Youth in Asia wrote: How does the new testament say believers get the Holy Spirit?
Acts 2:38 KJV (38)Â Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized [in water] every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Here you are Frank, the remainder of the quote most excellent.
Not many realise that we died in Adam, and we also died in Christ, before being raised to newness of life. It's all about federal headship.
"Christ having died for their sins, was laid in the grave, where he continued for a while, and then rose again; and as they were crucified with him, they were also buried with him, as their head and representative; and all their sins too, which he left behind him in the grave, signified by his grave clothes there; and baptism being performed by immersion, when the person baptized is covered with water, and as it were buried in it, is a very significant emblem of all this; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and very fitly holds him forth to the view of faith in the state of the dead, in the grave, and points out the place where the Lord lay; and it is also a representation of our burial with him, as being dead to sin, to the law, and to the world, by him. This shows now, that baptism was performed by dipping, or covering the whole body in water, for no other form of administration of baptism, as sprinkling, or pouring water on the face, can represent a burial, or be called one;" Gill on Col 2:12
Frank wrote: Hey brother John UK! Baptism is a sacrament that simply publicly shows what has been done in your heart and soul. It cannot save in and of itself, but as you said just about everyone would say it is not optional in the obedience sense. There are some who become saved that donâ€™t have the opportunity to be baptized, but if opportunity is there it is mandated.
Amen brother! It is perfectly normal for a new convert to be baptised in water, despite the inconvenience of it, especially for multitude immersionists like John the Dipper (where 'dipper' is the correct translation of the greek word).
Of course, circumcision was even more inconvenient, not to say painful, but who are we mere mortals to argue with our Creator?
I agree with you, that baptism does not save. And I also agree with you that it does serve to show physically and pictorially that which has happened spiritually in a sinner's life, when he came to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
JG on Colossians 2:12 says, "....but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation."
J4, there is no point in having further convo on your heterodoxy concerning baptism. We have gone into it many times before, and you are still in 'error', are 'wrong', and hold an 'unbiblical' position. You are a classic case of heterodoxy and cannot prove your position from the Bible. Rather you simplify the work of the Holy Spirit in a sinner's life, when it is really quite complex, beginning as it does in eternity, when God the Father chose certain sinners unto salvation, working in their hearts in due time when they came into the world, involving conviction, regeneration, enlightenment, indwelling, sealing, assuring, delivering faith and other spiritual gifts, empowering, and on and on and on. Sure, this is the real deal, and God is exalted in this work of his Spirit; it is salvation which comes from him.
But so too is water baptism after conversion; it is 'biblical', 'correct', and 'right' to be baptised in water, in total identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
Thanks for the various points you made. Time will always tell concerning these matters, but one thing we can expect for sure, is that in these last days, churches will fill up with tares, who will seek to introduce the godly to worldliness, by stealth and subterfuge, as well as slowly turn the gospel around so that it loses all its power. In other words, attempts will be made to kill the church from within. Once the church is dead, the tares will go elsewhere.
Thanks for mentioning heresy and error. In my Bible 'heresy' is only found once, and then, not in regard to any one doctrine. So I have decided not to use the word 'heresy' in future; rather it will be: 'unbiblical', 'wrong', or an 'error'. Then it will not confuse you or anyone else.
For example, I hold that Presbyterians - even if there are some that are true brethren - hold to certain 'errors' and are 'wrong' on certain things, as also are IFB's and Anglicans.
Someone told me once that there is no perfect church, but I have found that in every church I have attended, the prevailing attitude is, "We are 'fine', our doctrine is 'correct', our worship is 'good', preaching is 'fine', structure is 'fine', blah, blah, blah....."
Just to be clear, Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but they do baptise their own babies in anticipation of them becoming regenerate at a later date. It's a genealogy thing, and I call it heresy, because it is not biblical. In most households, there will be saved and lost people. Sometimes an entire household is saved, such as Cornelius, and as this jailer we talked about. Opposition to this teaching is opposing God himself, who is entirely sovereign in the matter of salvation. To deny this is like whistling in the dark.
