The ol' water baptism that saves for even dummies like me.

Originally Posted by iwbswiaihl

Just show the scripture that proves your point.

There is only 1 gospel, so it must be the same as at the beginning (Acts 2).
Tongues was seen as the sign of receiving the Spirit, no alternative was suggested. Then later in Acts (10:44-46, 19:1-6) when tongues was heard it was immediately judged that the speakers had just received the Spirit. If there was another way this conclusion could never have been arrived at.

Originally Posted by iwbswiaihl

Scripture teaches that not everyone has or even had the gift of tongues in the early years of the church.

When you take a text out of context, you are left with a con.

Since chapter 11 Paul has been talking about what God wants in meetings of the church, not what different people get when they receive the Spirit.

This is also seen from the passage itself.

1) it says "to one" .... "to another", not "to some". Do you believe that only one Christian gets each of the attributes mentioned?

2) Even if it does mean "some", do you believe that only some, not all Christians get faith, wisdom, knowledge etc?
- How can you even be a Christian without these things?

If, as you suggest, only some had the ability to speak (pray) in tongues, Paul would never have to tell them not to all act as one member, all speaking in tongues (14:23), the problem could never arise!

Originally Posted by iwbswiaihl

You lost me here, I don't understand your question.

Sorry, I should have asked:
Where does the passage say that "These like OT saints had the Holy Spirit come upon them"?

#52   10th April 2013, 10:30 PM

shturt678 Newbie   Join Date: 1st February 2013 Posts: 1,481 Blessings: 11,025,801 Reps: 51,401,528,448,189,080 (power: 51,401,528,448,191)

The ol' water baptism that saves for even dummies like me. [quote=StormHawk;62816317]What is it that you like about the passage? I like the fact that it shows that it was known that these sincere believers, who were known not to have received the Holy Spirit, even though they had had various genuine experiences of God - healings, great joy, turned from following Simon the Sorceror, got baptised unto Jesus. The ol' hadn't received the gift of the gift of the Holy Spirit at Acts 8:16 is exactly why I like this Samaritan's type passage. Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the NAME of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins, and you shall RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Doesn't it look a little suspicious that at Acts 8:16, "...., and they had been baptized only in the NAME of the Lord Jesus." meaning they haven't received the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT as they had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit and remission of sins with a Acts 2:38 type water baptismal rebirth ... a no brainer for idiots like me? This passage, vs.12-17, sorry I stated vs.12-16 is the one I like due to its simplicity, i.e., they had been baptized in the NAME, etc. Thank you again ... we are making headway.

#53   11th April 2013, 04:52 AM

StormHawk Newbie   Join Date: 18th April 2011 Posts: 465 Blessings: 19,299 Reps: 21,727,734,903,145,996 (power: 21,727,734,903,147)

Originally Posted by shturt678 ... The ol' hadn't received the gift of the gift of the Holy Spirit at Acts 8:16 is exactly why I like this Samaritan's type passage. Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the NAME of Jesus Christ for remission of your sins, and you shall RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT." Doesn't it look a little suspicious that at Acts 8:16, "...., and they had been baptized only in the NAME of the Lord Jesus." meaning they haven't received the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT as they had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit and remission of sins with a Acts 2:38 type water baptismal rebirth ... a no brainer for idiots like me? This passage, vs.12-17, sorry I stated vs.12-16 is the one I like due to its simplicity, i.e., they had been baptized in the NAME, etc. Thank you again ... we are making headway. It certainly takes idiocy to invent a whole new experience, "the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT", that the bible doesn't talk about, and insert it in a passage! I'll stick to the simplicity of what the text actually says. The fact is you either have, or have not received the Holy Spirit to indwell, the disciples hadn't until Acts 2:4 (the Old Testament was still in operation until then), the Samarians hadn't until 8v16, the gentiles did in 10:44. If you want to enter into the new covenant, you need to receive exactly what all the disciples and those they were sent to received (above), like them you will know precisely when you do. Last edited by StormHawk; 11th April 2013 at 04:57 AM.

#54   11th April 2013, 01:22 PM

shturt678 Newbie   Join Date: 1st February 2013 Posts: 1,481 Blessings: 11,025,801 Reps: 51,401,528,448,189,080 (power: 51,401,528,448,191)

Would encourage a paradigm shift from the Text to... Originally Posted by StormHawk It certainly takes idiocy to invent a whole new experience, "the CHARISMATIC GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT", that the bible doesn't talk about, and insert it in a passage! I'll stick to the simplicity of what the text actually says. The fact is you either have, or have not received the Holy Spirit to indwell, the disciples hadn't until Acts 2:4 (the Old Testament was still in operation until then), the Samarians hadn't until 8v16, the gentiles did in 10:44. If you want to enter into the new covenant, you need to receive exactly what all the disciples and those they were sent to received (above), like them you will know precisely when you do. the simplicity of the Context rather than the Text as most do today. I do thank you for your response sir and I don't mean to be hard on you as appreciate your view. I think if we take another look at Easter eve, Jesus' resurrection, at Jn.20:23, 50 days before Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit and even before that received John's baptism for remission of sins, Acts 19:3 AND I strongly feel that the New Testament began right before Jesus' death at Matt.26:28. Will let the Samaritans and the Gentiles go for now while you contemplate all the former ...

