What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

[DJT_47]

Many early churches practiced a period of instruction and teaching for proselytes before they were baptized, at which point they were admitted fully to the church.

You may also remember that there was a theological dispute between those who practiced infant baptism and those who taught that the converts should be of adult age before being baptized.

There are many records of this. Several of the church fathers even delayed their own baptism on purpose - St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, notably.

Who cares what the early church did. Because they did it, does that validate it? The scriptures are clrear. Believe them, which is or should be our guide, or believe something else.! The Bible also clearly indicates that churches of the day were already going astray.

 

[St. SteVen]

Baptism is a ceremony of ADOPTION. The submersion and resurfacing are meant to picture death and re-birth. The idea of being "born again" is that one is adopted to a new Father.

So, while the water doesn't directly do anything to save, I do think that ADOPTION is necessary for salvation.

In terms of ADOPTION, I thought it was of an adoption by the church. Being added to their number.

• Acts 2:41
  Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
  
  
• Acts 2:47
  praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
  
  
• Acts 5:14
  Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

You can disagree all you want but it won't change what the scriptures clearly say

Mk16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1Peter 3:21

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Not really a strong case. Do you support infant baptism too?

[

 

[MatthewG]

There are 3 words in the New Testament that are all translated into English as "heal." They're not all the same things:

The first one describes healing generically (iaomai)
The second one describes a miraculous "faith healing" (sozo)
The third one describes treatment for a sickness as a course of therapy (therapeuo)

And now... the story of Jesus healing the centurion's servant makes more sense:

Matthew 8:5: When Jesus had entered into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, beseeching him, 6 and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and therapeuo-heal him.

8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be iaomai-healed.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was iaomai-healed in the selfsame hour.

Jesus offered to therapeuo-heal him - that is, to come to his house and oversee a course of treatment nursing him slowly back to health. The centurion says that Jesus should simply command it, and he will be well. And with that kind of faith, that's what happened.

Also, what was Jesus profession? I don't think He was a carpenter... the people didn't come out in droves to get wagon-tongues from Him. They went to Him for healing... He was a doctor.

Yeah faith healing to me is a scam. Frauds trying to make money. Telling people they are healed and what not.

Jesus healed people, but that was God healing people through him.

 

[DJT_47]

Not really a strong case. Do you support infant baptism too?

[

That's a silly question. Infants can't believe, have no sin, can't repent and have no need of it based on the aforementioned, can't confess, so, they can't be baptized scripturally. No infants baptized in scripture, and the scriptures further say men and women were baptized.

 

[St. SteVen]

That's a silly question. Infants can't believe, have no sin, can't repent and have no need of it based on the aforementioned, can't confess, so, they can't be baptized scripturally. No infants baptized in scripture, and the scriptures further say men and women were baptized.

I just wanted to see where you were coming from.
Do you believe that unbaptized believers are not saved?

[

 

[DJT_47]

I just wanted to see where you were coming from.
Do you believe that unbaptized believers are not saved?

[

Mark 16:15-16 clearly answers that

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Believeth and baptized are inextricably linked together by the conjunction "and". So,of you believe and aren't baptized you're not only not saved, but dumb, since belief alone is useless.

 

[MatthewG]

There are people whom are simply not saved to the Kingdom of Heaven @St. SteVen. The reason is, faithlessness. Infants is kinda of a straw-man argument.

 

[St. SteVen]

Mark 16:15-16 clearly answers that

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Believeth and baptized are inextricably linked together by the conjunction "and". So,of you believe and aren't baptized you're not only not saved, but dumb, since belief alone is useless.

I don't think that is sustainable.

Believe and baptized = saved
Believe not = damned

Nothing about baptism in this scripture.

Romans 10:9-11 NIV
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[a]

[

 

[Lambano]

I don't think that is sustainable.

Believe and baptized = saved
Believe not = damned

I once posted a logical truth table on Mark 16:15-16. Alas, nobody understood it.

Mark 16:15-16
Believes?	Baptized?	Saved?
FALSE	FALSE	FALSE
FALSE	TRUE	FALSE
TRUE	FALSE	Indeterminate
TRUE	TRUE	TRUE

 

[MatthewG]

Mark 16:15-16

The earliest manuscripts don't include 9-20. So I don't accept it as canon. And that Matthew scripture that says "Go out and baptize in the father, the son, and the holy spirit." Also I conclude could have just been an added text that was never really there.

