Re: Baptism -- Qohelet Web Ministry

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:23:04 04/07/02 Sun
Author: Richard
Subject: Re: Baptism
In reply to: Jay Dee 's message, "Re: Baptism" on 00:45:47 04/07/02 Sun

Greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,
I can see that we are mostly in agreement here but I find two things I would like to know more about how you arrrived at your conclusions.

[1] Have you given any thought to the idea that the example of the thief comes to us while the Old Covenantlaw--i.e. the Mosiac Law is in effect.
[a] That said law was given on to the Jews and never ever to the Gentiles? That is most of us today
[b] That the New Testament as we have the books are not all New Covenant
[c] That from Hebrews a will or testament--in this case that of Jesus does not take effect until Acts 2?

Here, my question is--How do you determine that the thief is an exception to Acts 2--for when I see the fifty day difference between the death of the thief and the beginning of the new--I am having problems understanding..

you said

You and I know that God does not change. We have the same God before and the same God now. He made exceptions in the Old Testament, and I see two in the New. The theif and Cornelius. They were both unusual cases. God has always justified through faith, both in the old and in the new. The only difference is both the object of that faith, and how God has told us to excercise that faith.

My response--Perhaps our backgrounds are really quite different and they most likely are very different..I spent the first 30 yrs of my life in bondange to the Pentecostal movement. It took a lot to get me out of that and one of the things that took some time was Acts 10.

Ok--God does not change--but God did change something--God changed covenants--took away the one just for the Jews and made a new one--for both Jews and Gentiles.

Now, what about Cornelius--Le me answer my question--why do I know that Cornelius was not an exception to Acts 2:38?

First--Let's look at this verse--
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,

**And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished** I believe that this was the reason that the Gentiles spoke in foreign languages--after all Balams ass spoke by the power of the Holy Spirit and it did not save the ass--

Peter had also made this statement in verse28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29 "Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?"

Now, what happened in verse 44 that helped in the astonishment of those Jewsh men who had gone with Peter?

Let's back up a tad to Acts 8--When Peter went down to Samaria--to impart the supernatural spiritual gifts--Peter prayed for them and then laid hands on them..

There is between eight and ten years between Acts 2 and acts 10.. Every instance of Peter being able to the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit required two things--
[a] that they already be Christians
[b] That he personally laid his hands upon them

Now in Acts ten--God did not use Peter and Peter's hand to impart the supernatural gift of speaking in foreign languages.. God did like he had done on the apostles in the beginning--straight from heaven to men--first the Jews in the form of the apostles and now via the Gentiles using Cornelius and his household and friends..

Now- I would to show a passage beyond this but it shows the pattern--

Acts 19:1 (NKJV) And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Here, another apostle--Paul baptized these folks under the baptism of Acts 2:38 first and then he laid his hands on them.

The exception then is found in Acts 2 and Acts 10 where God bypassed the hands of men [a] when he began the new covenant and again in Acts 10 with the addition of the gentiles via Cornelius and his household.

In both cases where God Himself gave the supernatural gifts it was not to save men--men who received it, that is.

In every other case in the New Covenant--the supernatural spiritual gifts were never given to save but given to saved folks..

you said...

I didn't say that Cornelius was saved "without" immersion, just that it appears that he was saved before it. God blessed him with the Spirit. He normally did not do that.

My response--Ok perhaps you find my observations on this helpful--Because I cannot using your reason find that acceptable for God saving Cornelius just by giving him the supernatural spiritual gifts to speak in foreign languages..

So, do you have some other reasons other than the one you expressed her that would help me see why you believe that Cornelius could of been saved prior to water immersion.

Thanks

Richard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Baptism -- Jay Dee, 14:03:11 04/10/02 Wed
- Re: Baptism -- Richard, 15:49:26 04/11/02 Thu
  - Re: Baptism -- Jay Dee, 00:45:33 04/12/02 Fri