The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Acts 17:11

arguing from silence doesn't prove the point -- it remains plausible, just not a certainty

i refer to the "hair splittin debate" you don't deem valid

The New Testament teaches that water baptism is important as a person's first step in obedience to Christ after salvation. It is a person's willingness to show publically that they have accepted Jesus Christ as personal Savior. That Christ died and was buried and rose again so that We can have New life through Christ. Our Old way of living for Ourselves is being replaced by our New life of living for Christ.

The other baptism is at the time of salvation when the Holy Spirit 'baptizes' a person into the universal body of Christ.

Also - water baptism is Not necessary for salvation - which is made apparent when the one thief who died on the cross at the same time as Christ Did acknowledged Christ / believed in Him -- death bed acceptance -- and was assured by Christ that That day he would be with Christ in paradise. And the thief obviously didn't have an opportunity to be water baptized.

I agree with what you said here.In my opinion, the "baptism which now saves you" sounds a lot like it actually saves you. Also "an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 3:21 ESV) sounds like salvation.

We have to be so careful we don't read our 21st century ways of thinking into the Bible.

For me this is similar to the Gospels where Jesus says "your faith has saved you" ...
it is not a stand alone statement ... it is faith in Jesus that matters ...
and so in baptism, unless we are born again by the Holy Spirit we can get baptized in water, or sprinkled or any which way .... it will have no effect.

in Christ

Dinah

_________________
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

I think I do this most of the time. Except I'm still stuck in the 20th century.

The only context I bring to bear on the Bible when I sit down to read it is the context of my life up to this point. And much of that context is driven by 20th century assumptions and values. In many case, I'm unaware of those assumptions and values, because I carry them around at a sub verbal level.

I have a small advantage because I grew up in an intercultural situation, reinforced by Peace Corps service as a young adult. That makes my own assumptions and values more visible to me than they otherwise would be.

But I find that the process of discovering what the Bible really means is a continuous process of moving beyond the way my life up to this point has conditioned me.

Rom 12:1-2 1 Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service. 2 Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect. Context (NET)

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Some Scriptures about baptism / salvation Do sound confusing -- which is why Some groups want to baptize a person as soon as possible after they've made a 'confession of faith' -- baptisimal regeneration. But That is Almost like adding a 'good work' to salvation. Salvation is accomplished in the heart and expressed verbally -- there are people who Can't be baptized by immersion for one reason or another. The thief on the cross couldn't be baptized.

It's also a good idea to look at the various Scriptures on the subject and get a more complete picture.

And there are those who are So enthused about having accepted Christ that they want Everyone to know it Now and share their personal inner joy.

Good point "dcljoy"

I'd prefer to approach this from a more developed scriptural standpoint, but I just moved and most of my Bible study materials are still packed. I also think a little historical context is appropriate.

(It is my understanding--based on what I remember from study, the books are packed so can't confirm--that) At the time of John the Baptist and Jesus, baptism was an accepted practice--non-Jews who converted to Judaism (known as proselytes) were baptized to demonstrate the conversion, and so on. So John the Baptist was following an accepted custom. John was the voice in the wilderness preparing the way for the savior (as foretold in Isaiah). He was baptizing JEWS into repentance before God.

Also remember, Jesus was baptized (with water) by John. He didn't NEED to be--he had done nothing requiring repentance. He did it as an example for us.

In the early Church, baptism was used as a symbol of conversion to Christianity--Jesus was baptized, therefore believers should be also. However, many Christian Jews believed that water baptism was only for them (as the "chosen people").

Acts 10:19-49 is the story of the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Gentiles). Peter went to the house and told Cornelius and the people there about Jesus. Cornelius and his family all believed and "The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." ... "On the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

So the Gentiles of Cornelius' family believed the Gospel, accepted Jesus, were baptized in the Holy Spirit, and BECAUSE they had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, Peter said they should be allowed to be baptized with water also.

