant."The "blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT" is the only covenant in existence that saves individuals. The covenant with Abraham illustrates the everlasting covenant, the "old" or Mosaic covenant administration TYPIFIES it while the "new" covenant administration DECLARES it.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is not borne out by Scripture:


Acts 10:39-44

King James Version (KJV)


43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


Peter will state exactly what happened when the Holy Ghost "fell" on them:

Why stop at verse 44 Darrell?? Could it be that the next three verses mess up your theory so that you have to jump into the next chapter to recover your theory from total repudiation? Let's Peter continue:

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

He explicitly defines what it was that "fell" on them "poured out THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost"! How did they know what was poured out was "the gift" of the Holy Ghost Darrell???? Let Luke tell you, if you have ears to hear, "FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES."

Now, Darrell, are you going to claim that one cannot be saved apart from tongues, as that is precisely how your line of reasoning would have to conclude. That is why you skip Luke's explanation and jump all in the way in the next chapter to weave your errors.

The fact of the matter is that "the gift" of the Holy Spirit is connected with speaking in tongues and Paul tells you that tongues are a "SIGN" gift (1 Cor. 14:21-22). A "SIGN" gift is a gift that CONFIRMS something. The Baptism in the Spirit is a CONFIRMING act of God that gives public validation to a new "house of God." The Gentiles are being confirmed by God to be proper subjects for water baptism into the membership of the new house of God.

Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)

Let me begin with verse 15 and work back to versre 13. Note the words "AT the beginning". The nearest reference point where Peter could place such an event was not with the 5,000 and multititudes that had been saved between Pentecost and the house of Cornelius, but "AT the beginning". This proves the baptism in the Spirit was not a continuing event or something occurring at faith with each believer. If it were, he would have said "SINCE the beginning" rather than "AT the beginning. This proves it was an exception to the rule of ONCE only as formerly seen in the Old Testament. It occurred ONCE for the tabernacle at its beginning. It occurred ONCE with the temple at its beginning.

It is this extraordinary EXCEPTION to the rule that was necessary for an ALL JEWISH "house of God" to administer water baptism and receive GENTILES as EQUALS in membership.

Finally, every single time the baptism in the Spirit has been mentioned in Scripture up to THIS POINT it is always found in this same language. FROM THIS POINT FORWARD in the history of the churches (the book of Acts - Acts 12-28) it is NEVER AGAIN mentioned. Nowhere else in the New Testament is such language EVER FOUND AGAIN. 1 Cor. 12:13 does not use this language but has the body of Christ rather than the Spirit as the element (water baptism). The language for this baptism is always stated as follows - ALWAYS:

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


Now, for the word "saved" in verse 14 you know very well that term can be applied to other aspects of salvation as salvation is far broader than initial conversion. The overall context proves this is the case.

1. God tells Peter BEFORE he goes to their house that He has already made them clean - "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

2. Luke under the leadership of the Spirit calls him a "devout" man and that term is only used in Scripture for God's people NEVER for lost people.

3. Luke under the leadership of the Spirit says that "he feared God" as did all of his householders - and there is no fear of the Lord in the wicked.

4. Luke under the leadership of the Spirit says that God heard and answered his prayers - proving he lived in a reconciled relationship with God.

5. The fruits of repentance were manifested in Cornelius BEFORE Peter came as much as they were in all of those John the Baptist baptized. Hence, this gives the Jewish members reason to believe that "repentance" had been granted unto Gentiles, since up to this point the only ones qualified for water baptism were those who manifested "fruits of repentance" (Mt. 3:8; Lk. 24:47) as the "baptism of repentance" was commissioned to the Church (Lk. 24:47). What these Jews were upset at was that Peter had WATER BAPTIZED them bringing them into EQUAL MEMBERSHIP in the church.

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

The early JEWISH church members "AT THE BEGINNING" had been believers since the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) long before they as the new "HOUSE OF GOD" at Jerusalem had been immersed in the Spirit. Likewise, Cornelius had been a believer in the Old Testament predictive gospel (Acts 10:43) long before being immersed in the Spirit as a sign to the all Jewish congregation they were to be accepted for WATER BAPTISM (Acts 10:45-47) and EQUAL membership.

Here the term "saved" revers to being baptized into the new house of God, the church, as the term "saved" is applied to water baptism in Mark 16:16 is it not! This was the salvation of their lives or progressive sanctification through membership in the Lord's church.

