Peter's Sermon On Pentecost

RichardBurger · Jul 27, 2010

Pegg said:
Hi Richard,

What do you say about the fact that Peter, the same one who gave the speech to the Jews at Pentecost about baptism and repentance, also was the one sent by God to the home of the gentile Cornelius to teach him about Jesus and baptize him? If you say gentiles dont need to be baptized, why would God request Peter to do so?

Acts 10:1 Now in Caes‧a‧re′a there was a certain man named Cornelius, an army officer of the Italian band, as it was called, 2 a devout man and one fearing God together with all his household, and he made many gifts of mercy to the people and made supplication to God continually...26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: “Rise; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he conversed with him he went in and found many people assembled, 28 and he said to them: “YOU well know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself to or approach a man of another race; and yet God has shown me I should call no man defiled or unclean...44 While Peter was yet speaking about these matters the holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. 45 And the faithful ones that had come with Peter who were of those circumcised were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also upon people of the nations. 46 ...Then Peter responded: 47 “Can anyone forbid water so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?” 48 With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Question: was Cornelius saved under the "kingdom gospel (Abrahamic Covenant)" or the "gospel of the grace of God" as taught by Paul?

Cornelius was a blessing to Israel (Acts 10:2,22), and because of this God rewarded him with the hearing of the Word through Peter and receiving salvation. This is EXACTLY the way it was revealed to Abram in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless them [Gentiles] that bless thee" (Abram and his seed]. This is what James knew and so he quoted from Amos (Acts 15:12-19). Cornelius was saved through a saved Jew.

The Gentiles receiving salvation according to the Abrahamic Covenant under the preaching of the 12 were accepted as Jewish proselytes just as they always were under the Jewish law except this time the Gentiles were shown to be accepted "the same way that the Jews were in that they received the Holy Spirit when they believed in Jesus. This program will also be in effect at the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as Israel's Messiah and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple for the millennial reign of Christ. James knew accurately the program of God for Israel and the Gentile nations through the Jews. This is how we are to understand this passage in Acts 15:13-17. But the Jews, as a nation, rejected God's reign through Jesus and that reign has, temporarily, been set aside.

It does not refer to the Body of Christ and the Mystery revealed to Paul. Today we are not saved "through the Jews" since they have been blinded until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled. Today, all are saved by the grace of God only. The Acts 2 interpretation, that it refers to the Church, the Body of Christ, is wrong. This whole incident is based on God's Kingdom program for Israel. Cornelius had become a proselyte under the Jewish law when Peter "commanded" him, and his household, to be water baptized; a Jewish custom under the law.

brionne · Jul 27, 2010

RichardBurger said:
Question: was Cornelius saved under the "kingdom gospel (Abrahamic Covenant)" or the "gospel of the grace of God" as taught by Paul?

Cornelius was a blessing to Israel (Acts 10:2,22), and because of this God rewarded him with the hearing of the Word through Peter and receiving salvation. This is EXACTLY the way it was revealed to Abram in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless them [Gentiles] that bless thee" (Abram and his seed]. This is what James knew and so he quoted from Amos (Acts 15:12-19). Cornelius was saved through a saved Jew.

The Gentiles receiving salvation according to the Abrahamic Covenant under the preaching of the 12 were accepted as Jewish proselytes just as they always were under the Jewish law except this time the Gentiles were shown to be accepted "the same way that the Jews were in that they received the Holy Spirit when they believed in Jesus. This program will also be in effect at the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as Israel's Messiah and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple for the millennial reign of Christ. James knew accurately the program of God for Israel and the Gentile nations through the Jews. This is how we are to understand this passage in Acts 15:13-17. But the Jews, as a nation, rejected God's reign through Jesus and that reign has, temporarily, been set aside.

It does not refer to the Body of Christ and the Mystery revealed to Paul. Today we are not saved "through the Jews" since they have been blinded until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled. Today, all are saved by the grace of God only. The Acts 2 interpretation, that it refers to the Church, the Body of Christ, is wrong. This whole incident is based on God's Kingdom program for Israel. Cornelius had become a proselyte under the Jewish law when Peter "commanded" him, and his household, to be water baptized; a Jewish custom under the law.

If you are right, then the answer should be very simple. can you reword a simple answer in 10 words or less?

