Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you for getting back on topic everyone.

I appreciate that.

May the Lord Jesus bless you all.
I may not agree with everyone’s view on baptism here, but I do think it is important that the truth of God’s Word on this matter should be discussed and prayed about in a loving and respectful manner.

 

[Titus]

…

Tell that to the Catholics. Also my first post on here was a post of yours on the catholic church and their suppression of the Bible. So you need to take your own advice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Tell that to the Catholics. Also my first post on here was a post of yours on the catholic church and their suppression of the Bible. So you need to take your own advice.

Yes, I am not beating up folks for getting off topic and I know that I myself have went off topic. But keep in mind (to my memory - which may be in error): You are the second person in human history of my 12 years of talking on Christian forums to want to argue with me on getting a Christian thread back on topic. Yes, we all go off topic. Yes, I went off topic in this thread. We all do it from time to time and it is natural. What is not natural is arguing with a person‘s desire to get back on topic. The point is to respect the wishes of the creator of the thread if they are calling to get the thread back on topic because it is only courteous and loving.

Thank you, and may God bless you.

 

[Titus]

You are the second person in human history of my 12 years of talking on Christian forums to want to argue with me on getting a Christian thread back on topic.

Dont have a problem with staying on topic.
I have a problem with you telling me what to do.
Especially since you have been off topic on this same thread.
You have no authority over me.
Again tell it to the Catholics, they have made off topic remarks.

 

[Illuminator]

Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism and Lutheranism, believed in baptismal regeneration, and followed Catholic tradition in that regard. John Calvin, equally or even more influential as an early Protestant leader, did not.

Among Protestants there are five camps regarding baptism. They just can’t figure out the truth of this matter.

1. Luther (as well as some “high” Anglicans and Methodists) held to (infant) baptismal regeneration,
2. Calvin to symbolic infant baptism.
3. Then there is the position of Baptists and some others: adult “believers” symbolic baptism.
4. Yet others believe in adult baptismal regeneration (e.g., Disciples of Christ and Church[es] of Christ).
5. A fifth position is denying the necessity of baptism altogether (even though it is clearly a command in the New Testament). This is held by Quakers and The Salvation Army.

A novel 6th position has appeared recently: you don't need water at all, "spirit" baptism covers everything.

I wanted to note this diversity in practice, since many in here seem to think that the matter is so crystal-clear, solely by consulting Scripture. Catholics also think Christian tradition going all the way back to Jesus is relevant. Tradition is the “democracy of the dead,” as Chesterton so wonderfully described it. We find, of course, that baptismal regeneration was a unanimous position among the Church fathers [link one / two / three / four]. It’s illuminating to also consult the Church fathers to see how they interpreted particular passages.
In the first link we can see that several interpreted John 3:5 precisely as Catholics today do (baptismal regeneration): Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and John Damascene.

Surely, this is noteworthy. How could so many great teachers of Christianity in the early Church get it totally wrong? Protestants go ultimately by Scripture alone, yet both Luther and Calvin claimed that their views were closely aligned with that of the fathers, and more so than Catholicism. They were particularly fond of Augustine, and claimed him as their “own.”

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Here, “wash away” is still metaphorical in a sense, yet the removal of sins is quite real indeed, and the baptism is literally one of water.
This backs up the Catholic / Orthodox / Lutheran / high Anglican view and runs counter to the Reformed position.

mostly by Dave Armstrong

 

[amigo de christo]

As a former catholic who was baptized in RCC and fully confirmed RCC i fully believed in RCC eucharist,
as well as praying the Rosaries to Mary.

Now/Today, thru the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, i am free from those man-made religious idols that cannot save anyone.

Christ has set me free from sin and death which abounds in RCC.

i encourage you to Read the Gospel of John, Romans and Hebrews.

Something else to ponder on as well my friend .
Itsnt it something that when a man came up and called CHRIST good
he said no one is GOOD but GOD . now of course we know who HE is . But then you have to ask youself something .
IF JESUS never had folks calling HIM most holy Father or most holy reverand .
And in fact HE said call no man master ,reverand or FATHER .
HOW COME they DO . Remember when JESUS said to beware of those who walk in long robes
and they just love flatteries of men and to be seen of them .
NOW GO PEEK at the RCC and tell me what YOU SEE . Cause i am seeing exactly what JESUS warned out
against and not FOLLOW but rather to beware of .............
YEAH . EVEN JESUS HIMSELF was never called MOST HOLY FATHER ,
AND LOOK AT WHO HE IS and WAS . IF JESUS came to ministir and etc
I SAY WE OUGHTTA DO THE VERY SAME . Something the RCC knows naught about .
MOST HOLY FATHER , MOST HOLY REVERAND . think about that . PRAISE GOD HE PULLED YOU OUT OF IT .
GOD pulled me out of great darkness too . TO HE WE OWE ALL . AND TO GOD and HIS CHRIST WE GONNA POINT .
LET GOD get the GLORY , LET CHRIST GET the GLORY .