The baptism in the Spirit CONFIRMED many things about Cornelius and his whole household, the very things listed above that characterized him as already a true child of God and acceptable for water baptism, acceptable for EQUAL membership in God's new "house" the church. It CONFIRMED him as already a believer just as it confirmed those at "the beginning" had been already believers (Acts 1:21-22), THUS ALREADY SAVED thus already those who had received the water baptism of repentance declaring they already had "life" in the Spirit.

it does not change the fact that the Gospel was preached unto him

NOT REALLY! Peter only tells him that this gospel was ALREADY KNOWN TO HIM:

"That word, I say, ye know," - Acts 10:37

They had already believed the prophetic gospel - Acts 10:43

They were already believers just as the Jewish church had already been gospel believers prior to being immersed in the Spirit.

(continue)

 

[The Biblicist]

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

The early JEWISH church members "AT THE BEGINNING" had been believers since the baptism of John (Acts 1:21-22) long before they as the new "HOUSE OF GOD" at Jerusalem had been immersed in the Spirit. Likewise, Cornelius had been a believer in the Old Testament predictive gospel (Acts 10:43) long before being immersed in the Spirit as a sign to the all Jewish congregation they were to be accepted for WATER BAPTISM (Acts 10:45-47) and EQUAL membership.

Here the term "saved" revers to being baptized into the new house of God, the church, as the term "saved" is applied to water baptism in Mark 16:16 is it not! This was the salvation of their lives or progressive sanctification through membership in the Lord's church.

The baptism in the Spirit CONFIRMED many things about Cornelius and his whole household, the very things listed above that characterized him as already a true child of God and acceptable for water baptism, acceptable for EQUAL membership in God's new "house" the church. It CONFIRMED him as already a believer just as it confirmed those at "the beginning" had been already believers (Acts 1:21-22), THUS ALREADY SAVED thus already those who had received the water baptism of repentance declaring they already had "life" in the Spirit.

and he received the Promised Spirit, properly identified as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and properly distinguished from the baptism with water performed by John, as it is four times in Scripture.

No one is confusing the baptism of John with the Baptism in the Spirit. What you are failing to see is that the baptism of John is THE PREREQUISTE to be baptized in the Spirit. In every one of those passages the only ones promised the baptism in the Spirit is the same plural "you" that had been baptized into water - IN EVERY SINGLE PASSAGE. This is a baptism of the institutional church of previously water baptized believers not an individual baptism of unbaptized believers.

 

[The Biblicist]

SUMMARY:

1. Cornelius and his household were already believers in the Old Testament prophetic Gospel:

a. Peter says they already knew the gospel (v. 37 "that word YE KNOW" or the prophetic gospel - v.43)

b. God had already "cleansed" them - new birth - v.

c. They "feared God" - always used for God's people as the wicked don't fear God

d. Their prayers were heard and answered

e. They manifested the true fruits of repentance

f. They were already gospel believers BEFORE the baptism just as the all Jewish church on Pentecost was constituted by all gospel believers BEFORE the church was baptized in the Spirit.

g. Water baptism is the prequisite for being baptized in the Spirit (Mt. 3:11, Acts 1:4-5; 11:15-16) but the all Jewish church would not water baptize the beleivers without special divine intervention (to Peter) and then the baptism in the Spirit and tongues upon these Gentiles.

2. The Baptism in the Spirit had occurred "AT the beginning" but not since as he does not say "SINCE the beginning" and the house of cornelius is the LAST mention of this baptism in scripture. There is now only "one baptism" and that is the age long commission of water baptism administered by "ye" in the Great Commission.

3. The Baptism in the Spirit was necessary to CONFIRM Gentile believers as acceptable candidates for WATER baptism and church membership or else the all Jewish church would never have received them. Peter would have never gone to their house without special divine intervention.

4. The "gift" of the Spirit that "fell" on them was the baptism in the Spirit manifested by the gift of tongues which is another "SIGN" gift to JEWS (1 Cor. 14:21-22).

5. Partaking of the benefits of the completed baptism in the Spirit is through water baptism into the membership of the church institution. Temporal sign gifts continued until the Biblical canon was completed, however, the continuing manifestation of the baptism in the Spirit is "truth" (Jn. 13-17) which is the source of practical church unity and peace. The baptism in the Spirit is manifested by a PATTERN of truth with regard to qualification of the ordinances, ministry and mission of the church.

6. The term "saved" is used in reference to baptism as in Mark 16:16
a. The issue was the administration of water baptism (Acts 10:46-48)
b. Church membership is God's revealed way to serve God - progressive sanctification
c. Water baptism is "the baptism of repentance" meaning that "fruits of repentance" are required as prerequisite to water baptism. "Repentance unto life" is the declaration of water baptism and for the Gentiles to receive water baptism not only makes them EQUAL members in the church but DECLARES they have received eternal life or are believers.

