BeansRBad

ESTHERROSE
4) Protestants believe that belief in Jesus is all we need to be saved. This is salvation by grace not works. Catholics believe in a works based salvation. The absolute need for baptism, confession to priest of sins and time in purgatory or hell if they aren’t all confessed before you die are just a couple of examples of how it is salvation by works.

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Acts 2
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 4
12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Acts 16
30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

BEANSRBAD
Hello EstherRose. I hope all is well with you this day. I am an ex-Christian and was never affiliated with Roman Catholicism. That being as it may, it is erroneous to describe all "protestants" as believing baptism to be non-essential. Yours in an erroneous statement and misleading since several "protestant groups" do indeed teach the necessity of baptism as part of the salvation process. The churches of Christ, Christian Church, United Pentecostal Church to name a few.

Further, some of them would argue most vociferously that theirs is NOT a "works based salvation" by so teaching the need of baptism. Hey, the one's who argue against baptism as being some kind of meritorious work almost invariably teach that their doctrine of salvation includes a prayer and I submit that such is more a work than baptism since the one in baptism is wholly passive.

Further still, I am more than certain that these groups would be wholly unimpressed with your line of reasoning against baptism by citing the verses which you did. Are these supposed to nullify baptism because baptism is not mentioned (Actually, baptism is mentioned in Acts 16 and an argument can be made therefrom)? These verses no more nullify baptism than they nullify repentance which is also excluded from mention by these same verses. If your reasoning was that baptism is excluded by virtue of it's non-inclusion in these verses then you need to be consistent and exclude everything else connected with salvation, such as repentance, for the same reason. I always thought it was the sum of the word which was supposedly the truth (Ps.119:160 ASV).

Magus55

Beans:

Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required, not of water. Being dunked in a pool of water can not do anything to save you. Its only purpose is a commandment to publicly acknowledge your salvation through Christ.

Calzaer

Magus: Yet another case for the "author of confusion".

BeansRBad

BEANSRBAD
I hope all is well with you today.

I must say that I've read several of your posts and I must also state that I disagree with nearly every doctrinal position you espouse but, you know, who am I? At any rate, your reply to my post is no exception.

There are many fundamental differences in the Bible, aside from the elements, between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. One of these differences is that Spirit baptism was a promise (Acts 1:4-5) and the administrator was always "the Lord" (Mt.3:11). The administrator of water baptism, in contradistinction, was always man and was a command to be obeyed (Mt.28:19; Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Water baptism which is commanded to be administered to man by man is that which is found in the Great Commission which implicitly is to last until the "end of the world" (Mt.28:20).

Holy Spirit baptism occurs on only two occasions. First, on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit fell upon the 12 (not the 120!). This was partial to the fulfillment of Joel 2:28 where it is said that the Spirit will fall upon all flesh and, as Jesus told them while on earth, the Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn.16:7-13). On Pentecost it fell upon Jews and Peter subsequently spoke the first gospel sermon commanding the inquisitors to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Spirit baptism occured also, in the 2nd instance, on the Gentile household of Cornelius in Acts 10:44. I submit that this is the whole fulfilment of Joel 2:28 ("All flesh" = Jew and Gentile) and it's purpose was to convince the apostles that Gentiles were also acceptable gospel subjects. Peter, stating what had happened in Acts 11:15-17 said;

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us in the beginning.....Forasmuch 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?" (Acts 11:15-17).

Now, interesting. Notice how Peter compared the Spirit baptism on Cornelius to that which they received "in the beginning". Why reference what occured all the way back to Pentecost rather than reference it to everyday occurances? Why? Because it WASN'T an everyday occurance! It was referenced back to Pentecost because that is the only other instance in which to reference! It wasn't to "save" Cornelius. It occured in order to convince those Jewish apostles that Gentiles were now acceptable. Peter had only "begun to speak" so if Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit came then he was saved without hearing the word. Of course, Cornelius was immediately commanded to be baptized in water. Why so? Why the immediacy (an immediacy which is found throughout the examples of conversion in Acts)?

So, we have two baptisms in Acts; Water and Spirit. By the time Ephesians was written, the author declares there only to be one (Eph.4:5). I submit that Holy Spirit baptism had served it's purpose and was never intended to be perpetual whereas water baptism is a command to be obeyed, part of the Great Commission, and is perpetual to the end of the world. Water baptism is the one baptism of Eph.4:5.

You state, " Its only purpose is a commandment to publicly acknowledge your salvation through Christ."

