Mike wrote: What then means the word "arose"? Acts 9:18 "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." If it were the baptism in the Holy Spirit, would it not have occurred at the moment he received his sight? The fact that he arose(a physical act) before he was baptised should be sufficient to convince.
Paul must have stood up before he was baptised. Why do you believe he was.then dunked in water? Ananias said he was there that Paul may be filled with the Holy Spirit. Not dunked in water.
Michael Hranek wrote: John for I fail to see how being disobedient to the Lord to follow in Believer's Baptism Matthew 28:18-20 contributes to making disciples, which would be people who personally learn of Christ and follow Him.
ALSO You kind of missed it on who preforms believer's baptism: Acts 17 And Ananias (a certain disciple NOT an apostle ) went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, â€śBrother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.â€ť 18Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose AND WAS BAPTIZED. by a certain disciple named Ananias. So how can a disobedient man really be (quote) for Jesus?
They weren't being disobedient. They laid hands on believers and the people were baptised in the Holy Spirit. V 17. Ananias was sent that Paul would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. V18. Paul received his sight and was baptised (filled with the Holy Spirit). Exactly as Ananias was told by God.
Watchman wrote: You can theorize all you like. You have not produced any evidence to back up what you are conjecturing. There are plenty of examples of the Spirit being poured out without the Apostles laying hands. And what is supposed to happen now that the Apostles are no longer around? Or do you believe on a succession of Apostles to the present time? Also why in the explanation of this Baptism is the imagery of death and resurrection used if the rite was no longer around. Man you are all over the place!
I'll produce more evidence after I wake up later, sorry. I can only think of the Gentiles first being baptised without the laying on of hands. It was a way to confirm the Apostles ministry. I can't recall other instances right now. Believers are now baptised as a result of faith without any laying on of hands. When believers become baptised in the Holy Spirit, they are brought into newness of life. They were dead and now are made alive by they indwelling Holy Spirit.
Watchman wrote: Context, context, context.. The commission is about making disciples, not what should happen after they became disciples. Unless you think that communion is essential to making a disciple! As for why this is water baptism, that is how the apostles clearly understood it, and how could Christ ask the disciples to do something out of their power? If have evidence to the contrary why not produce it instead of always just suggesting theories. Clearly you have an agenda. So why not just be upfront and present all the evidence you have. This argument has been gone over many times in the past in an attempt to try and lay aside an ordinance of Christ! BTW it's an ordinance NOT a sacrament!
I don't believe water baptism is essential to making disciples either. I think I am being upfront. For the sake of not coming across as Catholic, I will say "ordinance" of communion from now on. Though it is God who baptises, He utilized the laying on of hands by the Apostles to perform the baptism.
JOHN UK...Why would Jesus be talking about water baptism and not the more important baptism of the Holy Spirit. Why would He not have also said to practice communion if He was only talking about a water baptism sacrament?
Christopher000 wrote: What's the debate about; immersion vs sprinkling for baptism? Should be interesting but maybe it should be started in a new thread that will stick around longer. If it's debate time again, that is.
I'd like to point to another baptism. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Could it be that water baptism was just a type of true baptism? If John the Baptist baptism is over, why still use it?
Rufus wrote: Sodomy is indeed forbidden in the Holy Word of God. So too is slothfulness, gluttony, lying, fornication, adultery, lack of charity, drunkenness etc. Yet, believers do all of these things. If you are saying one can not be walking a sanctified, holy life and be a sodomite, I concur. However, if you are saying one can not be a believer in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and be a sodomite, I disagree.
It is one thing to be a believer who struggles with sin and another to openly approve and endorse a particular sin, such as Matthew Vines does.
JOE LEE...The only thing I know is that those who do not believe do so because either they love the darkness rather than the Light and others do not believe because they don't want their evil worksÂ brought to light. Why did I not get tripped up by those things? Out of love for Him I obeyed and had faith. Seems like everyone would though.
JOE LEE...Faith results in eternal life. I don't believe anyone will have eternal life who has not believed in God. Somehow people believe there are those who have already entered into eternal life and that without faith! What brings people to faith? God setting them in the best place in time for them to hear the preaching of the gospel. It is through the gospel that people are brought to faith.