 

[Darrell C]

This time I will keep a list of the false arguments you impose in order to sound as though you are addressing the points raised. I will list these at the end of each post.

And I am curious as to why we still see the same double standard in regards to long responses. It's okay for you, but not for me, right?

John the Baptist preached the gospel as revealed in John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son HATH life, but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life but the wrath of God ABIDETH upon him"

Paul explicitly states that John preached the gospel of Christ- "saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." - Acts 19:4

John was not Baptizing men in the name of Christ. Thus were men who had been baptized by John Baptized in the Name of Christ, despite being baptized by John.

You don't get it do you? John preached the gospel of Christ as proven above and the baptism of John could be "preached" ("That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;" - Acts 10:37 the very same word which was preached by all the prophets ("TO HIM give ALL the prophets WITNESS that whosever BELIEVETH UPON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43).

Thought we had been over this numerous times. Yes, John preached Christ, and the Gospel, but that does not mean John understood the Gospel. John sends two of his disciples to inquire...if Jesus is truly the Christ of Prophecy:


Matthew 11

King James Version (KJV)


11 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


Kind of hard to see John as one trusting in the Risen Savior here.

So the first false argument is to imply that I teach the Gospel is not found in the Old Testament. I have corrected you on this several times, yet you still impose it into your arguments.

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.


The second error I see, which leads you to conclude salvation is equal throughout the Ages, is seen here:

You don't get it do you? John preached the gospel of Christ as proven above...

How does this...

John the Baptist preached the gospel as revealed in John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son HATH life, but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life but the wrath of God ABIDETH upon him"

Paul explicitly states that John preached the gospel of Christ- "saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." - Acts 19:4

"...prove" that John was preaching the Gospel and men were being born again by being water baptized for repentance?

What it does prove is that John contrasts himself from Christ and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. What it does prove is that John taught theat men should believe on Christ, not himself:


John 3:30-34

King James Version (KJV)

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.


Do you really not see John distinguish between himself and Christ, between his teaching and Christ's?

The third error is seen here...

You don't get it do you? John preached the gospel of Christ as proven above and the baptism of John could be "preached" ("That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;" - Acts 10:37 the very same word which was preached by all the prophets ("TO HIM give ALL the prophets WITNESS that whosever BELIEVETH UPON HIS NAME shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43).

You fail to recognize that in view is simply the validation of what was preached. There is nothing in this to equate the preaching of John and the Prophets to the revelation of the Mystery of Christ.

John did not preach that Christ died, rose again, and was glorified. He taught that Christ would take away the sins of the world, but not how. Nor do we see anyone placing faith in the risen Savior prior to Pentecost.

So false argument #1 has you saying that I teach the Gospel is not in the Old Testament, which is an error you have been corrected on several times. What I do teach is that the understanding of the Gospel throughout Scripture was not present. Men would not place their faith in the Crucified Christ until after He was crucified and raised from the dead.

Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The very same gospel Jesus preached in John 3:16 is the very same gospel The Baptist preached in John 3:36 and if you don't believe these passages refer to the one and only true gospel then don't use them to share the gospel.

There's the false argument again.

How many times must I reiterate this point before you drop this false argument and debate what I do say?

Circular reasoning. You are basing this on your perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine rather than God's Word. The Baptism in the Spirit has NOTHING to do with initial gospel conversion but solely with the confirmation and abiding presence in "the house of God" in the carrying out of the "new" public covenant administration that is declarative of "the blood of the Everlasting Covenant."The "blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT" is the only covenant in existence that saves individuals. The covenant with Abraham illustrates the everlasting covenant, the "old" or Mosaic covenant administration TYPIFIES it while the "new" covenant administration DECLARES it.

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."


This second argument is hilarious. You are the one teaching...

Spiritual union is quickening (made alive - brought into spiritual union with God) and that is regeneration. However, the baptism in the Spirit is TIME and PLACE restricted and can have no possible relationship with spiritual salvation or spiritual union with God - you are confusing regeneration with the baptism in the Spirit.

You made this statement in "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost," Post #84.


What is sad is that both say that Spiritual union is quickening, being made alive, and brought into union with God, and...

...the Baptism in the Spirit "can have no relationship with spiritual salvation or spiritual union with God."

?

And I am confused?

I am not the one trying to say two things at once and somehow thinking I am correct. lol

You say...

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ who individually were indwelt by the Spirit ("he who DWELLS with you" as individuals "shall be in you" as a corporate body - the institutional church).



This conflicts with the fact that there is a future tense presented by Christ in regards to the disciples receiving the Holy Ghost Who was to be sent. You have them being Baptized with the Holy Ghost...through John.