Selene · Jul 28, 2010

RichardBurger said:
Question: was Cornelius saved under the "kingdom gospel (Abrahamic Covenant)" or the "gospel of the grace of God" as taught by Paul?

Hello Richard,

Actually, Pegg asked you about baptism. She asked, "If you say gentiles dont need to be baptized, why would God request Peter to do so?" That was the question. And by the way, there was no baptism in the Old Testament. Baptism started in the New Testament with St. John the Baptist.

In Christ,
Selene

fivesense · Jul 28, 2010

Selene said:
Hello Fivesense,

You only quoted parts of Scripture. You left out the rest. This is what Scripture says, including the part that you left out.

Acts 11:19-20 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus.
As you can see, in the very next verse, it DOES say that they also preached to the Greeks (who are the Hellenists). The Greeks are the Gentiles. When Christ told His 12 Apostles to go out into the world, He is not going to set them up to fail.
I also gave evidence of St. Peter being in Rome. There was a Christian community in Rome BEFORE St. Paul went there. It was St. Peter who established that Christian community in Rome (See Romans 1:1-15). In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul introduced himself to the Christian community in Rome, and in that letter, you can plainly see that he never visited Rome and had always wanted to visit them. So, who converted and established this Christian community in Rome? It was St. Peter who was already there as shown by his letter in 1 Peter 5:13.
In Christ,
Selene

Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Number one, Jews don't sit at the same table to eat with the Gentiles. It says so above.

Ac 6:1 . And in these days, the disciples multiplying, there came a murmuring of the Hellenists at the Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily ministration,
Ac 6:2 and the twelve, having called near the multitude of the disciples, said, 'It is not pleasing that we, having left the word of God, do minister at tables;
The fact that there were Hellenists eating with Jews in Jerusalem, with Apostles waiting on them for that matter, makes it impossible for a Hellenist to be a Gentile, doesn't it.
There is no Scriptural evidence Selene, of Peter ever going to Rome. It is myth and tradition, that is all it is. 1Pe 5 says "Babylon", in the Originals and the versions I've seen, so to say Rome where it says Babylon in the word of God can only be one thing, adding to the word. There is a reward for that, too.
Paul had other Jewish fellow laborers that traveled with and apart from him, carrying his Gospel that he received from the exalted Christ out of heaven. It is quite likely, since they were almost all non-native Israelites, that they went to Rome ahead of Paul as well. The bulk of his letter to the Romans singles out the Jewish believer primarily and seeks to resolve the enmity between them and the nations, according to his teaching, not Peters.

Had Peter indeed founded the present day church, you would be under the Law and working for salvation as the rest of the Jewish remnant would be doing.

Will you consider what I have said here? Or are you looking for something else...
fivesense

RichardBurger · Jul 28, 2010

Pegg said:
If you are right, then the answer should be very simple. can you reword a simple answer in 10 words or less?

LOL
I always try to give enough CONTEXT so that a person can understand.

Selene said:
Hello Richard,

Actually, Pegg asked you about baptism. She asked, "If you say gentiles dont need to be baptized, why would God request Peter to do so?" That was the question. And by the way, there was no baptism in the Old Testament. Baptism started in the New Testament with St. John the Baptist.

In Christ,
Selene

If you will read the O.T. rules for water cleansing you will see that a water washing ritual was under the Law. John just used the river/lake for his water.

The book of Acts is a transistional book that covers the time between the Kingdom gospel and the gospel of grace. At first Paul was trying to include the Jews. In the end we see Paul saying he would not go to the Jews any longer.

I do wish people could understand that the change from the law to grace did not happen overnight.

bling · Jul 28, 2010

fivesense said:
1C 1:17 . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If water baptism is a requirement from God, why did the Lord from heaven rescind it when He commissioned Paul? I find it contradictory that Paul, an Apostle of God, was given a commission and this requirement was not a part of it. Or, is this passage too vague?

fivesense

The passage is great, but you have to take it in the context for which Paul’s statement was made. Paul is chastising the Corinthians for forming little groups and not being united. One of the ways they grouped themselves was by who physically baptized them. Paul is then grateful He did not do the actual physical baptizing of many, but he had done some. The person that is actually doing the physical baptism is not significant and it does not matter. Paul did not want them and others tying any significance to the person doing the actual baptism and to avoid this it were best for him not to do the actual baptizing. The same issue existed with Christ and Christ did not physically baptize anyone but allowed His disciples to baptize even more than John’s disciples.

