RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
|
| Yes |
|
| No |
|
| Maybe/Not Sure |
|
Total Votes : 147
|
(last vote on : 11/29/2009 10:11:57 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 9:32:25 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I appreciate the offer of Stott's book, but I think I'll see if I can find it on eBay or at Barnes&Noble.
Speaking of Stott that reminds of my favorite quote from Stott -- "Baptism means water baptism unless in the context it is stated to the contrary." (Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994, p. 173).
Sure. Just for explanation. The book is not about baptism per se. It is mainly about the charismatic movement. The pages I referenced dealt with some of the semantic issues concerning both water baptism and baptism of the HS.
I like the quote too. I never knew that quote, but it sounds like him. Some of the things in the book are compatible with the quote. My own phrasing would be slightly different. I think the word baptism should be considered water baptism unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise.
I came across Stott's book 30 years ago but didn't read it until around 10-15 years ago. I had a series of discussions with a CoC minister but kept keeping Stott's explanations in my mind. Regarding Romans 6:3, I had always been told that it referred to the baptism of the HS but could not figure out why it was interpreted that way. I did my own study and laid Stott's book along side my Bible, so to speak. I kept reading Romans 6:1-5 and tried to figure out which way made more sense, water baptism or HS baptism.
I emailed a minister (theologian) and asked him about the baptism of the HS explanation. He told me that there were two kinds of baptism of the HS. One was baptism **by** the HS and the other was baptism **in** the HS. Of the 2-3 interpretations of Romans 6:3, only Stott's made sense grammatically. The Greek grammar is over the heads of most Average Joe Churchgoer.
But there are other people who view it similar to the way I do. And I am pretty sure they haven't read Stott's book. The choice of English semantics is different, but the concepts are very similar.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/14/2009 9:38:43 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 10:10:54 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 664
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I appreciate the offer of Stott's book, but I think I'll see if I can find it on eBay or at Barnes&Noble.
Speaking of Stott that reminds of my favorite quote from Stott -- "Baptism means water baptism unless in the context it is stated to the contrary." (Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994, p. 173).
Sure. Just for explanation. The book is not about baptism per se. It is mainly about the charismatic movement. The pages I referenced dealt with some of the semantic issues concerning both water baptism and baptism of the HS.
I like the quote too. I never knew that quote, but it sounds like him. Some of the things in the book are compatible with the quote. My own phrasing would be slightly different. I think the word baptism should be considered water baptism unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise.
I came across Stott's book 30 years ago but didn't read it until around 10-15 years ago. I had a series of discussions with a CoC minister but kept keeping Stott's explanations in my mind. Regarding Romans 6:3, I had always been told that it referred to the baptism of the HS but could not figure out why it was interpreted that way. I did my own study and laid Stott's book along side my Bible, so to speak. I kept reading Romans 6:1-5 and tried to figure out which way made more sense, water baptism or HS baptism.
I emailed a minister (theologian) and asked him about the baptism of the HS explanation. He told me that there were two kinds of baptism of the HS. One was baptism **by** the HS and the other was baptism **in** the HS. Of the 2-3 interpretations of Romans 6:3, only Stott's made sense grammatically. The Greek grammar is over the heads of most Average Joe Churchgoer.
But there are other people who view it similar to the way I do. And I am pretty sure they haven't read Stott's book. The choice of English semantics is different, but the concepts are very similar.
Just for the record I believe biblically any time a believer is baptized in water they are baptized by the Spirit.
Which is consistent with Jesus describing two elements of one new birth in John 3:5....water and Spirit
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 9:13:25 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
I emailed a minister (theologian) and asked him about the baptism of the HS explanation. He told me that there were two kinds of baptism of the HS. One was baptism **by** the HS and the other was baptism **in** the HS. Of the 2-3 interpretations of Romans 6:3, only Stott's made sense grammatically. The Greek grammar is over the heads of most Average Joe Churchgoer.
Not sure about your theologian's assertion that there are two kinds of baptism of the Holy Spirit, since Paul clearly says in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only one baptism. But I do agree that Greek grammar is over the heads of most Christians. But that's just because they haven't raised their heads. 
First of all, I don't agree with your interpretation of Eph. 4:5. We have baptism of the HS in Acts. There is water baptism. There is the baptism of tribulation that Jesus asked the disciples if they could bear. There is the figurative baptism that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 10:2.