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Dont have a problem with staying on topic.
I have a problem with you telling me what to do.
Especially since you have been off topic on this same thread.
You have no authority over me.
Again tell it to the Catholics, they have made off topic remarks.

We shouldn't still be arguing about this. My call to get the thread back on "topic" was to all people in the thread (which would include me). Nowhere did I specifically address you alone and tell you what to do. I do have the right to express my concern over people who tend to want to argue about anything at the drop of a dime or without a good cause. I have a legitimate right as the "creator of the thread" to try and get the thread back on topic. To argue against that or to cause further discord over the matter is to be argumentative for no good reason. You are free to do as you wish, but I don't believe it is definitive of true Christian behavior to argue over such things. If you disagree: Well, I would encourage (Which is not a command): For you to pray to lead others to the truth in love and speak back to others in gentleness (meekness).

2 Timothy 2:25
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;
if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Something else to ponder on as well my friend .
Itsnt it something that when a man came up and called CHRIST good
he said no one is GOOD but GOD . now of course we know who HE is . But then you have to ask youself something .
IF JESUS never had folks calling HIM most holy Father or most holy reverand .
And in fact HE said call no man master ,reverand or FATHER .
HOW COME they DO . Remember when JESUS said to beware of those who walk in long robes
and they just love flatteries of men and to be seen of them .
NOW GO PEEK at the RCC and tell me what YOU SEE . Cause i am seeing exactly what JESUS warned out
against and not FOLLOW but rather to beware of .............
YEAH . EVEN JESUS HIMSELF was never called MOST HOLY FATHER ,
AND LOOK AT WHO HE IS and WAS . IF JESUS came to ministir and etc
I SAY WE OUGHTTA DO THE VERY SAME . Something the RCC knows naught about .
MOST HOLY FATHER , MOST HOLY REVERAND . think about that . PRAISE GOD HE PULLED YOU OUT OF IT .
GOD pulled me out of great darkness too . TO HE WE OWE ALL . AND TO GOD and HIS CHRIST WE GONNA POINT .
LET GOD get the GLORY , LET CHRIST GET the GLORY .

Dear brother.

Yes. I agree. The RCC is not good. But the topic is baptism. I know. I went off-topic myself a little. But I am calling all (including myself) to try and get the thread back on topic.

The topic is baptism.

Thank you, brother.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.

 

[Illuminator]

Dont have a problem with staying on topic.
I have a problem with you telling me what to do.
Especially since you have been off topic on this same thread.
You have no authority over me.
Again tell it to the Catholics, they have made off topic remarks.

I'm looking forward some kind of on topic reply from post #920 and 925. Please, try to refrain from stupid off topic slanderous insults about a living Church that is dear to my heart. Your anger is frightening.

To prepare for a university paper, I have the book "Fathers of the Fatherless, the Psychology of Atheism."
It's heavy stuff; too much for me to digest. I got past the first chapter, and cheated by reading the last chapter. The general over-all bottom line is that most atheists grew up with dysfunctional fathers, numerous fathers, or no fathers at all.

The name of my paper will be "Fathers of the Fatherless, the Psychology of Anti-Catholicism". The parallels with my main source are astonishing. If I do a good job with a bibliography and extensive footnotes and get an "A+", I'll post it all over the internet. I'm collecting your remarks for data purposes. If and when it ever gets finished, would you like a copy?

In every one of your posts where the Catholic Church (CC) is mentioned, you express a rage that is common for a certain group of anti-Catholics. I can't communicate with you if I don't understand you. I see a pattern over the 25 years I've been on forums. To make a long post short, you don't have a problem with the CC, you have a problem with authority. It's not so much a religious problem with you, but more a psychological one. That may be why you reject every church in the city. Forums are your church, so treat us Catholics like we were human beings.
I'm looking forward some kind of on topic reply from post #920 and 925, and ignore the rest of this post. Please use the quote feature. Behave yourself or I'll slap your knuckles with a ruler.

 

[Titus]

Water baptism is Spiritual baptism because it is when the. Blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
This is not a mans opinion. It is clearly stated in scripture.

Those who teach baptism is a work of man, therefore are teaching the opposite of what the Holy Spirit revealed.
Colossians 2:12,
- buried with Him in baptism in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working/operation of GOD, who raised Him from the dead.