This leads to your definition of what the baptism with the Holy Ghost is:


It has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5). A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.


The Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation?

This is why you cannot see Cornelius having the Gospel preached to him and being saved.

What is sad is you charge me with having a Roman Catholic Sacramentalist view, yet you are the one saying men were born again believers who had received the Spirit clearly not given until Pentecost and making it merely public accreditation. The above statements seem very churchy to me.




So here is our list of false arguments so far:



False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."



So quote me saying the Gospel is not found in the Old Testament, then quote what I have said that has anything to do with a sacramental view. These are false arguments, and the sad thing is that you are the one presenting very catholic doctrine, reducing the Baptism with the Spirit, something that did not take place in the Old Testament, nor during Christ's Ministry, nor through John's Ministry...to a mere public formality.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Why stop at verse 44 Darrell?? Could it be that the next three verses mess up your theory so that you have to jump into the next chapter to recover your theory from total repudiation?

Oh, so you won't complain about long responses if I get more detailed than I already have?

Not likely. And this is why I try to give detailed responses, because of arguments like these, which are false, though you don't even realize the error and irrelevancy of what you will now say.

The reason I presented what I presented, Biblicist, is because it was relevant to the point at hand. Now I have to wade through even more confusion on your part, where you equate the Baptism with the Holy Ghost with sign gifts themselves.

So let's continue with our list of false arguments:



False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."

3: Darrell does not include relevant portions of the passages he uses to proof-text his doctrine.


We have been through this before. Before, it was because I did not include v.37 when I showed that the Spirit was not yet given, beause Christ had not yet been glorified. Verse 37 is still not relevant, Biblicist, you cannot change the fact that...

...the Spirit was not yet given, because Christ had not yet been glorified.

And the following is a considerable waste of time (in regards to the topic at hand), and an example of very poor commentary.

Let's dig into this rabbit trail:

Why stop at verse 44 Darrell?? Could it be that the next three verses mess up your theory so that you have to jump into the next chapter to recover your theory from total repudiation?

The text presented is sufficient to show that these men were Baptized with the Holy Ghost, as well to show your statement here...

1. Luke says the Spirit "fell" on them (v. 44) and that term is never used to describe initial salvation of anyone but empowerment as in being filled and gifted (v. 46).

...is in error.

You say that the Spirit "falling" on men is never used to describe initial salvation.

That is error, and the text presented shows that.

Do you say, "Okay, I misspoke, we do see this term speaking of initial salvation?" No, you go further into error by trying to say that Cornelius was already saved.

Here is you saying this same thing here:

I believe that Apollos had two flaws; (1) He did not know the baptism in the Spirit (although true born again saved believer) which accredited the church as the authorized administrator of the ordinances. (2) He did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah. He believed in the gospel as presented in Acts 10:43 thus had believed in the Messiah/Christ for salvation. I believe he had been baptized by John BEFORE John revealed Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah.

Yet you charge me with not understanding how men were saved in the Old Testament?

You are teaching that men can be saved, and born again....without knowing the Baptism with the Holy Ghost (which is shown to be false in Acts 19) or knowing that Jesus is the Christ!

Simply amazing.

Your pride will simply not allow you to recognize error in your doctrine. And these are about as erroneous as one can get in regards to Salvation.

This is why you believe men were born again prior to the Spirit being given, because you equate salvation under Law with salvation in Christ through the hearing of the revealed Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Now I ask those who are agreeing with you...

...do you also believe men can be born again, eternally indwelt, and saved...

...though they do not know the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, or...that Jesus is the Messiah?

I wonder if even one will have the courage to point out the error in this doctrine.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And just to make sure it is clear, I am challenging anyone reading this to affirm Biblicist's doctrinal statements above.

Is there even one here with the courage to set respect of persons aside and point out the error in the statements above?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Let's Peter continue:

And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

And this nullifies the fact that you are in error to say that the Holy Ghost falling on men never speaks about initial salvation?

He explicitly defines what it was that "fell" on them "poured out THE GIFT of the Holy Ghost"!

So what fell on them is the Gift of Languages?

It's pretty clear that the speaking in languages here validates the Baptism with the Holy Ghost...Who fell on them.

It is pretty evident that they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost and saved here. Here is Peter's commentary, which apparently you were not able to follow the first time around:


Acts 11:13-18

King James Version (KJV)

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

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

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Where does Peter mention the gift of languages, Biblicist?

Where?

In view is the fact that they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost which is contrasted with John baptizing with water.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

How did they know what was poured out was "the gift" of the Holy Ghost Darrell???? Let Luke tell you, if you have ears to hear, "FOR THEY HEARD THEM SPEAK WITH TONGUES."