This sovereignty is found in John 3:8 and throughout the Bible, and I will always exalt the Lord God in all that he does. After all, if anyone is ever saved, it is on account of God's grace, not the worthiness of the one saved. All are guilty, all are condemned, and if God chooses to save a few, he is to be commended for showing mercy upon them.
With regard to your hesitancy about this family, I will give you my current opinion concerning them, which is that I doubt a single one of them is regenerate; thusly they are perishing in sins and need the true gospel, not a watered down heavy metal version of it.
Would you have baptised all of them without sufficient evidence of new birth?
1. I actually wasnâ€™t focusing on that part of the text but rather the timing. Most baptist churches require more of a convert that an over night, believing in God. Phillipâ€™s convert was almost immediately baptized too.
2. Also, heresy of baptism has nothing to do with a false convert being baptized. That is literally impossible to prevent, though it should be guarded along with the Lords Supper. The only heresy known to me surrounding baptism is baptismal regeneration
Hi Marty and thanks for your response.
1. I am with you on this, because it is most biblical to baptise upon conversion or very shortly afterwards. To delay is to encourage disobedience.
2. I also agree with you on the plain fact that no matter how careful we are, there will be unregenerates baptised by us. Philip's convert made a profession of faith which satisfied the evangelist and he baptised him immediately. The key thing is that he made a profession of faith in Christ as the Son of God.
Regarding baptism heresies, did you not know that Presbyterians baptise their offspring almost as soon as they come forth into the world?
Marty McD wrote: ... This household baptism in Acts seemingly took place in the course of a few hours, by the Apostles no less ...
Good morning Marty,
It seems to me that you have developed a false doctrine because of your use of the ESV, and it concerns me. In your post, you appear to claim that because the jailer had become a believer, all the others in his household (wife, children, servants etc.) were eligible for baptism, even if they had not come to faith themselves. The ESV supports this, and it is where you got it from.
"Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." Acts 16:34 ESV
In this text, a theory is promoted that the jailer was the only one who had believed in God; therefore his entire household had been baptised on account of his faith. [obvious heresy]
I heartily commend to you the KJV, which I have posted below for comparison, which clearly shows that all present had become believers and were therefore eligible for baptism. [see Acts 8:36-38]
"And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts 16:34 KJV
The Quiet Christian wrote: John UK, .. I would think that since we don't know whom the Lord is calling to Himself, speaking to larger numbers has a greater potential to be within hearing of those whom He is calling.
When I "thought like a child" I too used to think like that. But not any more. I will exalt the Lord my God and his sovereignty and immense power, his providential workings and ability to bring to pass certain events, that his elect will get to hear the gospel in his time and in his way.
People like myself, who have sat at the feet of Charles Spurgeon, have learnt not to throw water at a crate full of bottles, hoping to get some water into each one, but rather to carefully pour the water into just one of the bottles until it is full.
There are people who have done hardly any evangelism who imagine themselves experts on the subject. Too bad.
Hey Ho, back to sleep in Zion, folks. You have had your chance to learn a few things, but you prefer the lie rather than the truth, so I will not stay here to be used as a punch bag, thank you very much.
I'll be back for the ChristMass debate, to see if anyone has woken up out of their spiritual RCC antichrist slumber.
"I don't see a biblical warrant for doing this. Why don't they just get on with doing what God told them to do, and face whatever consequences they have to face? As in, be a disciple of Jesus Christ, and follow him. Is that too simple?"
Do folks imagine it was easy to preach the gospel in Bible times, when Saul of Tarsus was on the march, rounding up Christians, beating them, forcing them to blaspheme, putting them in prison, or killing them?
Oh boy, now we have students who imagine themselves Christians oh-so-annoyed that they have been relegated to a corner of the park in order to preach their gospel, and what are they doing? They are taking the city to court. What sort of students are they? Rich kids with rich parents who have caught the modern stand-up-for-your-rights phenomena, who have learnt from the queers to take a case to court and get satisfaction? How much time and money and effort is all this going to take? Can they justify spending their parents' money on a court case? Wheaton College is observing but not interfering, they are on their own. And their studies? Who cares?