Well, that purpose is nowhere to be found in Scripture and you know it. Why not allow the Bible to state the purpose of baptism? Rather than it being a commandment to publicly acknowledge salvation through Christ, I read where baptism (along with repentance) is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38);
to "be saved" (Mk.16:16); to "wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16); to "get into Christ" (Rom.6:3; Gal.3:27).

Going back to the example of EstherRose (Acts 16), I notice that if you will read just a little further than the verses EstherRose provided then you will find that Prison keeper was preached to and taken the same hour of the night and baptized - afterward, he rejoiced. Why baptize this guy in the middle of the night, Magus? There is certainly no need, no urgency to do so given your view concerning the purpose of baptism. Couldn't it wait til morning or perhaps next week or next month? What kind of "public acknowledgment" is it in the middle of the night where no one can see it? Why not wait until there is an actual public before making a public acknowledgment if that is all it is? Why, Magus, was the Ethiopian Eunuch asking to be baptized in the middle of nowhere in Acts 8:34-36? Why not ask to be baptized before an actual public if all it is - is a public proclamation? Hmmmm, how did the Eunuch even come to know about baptism at all? Philip had only preached Jesus to him. Why give a dissertation on baptism during the preaching of Jesus which I infer must have been done if the Eunuch was asking for baptism, afterall, it is not essential and is only a public proclamation for a salvation which already has occurred according to you? I bet you don't give dissertations on baptism when you preach Jesus to the uninitiated. I bet no one will ever come away from your initial presentation asking you to baptize him/her.

Rather than Bible baptisms being merely public proclamations of a salvation which has already occured, I find the circumstances in which they were baptized to be anything but public. Some of them were quite private and in the middle of the night. An urgency and immediacy is given to them.

I agree with you that no one is saved by being "dunked in a pool". Anyone who goes swimming gets dunked in a pool. I do believe that the Bible teaches, most emphatically, explicitly and implicitly, that saving faith is an obedient faith and not mere mental assent and that that obedience includes baptism. Baptism, an act of faith, is where one comes into contact with the shed blood of Jesus and the grace of God. It is not a meritorious work - it is a plea for mercy and an act of faithful submission. The walls of Jericho did not fall because the Jews walked around them. They fell when God knocked it down but it wasn't knocked down until they did what God told them to do. It fell by faith as Hebrews so plainly states and I submit that there lies our real fundamental difference; It is not a question of being saved by faith. The Bible teaches this most assuredly. The question is; WHEN, or at what point, are people saved by faith? It sho-nuff ain't at it's inception in the mind!

NOGO

You are mistaken.
The reference can be understood by the simple fact that this is was the first Gentile to receive the Spirit of God just like the disciples had received it. Peter is comparing the two events as "first". Pentecost, first for the Jews and Cornelius, first for the Gentiles.

John the Baptist said that he babptized in water but Jesus would baptise in Holy Spirit.

Also thos who received the Holy Spirit began to speak in tongues as in Acts 2? if my memory is still good.

Babptism with the Holy Spirit was the norm after Jesus resurrected.

Amos

Hi Wayne, yes the CC will go on forever because she has truth on here side and this makes it a very interesting religion.

I really don't qualify to be a Traditionalist because I am not much of a theologian but I would prefer to call myself a Traditionalist.

Amos

Water comes first and this must be Catholic water! The reason for this is that John the Baptist must come first to prepare the way and without him there will never be any victory over sin. If you recall, John prepared the way for Christ in the life of Jesus and just as he did this for Jesus so must he do this for us.

Baptism of the HS is good enough to land us in the purgation period (Purgatory) but without the work of John from within the netherworld we will never be able to complete our salvation and leave Purgatory.

BeansRBad

BEANSRBAD
There is a complete lack of substance to your assertion within the NT text.

Perhaps you would like to answer the following question; Was Joel 2:28 fulfilled in Acts 2 or was it not? You know, I might retract my statement that Cornelius experienced Holy Spirit baptism and take a position that the ONLY case to be found is in Acts 2. I think there is a definite distinction between the terms "pouring forth" or "baptized in the Spirit" as it relates to them in Acts 2 and the terms "coming on, falling on, fell on, and filled with." Please bear with me:

1.The baptism of the Spirit was not an occurance prior to Pentacost. In the OT, the baptism of the Spirit never occured but God did promise to "pour forth" or send his Spirit in the last days (last days meaning the end of the Jewish economy) - (Joel 2:28; Is.32:15; Ez.37:14).