#55   11th April 2013, 03:32 PM

StormHawk Newbie   Join Date: 18th April 2011 Posts: 465 Blessings: 19,299 Reps: 21,727,734,903,145,996 (power: 21,727,734,903,147)

Originally Posted by shturt678 I think if we take another look at Easter eve, Jesus' resurrection, at Jn.20:23, 50 days before Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit Again, you add to scripture. Jesus had already explained that he needed to return to The Father and he would send him from there - John 7:39: 14:20, 25-26; 15:26; 16:7. In the passage you quote from Jesus says "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (v17) At Pentecost (Acts 2:33) we read: "therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" So, in John 20, Jesus is leaving them with the command to receive the Spirit, his breathing on them is prophetic of the mighty wind (breath) at Pentecost. You have also missed other details of the passage such as the fact that when Thomas appears, the disciples make no mention that they have received the Spirit of God. Originally Posted by shturt678 and even before that received John's baptism for remission of sins, Acts 19:3 AND I strongly feel that the New Testament began right before Jesus' death at Matt.26:28. Believing that will deny you, and anyone who agrees with you, of entering the new covenant of a new heart by receiving God's Spirit (confirmed by a new tongue). So many people rely on what they think or feel. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12) Originally Posted by shturt678 Will let the Samaritans and the Gentiles go for now while you contemplate all the former ... Please don't think you are saying something I havn't heard before. Many denominations only teach these and other wrong ideas, rather than admit they are wrong.

#56   11th April 2013, 07:04 PM

1answer Newbie   Join Date: 3rd April 2013 Posts: 17 Blessings: 699 Reps: 10 (power: 0)

One of the foundations of faith listed in Hebrews is "the doctrine of baptisms" Originally Posted by knee-v Eph 4:4 is not saying that there is one kind of baptism (although immersion in water is the predominant meaning in the New Testament). Rather, the context is that Jews and Gentiles have all things in common, and that there is not a distinct plan for the Jews and a distinct plan for the Gentiles. In that context, there is not a distinct baptism for the Jews and a distinct baptism for the Gentiles. However, unless otherwise indicated, baptism refers to immersion in water, as our friend ViaCrucis pointed out. There are times when the word is used metaphorically - such as Jesus using it in reference to being "baptized" with fire - but those exceptions are not the rule. Unless you can provide some compelling reason to reject the church's historic witness - dating back to the first century by those who knew the Apostles personally - regarding this matter, that 2000-year-old witness will continue to be my litmus test for fidelity to the truth of the New Testament. do you need a better understanding of baptism? ck out the following The Mikveh - Ep. 1 - By Michael Rood The writer of "The Epistle to the Messianic Hebrews" challenges the believers to leave behind the foundational principles of faith in Messiah, and to press on to maturity. Once the foundations of the faith have been laid firmly and the "milk" of the word has strengthened us, it is time for some real meat. One of the foundations of faith listed in Hebrews is "the doctrine of baptisms" (plural), yet in the Christian world very little is known about baptism. What is known is filtered through a Greek mind-set and ignorance of the Hebrew practice of the "mikveh" from which "baptism" is loosely translated. John the Baptist was not a Baptist, nor was his name John—his name was Yohannan ben Zechariah, the son of an Aaronic priest. He did not invent some "new thing", but was performing that of which every Israelite was intimately familiar—yet of which the average Christian is clueless. He was "mikveh-ing" Israelites in the Jordan River when he first met the promised Messiah, Yahshua. Every Israelite understood what Yochannan was doing in the Jordan, but the religious leaders could not understand why he was performing the Mikveh outside of their authorized religious system. Join Michael Rood on the banks of the beautiful Jordan River near his home in Israel as he opens the believer's eyes to the depths of "The Mikveh - the Doctrine of Baptisms". Once this foundation of the faith is understood, we may then move on to maturity.