Clearly they were already saved--they had the Holy Spirit, which is the gift of God through Jesus. The water baptism did not save them. It was done to set them apart as were the Jewish Christians--much as circumcision set the Jews apart from their counterparts from the days of Abraham.

creationtalk

Will agree with all you've said -- up until your very last paragraph. You're beginning to compare it to circumcision. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant made between the Jewish people and God. Totally different from the water baptism for the born-again believer - no matter Who they are.

Moving is So much fun. Our family has moved Numerous times over past years.

Sign of the Covenant relationship was the physical circumcision done to indicate the child was part of the Community of faith, part of isreal under God, but we today are those circumcised of the heart, and water baptism sign of that deed already happened!

The account of Cornelius' conversion is probably the most compelling argument for continued water baptism in my opinion. But then I wonder why Peter contrasted water baptism with baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 11:16.

THAT baptism happens to ALL the saved at rebirth, as the Spirit places them into jesus and the Body!

water baptism done after that has occured!

Sure, but why the contrast? This happened in the past, but this will happen in the future. Why not say "you will be baptised in the Holy Spirit and after that you will be water baptised"? Why does he say ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

This is one of the tree main reasons I have come to question the need for water baptism in our dispensation.

jesus commanded us to do BOTh water baptism/Communion though until he returned!

Because the Holy Spirit hadn't actually Come, yet? The Coming of the Holy Spirit was an Event - Pentcost -- cause that's how God intended it to be. Up until That time - it had only been John's baptism. I'm thinking that all this is considered a 'transitional' time -- which is why it can be confusing to understand. At That time - Speaking in tongues was a sign of having the Holy Spirit -- but the Tongues situation was in order for the unbelieving Jews to understand - and they were in many different languages. Which is why some groups believe that speaking in tongues is Required for salvation to be genuine. We heard of a church that had a Sunday school class that was teaching people How to speak in tongues. Don't know how That would be possible. And Scripture says that at the time of salvation, the Holy Spirit gives each person a gift or gifts. We don't Ask for a gift.
Acts 19 is where the Holy Spirit is talked about and baptism. Some of the leaders were first learning about the coming of the Holy Spirit. The 'transitional' period of learning about it.

If this were happening Now -- word would travel Fast by email / Facebook.

Context, Context, Context!

Peter is explaining to the Jewish believers/Christians why he went and ate and ministered to the Gentiles Acts 11:1-3. The Gentiles were obviously accepted by God and was saved because of the same manifestation of the Spirit, hich Peter experienced at Pentecost, and was so obviously upon the Gentiles with Cornelius. Peter then remembered the words from God spoken by John (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8, see also John 14:26). His conclusion was what he explained in the verses following your reference,

Acts 11:17 17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” Context (NET)

Therefore, Peters actions of Acts 10:48 were justified because the manefestation of the Holy Spirit revealing God's approval of these that were formerly alienated by racial boundaries per se. Remember that the Jews were religiously programmed (if you will) to only take the gospel to the Jews. God was revealing/implementing His larger plan in the context of the passage you are referencing.

Those Jews who had accompanied Peter to Conelius' house (Acts 10:45-46) was astonished that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles.

Peter is not contrasting:Peter is remembering what was taught him in his time with Jesus.

Thus he spoke to his fellow Jews present,

Acts 10:47 47 “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Context (NET)

Which Peter reiterates in his explanation recorded in Acts 11:17.

Further, John's Baptism was not a testimony of faith but a testimony of repentance. Christian Baptism is a testimony of faith in Christ and complete trust in Him. The physical act of baptism is not salvific in and of itself. However, it points to an obediant walk and a trust in one who commanded the physical act itself and seals the believer by the Holy Spirit (not baptism).

Then IMO you are questioning the validity of Jesus' command in Matthew 28:18-20. A command which is routinely followed and echoed in the New Testament and not rescinded anywhere therin.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online