2. From the time of John the Baptizer to the day of Pentacost, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was still yet future. John was the first to mention Holy Spirit baptism and he referred to it as something yet future in his day (Mt.3:11; Jn.1:33). Jesus referred to it as something yet future. It was not to occur until after the ascension (Jn.16:7; 7:38). Before his death it was future (Jn.16:7, 13; Jn.14:17, 26; 15:26). After the resurrection it was still yet future (Lk.24:49). Shortly prior to the ascension it was still yet future but close (Acts 1:4-5).

3. There was Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentacost. I need not give Scriptural support because I do not think there is any contention here.

4. After Pentacost: Never again, after Pentacost, is the Spirit said to be "poured out". The pouring out of the Spirit is always, after Acts 2:16 mentioned as a past and completed event (Acts 2:33; Titus 3:5). The miraculous manifestations of the Spirit and the empowering of Cornelius is not a repeated "pouring" of the Spirit by Jesus but a work of the Spirit himself! The Spirit's "falling upon" is not necessarily Spirit baptism. Why? Because the action of "falling on" or "coming on" by the Spirit occured many times in the Old Testament before the Spirit had ever been "poured out" for the first time on Pentacost (Judges 14:6, 19; I Sam.10:6; 11:6; 16:13). As we have seen, Spirit baptism was not an Old Testament occurance. Therefore, the phrases cannot mean the same thing.

To contend for multiple Spirit baptisms is to make the Holy Spirit a yo-yo. Either he was poured out on Pentacost to abide and work with the faithful or he was not. To contend that he is continually poured out is to contend that he comes to earth, returns and comes back and returns ad infinitum. No, he was poured out by Jesus and remains to do his work. Don't confuse the pouring out by Jesus with works which the Holy Spirit himself is said to do.

Now, by the time Ephesians was written it was declared that there was only one baptism. That is the baptism of the Great Commission which is baptism in water, a command to be obeyed.

We learn by a myriad of passages that there is something to obey in order to be saved. Rom.6:17-18, for instance, states that when something was obeyed were they made free from sin. One does not "obey" Spirit baptism. One obeys the command found in the Great Commission. In those verses, Paul states that they were free from sin when they obeyed from the heart "that form of doctrine which was delivered." Well, what did Paul deliver so that they could "obey" the form of it? He told the Corinthians that he went around preaching the death, buriel and resurrection of Jesus (I Cor.15:3-4). One cannot obey the death, buriel and resurrection but one can sure obey the "form" of it in water baptism. This cannot be done with Spirit baptism which was a promise, not a command - Secondly, the world still remains submerged in the outpouring which occured on Pentacost allegedly but baptism such as found in Romans involves a buriel and resurrection which implies a "coming up and out of". If the Holy Spirit was poured forth and still yet remains then no one is going to come up and out of it.

What has any of this to do with the essentiality of water baptism? Not much so I will get us back on track by offering just one affirmative argument.

Mk.16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned."

You basically have two options in denying this verse teaches the necessity of baptism - neither of which will hold water (no pun intended) but I will let you make the counter argument(s).

In this verse, the Greek words translated (or transliterated in the case of baptized) are in aorist participle form. "Believeth" and "is baptized" are aorist participles. Further, "shall be saved" is the main verb in the sentence. So, what is the rule of Greek grammar with respects to an aorist participle's relation to the main verb in a sentence?

"In practice it often works out that a Present Participle translates as time contemporaneous with the main verb while an Aorist Participle translates as time previous to the action of the main verb" (Colwell, Earnest Cadman; A Beginners Reader-Grammar for New Testament Greek; Harper & Rowe; New York; 1965; p.47)

"The aorist participle is punctiliar of course.... or antecedent by suggestion. The aorist participle is never used for subsequent action. No such example has ever been found." (Robertson, A.T., and Davis, Hersey W.; A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament 10th edition; Baker Book House; Grand Rapids; 1977; pp 379-380).

So, the aorist participle always denotes action antecedent to the action of the main verb in a sentence. In other words, the action in an aorist participle always is either simultaneous to or prior to the action of the main verb in a sentence. Both "believeth" AND "is baptized" are aorist participles and therefore both must, by rule of Greek grammar, come prior to "shall be saved" which is the main verb.

Radcliffe Emerson

Yes, the Catholic Church being the first church, started by Peter, and now it's false and unbiblical.
And now some fundamentalists condemn other Protestant sects as godless and unbiblical to defend their ignorant beliefs.
More whitewashing from Christians to mask the absurdity of their religion.

Amos

How can it be false if the Church is Infallible? Infallible means that it is in charge of its own destiny and is therefore beyond the judgement of humans. Popes and priest may go wrong but the Church can never fail and if you think that it is unbiblical you either look at the wrong scriptures for evidence or you read them wrong.