#57   11th April 2013, 10:34 PM

shturt678 Newbie   Join Date: 1st February 2013 Posts: 1,481 Blessings: 11,025,801 Reps: 51,401,528,448,189,080 (power: 51,401,528,448,191)

Maybe your correct, let's check together..... [quote=StormHawk;62826513]Again, you add to scripture. Jesus had already explained that he needed to return to The Father and he would send him from there - John 7:39: 14:20, 25-26; 15:26; 16:7. In the passage you quote from Jesus says "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father" (v17) At Pentecost (Acts 2:33) we read: [color=Navy]"therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" [color=Black]So, in John 20, Jesus is leaving them with the command to receive the Spirit, his breathing on them is prophetic of the mighty wind (breath) at Pentecost. You have also missed other details of the passage such as the fact that when Thomas appears, the disciples make no mention that they have received the Spirit of God. Let's get you to depart from running with the majority, secure in the crowd mentality and interpret Jn.20:22 "..Receive the Holy Spirit." going from the ancient languages FORWARD to the English grammatically and contextually in contrast to your going from the English BACKWARDS to the ancient languages resulting in your conclusion. Jn.20:22, "....Receive the Holy Spirit." then or later? The aorist labete is decidedly punctiliar and denotes reception THEN AND THERE and not a process of reception that is to go on and on, nor at a latter time as you concluded. Further more this imperative imparts a gift, namely by placing the gift into the hearts of the recipients. This, of course, is not the first reception of the Spirit on the part of these disciples; all of them were disciples, i.e., they were water baptized believers, in whom the Spirit had wrought faith. This was a new bestowal of the Spirit. Now you can see why I'm not that popular on this great forum ... I let you off easy, could continue grammatically and contextually.

#58   11th April 2013, 11:53 PM

samcarternx Newbie   Join Date: 17th July 2010 Posts: 289 Blessings: 1,011,024 My Mood Blog Entries: 1 Reps: 100,364,500,447,477,440 (power: 100,364,500,447,480)

Tellastory is still right notwithstanding what is being said about water baptism. What is at stake here is the difference between the reborn spiritual man and the original carnal man. The chemistry has a will of its own and when he tries to do God's will it come out "He told me and I did." not so with the spiritual man who does God's will not because he was told to but because God did His own will by using the man to do it. Thus grace. No other way for a man separated from God by sin to be with Him without rebirth. How can one of us be holy unless it is imparted to us. How can we do righteous acts and acts of agape love unless He lives in us and wills these thing through us doing the works He set up for us. This is His salvation for us. We do not design and implement a church, His behavior through those submitted to His sovereignty will BE the church operated as a single body by a single head like a great dance.

#59   12th April 2013, 05:19 AM

StormHawk Newbie   Join Date: 18th April 2011 Posts: 465 Blessings: 19,299 Reps: 21,727,734,903,145,996 (power: 21,727,734,903,147)

Originally Posted by shturt678 ...Jn.20:22, "....Receive the Holy Spirit." then or later? The aorist labete is decidedly punctiliar and denotes reception THEN AND THERE and not a process of reception that is to go on and on, nor at a latter time as you concluded. Further more this imperative imparts a gift, namely by placing the gift into the hearts of the recipients. This, of course, is not the first reception of the Spirit on the part of these disciples; all of them were disciples, i.e., they were water baptized believers, in whom the Spirit had wrought faith. This was a new bestowal of the Spirit. Now you can see why I'm not that popular on this great forum ... I let you off easy, could continue grammatically and contextually. There are always a greek "expert" who thinks they understand everything about how particular words in scripture, and theres always someone eager to call on their "learning" to support a doctrine based on one verse that ignores, even denies others, I've seen it often, even when their salvation (and that of those they influence) is at stake! John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. - Did Jesus enter into heavenly glory right then? John 13:31, 34 Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. ...A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you - Jesus loved them by first becoming anointed by the Holy Spirit, do you now believe the disciples received that anointing right then?

#60   12th April 2013, 09:59 AM

shturt678 Newbie   Join Date: 1st February 2013 Posts: 1,481 Blessings: 11,025,801 Reps: 51,401,528,448,189,080 (power: 51,401,528,448,191)

Far from being an expert sir...... Originally Posted by StormHawk There are always a greek "expert" who thinks they understand everything about how particular words in scripture, and theres always someone eager to call on their "learning" to support a doctrine based on one verse that ignores, even denies others, I've seen it often, even when their salvation (and that of those they influence) is at stake! I had a feeling I was too hard on you and sincerely apologize. In a poor way, I was just trying to bring forth that all, those accountable anyway, must absolutely take a life long course, here and there daily, monthly or whatever, of ancient Greek and even Hebrew or even Latin, to narrow down the scope of all the diverse interpretations where each think they have the one true interpretation by the Holy Spirit. Enrolled in a course allows one to interpret from the ancient languages FORWARD to the English instead as pervasively done today, i.e., for the English BACKWARDS to the ancient languages.