This baptism is a work of God not man.
Anyone who teaches baptism is a work of man disagrees with Paul.

Since the water baptism that is being spoken of in Colossians 2:12 is a work of God,
That makes water baptism a spiritual work of God.
It is spiritual baptism.
Both Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are spiritual in nature.
Neither one is carnal, earthly, from man.

Holy Spirit baptism was never promised to every new converted Christian.
Only the apostles were promised to be baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself.
Since HS baptism is done directly by Jesus, all passages that have a man baptizing another man must be water.

Therefore Jesus' great commission is water not HS baptism.
Matthew 28:19,
- Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus commands His disciples to baptize men. Must be water.
Four reasons,
1) God directly baptized with HS.
2) Man always performed water baptism
3) HS baptism was never commanded by God, yet water baptism is commanded in Jesus' great commission.
4) baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was always water as we see Peter preaching the great commission of Christ to Cornelius,
Acts 10:47-48,
- Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
- and Peter  commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord . Then the asked him to stay a few days.
Notice Cornelius already received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now Peter commands him to be water baptized.
Cornelius was not commanded to recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice when Peter water baptized him he did so in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter did the same to the 3000 Jews in Acts 2:38,
- Then Peter said to them, Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter performed the water baptism himself.

Acts 19:3-5,
- And Paul said to them, Into what then were you baptized? So they said Into John's baptism.
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.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Again Paul does the baptizing. The baptism is in the name of the Lord. This can only therefore be water.
As ,more proof, they have been water baptized but not one of them has received HS baptism.
Now after their water baptism they receive gifts of the HS by the laying on of Paul's hands.
Acts 19:6,
- And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. This is what happened to Cornelius yet no laying on of hands for Cornelius which makes Cornelius unique.

All Spiritual gifts given to 1st. Century christians were by the apostles laying on of hands.
With the exception of Cornelius.
The HS worked these miracles in them.
Never was it commanded by any apostle to receive the gifts of the HS.

More examples of water baptism.
Acts 8:38,
- So Philip commanded the chariot to stand still and both Phillip and the Eunch went down into the water and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away.....
Notice water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was immersion! No sprinkling ever was performed by the apostles in baptism or with a preacher like Philip.


Now we hear from John the baptizer tell the soon to be apostles that they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit directly by Jesus,
Mark 1:8,
- I indeed baptized you with water but Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

So all the accounts of the conversions in the book of Acts were water.
Water baptism is the Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
This baptism is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, Mark 16:15-16.
The one baptism Paul preached Ephesians 4:5 is water.
Paul said there is only one in Jesus' gospel.
The baptism in water is when Paul's sins were washed away.
Acts 22:16,
- And now why are you waiting Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism is not a work of man but a work of God.
That baptism that God works His power to save us with the blood of Christ is water baptism not HS baptism. 1Peter 3:20-21.

 

[Titus]

I'm looking forward some kind of on topic reply from post #920 and 925. Please, try to refrain from stupid off topic slanderous insults about a living Church that is dear to my heart. Your anger is frightening.

To prepare for a university paper, I have the book "Fathers of the Fatherless, the Psychology of Atheism."
It's heavy stuff; too much for me to digest. I got past the first chapter, and cheated by reading the last chapter. The general over-all bottom line is that most atheists grew up with dysfunctional fathers, numerous fathers, or no fathers at all.

The name of my paper will be "Fathers of the Fatherless, the Psychology of Anti-Catholicism". The parallels with my main source are astonishing. If I do a good job with a bibliography and extensive footnotes and get an "A+", I'll post it all over the internet. I'm collecting your remarks for data purposes. If and when it ever gets finished, would you like a copy?

In every one of your posts where the Catholic Church (CC) is mentioned, you express a rage that is common for a certain group of anti-Catholics. I can't communicate with you if I don't understand you. I see a pattern over the 25 years I've been on forums. To make a long post short, you don't have a problem with the CC, you have a problem with authority. It's not so much a religious problem with you, but more a psychological one. That may be why you reject every church in the city. Forums are your church, so treat us Catholics like we were human beings.
I'm looking forward some kind of on topic reply from post #920 and 925, and ignore the rest of this post. Please use the quote feature. Behave yourself or I'll slap your knuckles with a ruler.

Quote this: Illuminator responds to posts that were not sent to him.
Illuminator is the one guilty of libel. To accuse me of having a problem with authority is a false accusation. The catholic church is not the Lords church, therefore it has no authority. The only authority I joyfully submit to is Jesus Christ and His new will and testament, Mark 28:18.