But who knows I could be just crazy, and wrong.

 

[St. SteVen]

I once posted a logical truth table on Mark 16:15-16. Alas, nobody understood it.

I understand the table just fine.

Why "Indeterminate" for Believes?/TRUE Baptized?/FALSE Saved?/Indeterminate ???
Isn't belief without baptism enough? What is it about baptism that is saving?
It seems Catholic and high church believe that, but... ???

[

 

[Lambano]

I understand the table just fine.

Why "Indeterminate" for Believes?/TRUE Baptized?/FALSE Saved?/Indeterminate ???
Isn't belief without baptism enough? What is it about baptism that is saving?
It seems Catholic and high church believe that, but... ???

[

Since the usual suspects cite Mark 16:15-16 to support their position that water baptism is mandatory for salvation, I'd thought I'd analyze what Mark ACTUALLY SAYS. And it doesn't say a blessed thing about the case of "believing but not baptized".

 

[Wick Stick]

Who cares what the early church did. Because they did it, does that validate it?

I do, and I reckon many others would like to model their practice of Christianity after that of the early church.

Also... yes, that is a validation. If the people who lived in the era Scripture was written interpreted it a certain way... why is your version different?

The scriptures are clear. Believe them, which is or should be our guide, or believe something else.!

I do believe them; I have not contradicted them. I only contradicted YOU, because you made the completely-false-claim that there is no record of churches delaying baptism until they were sure that converts were... real converts. There are many records of that happening.

The Bible also clearly indicates that churches of the day were already going astray.

Who do you think is closer to the authentic practices of Jesus and the apostles? Today's church, or the ones that personally met them? This should be a no-brainer.

 

[Wick Stick]

In terms of ADOPTION, I thought it was of an adoption by the church. Being added to their number.

• Acts 2:41
  Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
  
  
• Acts 2:47
  praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
  
  
• Acts 5:14
  Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

[

Those aren't two different things. Adoption into the church, and adoption by God, are the same. Who is the church if not God's children?

Once again, this is a case of describing the same event from two different perspectives. When everything goes right, God works through the church to adopt someone.

But... I'll grant you... sometimes the church gets a little ahead of God's timing, and sometimes we're a little late. It causes a timing difference, where we baptize someone, but God doesn't immediately bestow the Spirit on them. Or, when we're slow, sometimes God bestows the Spirit before the church recognizes the adoption. And sometimes we baptize people who aren't repentant and will never be saved... oops

 

[JBO]

Since the usual suspects cite Mark 16:15-16 to support their position that water baptism is mandatory for salvation, I'd thought I'd analyze what Mark ACTUALLY SAYS. And it doesn't say a blessed thing about the case of "believing but not baptized".

Then why would you assume that the believer who was not baptized would be saved? I don't think there is any place in the NT that says or even suggests that.

 

[St. SteVen]

1Peter 3:21

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This is speaking figuratively of the Flood (as a sort of baptism) and Noah being saved.
Here's the context.

1 Peter 3:18-21 NIV
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous,
to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
19 After being made alive,[a] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—
20 to those who were disobedient 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 clear conscience toward God.[b]
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.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Since the usual suspects cite Mark 16:15-16 to support their position that water baptism is mandatory for salvation, I'd thought I'd analyze what Mark ACTUALLY SAYS. And it doesn't say a blessed thing about the case of "believing but not baptized".

It just occurred to me that purpose of "believe and be baptized" may have more to do with acting on faith, taking the next logical step to commit to it. A public profession of faith and being added to the Body of Christ.

Which begs the question: Can a believer be a part of the Body of Christ without being baptized?

[

 

[Lambano]

Then why would you assume that the believer who was not baptized would be saved? I don't think there is any place in the NT that says or even suggests that.

And why would anyone (especially anyone who has read the writings of Paul) assume they would not be saved?

But, my post was about using basic logic skills. Which seem to be sorely lacking.

 

[Lambano]

Which begs the question: Can a believer be a part of the Body of Christ without being baptized?