Am I the only person on SA who does not see Christianity in all this? That it is all of the flesh not the Spirit?
Frank wrote: Brother John, Thanks for your below comments and especially for the smiley face following your Arminist comment. I know you have preached often in public and commonly give out tracts in public to whomever will take them. That is not Arminian in the slightest but simply witnessing to all who will listen. The great commission. Like you, I believe in election. But I can't imagine walking up to someone and saying: "I'm not sure if you are one of God's elect, but in case you are, here is the gospel".
You got that on the button, Frank.
The Quiet Christian wrote: 1. Ah, just saw you latest, John. Why would approaching the larger group of people be Arminian? 2. Also, the concept of free speech zones goes against the right of free speech in a truly public place.
1. During ancient research, QC, I discovered that the BGEA could tell you before a crusade how many 'converts' they expected, based upon how many people were attending the crusade.
2. If you are right, the boys should win their court case easily, paving the way for a free-for-all "Speaker's Corner" at the Bean. If you are wrong, and they lose, they could always do what God tells them and face the consequences.
Just in case some folks didn't know this, the Millennium Park has a specific zone within the park where anyone can exercise their freedom of speech and either campaign for a political party, preach on climate change, bear Christian testimony, or whatever they want to do. It's like Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London.
The park is a tourist attraction, and many people attend what is called "The Bean", and so these students wanted to preach in this area (zone) simply because there were more people there. [Presumably they thought that their chances of getting conversions were better, because there were more people to witness to.] Oops, sorry, that is arminist thinking.
The truth is, that on the way to the park, in true evangelism, God, in his providence, could have arranged for a meetup with a prepared soul, whose heart was already hungry for the word of the gospel.
This is walking in the Spirit, not the flesh (which is DIY evangelism). It is depending on God totally, seeing HIM at work, being a part of what HE is doing, not doing it yourself and thinking yourself to be something or somebody, when you are nothing. God works with old clay pots, so that HE will have glory.
Frank wrote: Good morning brother! Yes, I'm sure the powers to be are having a laugh among their inner circles. Most know that many wars are started through lies. Look at Iraq and VN just to name a couple. No weapons of mass destruction, etc. Have a great day!
Good morning Frank! Yes, we can take with a pinch of salt all that we are permitted to hear on the local news broadcast. However, just a couple more incidents from Iran, and I believe this will mark the start of a big fight in the playground, before the bell goes for lessons.
Sister B, I'm not sure what you were saying in your numero uno, but I'll try to answer as best I can.
1. Speaking for where I live in Wales, I don't know any of today's churches who believe in preaching the gospel outdoors. Those Christians who do are regarded as oddballs and weirdos, which is why I am very happy to depart this world for a better place. In my county no-one cares if our freedoms are taken away, because we're not using them anyway.
2. No, the apostles never used DIY evangelism.
3. DIY evangelism is trying to make converts without God. It is going somewhere not authorised by God. It is not going somewhere authorised by God. The worst example I have ever seen of a DIY church evangelising is Westboro Baptist Church (the late Fred Phelps team). It is evangelising without grace, without love, without truth. It is evangelising in such a way as to bring disrepute to the name of Christ.
In this scenario, the park authorities had to repeatedly tell this group to cease their witnessing in the park. Has any good come of this? No. And now the students are all hot under the collar and are taking the city to court. Why not just go tracting and preaching where the city will permit them? It's because they are DIY'ers. Is God with them?
B. McCausland wrote: What can be said of this passage? " ...when it was day, the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, Let those men go. the keeper of the prison told .Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace.
and desired them to depart out of the city."
Sister B, I have already considered this scenario, which occurred in Europe, but it does not fit, simply because Paul and Silas were arrested by the authorities and beaten and imprisoned. Not having a DIY religion, the Lord responded to their praises and prayers within prison, brought about an earthquake, and got the jailer saved and his entire household.