 

[Titus]

You are free to do as you wish, but I don't believe it is definitive of true Christian behavior to argue over such things.

Again you are guilty of the very things you told me not to do. Also you have no authority to tell me what to do. God gave you no authority over me or anyone else. Last I would have gladly stayed on topic if it weren't for the Catholics. You need to criticize them. There would have been no argument if you had not started going off topic at the very beginning of this thread.

 

[Illuminator]

Water baptism is Spiritual baptism because it is when the. Blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.
This is not a mans opinion. It is clearly stated in scripture.

Those who teach baptism is a work of man, therefore are teaching the opposite of what the Holy Spirit revealed.
Colossians 2:12,
- buried with Him in baptism in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working/operation of GOD, who raised Him from the dead.

This baptism is a work of God not man.
Anyone who teaches baptism is a work of man disagrees with Paul.

Since the water baptism that is being spoken of in Colossians 2:12 is a work of God,
That makes water baptism a spiritual work of God.
It is spiritual baptism.
Both Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism are spiritual in nature.
Neither one is carnal, earthly, from man.

So far, so good.

Holy Spirit baptism was never promised to every new converted Christian.
Only the apostles were promised to be baptized with the Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself.
Since HS baptism is done directly by Jesus, all passages that have a man baptizing another man must be water.

Therefore Jesus' great commission is water not HS baptism.
Matthew 28:19,
- Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus commands His disciples to baptize men. Must be water.
Four reasons,
1) God directly baptized with HS.
2) Man always performed water baptism
3) HS baptism was never commanded by God, yet water baptism is commanded in Jesus' great commission.

The problem I'm having is you seem to separate water from spirit. Jesus didn't do that. He said "water and spirit". Regarding baptism, the two are never separated in scripture.

4) baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was always water as we see Peter preaching the great commission of Christ to Cornelius,
Acts 10:47-48,
- Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
- and Peter  commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord . Then the asked him to stay a few days.
Notice Cornelius already received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now Peter commands him to be water baptized.
Cornelius was not commanded to recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice when Peter water baptized him he did so in the name of Jesus Christ.
Peter did the same to the 3000 Jews in Acts 2:38,
- Then Peter said to them, Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter performed the water baptism himself.

Peter would know the liturgical formula for baptism, given directly by Jesus in the Great Commission.
Acts 2:38 is a general instruction to be baptized, because Peter is not in the act of baptizing someone when he said that. Acts 2:38 is not a liturgical formula for water/spirit baptism. It wouldn't be logical. Peter can't be obedient to the Commission and disobedient at the same time by changing the liturgical formula in Matthew 28:19.

Acts 19:3-5,
- And Paul said to them, Into what then were you baptized? So they said Into John's baptism.
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.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Again Paul does the baptizing. The baptism is in the name of the Lord. This can only therefore be water.
As ,more proof, they have been water baptized but not one of them has received HS baptism.
Now after their water baptism they receive gifts of the HS by the laying on of Paul's hands.
Acts 19:6,
- And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. This is what happened to Cornelius yet no laying on of hands for Cornelius which makes Cornelius unique.

All Spiritual gifts given to 1st. Century christians were by the apostles laying on of hands.
With the exception of Cornelius.
The HS worked these miracles in them.
Never was it commanded by any apostle to receive the gifts of the HS.

More examples of water baptism.
Acts 8:38,
- So Philip commanded the chariot to stand still and both Phillip and the Eunch went down into the water and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away.....
Notice water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was immersion! No sprinkling ever was performed by the apostles in baptism or with a preacher like Philip.


Now we hear from John the baptizer tell the soon to be apostles that they will be baptized with the Holy Spirit directly by Jesus,
Mark 1:8,
- I indeed baptized you with water but Jesus will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.

So all the accounts of the conversions in the book of Acts were water.
Water baptism is the Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
This baptism is in the gospel of Jesus Christ, Mark 16:15-16.
The one baptism Paul preached Ephesians 4:5 is water.
Paul said there is only one in Jesus' gospel.
The baptism in water is when Paul's sins were washed away.
Acts 22:16,
- And now why are you waiting Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Baptism is not a work of man but a work of God.
That baptism that God works His power to save us with the blood of Christ is water baptism not HS baptism. 1Peter 3:20-21.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. You said,

Since HS baptism is done directly by Jesus, all passages that have a man baptizing another man must be water.

later, you said,

Now after their water baptism they receive gifts of the HS by the laying on of Paul's hands.

This is called creating a false dichotomy, or, either/or thinking as opposed to both/and thinking. Since HS baptism is done directly by Jesus" and gifts of the HS through the laying on of Paul's hands might be a better way to express what you are trying to say. It's BOTH Jesus through Paul, not Jesus either/or Paul.