It's not relevant...we know what takes place, they are Baptised with the Holy Ghost, saved at this time, and given life.

You are dodging what is relevant and making the gift of languages the gift that is in view when Peter recounts the event. And he never mentions speaking in languages when he does this.

You are wasting much time, and teaching that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation, which is amazing...because that is precisely what Luke tells us Peter states.

Now, Darrell, are you going to claim that one cannot be saved apart from tongues, as that is precisely how your line of reasoning would have to conclude.

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

2: Darrell's teaching is "perverted Roman Catholic Sacramental church salvation doctrine."

3: Darrell does not include relevant portions of the passages he uses to proof-text his doctrine.

4: Implication that I am teaching one cannot be saved apart from tongues...when I never even mentioned tongues.


The list grows, Biblicist. Just how many false arguments are you going to have to impose into this discussion? The reason you do? Because you cannot address the points raised.

No, Biblicist, the reasoning presented is pretty cut and dry: Cornelius was an Old Testament believer, a man of faith in the Foundational Principles of the Oracles of God, a Judaizer, and in Acts 10 he is saved. In Acts 11 it is made clear he is saved through Peter's preaching of the Gospel.

Your reasoning is about as sound here as it is when you charge me with teaching works-based salvation. The only way it can seem plauisible is if you impose the implication yourself and then run with it. Yet you have not answered my challenge to quote me teaching anything like this.

You are dishonest in your debate, my friend.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And again, on the last point, I ask if anyone here would affirm Biblicists implication, and say they also, from what I said, get the notion I am saying men "cannot be saved apart from speaking in tongues."

Anyone?

There are several here who like to throw in an "Agree" to things being said by Biblicist, so I have to assume that you agree with everything he says. Do you have the courage to affirm his doctrine publicly?

Anyone?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

That is why you skip Luke's explanation and jump all in the way in the next chapter to weave your errors.

So "Luke's explanation" of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is...

...they spoke with languages?

That the sign gift is the "Public Accreditation of..."

...what?

Its very simple, Biblicist, the text presented has relevance to salvation in Christ. It is irrelevant that they spoke in languages. The Holy Ghost falls on them and Peter states this is through him speaking the words (the Gospel of Christ) by which they would be...

...saved.

The fact of the matter is that "the gift" of the Holy Spirit is connected with speaking in tongues and Paul tells you that tongues are a "SIGN" gift (1 Cor. 14:21-22).

Relevance to the fact that Cornelius and his house are at this time saved, and that the gift of languages is a distinct issue from this salvation?

A "SIGN" gift is a gift that CONFIRMS something

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is what is being confirmed...

...that they are saved (and I don't want to hear any complaints about the length of this post; cross referencing will be in blue):


Peter preaches the Risen Savior, the Gospel of Jesus Christ:



Acts 10:34-48

King James Version (KJV)


34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;


The Word in view here is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You deny the Mystery of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yet we see here that it began in Galilee, after the baptism which John preached. Now tuck that back in your heart because we are going to see John's baptism is invalidated, and these men are going to have be baptized in the Name of Christ according to Christ's command just prior to His Ascension.

Preaching of Christ was something known to many, as we see in the case of the disciples on the Road to Emmaus. They ask Christ how it is that they did not know the events, and state they "thought it was He that should redeem Israel (Luke 24:17-21)."

This does not mean that men understood the Mystery of Christ, as evidenced by the two disciples in Luke 24:21.

Men were aware that Christ went about doing good, but it is clear that when Christ was raised...He was not openly shown to all people, but unto chosen witnesses.


38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.


And if you simply read the accounts of this showing, you will see...

...the disciples were unbelieving:


Mark 16:9-15

King James Version (KJV)


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.


Now, Biblicist...you want to tell me that these disciples were trusting in the risen Christ...when they did not even believe that He had in fact risen from the dead?

Note that it is then they are commissioned to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Kind of hard to imagine you ceding this point while you believe men can be born again apart from faith in the Gospel of Christ, and apart from know of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. The Ephesian Disciples could not be.

But let's go on:


42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.


When did He command them, Biblicist? When they were ministering under Christ? How do you reconcile with the fact that they did not even believe Christ had risen again the Third Day? How do you reconcile that with the fact that when the Lord commissioned them during His ministry...they were sent unto the Lost Sheep of Israel only?

When did the disciples begin preaching the revealed Gospel of Christ, Biblicist?


43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.


The witness of the Prophets (and the Law, and the Psalms)...all testify beforehand of Christ. That does not mean they understood the Gospel Mystery.



44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


While he preached the Risen Christ, Who he had previously denied as having raised from the dead, the Holy Ghost falls on them.


45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.