I interpret Eph. 4:5 as meaning that it is a common water baptism of all believers. He isn't saying that it is a single baptism nor that baptism a single time is all that is needed. He is saying that all Christians have water baptism in name of Christ----one Lord, one faith, etc.
The theologian I spoke of interpreted the word "eis" as more or less literally just as you have been doing but he applied it to the baptism of the HS. Stott makes a good argument for Paul mentioning the baptism of the HS in 1 Cor 12:13. I have been somewhat divided on his explanation, but his arguments were superior to my thinking on it.
Anyway, I digress. The theologian's explanation was that the baptism of the HS in Acts was where Jesus was the baptizer and baptized believers with the HS---analogous to water baptism just as John the Baptist said. The other is where the HS is the baptizer and that we are inserted into the body of Christ. One's interpretation depends on what they consider the agent of baptism, and what they consider the meaning of eis/into. Like I said, I consider Stott's interpretation on this matter superior in every way--unless there is something he says that I am not familiar with.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/15/2009 2:12:14 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 9:15:25 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Just for the record I believe biblically any time a believer is baptized in water they are baptized by the Spirit.
Which is consistent with Jesus describing two elements of one new birth in John 3:5....water and Spirit
We can deal with John 3:5 later if you want. You know that I'm going to have some opinions on that. Your explanation of the Samaritans in Acts 8 is what? After that you can explain to me about Cornelius.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/15/2009 9:22:11 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 2:09:05 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1488
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
First of all, I don't agree with your interpretation of Eph. 4:5. We have baptism of the HS in Acts. There is water baptism. There is the baptism of tribulation that Jesus asked the disciples if they could bear. There is the figurative baptism that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 10:2.
When we call what happens when the Holy Spirit comes into our lives a "baptism" we are using the word "baptism" in a figurative sense. When Jesus was speaking to the woman at the well in Sychar He termed the same event "drinking" of the Holy Spirit. Yet we don't go around saying that everyone must drink of the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. But even though the term "baptism" is used in a figurative sense, the event that its describing is completely and totally real and not figurative. Therefore, whenever the term "baptism" is used of anything but baptism is water it is being used figuratively. That's why I believe when Paul spoke of one baptism in Ephesians 4:5 he was speaking of literal baptism in water.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 2:54:18 PM
|
|
|
Anon101
Posts: 200
Joined: 10/21/2009
Status: offline
|
I hope not because I didn't have my son formally baptized. I don't believe in infant baptism because the baby is not making any declaration of salvation. I've plead the blood over him and when he gets to an age where he understands baptism and what it means, I will have him baptized. I was baptized as a baby but then I was baptized again at the age of seven knowing that I was asking Jesus into my heart and making a commitment to Him. I remember my baptism and it meant something to me. Infants do not understand baptism, so I really hope that it is not necessary for salvation. I have to believe that children go the heaven before the age of reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 4:06:02 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
When we call what happens when the Holy Spirit comes into our lives a "baptism" we are using the word "baptism" in a figurative sense. When Jesus was speaking to the woman at the well in Sychar He termed the same event "drinking" of the Holy Spirit. Yet we don't go around saying that everyone must drink of the Holy Spirit in order to be saved. But even though the term "baptism" is used in a figurative sense, the event that its describing is completely and totally real and not figurative.
Metaphors are sometimes difficult to interpret. But anyway. I disagree with the theologian's belief in two baptism of the HS--apparently for different reasons than you.
quote:
Therefore, whenever the term "baptism" is used of anything but baptism is water it is being used figuratively. That's why I believe when Paul spoke of one baptism in Ephesians 4:5 he was speaking of literal baptism in water.
I believe he was talking of water baptism also. Look at the context. One faith, one Lord ext. Isn't this speaking of common baptism and common faith?
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/15/2009 4:36:34 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 664
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
Just for the record I believe biblically any time a believer is baptized in water they are baptized by the Spirit.
Which is consistent with Jesus describing two elements of one new birth in John 3:5....water and Spirit
We can deal with John 3:5 later if you want. You know that I'm going to have some opinions on that. Your explanation of the Samaritans in Acts 8 is what? After that you can explain to me about Cornelius.
In Acts 8 the Samaritans were immersed for the forgiveness of sins and they received the gift of the Holy Spirit just like Christians do today. (Acts 2:38) Remember also that Jesus had ministered in Samaritan territory before! (Luke 17 and John 4), in addition to a number of O.T. prophets too!