 

[Titus]

The problem I'm having is you seem to separate water from spirit. Jesus didn't do that. He said "water and spirit". Regarding baptism, the two are never separated in scripture

One is in water. Literally in water. The other no water is used. There is a difference.
HS baptism never was for the purpose of salvation.
Water baptism in Jesus' gospel is for salvation.

Peter would know the liturgical formula for baptism, given directly by Jesus in the Great Commission.
Acts 2:38 is a general instruction to be baptized, because Peter is not in the act of baptizing someone when he said that. Acts 2:38 is not a liturgical formula for water/spirit baptism. It wouldn't be logical. Peter can't be obedient to the Commission and disobedient at the same time by changing the liturgical formula in Matthew 28:19

Acts 2:21,
- And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,
Just as Paul taught,
Romans 10:13,
- For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,

Peter preaches that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved in Acts 2:21, quoting Joel.
Now the Jews believe Peter's gospel preaching so in Acts 2:37 they say to Peter,
- Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Peter already told them that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
They needed to know HOW to call on the name of the Lord otherwise they would not be asking what they needed to do for murdering their Messiah on a Roman cross.
Peter then explains to them how to call upon the name of the Lord,
Acts 2:38,
- Then Peter said to them, Repent and let every one of you be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is the gospel of Jesus Christ in His great commission.
Luke 24:46-47,
- and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem.
Jesus' great commission includes faith, repentance and baptism.
But also confession with the mouth before men.

So we see that Peter teaches how one calls on the name of the lord by believing Acts 2:37, and then by repentance and baptism Acts 2:38. Calling on the name of the Lord is by obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Every person that obeyed the gospel of Jesus did the same otherwise there is more than one gospel, Ephesians 4:5.

This is called creating a false dichotomy, or, either/or thinking as opposed to both/and thinking. Since HS baptism is done directly by Jesus" and gifts of the HS through the laying on of Paul's hands might be a better way to express what you are trying to say. It's BOTH Jesus through Paul, not Jesus either/or Paul

I'm contrasting Holy Spirit baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name.
Spirit gifts is neither.

Spiritual gifts were given to the Christians by the laying on of the apostles hands with the exception of Cornelius.
Holy Spirit baptism was administered directly by Jesus.
With the exception of Paul's Holy Spirit baptism.
It is said of Paul,
Acts 9:17,
- And Ananias went His way and entered the house and laying His hands on him said, Brother Saul the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you come has sent me, that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul had Ananias lay hands on him because Jesus instructed him to do so,
This was for the purpose to receive His sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

The rest of the apostles before Paul had no mans hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism.
Because Jesus was the baptizer of the Holy Spirit not men.

Never did an apostle impart the baptism of the Holy Spirit to other christians by the laying on of hands. They only received gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference.

Acts 2:38 when Peter says,
- And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is not Holy Spirit baptism being gifted to ever person that obeys the gospel of Christ.
This is the Holy Spirit giving everyone a gift. Not the Holy Spirit being the gift Himself.

What is the gift? It cannot be miraculous gifts for everyone is not promised miraculous gifts.
We see this said in the next verse,
Acts 2:39,
- For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar off as many as the Lord our God will call.

The promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is to all the Lord calls.
That means every single person will receive it.
Question: Does every single person who is saved by God receive miraculous gifts?
No.
To receive miraculous gifts the apostles must lay hands on you.
No apostles today so what is the gift of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is the gift giver. He Himself is not the gift.

All Christians receive this gift.
What gift do all receive from God that call on His name?
What is promised by God?
1John 2:25,
- And this is the promise that He has promised us---etetnal life.

All the saved are promised eternal life.

This is the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38.

To prove this is what Peter is teaching look at the conversion of Simon the Sorcerer.
No apostle laid hands on him to impart any gift of the Holy Spirit.
He was given nothing miraculous. Therefore he was saved without Holy Spirit baptism.
Acts 8:13-18,
- Then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized(in water for the forgiveness of his sins) he continued with Philip and was amazed seeing the miracles and signs which were done.
V.15,
- who then they had come down prayed for then that they might recieve the Holy Spirit,
For as yet HE HAD FALLEN ON NONE OF THEM. THEY HAD ONLY BEEN BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.
- Then they(apostles) laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.
And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,
Saying give me this power also that anyone whom I lay hands on may recieve the Holy Spirit.

We learn that even though Simon believed and was baptized in the name of the Lord. He did not receive Holy Spirit baptism. This proves that is not the gift promised in Acts 2:38. For the gift in Acts 2:38 is for ALL Christians!