The Holy Ghost is the gift in view, and this is evidenced by the sign gift of tongues. You are teaching that the gift in view is speaking in tongues, which error leads you to impose the false argument that anything I said had to do with the gift of languages.

And here is the text I did not include, because it was not relevant:


46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Speaking in languages is not the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it is the evidence they have received the Spirit.

Being water baptized does not save them...being Baptized in the Holy Ghost does.

And that is why I posted what I posted, because I centered on the fact that these men are here...saved.

This is initial salvation in Christ, and it begins with being immersed into God.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The Baptism in the Spirit is a CONFIRMING act of God that gives public validation to a new "house of God."

Okay, so men are confirmed as a part of the Church by being Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Sounds pretty Catholic to me.

Regeneration is not something that can be evidenced by the human eye, Biblicist, which dismisses the ridiculous notion that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is a public accreditation:


John 3:7-8

King James Version (KJV)


7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Sign gifts were given for validation of Gentile Inclusion, but, most mistake this as being the Gift in view. The Gift of God is life in Christ. The gifts of God are a result of salvation.

You are confusing the two, and worse, imposing false arguments that have nothing to do with anything I have said. You cannot possibly read what I have said, in this thread or any other, and conclude my reasoning demands men cannot be saved unless they speak in tongues.

The gift of languages is a validation of the spiritual event of salvation, and being water baptized in the Name of Christ is the public testimony someone has placed faith in Christ. Neither of those have to do with being Baptized with the Holy Ghost.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

John was not Baptizing men in the name of Christ. Thus were men who had been baptized by John Baptized in the Name of Christ, despite being baptized by John.

Apparently, you do not understand what it means to do something "in the name" of someone. For example, we are baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and yet that precise phrase cannot be found once in the book of Acts or anywhere else in Scripture. Therefore, it cannot mean that this is what a person says verbatim when baptizing someone. To baptize or preach "in the name" of someone is to do so either BY THEIR AUTHORITY and/or IN KEEPING WITH THEIR REVEALED WILL. For example, see Acts 4:7.

John the Baptist baptized "in the name of" the Trinune God. He believed in the Trinity. He acknowledge God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son. He claimed he baptized AS AUTHORIZED by the one and true God (who is triune in nature). He most certainly did baptized "in the name" of Christ as Paul explicilty says he did (Acts 19:4).

Thought we had been over this numerous times. Yes, John preached Christ, and the Gospel, but that does not mean John understood the Gospel. John sends two of his disciples to inquire...if Jesus is truly the Christ of Prophecy:

Yes we have and you still don't understand what you are talking about. The gospel is the promise of redemption from sin by the promised "seed" or "Messiah/Christ." That simple good news is wholly sufficient to save. However, progressive revelation reveals things like the place the Messiah would be born, the precise means "how" he would die, the precise personal name he would be given, etc. None of these things prevent salvation prior to their revelation. John preached the same sufficient and completely saving gospel as did all the prophets and it was sufficient for them to receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

The personal name ("Jesus") or the personal place where he would be born ("Bethlehem") or the precise means how he would obtain the atonement ("the cross") were irrelevant prior to their revelation and fulfillment. The gospel at whatever stage of revelation has always been sufficient for remission of sins to "whosoever believeth upon his name" (Acts 10:43). "His name" in the Old Testament referred to Jehovah our Savior in whom Adam to John the Baptist believed in for remission of sins.

False Arguments:

1: Darrell teaches the Gospel is not in the Old Testament.

Can't you read what you just wrote????? You deny what was preached prior to the cross was a sufficient gospel to save, and you deny anyone could understand what was preached and you deny it saved anyone (justification/regeneration). No false argument, but precisely the truth. You have no concept of the gospel because if you did you would never deny justification and regeneration are the only possible solutions for sin and spiritual separation from Eden to the present.

The second error I see, which leads you to conclude salvation is equal throughout the Ages, is seen here:

The PROBLEM is equal throughout the ages and therefore the SOLUTION must be just as equal or there is no solution at all at any time. There is no solution to spiritual separation but spiritual union. There is no solution to sin but remission of sin and replacement by righteousness or justification before God simply does not exist. No human being in an unregenerate state can please God and/or wants to please God. You cannot be a friend of God spiritually separated from God, in darkness and in love with sin and by nature still in your spiritual uncleaness.

"...prove" that John was preaching the Gospel and men were being born again by being water baptized for repentance?