Paul did water baptize if others were not around to do it and maybe did lots of baptisms early on before he became famous and people started making his personal baptism significant.

Paul is not suggesting they should not be baptized since all had been baptized by someone.

Water baptism is not “required” for salvation, but it is something Christians get to do to help them have something physical to attach to what is happening to them Spiritually (washing away of their sins, burring the old man, being raised to a new life, going to the grave, and rising into the arms of their new family. It is a humbling experience that is a sign of their humility and a witness to us all.

Selene · Jul 28, 2010

fivesense said:
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Number one, Jews don't sit at the same table to eat with the Gentiles. It says so above.

Hello Fivesense,

We need to look at what and why the Scripture is saying this. First of all, it doesn't say that the Jews do not sit at the same table to eat with the Gentiles. As you can see from the Scripture that you quoted above (which I placed in bold), St. Peter did eat with the Gentiles. This is what the Scripture actually says when you don't take it out of context with the rest:

Galatians 2:11-12 When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision.

(Taken from the Jerusalem Bible.)

When you don't take Scripture out of context, then we see clearly what is happening. So, it was the custom of St. Peter and the other Jews to eat with the pagans. However, when they saw certain friends of James, they left their pagan friends and sat with the Jews so they would not cause any conflict between the pagan converts and those friends of James. After that, Scripture shows, Barnabus (who was St. Paul's companion) and the other Jews also did the same thing that St. Peter did.

Galatians 2:13 The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabus felt himself obliged to copy their behavior.

Notice that I bolded and underlined the word "pretence" in this verse. St. Peter, St. Barnabus, and the other Jews only did what they did out of pretence simply because they did not want to cause any conflict with certain friends of James. St. Paul also did the same thing. Look at the verse below:

Acts 16:1-3 Here there was a disciple called Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess who had become a believer; but his father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of Timothy, and Paul, who wanted to have him as a travelling companion, had him circumcised. This was on account of the Jews in the locality where everyone knew his father was Greek.

In this scripture, St. Paul had Timothy (who was a Gentile) circumcised simply because he wanted to avoid any conflict with the Jews in the area that he was going to. Based on the Bible, we know that there were some Jewish converts and even Jews who were prejudiced against the pagans. The Apostles, on the other hand, were not prejudiced. They ate together with the pagans. They only did what they did in order to avoid conflict with those who were prejudiced.

There is no Scriptural evidence Selene, of Peter ever going to Rome. It is myth and tradition, that is all it is. 1Pe 5 says "Babylon", in the Originals and the versions I've seen, so to say Rome where it says Babylon in the word of God can only be one thing, adding to the word. There is a reward for that, to

My brother, Babylon is not in Jerusalem. So, when St. Peter wrote that letter, he was writing it in Babylon, which is another name for Rome during those days. According to Strong's biblical definition:

Babylon = "confusion"

1) a very large and famous city, the residence of the Babylonian kings, situated on both banks of the Euphrates. Cyrus had formerly captured it, but Darius Hystaspis threw down its gates and walls, and Xerxes destroyed the temple of Belis. At length the city was reduced to almost solitude, the population having been drawn off by the neighbouring Seleucia, built on the Tigris by Seleucus Nicanor.

2) of the territory of Babylonia

3) allegorically, of Rome as the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity

http://www.bluelette...ongs=G897&t=KJV

In the Old Testament, Babylon was once referred to an area that is today called Iraq. In the New Testament, it referred to Rome because the Romans conquered a vast territory in the Middle East.

Paul had other Jewish fellow laborers that traveled with and apart from him, carrying his Gospel that he received from the exalted Christ out of heaven. It is quite likely, since they were almost all non-native Israelites, that they went to Rome ahead of Paul as well. The bulk of his letter to the Romans singles out the Jewish believer primarily and seeks to resolve the enmity between them and the nations, according to his teaching, not Peters.

No, St. Paul's letter was not speaking to the Jewish believers in Rome. It was to the Greek converts because that is what his letter says:

Romans 1:1-13 I want you to know, brothers, that I have often planned to visit you - though until now I have always been prevented - in the hopes that I might work as fruitfully among you as I have done among the other pagans. I owe a duty to Greeks just as much as to barbarians, to the educated just as much as to the uneducated...

St. Paul would not be comparing the Jewish believers in Rome with "other pagans."