John UK wrote: 2 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: For instance 1. What does "from the beginning" mean? 2. What does "chosen you to salvation" mean? 3. What does "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" mean? Take your time, lest you come out with more heresy. Thank you.
1. From the beginning of Paul's ministry? I will have to check. 2. God chose them to salvation. 3. They were saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth.
Problemo wrote: You know of another way to eternal life other than through faith in Christ?
No, that is why you have to ask yourself if they were ordained to eternal life, why? John 3:16 says, "whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." I'm just saying, there is a good possibility the Gentiles ordained to eternal life believed. If you want to believe they were ordained to eternal life without faith, go right ahead, but you are wrong. As far as you having never read Calvin, many people haven't. The problem is, they get taught his teachings in the pulpit. Some may even come to the false conclusions he did on their own. The Bible explains itself. For instance, we can know in what sense we are predestined in Rms 8:29-30 by reading more of the text. We don't have to make up that it means predestined to have faith when it is clearly teaching us about the Ressurection and those of us who are predestined can look back and see how God has and does work all things together for good to those who love Him even when believers are suffering persecution.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Hey John for Jesus, just trying to see where you are going because it almost seems like you are trying to make Scripture match your beliefs. Do not want to put words in your mouth. Are you saying because they believed then it was known they were ordained to eternal life? If so, then you have agreement with those in this thread. Are you saying that they who believed were on the road to destruction but now are on the ordained path to life eternal (the old straight and narrow) then again most would agree. Just trying to clarify what point you are trying to make about the order of ordained and believed.
I am trying to remain scriptural. I believe the problem here is with brethren trying to impose the ideas they were taught by others (Calvin) and inserting them into the text because it seems to fit to them. Problem is, if you have to imply alot of your beliefs into scripture, you might want to recheck what you believe. Much of what they believe isn't implicitly taught in scripture. That is why they love to quote old dead guys and confessions of faith as justification for their beliefs. I believe those in Acts were on the rd to destruction but now are on the ordained path to eternal life.
Problemo wrote: Do you have an appointment after the fact? You are appointed to die. Will you deny that appointment until death occurs?! These people were appointed to eternal life. The evidence of that appointment was that they believed. How else would anyone have known that they had been appointed to eternal life except by them believing the gospel of Christ?
Eph 2:3 shows we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. We were appointed to suffer God's wrath until He changed that appointment when we obeyed Him and had faith. For the sake of argument, if they were appointed prior to their faith, it only says they were appointed to eternal life. Not appointed to faith.
confused wrote: Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." --- Doesn't believed come last in this verse after ordained to eternal life? Glorifying the Word of Lord because the preacher said he would speak to you is not the same as salvation.
1) Yes believed does come after, but it isn't necessarily in chronological order. For example, I might say all those people buried in the cemetery died. I wouldn't be saying they were buried prior to their death. Or it could be said, all those who received a ticket sped. The people sped first. Or it could be said, all who came to the wedding drove. They drove to get there. 2)They glorified The Lord because of the preaching not before it
Problemo wrote: 1)Its real simple. These people were proselytes to the Jewish religion! They were not saved. They may have been as you put it "God fearing gentiles", but that would not save them! 2)Given this, why would the passage mention their ordination to eternal life until it became evident to everyone by their believing the gospel of Christ that they were in possession of this eternal life? 3)We are not privy to the counsel of God as to who is and who is not ordained. All we know is that God has ordained/appointed some to eternal life. How will we know who these are? They will in God's plan be brought to believe the gospel! Don't complicate what is so simple.
1)Your right that they being believers in God would not have saved them at that time. It was a special time in history where believers in God still didn't hear the gospel message and had to be converted. All true believers did believe in the One God sent. 2) Exactly, it doesn't mention their ordination until they trusted in Jesus. All those who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life.E ternal life won't begin until death is swallowed up in victory. 3) He has revealed who receives salvation. The faithful!
PROBLEMO...We weren't arguing who ordained them to eternal life. I'm just saying all who were ordained believed already. They were believers in God who needed to hear the gospel truth. Funny how the bible doesn't mention that they were ordained until after they believed.