Who said they were, I didn't! I said that "baptism of repentance" was baptism that required fruits of repentance before baptism (Mt. 3:8). Hence, baptism is a DECLARATION of remission of sins and eternal life ALREADY IN POSSESSION. We are "saved" by baptism figuratively, declaratively and that is precisely what the all Jewish Church refused to Gentile believers "the baptism of repentance" simply because they were GENTILES. By allowing "baptism of repentance" they would be force to acknowledge that Gentiles had been granted both "Life" and EQUAL MEMBERSHIP.

What it does prove is that John contrasts himself from Christ and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. What it does prove is that John taught theat men should believe on Christ, not himself:

Thus John baptized "in the name" of Christ when allowing for baptism to only those who beleived in Christ for salvation (Jn. 3:36). Of course John did not claim to be the baptizer in the Holy Spirit. But he did claim it was only for those already water baptized.

You fail to recognize that in view is simply the validation of what was preached. There is nothing in this to equate the preaching of John and the Prophets to the revelation of the Mystery of Christ.

The gospel has always been sufficient to save at any point previous to its progressive revelation of additional details.

So false argument #1 has you saying that I teach the Gospel is not in the Old Testament, which is an error you have been corrected on several times. What I do teach is that the understanding of the Gospel throughout Scripture was not present. Men would not place their faith in the Crucified Christ until after He was crucified and raised from the dead.

Continued...

So you admit the gospel was preached by all the prophets BUT TO NO AVAIL as none could understand it and therefore none could be saved by it, and that it was basically empty of value because it did not identify exactly the personal name of Christ or the precise physical means by which the atonement would be accomplished (the cross)?????

Anyone who can read and understand English will see you don't believe the gospel was savingly preached or believed prior to the cross. Case closed!

 

[Darrell C]

The Gentiles are being confirmed by God to be proper subjects for water baptism into the membership of the new house of God.

What do you mean the "New House of God?" According to you...there is nothing new here.

If men received the Promised Spirit and were born again, then it isn't a New House of God.

It's the same one.

And that is the problem with your doctrine, you, and many here...equate the benefits of the Promises of the New Covenant to having, your words...force in the Old economies.

The Church has always existed according to you and they, because if they were reconciled to God and indwelt eternally by God, then they were in fact the Church, which dismisses your reasoning as being valid.

But I am getting used to you trying to reconcile your doctrine. I hope eventually you will see your doctrine conflicts with itself.

Let me begin with verse 15 and work back to versre 13.

Proceed.

. Note the words "AT the beginning".

Yes, which is clearly...Pentecost.

Has to be, because that is when Christ states they would themselves be Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

The nearest reference point where Peter could place such an event was not with the 5,000 and multititudes that had been saved between Pentecost and the house of Cornelius, but "AT the beginning".

Had to begin with Pentecost, because they had not received the Promise of the Father, clearly defined by Christ as the Baptism with the Holy Ghost:


Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


So what is the Promise of the Father they had heard of Christ, Biblicist?


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

You made this statement in "The Baptism with the Holy Ghost," Post #84.


What is sad is that both say that Spiritual union is quickening, being made alive, and brought into union with God, and...

...the Baptism in the Spirit "can have no relationship with spiritual salvation or spiritual union with God."

?

And I am confused?

.

Yes, and totally confused! You substitute "spiritual union" for "Baptism in the Spirit" in the above paragraph BUT I DO NOT. You are jerking my words out context and splicing them together with YOUR MEANING implied rather than MY MEANING.

Let me spell it out by using the same two statements above which the context would have supplied MY MEANING if left in context:

"...the Baptism in the Spirit can have no relationship with spiritual salvation or spiritual union with God" because it has to do with confirming the house of God has been built according to a divine pattern in relationship with the establishing of an new PUBLIC covenant administration 4000 years after the problem of sin and spiritual separation. The solution to the problem must be COEXISTENT with the problem or there is no solution at all for anyone living between 0-4000 B.C.

You say...

Those immersed in the Spirit were already born again water baptized professors in Jesus Christ who individually were indwelt by the Spirit ("he who DWELLS with you" as individuals "shall be in you" as a corporate body - the institutional church).



This conflicts with the fact that there is a future tense presented by Christ in regards to the disciples receiving the Holy Ghost Who was to be sent. You have them being Baptized with the Holy Ghost...through John.

The only conflict is between your two ears not in a thing I said. The future tense (Jn. 7:39) refers to the future tense OUTFLOW (Jn. 7:38) not to the present tense INFLOW (Jn. 7:37).

This leads to your definition of what the baptism with the Holy Ghost is:


It has NOTHING to do with salvation. It is an institution immersion promised only to water baptized believers as an institutional "house of God" (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:4-5). A non-repeatable act that is just one aspect (concluding aspect) of the establishment of a new covenant administration.


The Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation?

This is why you cannot see Cornelius having the Gospel preached to him and being saved.