Had Peter indeed founded the present day church, you would be under the Law and working for salvation as the rest of the Jewish remnant would be doing.

My brother, there is only one teaching of Christ. St. Peter also preached a gospel of grace just like St. Paul. Below is what St. Peter stated:

Acts 15:7-11 ........ Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

In Christ,
Selene

Selene · Jul 28, 2010

RichardBurger said:
If you will read the O.T. rules for water cleansing you will see that a water washing ritual was under the Law. John just used the river/lake for his water.

The book of Acts is a transistional book that covers the time between the Kingdom gospel and the gospel of grace. At first Paul was trying to include the Jews. In the end we see Paul saying he would not go to the Jews any longer.

I do wish people could understand that the change from the law to grace did not happen overnight.

Water cleansing in the Old Testament is not the same as John's water baptism. St. John the baptist was baptising for the forgiveness of sins. Water cleansing in the Old Testament is done to purify the body because the person ate something that was unclean, touched something that was unclean such as a dead animal or had leprosy and other diseases (See Leviticus Chapters 7, 11, and 13). As I said, there was no baptism in the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, the word "baptism" can only be found in the New Testament.

RichardBurger · Jul 28, 2010

Selene said:
Water cleansing in the Old Testament is not the same as John's water baptism. St. John the baptist was baptising for the forgiveness of sins. Water cleansing in the Old Testament is done to purify the body because the person ate something that was unclean, touched something that was unclean such as a dead animal or had leprosy and other diseases (See Leviticus Chapters 7, 11, and 13). As I said, there was no baptism in the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, the word "baptism" can only be found in the New Testament.

Water baptism has been debated on forums for many years. I, personally, do not believe it is a REQUIREMENT for a person to be saved under grace. If a person believes it is a requirement then they are under a rule, regulation, law and that is not grace. God has done EVERYTHING for a persons salvation. The only REQUIREMENT is to place your faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of Jesus (God) on the cross, nothing more.

1 Corinthians 6:11
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV

I have been washed, sanctified, and justified by the Holy Spirit. Can a man do more for me?

Selene said:
Water cleansing in the Old Testament is not the same as John's water baptism. St. John the baptist was baptising for the forgiveness of sins. Water cleansing in the Old Testament is done to purify the body because the person ate something that was unclean, touched something that was unclean such as a dead animal or had leprosy and other diseases (See Leviticus Chapters 7, 11, and 13). As I said, there was no baptism in the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, the word "baptism" can only be found in the New Testament.

And I will bet you don't believe in the "rapture" because that specific word is not found in the scriptures. However being "caught up" means the same thing unless you are bound and determined to not see it.

Selene · Jul 28, 2010

RichardBurger said:
Water baptism has been debated on forums for many years. I, personally, do not believe it is a REQUIREMENT for a person to be saved under grace. If a person believes it is a requirement then they are under a rule, regulation, law and that is not grace. God has done EVERYTHING for a persons salvation. The only REQUIREMENT is to place your faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of Jesus (God) on the cross, nothing more.

My brother, nowhere in any of my posts did I ever say that water baptism was a requirement. I said that water baptism came from God and not from man. It was God who ordered St. John the Baptist to baptize, and Christ allowed His disciples to carry on this same practice. And to this day, we still continue this same thing because no where in the Bible did it say that God rescinded water baptism. That is all. Because we continue to carry on what the Apostles did is no reason for you to put me down. Anyone who do water baptism is not doing anything wrong. They are still following God because as I pointed out to you, John's baptism came from Heaven. It came directly from God. It never came from man; therefore, we still follow God's Will.

And I will bet you don't believe in the "rapture" because that specific word is not found in the scriptures. However being "caught up" means the same thing unless you are bound and determined to not see it.

That depends on the definition. As I pointed out to you, "water cleansing" in the Old Testament has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins. In the Old Testament, forgiveness of sins is shown through animal sacrifice.

In Christ,
Selene

brionne · Jul 29, 2010

RichardBurger said:
LOL
I always try to give enough CONTEXT so that a person can understand.

jesus teachings were simple, people understood them and he didnt need to expound on things for them to understand

I'll take your reply as a definite no.

On the other hand a simple answer would be that both jew and gentile were required to repent and be baptized. The Jews were given the first opportunity because they were the 'children of the promise'...the gentiles were included after 36ce when the first gentile was baptized by Peter.