John 3:5,
- Jesus answered, Most assuredly I say to you, unless one is born of water(baptism) and the Spirit(by the revelation of the message the Spirit revealed through men like John and the apostles) he cannot enter the kingdom of God.


Jesus is not teaching two baptisms that are one in the same in John 3:5.
That would contradict Paul's gospel,
Ephesians 4:5,
- one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Only one baptism that is required by God to receive His unmerited grace.
That baptism is water immersion, Mark 16:15-16.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again you are guilty of the very things you told me not to do. Also you have no authority to tell me what to do. God gave you no authority over me or anyone else. Last I would have gladly stayed on topic if it weren't for the Catholics. You need to criticize them. There would have been no argument if you had not started going off topic at the very beginning of this thread.

Take care. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.

 

[Illuminator]

One is in water. Literally in water. The other no water is used. There is a difference.

It's not a matter of difference, it's that water and spirit are inseparable; Jesus is not confused.

HS baptism never was for the purpose of salvation.
Water baptism in Jesus' gospel is for salvation.

HS baptism, with manifestation of gifts, normally follows water baptism, but not necessarily in that order, and I think you will agree.

Acts 2:21,
- And it shall come to pass that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,
Just as Paul taught,
Romans 10:13,
- For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,

Peter preaches that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved in Acts 2:21, quoting Joel.

But that doesn't rule out or cancel out the liturgical formula for baptism in Mathew 28:19. Baptism is much the same thing as calling out the name of the Lord because baptism is a public act of profession that you are calling out the name of the Lord, not a mere function of the intellect.

Now the Jews believe Peter's gospel preaching so in Acts 2:37 they say to Peter,
- Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Peter already told them that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved
They needed to know HOW to call on the name of the Lord otherwise they would not be asking what they needed to do for murdering their Messiah on a Roman cross.
Peter then explains to them how to call upon the name of the Lord,
Acts 2:38,
- Then Peter said to them, Repent and let every one of you be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

That is the gospel of Jesus Christ in His great commission.
Luke 24:46-47,
- and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem.
Jesus' great commission includes faith, repentance and baptism.
But also confession with the mouth before men.

So we see that Peter teaches how one calls on the name of the lord by believing Acts 2:37, and then by repentance and baptism Acts 2:38. Calling on the name of the Lord is by obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Every person that obeyed the gospel of Jesus did the same otherwise there is more than one gospel, Ephesians 4:5.


I'm contrasting Holy Spirit baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name.
Spirit gifts is neither.

Contrasting Holy Spirit baptism with water baptism is not biblical. There is no contrast because Jesus made no contrast

Spiritual gifts were given to the Christians by the laying on of the apostles hands with the exception of Cornelius.
Holy Spirit baptism was administered directly by Jesus.
With the exception of Paul's Holy Spirit baptism.
It is said of Paul,
Acts 9:17,
- And Ananias went His way and entered the house and laying His hands on him said, Brother Saul the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you come has sent me, that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul had Ananias lay hands on him because Jesus instructed him to do so,
This was for the purpose to receive His sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

The rest of the apostles before Paul had no mans hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism.
Because Jesus was the baptizer of the Holy Spirit not men.

Never did an apostle impart the baptism of the Holy Spirit to other christians by the laying on of hands. They only received gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference.

But you say Paul imparted the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Either you contradict yourself, or I am missing something. Baptism evacuates the soul of Original Sin, and makes room for sanctifying grace. If and when God decides to manifest gifts to fortunate believers, it will be between them and God. Edifying the community is not done by showing off.

Cessationism is the theological belief that the sign gifts of the New Testament period have ceased to function. While cessationists believe God still performs miracles today, they teach that God does not specifically equip individual Christians to perform miraculous signs.​

I disagree, based on scientific evidence using strict methodology done by the best medical scientists using the latest diagnostic equipment. Miracles happen, but it isn't wise to use miracles to back up a theology, they are for the benefit of the unbeliever as well.

Acts 2:38 when Peter says,
- And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is not Holy Spirit baptism being gifted to ever person that obeys the gospel of Christ.
This is the Holy Spirit giving everyone a gift. Not the Holy Spirit being the gift Himself.

What is the gift? It cannot be miraculous gifts for everyone is not promised miraculous gifts.
We see this said in the next verse,
Acts 2:39,
- For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are afar off as many as the Lord our God will call.

The promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is to all the Lord calls.
That means every single person will receive it.
Question: Does every single person who is saved by God receive miraculous gifts?
No.
To receive miraculous gifts the apostles must lay hands on you.
No apostles today so what is the gift of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is the gift giver. He Himself is not the gift.