"saved" in the sense of administering baptism unto church membership (Mk. 16:16). The All Jewish church would not administer baptism to Gentiles because they would not acknowledge EQUAL MEMBERSHIP to Gentiles. If they allowed for baptism they would have to admit what Baptist declared "repentance unto life" and EQUAL MEMBERSHIP.

What is sad is you charge me with having a Roman Catholic Sacramentalist view, yet you are the one saying men were born again believers who had received the Spirit clearly not given until Pentecost and making it merely public accreditation. The above statements seem very churchy to me.

You are the one confusing salvation with the church by the baptism in the Spirit which you equate to being "in Christ" or in the universal invisible church. I have them saved prior to either water or Holy Spirit baptism. Big difference. I have both baptisms consistently DECLARATIVE rather than obtaining justification or regeneration.

 

[The Biblicist]

And again, on the last point, I ask if anyone here would affirm Biblicists implication, and say they also, from what I said, get the notion I am saying men "cannot be saved apart from speaking in tongues."

Anyone?

There are several here who like to throw in an "Agree" to things being said by Biblicist, so I have to assume that you agree with everything he says. Do you have the courage to affirm his doctrine publicly?

Anyone?


God bless.

I am simply saying that your line of argument IF YOU WERE CONSISTENT would require that conclusion from you as well EVEN IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT.

 

[Darrell C]

This proves the baptism in the Spirit was not a continuing event or something occurring at faith with each believer.

It does? So the Ephesian Disciples were not Baptized with the Holy GHost, or...their Baptism with the Holy Ghost occurred early on?

If it were, he would have said "SINCE the beginning" rather than "AT the beginning.

We know the disciples were not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Biblicist, because they did not believe on the Risen Lord until after the Lord was glorified. He died, and arose, and they did not believe the testimony of those who saw Him.

This proves it was an exception to the rule of ONCE only as formerly seen in the Old Testament.

Only in your mind. There is a long time span between Cornelius' Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Ephesian Disciples'.

It occurred ONCE for the tabernacle at its beginning. It occurred ONCE with the temple at its beginning

Again, you equate the external Ministry of the Spirit in the Old Testament with the internal and eternal indwelling of the Spirit given unto men after Christ is glorified.

You need to study Hebrews.

It is this extraordinary EXCEPTION to the rule that was necessary for an ALL JEWISH "house of God" to administer water baptism and receive GENTILES as EQUALS in membership.

Again, Israel is equated to the Church.

I will remind you that Jews were brought into the Church, Biblicist, as well as Gentiles. That is why they are called one new man.

You doctrine teaches that salvation in Christ is Gentiles being inducted into Israel.

That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You are teaching that men who did not believe in the Resurrection of Christ were born again believers, who had received the Spirit Christ makes clear will not come until after He returns to Heaven. You leave out that which is relevant to the discussion and focus on irrelevancies. That is why I am wasting time addressing your false arguments and the absurd implications that have nothing to do with what I have said.

Finally, every single time the baptism in the Spirit has been mentioned in Scripture up to THIS POINT it is always found in this same language.

Great. That is about as valid as saying the Baptism with the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with salvation and that the Holy Ghost fallling on men doesn't speak of initial salvation.

FROM THIS POINT FORWARD in the history of the churches (the book of Acts - Acts 12-28) it is NEVER AGAIN mentioned.

So when the Holy Ghost "Comes on" the Ephesian disciples it is something different from the Holy Ghost falling on Cornelius?

They are still being Baptized with the Holy Ghost, Biblicist.

FROM THIS POINT FORWARD in the history of the churches (the book of Acts - Acts 12-28) it is NEVER AGAIN mentioned. Nowhere else in the New Testament is such language EVER FOUND AGAIN.

So no-one receives the Promise of the Father taught by Christ after Acts 12?

1 Cor. 12:13 does not use this language but has the body of Christ rather than the Spirit as the element (water baptism).

Well, I have already addressed your denial of the unity of the Trinity:



Your generic expression is incorrect there is no "immersion into GOD". The baptism is in the SPIRIT of God - not the Father, not the Son.He is "ANOTHER" comforter not the SAME comforter. He is sent by the Father and the Son and so there is no immersion in to a generic "God."


You would have me address this again?

I will just point out that God is God, my friend. I gave you Scripture in the other thread which denies your view that The Comforter sent is separate from the Father and the Son.

What is distinct is the Ministry He performs. Same God, different Ministry.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The language for this baptism is always stated as follows - ALWAYS:

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

Yet you have those baptized of John as born again believers who have received the Spirit that has not yet come, because Christ is not yet glorified, lol.

You completely miss that John's baptism is contrasted with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.


Continued...