The Samaritan response is very significant because up until this time Christianity was a Jewish movement. There was a lot of animosity between Samaritans and Jews at that time.
The church leaders in Jerusalem confirm the Samaritans conversion. Philip was not an apostle, and had no power to convey miraculous spiritual gifts (6:6). These gifts proved beyond a doubt that the Samaritans were true Christians. The miracles were for the Jerusalem church and its leaders, not for the Samaritans themselves. In other words, there was an historical purpose. The same will be the case in chapter 10 with Cornelius and his household.
The Spirit they received after the apostles prayed and laid hands on them was the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans received the indwelling gift when they were baptized and that is when they were saved having their sins forgiven.
Simon the Sorcerer knew that the miraculous gift was given only by the apostles.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/16/2009 5:09:13 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
In Acts 8 the Samaritans were immersed for the forgiveness of sins...
You know this, how? As an attorney would say, "Your honor, my opponent is arguing as fact that which is currently in dispute."
quote:
The Samaritan response is very significant because up until this time Christianity was a Jewish movement. There was a lot of animosity between Samaritans and Jews at that time.
I understand. That is a fairly standard cessationist argument to explain the coming of the HS to the Samaritans. That is relevant to our discussion in what way?
quote:
The church leaders in Jerusalem confirm the Samaritans conversion. Philip was not an apostle, and had no power to convey miraculous spiritual gifts (6:6). These gifts proved beyond a doubt that the Samaritans were true Christians. The miracles were for the Jerusalem church and its leaders, not for the Samaritans themselves. In other words, there was an historical purpose. The same will be the case in chapter 10 with Cornelius and his household.
The Spirit they received after the apostles prayed and laid hands on them was the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans received the indwelling gift when they were baptized and that is when they were saved having their sins forgiven.
Simon the Sorcerer knew that the miraculous gift was given only by the apostles.
So you're adding yet another condition for the baptism of the HS at the time of the apostles? It is not that I am inclined to disagree that apostles were present for the coming of the HS to certain groups. I have noticed this too. However, trying to argue that it is a condition--it's a little hard to prove that it was necessary.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/16/2009 9:38:49 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 664
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
In Acts 8 the Samaritans were immersed for the forgiveness of sins...
You know this, how? As an attorney would say, "Your honor, my opponent is arguing as fact that which is currently in dispute."
The text says the the Samaritans were baptized and that is what baptism is for.
quote:
The Samaritan response is very significant because up until this time Christianity was a Jewish movement. There was a lot of animosity between Samaritans and Jews at that time.
I understand. That is a fairly standard cessationist argument to explain the coming of the HS to the Samaritans. That is relevant to our discussion in what way?
It is healthy and wise to put things into perspective through biblical context. That includes historical and cultural context as well.
quote:
The church leaders in Jerusalem confirm the Samaritans conversion. Philip was not an apostle, and had no power to convey miraculous spiritual gifts (6:6). These gifts proved beyond a doubt that the Samaritans were true Christians. The miracles were for the Jerusalem church and its leaders, not for the Samaritans themselves. In other words, there was an historical purpose. The same will be the case in chapter 10 with Cornelius and his household.
The Spirit they received after the apostles prayed and laid hands on them was the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans received the indwelling gift when they were baptized and that is when they were saved having their sins forgiven.
Simon the Sorcerer knew that the miraculous gift was given only by the apostles.
So you're adding yet another condition for the baptism of the HS at the time of the apostles? It is not that I am inclined to disagree that apostles were present for the coming of the HS to certain groups. I have noticed this too. However, trying to argue that it is a condition--it's a little hard to prove that it was necessary.
I don't follow you here my friend. I don't recall talking about another condition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/16/2009 9:50:22 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
You know this, how? As an attorney would say, "Your honor, my opponent is arguing as fact that which is currently in dispute."
The text says the the Samaritans were baptized and that is what baptism is for.
As I said, that is still in dispute. If I say that Acts chapter 8 is absolutely silent in that regard, how can you prove it?
quote:
quote:
I understand. That is a fairly standard cessationist argument to explain the coming of the HS to the Samaritans. That is relevant to our discussion in what way?
It is healthy and wise to put things into perspective through biblical context. That includes historical and cultural context as well.