RichardBurger · Jul 29, 2010

Pegg said:
jesus teachings were simple, people understood them and he didnt need to expound on things for them to understand

I'll take your reply as a definite no.

On the other hand a simple answer would be that both jew and gentile were required to repent and be baptized. The Jews were given the first opportunity because they were the 'children of the promise'...the gentiles were included after 36ce when the first gentile was baptized by Peter.

Your answer is more than 10 words. LOL

fivesense · Jul 29, 2010

bling said:
The passage is great, but you have to take it in the context for which Paul’s statement was made. Paul is chastising the Corinthians for forming little groups and not being united. One of the ways they grouped themselves was by who physically baptized them. Paul is then grateful He did not do the actual physical baptizing of many, but he had done some. The person that is actually doing the physical baptism is not significant and it does not matter. Paul did not want them and others tying any significance to the person doing the actual baptism and to avoid this it were best for him not to do the actual baptizing. The same issue existed with Christ and Christ did not physically baptize anyone but allowed His disciples to baptize even more than John’s disciples.

Paul did water baptize if others were not around to do it and maybe did lots of baptisms early on before he became famous and people started making his personal baptism significant.

Paul is not suggesting they should not be baptized since all had been baptized by someone.

Water baptism is not “required” for salvation, but it is something Christians get to do to help them have something physical to attach to what is happening to them Spiritually (washing away of their sins, burring the old man, being raised to a new life, going to the grave, and rising into the arms of their new family. It is a humbling experience that is a sign of their humility and a witness to us all.

You miss the point. Paul did not receive from the Lord out of heaven the injunction to baptize as per the Jewish requirment to be saved. He told Paul no such thing. It is Jewish, and will once more be utilized during the millennial reign. It is not offered to the Gentile nations at this time, election and grace being the channel of salvation. Or else the cross is meaningless.

Paul is the apostle to the nations. We have no other outside of Him and the Christ. We should pay close attention to his remarks. His injuction to us is to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ.
1C 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1C 11:1 . Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
Phl 3:17 . Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
It was not given to Paul to baptize, neither should we take it upon ourselves from our own perceived authority.
fivesense

RichardBurger · Jul 29, 2010

Two places in the Bible that I do not feel support baptismal regeneration (water baptism necessary for salvation) are as follows.

1 Pet 3:18-22

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison
20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
21 and this water """symbolizes""" baptism that now saves you also-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
(NIV)

Verse 21 in the NKJV reads:

21 There is also an “””antitype””” which now saves us-- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(NKJ)

At the end of verse 20, we read that, eight souls, were saved ""through" water. It is not that they were saved "by" water; they were saved "through" the water. Water was not the savior, but the judgment through which God brought them. If the people in the Ark, left the Ark, they would have drowned in the water. Therefore it is obvious that the water was not salvation.

To properly understand this statement in verse 20 and the verse that follows, we must see the typical meaning of the Ark and the flood. The Ark is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. The flood of water depicts the judgment of God. The Ark was the only way of salvation. When the flood came, only those who were inside were saved; all those on the outside perished. So Christ is the only way of salvation; those who are "in Christ" (Romans 8:1-2, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, 2 Cor. 5:17) are as saved as God Himself can make them. Those on the outside could not be more lost.

The water was not the means of salvation, for all who were in the water drowned. The Ark was the place of refuge and the only means of salvation. The Ark went ""through"" the water of judgment; it took the full brunt of the storm. Not a drop of water reached those inside the Ark. So Christ bore the fury of God's judgment against our sins. For those who are "in Him" there is no judgment (John 5:24).

Actually, there is a baptism which saves us --- not our baptism in water, but a baptism which took place at Calvary almost 2000 years ago; Christ's death was a baptism (see Mark 10:38). He was baptized in the waters of judgment. This is what He meant when He said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished" (Luke 12:50). The psalmist described this baptism in the words, "Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; all Your waves and billows have gone over me" (Psalms 42:7). In His death, Christ was baptized in the waves and billows of God's wrath, and it is this baptism that is the basis for our salvation; Christ's baptism unto death on the cross. Today the Holy Spirit baptizes us into His baptism on the cross. It is the Holy Spirit that dose this, not man. That is what it means to be buried with Him. Our water baptism "represents" our identification with Him only. It does not save us.