All Christians receive this gift.
What gift do all receive from God that call on His name?
What is promised by God?
1John 2:25,
- And this is the promise that He has promised us---etetnal life.

All Christians receive the HS at baptism. As one matures in the Lord, manifestation of gifts is always a possibility, but not an absolute necessity. That's why baptism of the Holy Spirit is not really a baptism; I think it's more accurate to say "release of the Holy Spirit" which may or may not be followed by signs. That solves the conflict of supposed different baptisms. If God chooses to bless an unbaptized Christian with gifts, that's His business, not mine.
Let's start over: All Christians receive the HS at baptism. God did not create us to be sinful, that's not normal. What's normal is what God intended for us in the first place. Sinless and full of grace. That's normal.
For most of us, we have to be physically dead before being totally normal.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is an idiotic conversation.
I supply you with historical and Scriptural facts – and YOU offer a litany of denials and rejections

Let me know when you’re ready to have a GROWN-UP conversation where you actually have to provide some substance . . .

I see nothing childish about our conversation. We ARE having an adult conversation; BUT we are not having a collegial conversation. We are not colleges. That is, I am not a member of your group and therefore I am going to remain unimpressed with arguments that you might tell each other.

Relatives of your??

I'm the monkey on the left; I speak no evil. I tell you the truth, but you interpret it as lies in light of the fact that I am challenging you to doubt everything you have thought you believed until now. That is to be expected.

I understand your frustration but church history has no bearing on our discussion. All we can learn from church history is how the NT was heard and understood and practiced down through history. But since the New Testament predates church history, it has little bearing on what the New Testament actually teaches.

It was common for early believers to veer off course, which is evident from the many epistles contained in the New Testament. Many of Paul's letters corrected false teaching, and false practice and false worldview of early believers. For this reason, I give little weight to the writings of the so-called "Early Church Fathers" and I firmly believe that Patristics is a complete waste of time. All of the many forms of the "Christian" religion, including Catholicism represent believers veering off course.

Believers veered off course down through history. But the New Testament remains as our guiding star, our way back to the Faith. The NT stands above any so-called "Christian" doctrine and remains a reliable source of God's will for all believers. The NT remains the constant unimpeachable, reliable authority over all believers with regard to faith and practice. Both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is subservient to the NT and stands as authoritative ONLY to the degree that it comports with the NT.

My beliefs concerning the choosing of an episcopes comes from Paul's letters to Timothy. And I ask you, did Paul command Timothy to choose "Bishops", with a capital 'B'? No. Paul does not recognize an ordained clergy; he does not recognize a religious institution; he does not recognize church governance, and he certainly would be unfamiliar with the concept of a diocese.

Paul recommended that Timothy appoint a bishop, small 'b'. “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, [bishop, small 'b'] he desires a good work.” The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife . . . He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?"

Compare Paul's description of the small b bishop with the Catholic doctrine concerning the big B Bishop. According to Catholic theology, Bishops must be unmarried men or widowers; a married man cannot become a bishop. Here we see just one example of how believers have veered off course. Paul declares that a bishop must be a married man and that good stewardship of his personal household is evidence that the bishop will serve as a good steward of the household of God.

And, Paul asserts, denial of marriage is one of the signal events indicating a desertion of the Faith. Paul was not coffering to Timothy the authority to choose and establish big B Bishops. He was nor ordaining a clergy member and the small b bishops had no position of authority. The bishop's role is to watch over the household of God as a guide, not a commander or a judge. The bishop serves in a teaching role, as if helping wayward sheep back into the fold. His crosier is the word of God and persuading with humility and respect, not punishment for disobedience.

The Bible knows nothing of a big B Bishop.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I see nothing childish about our conversation. We ARE having an adult conversation; BUT we are not having a collegial conversation. We are not colleges. That is, I am not a member of your group and therefore I am going to remain unimpressed with arguments that you might tell each other.

I'm the monkey on the left; I speak no evil. I tell you the truth, but you interpret it as lies in light of the fact that I am challenging you to doubt everything you have thought you believed until now. That is to be expected.

I understand your frustration but church history has no bearing on our discussion. All we can learn from church history is how the NT was heard and understood and practiced down through history. But since the New Testament predates church history, it has little bearing on what the New Testament actually teaches.

It was common for early believers to veer off course, which is evident from the many epistles contained in the New Testament. Many of Paul's letters corrected false teaching, and false practice and false worldview of early believers. For this reason, I give little weight to the writings of the so-called "Early Church Fathers" and I firmly believe that Patristics is a complete waste of time. All of the many forms of the "Christian" religion, including Catholicism represent believers veering off course.