Okay. Since we probably don't disagree with it, I cannot see how it answers my question.
quote:
quote:
So you're adding yet another condition for the baptism of the HS at the time of the apostles? It is not that I am inclined to disagree that apostles were present for the coming of the HS to certain groups. I have noticed this too. However, trying to argue that it is a condition--it's a little hard to prove that it was necessary.
I don't follow you here my friend. I don't recall talking about another condition.
A simple yes or no will suffice. If you aren't adding another condition, then please say so.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/16/2009 10:13:01 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/16/2009 9:53:29 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Jjbird,
I seems that you have answered my question with superfluous information---basically true facts that are compatible with both our---but they don't really answer the question I asked.
Here was the statement you made:
quote:
Just for the record I believe biblically any time a believer is baptized in water they are baptized by the Spirit.
And I asked you to explain that in light of the Samaritans and of the situation with Cornelius. In neither of those cases did receiving the HS happen when they were baptized.
Anytime? Or anytime except two two or three times?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/16/2009 10:03:18 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/16/2009 10:40:09 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 664
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Jjbird,
I seems that you have answered my question with superfluous information---basically true facts that are compatible with both our---but they don't really answer the question I asked.
I believe I answered with pertinent information. I am not sure you understood me.
Here was the statement you made:
quote:
Just for the record I believe biblically any time a believer is baptized in water they are baptized by the Spirit.
quote:
And I asked you to explain that in light of the Samaritans and of the situation with Cornelius. In neither of those cases did receiving the HS happen when they were baptized.
Anytime? Or anytime except two two or three times?
How do you know?
< Message edited by jjbird -- 11/16/2009 10:46:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 12:43:05 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1488
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
I agree that water baptism and baptism of the Holy Spirit are two aspects of a single event. Peter clearly stated in Acts 2:38 that people should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
There are six passages in the New Testament which refer to the "baptism of the Spirit." The context of these six references involves an explicit comparison between the baptism of John the Baptist and that of Jesus. John's baptism is described as a baptism characterized by repentance. The baptism of the Christ, however, is distinguished from that of John. The distinction is that the baptism of Jesus involved the gift of the Spirit. There is no need to seek to make the term "baptism" mean two different things in these six passages. On the contrary, the water baptism of John associated with repentance is contrasted with the water baptism of the Christ associated with the coming of the Spirit. Baptism and regeneration, which involves the coming of the Spirit into the life of the believer are intimately associated in these verses. In the experience of the earliest Christian community this association did not create any major problem because these two aspects of the conversion experience were not separated in time.
(The above is paraphrased from Stein, Robert H., "Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament," in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Spring 1998, page 8.)
< Message edited by greatdivide46 -- 11/17/2009 12:51:16 AM >
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 1:42:01 AM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2533
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 6:50:29 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
I seems that you have answered my question with superfluous information---basically true facts that are compatible with both our [views]---but they don't really answer the question I asked.
I believe I answered with pertinent information. I am not sure you understood me.
No, but maybe I didn't ask the questions in the right way. Our charismatic friends tell us that Acts 8 establishes the principle of laying on of hands. IOW, they generalize the events whereas you take it as exceptional. While I am inclined to agree with you concerning the racial divide, there is nothing in the passage that tells us that is the reason. We go by inference only. But so do our charismatic friends. In fact, rawr.ben cites Acts 19 as yet another example for the principle of laying on hands. I am not charismatic but it seems to me that they have two passages to your one.
It seems to me that people cherry pick the passages they want to make generalizations from.
Regarding the question of baptism of being "for the forgiveness of sin": You pretty much have only Acts 2:38 to go by. Acts 8 says nothing about being baptized for the remission of sins. Your answer that "that is what baptism is for" is wholly inadequate. I have already challenged the standard CoC position of "baptism for the remission of sins" on the basis of language and semantics, the entire problem is still up in the air. It is so far unsettled. To assume an position to an unsettled and disputable is, as far as I am concerned, not helpful.
Further, I don't remember any response whatsoever regarding my question about Cornelius.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 7:20:21 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1488
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Isn't it interesting that as soon as Paul found out that they had not received the Spirit the first thing he asked them was about their baptism. Paul assumes a link between baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. It's as if baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit are the same thing.
< Message edited by greatdivide46 -- 11/17/2009 7:27:02 AM >
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 10:14:03 AM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 664
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
I seems that you have answered my question with superfluous information---basically true facts that are compatible with both our [views]---but they don't really answer the question I asked.
I believe I answered with pertinent information. I am not sure you understood me.