Many people use John 3:1-6 to support water baptism. -- But what do these scriptures really say?

**** Scripture
John 3:1-6 .. (NIV)
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council.
2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
**** end scripture

It seems to me that in verses 3 and 4 there are only two births being discussed, a man's first birth in the flesh and a necessary second birth of the Spirit. -- Notice that in verse 5 he used the words "born of water" and then "the spirit" and in verse 6, "WHICH AMPLIFIES VERSE 5," He uses the words "birth to flesh" and then "birth to spirit." Nicodemus has brought up the subject of being born in the flesh for a second time. What has been said is that physical birth is not enough. Some will disagree but I believe he is talking about our physical birth "birth to flesh" in verse 5 and that there is another birth, "birth to spirit" which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (NOT MAN)

Since the word baptism was not included in the text, to add it is to change the meaning of the word of God to fit into the theologies of men.

It has been said by another: I think it would be trivial to tell Nicodemus that he had to be born of the water if this meant physical birth. After all, he had already gone through this birth. Why bother to tell him then? -- Why, because it was Nicodemus that brought up the idea of going back into the womb and being born again.

Context is everything. Nowhere in the conversation has water baptism been mentioned. In John 3, verse 6 we see the words "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " There is absolutely no mention of water baptism. Only two things are under discussion, being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit.

Richard

fivesense · Jul 29, 2010

Pegg said:
jesus teachings were simple, people understood them and he didnt need to expound on things for them to understand

I'll take your reply as a definite no.

On the other hand a simple answer would be that both jew and gentile were required to repent and be baptized. The Jews were given the first opportunity because they were the 'children of the promise'...the gentiles were included after 36ce when the first gentile was baptized by Peter.

Simple? easy to understand? I think not.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.Mt 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes,(the Twelve only) for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Understanding the Lord's teachings were so difficult that the killed Him in their ignorance. His teachings are easy to mess up and turn into philosophies, but they are not easily understood by the carnal mind.

Paul used the same Isaiah "key" to lock the door to the Kingdom of the Beloved Son, keeping those of the Law out. (Acts 28:25)

fivesense

Paul · Jul 29, 2010

Richard

Baptism is not a means of salvation but is obedience to Christ. Do we obey Him or not? We are also to repent, do we obey Him or not? It’s your choice!

fivesense · Jul 30, 2010

Paul said:
Richard

Baptism is not a means of salvation but is obedience to Christ. Do we obey Him or not? We are also to repent, do we obey Him or not? It’s your choice!

Paul the Apostle received his commission directly from the exalted and glorified Christ. The Lord revealed Himself to no other man in this way ever. God's latest and final revelation to man is found in Paul's writings alone. Even the Twelve never saw Him in this way. We can be assured that had baptism even entered the picture for the Gentiles, the Lord would have conveyed that to him. Paul never mentions baptism as an act of obedience to faith in Christ, and, including us in that Jewish rite is just another example of failing to correctly divide the word of truth.

fivesense

RichardBurger · Jul 30, 2010

Paul said:
Richard

Baptism is not a means of salvation but is obedience to Christ. Do we obey Him or not? We are also to repent, do we obey Him or not? It’s your choice!

I do obey God. To obey is to place your faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of God on the cross.

When a person reaches out to God that person is acknowledging that they are sinful and that they need God's salvation in His work on the cross.

You need to refine what obedience to Christ means.

Obedience to God:

The Obedience of Faith: (Obedient to the faith, Acts 6:7)

In the following study we will see what "obedience” really means under grace.

Matthew 6:28-29, below, indicates that our work of faith is to believe in Jesus Christ.

Mathew 6:28-29 (NKJV)
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Acts 6:7, below, refers to some of the Jewish "priests as being obedient to the faith." Of course it means that they believed the gospel regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Acts 6:7 (NKJ)
7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Romans 6:17, below, again is in reference to the belief of the Christians in Rome, both Jews and Gentiles by saying they "obeyed" the doctrine that Paul taught them; That doctrine concerning the dying of Jesus on the cross for our sins and His resurrection from the dead which confirmed that He (Jesus) was sent by God.

Rom 6:17 (NKJ)
17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.

Romans 11:30-32, below, describes the situation of the Jews as that of "disobedient" as were the Gentiles prior to believing the gospel. The KJV says they were "unbelieving." The words "unbelieving" and "disobedient" are chosen by different translators to represent the same Greek word.