Believers veered off course down through history. But the New Testament remains as our guiding star, our way back to the Faith. The NT stands above any so-called "Christian" doctrine and remains a reliable source of God's will for all believers. The NT remains the constant unimpeachable, reliable authority over all believers with regard to faith and practice. Both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is subservient to the NT and stands as authoritative ONLY to the degree that it comports with the NT.

My beliefs concerning the choosing of an episcopes comes from Paul's letters to Timothy. And I ask you, did Paul command Timothy to choose "Bishops", with a capital 'B'? No. Paul does not recognize an ordained clergy; he does not recognize a religious institution; he does not recognize church governance, and he certainly would be unfamiliar with the concept of a diocese.

Paul recommended that Timothy appoint a bishop, small 'b'. “If someone aspires to the office of overseer, [bishop, small 'b'] he desires a good work.” The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife . . . He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?"

Compare Paul's description of the small b bishop with the Catholic doctrine concerning the big B Bishop. According to Catholic theology, Bishops must be unmarried men or widowers; a married man cannot become a bishop. Here we see just one example of how believers have veered off course. Paul declares that a bishop must be a married man and that good stewardship of his personal household is evidence that the bishop will serve as a good steward of the household of God.

And, Paul asserts, denial of marriage is one of the signal events indicating a desertion of the Faith. Paul was not coffering to Timothy the authority to choose and establish big B Bishops. He was nor ordaining a clergy member and the small b bishops had no position of authority. The bishop's role is to watch over the household of God as a guide, not a commander or a judge. The bishop serves in a teaching role, as if helping wayward sheep back into the fold. His crosier is the word of God and persuading with humility and respect, not punishment for disobedience.

The Bible knows nothing of a big B Bishop.

This is what I’m talking about – and WHY conversation with you is such a waste of time.

Need I remind you that it was YOU who to approached ME by responding to one of MY posts – not the other way around? My posts are filled with Scriptural, historical and linguistic evidence – while YOURS are nothing more than opinions and denials with ZERO evidence

This is what I mean about having a grown up conversation.
Even your opinions about married Bishops in Paul’s Epistle to Titus are totally unresearched. Paul isn’t saying that a Bishop MUST be married. If you had bothered to study the 1st century culture that Paul is writing about – you would KNOW that polygamy was common and that Paul was disqualifying polygamists from being Bishops – not bachelors.

Anyway, your continued insistence that Bishops didn’t exist in the NT in the face of the overwhelming Scriptural and linguistic evidence to the contrary is reason enough to demand that you do some homework before continuing this conversation . . .

 

[Jim B]

Jim B,

Your "response", which is an interjection into a conversation between Titus and I, does not address my question. It only begs me to ask the same question: The truth according to WHO'S interpretation of His words? The Baptist? Lutherans? Methodists? They all preach a different "truth". Which one is the "truth"?

You made it clear that you don't agree with Catholic interpretation......so who's interpretation do you agree with? Your own, I suspect!

a) You are in a discussion forum. If you want to have a private conversation then do so -- privately.

You believe the teachings of the Catholic denomination, which in many situations, disregards Scripture in favor of the interpretations of certain men.

Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Okay, let's look at this...

Jesus said that He is the truth. Not the teachings of some men who refer to themselves as clergy. He is the truth!

Then He said, No one comes to the Father except through me." It doesn't say that people come to the Father through the Pope (an unScriptural office) or a cardinal or a bishop or a priest. It says through Christ!

I follow Christ, not other men. I read the Bible, I pray, and I am guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said would guide believers into all truth.

You require some kind of human structure -- a self-appointed clergy that claims to have all the answers -- yet you fail to recognize that they are all just men. You believe in some sort of religious hierarchy that, more than anything else, resembles the Old Testament priesthood. But 1st Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." He wrote a few verses earlier, "...like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

Continue on believing Catholic propaganda as your source of truth if that "floats your boat" but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible. As for me, I believe what God has spoken through His word and continues to speak through His Holy Spirit.

 

[Jim B]

Yes. I am aware of that. We all go off topic now and then. I am trying to get it back on topic.
To my memory (Which may be in error): You are the first person in my 12 years of talking on Christian forums to argue with me over trying to get back on topic (in situations like these). It seems like you just want to argue or disagree with just about anything. Generally it is considered courteous to respect the wishes of the person who created the thread in getting back on topic if they are expressing that desire (even if they did go off topic themselves - which naturally happens at times because we are human).

The problem arises when folks express the desire to get back on topic and people just ignore it (Thereby being rude and or unloving).

<ignored>