Paul correctly responded to the Roman law at that time, as you quoted. The upshot was that they were told to "get out of town", which they did.
But these students have not been arrested nor charged with anything. It is they who are bringing a charge against the city, for preventing their evangelising in a public park. What I'm looking for is a biblical precedent for this, and there is none. If they had not had a DIY method of evangelism, they would have heard the Holy Spirit speaking in their ear what they ought to do, and it wasn't to keep winding up the park authorities.
Megaphone wrote: Pure speculation. You don't know what the apostles would have done if they had rights guaranteed by law to freedom of speech, it didn't exist in their day. You cannot say with any authority that Wheaton college students did was unbiblical because you have nothing upon which to base it, it wasn't an option for the early Christians.
Ahem, my dear megaphone, although you have a stupid moniker, I will answer your point.
What on earth does your constitution or first amendment have to do with obeying God? Hmmmm?
Now my dear fellow/woman whoever you are, I recommend you read the Acts of the Apostles and get into the biblical idea of what the mind of the apostles was, concerning what they ought to do when confronted with contrary men. Read, for example, the context of the following verse:
Acts 5:29 KJV (29)Â Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
(Did not I say this right at the start of this debate?)
Now then megaphone, if you believe these students are doing the right thing, will you pay for all their court costs if they lose their case? Or will you disown them and say, "Stupid students!"
Let us look again at this from the beginning, before I look at your recent comment, which I will do, be assured.
"Four Wheaton College students who were repeatedly stopped from open-air preaching and passing out evangelism literature in Millennium Park are suing the city for allegedly violating their First Amendment rights."
I claimed that there is no biblical warrant for them to be doing this. The reason I said that is because there is NO bibical precedent for them to be doing this.
Today's DIY Christianity leaves God outside the church door and refuses to trust in him for anything. So you are left with your own resources - other men.
In this case, the students are actually taking someone else to court and suing them. Nice one! Great witness lads! That's one up for Jesus Christ! High fives all round! Oh what a fantastic bit of evangelism, guaranteed to endear a lot of people to the Christian faith.
And all the time God says, "He that winneth souls is wise."
Why didn't they just find somewhere else to preach? Hmmmm?
In the UK, private shopping centres have their own by-laws. I have tried tracting such places and been politely turfed out. I didn't grumble, just went outside on the street with my tracts.
However, if you read the intro to the article it is all about a court case concerning citizens' rights under the First Amendment, which is why I gave the example I did.
Now if you want to champion the First Amendment, and the rights of all religions under the sun to freedom of speech in public places like parks, and you believe God has called you to do that, please go right ahead with your DIY Christianity, but you'll not do it without a loving rebuke from me, even if everyone else is fast asleep in Zion. Now please observe,
Acts 4:17-18 KJV (17)Â But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. (18)Â And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
So what did they do?
Acts 4:19-20 KJV (19)Â But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. (20)Â For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
Acts 5:18 KJV (18)Â And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison.
When it comes to citizens' rights, concerning, for example, freedom of speech, let us think about this, QC.
You have a park called Millennium Park, where these evangelists have been trying to give out tracts and preach the gospel. They have been prevented. And you believe they are correct to take their case to law, and sue the city.
So would you give the same privilege to preachers and evangelists of other religions, who also wish to gain converts to their religion?
So, let me see now, every Saturday, in the Millennium Park, you are out for a quiet stroll with your dog. The sun is shining, the air is fresh, but there is a problem. Every few yards there is a team of evangelists. Some of them are trying to give you a leaflet, one is preaching a message, others are holding banners up, which you feel compelled to read, out of curiosity. Some even stand in your way.
There are Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, Seventh Day Baptists, Presbyterian Church of America, Methodist Church, Church of Christ, Satanist Church, Rosicrucians, Christadelphians, Spiritualist Church, and a dozen others. They fill the park.
And you are happy with that, because it is their citizens' right?