Rom 11:30-32 (NKJ)
30 For as you (Gentiles) were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their (the Jews) disobedience,
31 even so these (Jews) also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you (Gentiles) they (the Jews) also may obtain mercy.
32 For God has committed them all (Jews and Gentiles) to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

Rom 11:30-32 (KJV)
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The above scriptures are a few of those that teach the obedience of faith is about faith in Christ (Faith in His work on the cross), rather than Decalogue (the ten commandments) observance.

Legalists think this is no problem. They simply reason that the Jews were disobedient because they retained the law ""without"" Christ. Legalists feel they have remedied this: they have retained the law ""with Christ.""

Thus legalists define faith as ""inclusive"" of the law, when the Bible defines it as ""exclusive"" of the law - ("The law is not of faith, Gal. 3:11-12 below").

Gal 3:11-12 (NKJ)
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith."
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."

One would be hard-pressed to identify a more central error in the mind of the legalist than recursively: submission/inclusion of Christian principles to/within a legal construct, and redefinition of the whole as Christianity.

One of the most striking definitions of the "obedience of faith" is found in Romans 10:16. It is a parallelism equating "belief" with "obey [ing]" the gospel.

Rom 10:16 (NKJ)
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"

The Law is not of Faith; That is, disobedience's being defined as disbelief, produces the paradox that to obey the law, is to disobey God. For our obeying the Law is self-usurping Christ's work on the cross. In other words Jesus was the only one that actually kept the law.

Saying "He kept the law" should be seen as He kept the "spirit of the law." Jesus did not keep the legal definitions of the law. It should also be seen that he broke the legal definitions of the law and had faith in God that it was the right thing to do. His healing the sick on the Sabbath was the right thing to do even though it broke the legal definition of the law.

In John 3:17-18 John wrote that the sin, which condemns, is the sin of "unbelief." John also wrote what Jesus said in John 16:8-9 below.

John 3:17-18 (NKJ)
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 16:8-9 (NKJ)
8 "And when He has come (The Holy Spirit), He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;

So we see that obedience of Faith is not the same as obedience to the Jewish Law. Obedience to the faith is placing your faith, trust, confidence and hope in what Jesus (God) did on the cross.
--- let me say it another way, today, we are obedient when we place our faith in God’s work on the cross.

Another passage that destroys the myth of a law based Christian faith is found in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 below.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 (NKJ)
8 rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus:
9 who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day.

Note that those who "obey not the gospel" in verse 8 are contrasted with those "who believe" in verse 10. This is important.

I seem to have left out these two other scriptures that support what I am saying in this article.

Rom 1:1-9
1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God
2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name,
6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
NKJV

Their faith, not their works (verse 8)

Rom 16:25-27 NKJV
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began
26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith —
27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.

Selene · Jul 30, 2010

fivesense said:
Paul the Apostle received his commission directly from the exalted and glorified Christ. The Lord revealed Himself to no other man in this way ever. God's latest and final revelation to man is found in Paul's writings alone. Even the Twelve never saw Him in this way. We can be assured that had baptism even entered the picture for the Gentiles, the Lord would have conveyed that to him. Paul never mentions baptism as an act of obedience to faith in Christ, and, including us in that Jewish rite is just another example of failing to correctly divide the word of truth.

fivesense

Hello Fivesense,

Our Lord Jesus Christ remains the same. The Jesus who spoke to St. Paul is the same Jesus who spoke to the rest of the Apostles because there is only one Christ.

The Gentiles were baptized by all the Apostles including St. Paul. St. Paul says that we have only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

This means that the Lord who spoke to him is the same Lord who spoke to the rest of the Apostles. One faith means that there is only one Good news, one Gospel, one Teachings of God. There is only one Gospel (Good news) and one faith because God wants all to be united. If there were two different gospels, His children cannot be united. And there is only one baptism - a baptism of BOTH water and spirit. Just as Christ was baptize with both water and spirit, so are His disciples - His chosen ones. Christ is the role model and the example we should follow because He is the Way to the Father (John 14:6). When Christ told His Apostles to go out and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it was to be a baptism of both water and spirit, just as Christ Himself was baptized with both water and spirit.