No, but maybe I didn't ask the questions in the right way. Our charismatic friends tell us that Acts 8 establishes the principle of laying on of hands.
Yes they do. But do they realize that only apostles had authority to lay hands on people? And do they understand the biblical qualifications of an apostle? No I don't think they do.
quote:
- IOW, they generalize the events whereas you take it as exceptional. While I am inclined to agree with you concerning the racial divide, there is nothing in the passage that tells us that is the reason. We go by inference only. But so do our charismatic friends. In fact, rawr.ben cites Acts 19 as yet another example for the principle of laying on hands. I am not charismatic but it seems to me that they have two passages to your one.
I understand however the laying on of hands from the apostles was so that they could receive the miraculous gifts of the Spirit not salvation and forgiveness because they already had those two.
quote:
It seems to me that people cherry pick the passages they want to make generalizations from.
That is certainly true.
quote:
Regarding the question of baptism of being "for the forgiveness of sin": You pretty much have only Acts 2:38 to go by.
Colossians 2:13-14, Acts 22:16 and there are more
quote:
Acts 8 says nothing about being baptized for the remission of sins. Your answer that "that is what baptism is for" is wholly inadequate.
Paul was told to get up and be baptized so that he can wash away his sins. What do you think that means?
The entire early church believed that baptism was for remission of sins. So much so that they eventually started the false doctrine of infant baptism thinking the water would cleanse the babies of their sin!
quote:
I have already challenged the standard CoC position of "baptism for the remission of sins" on the basis of language and semantics, the entire problem is still up in the air. It is so far unsettled. To assume an position to an unsettled and disputable is, as far as I am concerned, not helpful.
I don't consider that much of a challenge sins the weight of scholarship is against you. Like I said before even the translators and scholars who disagree with my theology have the integrity to translate "eis" correctly believing that it means "unto". That should tell you something.
quote:
Further, I don't remember any response whatsoever regarding my question about Cornelius.
You don't remember because I haven't gotten there yet. I will get to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 1:05:12 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2533
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Isn't it interesting that as soon as Paul found out that they had not received the Spirit the first thing he asked them was about their baptism. Paul assumes a link between baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. It's as if baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit are the same thing.
. . . and yet, their example proves that they aren't the same thing, since they received one and not the other.
Sheesh.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 3:06:02 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1488
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
Isn't it interesting that as soon as Paul found out that they had not received the Spirit the first thing he asked them was about their baptism. Paul assumes a link between baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. It's as if baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit are the same thing.
. . . and yet, their example proves that they aren't the same thing, since they received one and not the other.
Sheesh.
Which one did they not receive. They were baptized in the name of Jesus and the Spirit came on them and they prophesied and spoke in tongues. Looks to me like they received both. Even so, I'm not convinced that having the Spirit come upon them is the same thing as having the Spirit indwell them.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/17/2009 7:17:27 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
quote:
Regarding the question of baptism of being "for the forgiveness of sin": You pretty much have only Acts 2:38 to go by.
Colossians 2:13-14, Acts 22:16 and there are more
You cannot resist giving me proof texts to chase after, can you?
quote:
quote:
Acts 8 says nothing about being baptized for the remission of sins. Your answer that "that is what baptism is for" is wholly inadequate.
Paul was told to get up and be baptized so that he can wash away his sins. What do you think that means?
That's no answer.
quote:
quote:
I have already challenged the standard CoC position of "baptism for the remission of sins" on the basis of language and semantics, the entire problem is still up in the air. It is so far unsettled. To assume an position to an unsettled and disputable is, as far as I am concerned, not helpful.
I don't consider that much of a challenge sins the weight of scholarship is against you. Like I said before even the translators and scholars who disagree with my theology have the integrity to translate "eis" correctly believing that it means "unto". That should tell you something.
It means that "unto" means whatever you want it to mean.
quote:
quote:
Further, I don't remember any response whatsoever regarding my question about Cornelius.
You don't remember because I haven't gotten there yet. I will get to it.
I have asked you about Cornelius and you want me to go chasing after Acts 22:16 and Col. 2:13-14? If you recall, my question about Acts 8 and 10 were in the interest of clarifying Acts 2:38. But instead you assume Acts 2:38 and perform eisegesis on Acts 8. Further, you want me go chasing proof texts. Sorry, I am not interested.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/17/2009 9:27:08 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