According to St. Paul, baptism replaced circumcision:

Colossians 2:11-12 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

In the Old Testament, God told Abraham to circumcise himself and his children as a sign that he and his descendants are His chosen people. In the New Testament, circumcision was replaced with baptism. When St. Paul says that we are circumcised with the circumsion of Christ, it means that we were buried with him in baptism and have now become His chosen ones. Baptism allows us to be initiated into His Church and share in that holy nation of priesthood. God never rescinded baptism because it became much more than just the forgiveness of sins. Just as circumcision identified who God's chosen people are in the Old Testament, so does baptism identifed who Christ's chosen people are in the New Testament. It was also through baptism that Christ was identified to St. John the Baptist and to Israel who the Son of God was:

John 1:33 And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

When St. Paul speaks of "one baptism" he is speaking of a baptism that is both "water and spirit." A baptism that will bring us to conversion and to be born again, which St. Paul described in Romans 6:3-11. In Romans, St. Paul speaks about the old self dying and the new self being reborn in Christ. This is the same thing that Jesus meant when He said that one must be born again in water and spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5). God never rescinded baptism because it was to become much more than the forgiveness of sins. Baptism became a way to identify us as God's chosen people and to be born again - to be born of God as sons and daughters of God. Just as Jesus rose from the waters and receive the Holy Spirit identifying Him as God's Son, so too did I rise from the water and received the Holy Spirit who identifed me as a daughter of God. And with the Holy Spirit in me, He can guide me to my conversion.

In Christ,
Selene

fivesense · Aug 1, 2010

Selene said:
Hello Fivesense,

Our Lord Jesus Christ remains the same. The Jesus who spoke to St. Paul is the same Jesus who spoke to the rest of the Apostles because there is only one Christ.

The Gentiles were baptized by all the Apostles including St. Paul. St. Paul says that we have only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5).

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

This means that the Lord who spoke to him is the same Lord who spoke to the rest of the Apostles. One faith means that there is only one Good news, one Gospel, one Teachings of God.
According to St. Paul, baptism replaced circumcision:

John 1:33 And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

When St. Paul speaks of "one baptism" he is speaking of a baptism that is both "water and spirit." A baptism that will bring us to conversion and to be born again, which St. Paul described in Romans 6:3-11. In Romans, St. Paul speaks about the old self dying and the new self being reborn in Christ. This is the same thing that Jesus meant when He said that one must be born again in water and spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5). God never rescinded baptism because it was to become much more than the forgiveness of sins. Baptism became a way to identify us as God's chosen people and to be born again - to be born of God as sons and daughters of God. Just as Jesus rose from the waters and receive the Holy Spirit identifying Him as God's Son, so too did I rise from the water and received the Holy Spirit who identifed me as a daughter of God. And with the Holy Spirit in me, He can guide me to my conversion.

In Christ,
Selene

The Holy Spirit that was in the Lord on earth, is the same Holy Spirit that animated and directed Paul. There is no difference between the two. The record is from the same Author.

Where are these other baptisms recorded, of Gentiles by the Twelve, other than Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch? There are none. That means you form this conclusion, that the Twelve baptized other Gentiles, is false and not found in the Bible. At best, it is myth and conjecture. Without God specifically saying so, it cannot be truth, can it.?

What is the baptism Paul preached? Do you know? Or, is it a mixture of truths, water and spirit, which makes it two. I can count as good as the next. There is only one baptism:
Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

It is baptism into death, crucifixion with Christ, and not a drop of water is mentioned. Do you forget the Jews were to be baptized in water in order to stay alive in their flesh, serving God with repentence and works? God did not call us to repent, He just called us out, into the faith of Christ, justifying the ungodly sinners that we are, apart from acts, rites, and ritual baptism. Yes, or no? Or, did we save our selves by piecing it all together on our own? I sure didn't do much, I just received the call to believe, and walk in faith-obedience by His Spirit. Water baptism didn't even enter into the picture.

1C 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

One baptism, and no water mentioned, into Christ. It is totally spiritual, devoid of water. One, one, one. Not two, one.

I look forward to you supplying me with Paul's account of what constitutes baptism and where water fits in with it. I would prefer it to be Paul's testimony, and not what
Selene "thinks" it says. That will take effort on your part, and the reward would only be a knowledge of the truth.

There is much confusion here.

And all of it is a failure to give to Paul his appointed place as the only Apostle to the Gentiles according to God.

fivesense

Peter's Sermon On Pentecost

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads