born of water

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree. People received the gift of the Holy Ghost in Acts 10 and God still demanded Peter to baptize them to such a degree that He gave Perter a vision about unclean animals being taken into the body. Baptism was still necessary for the them to fulfill the gospel. I cannot say one is lost without that, since the bible does not deal with it in that fashion, but it must be done to fulfill righteousness.

Mike,

I did not say anything about people who have not been baptized. I specifically referred to people who have been baptized, howbeit in an imperfect manner, but unto whom God still bestows the gift of his Spirit, thus signifying that he considers them to have obeyed the gospel per Acts 5:32.

However, speaking of Cornelius, I do feel that the fact that God was able to give him the Holy Ghost "on credit" (so to speak) before baptism is evidence that there is no literal cleansing or internal work that happens at baptism. Baptism is simply part of repentance.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Mike,

I did not say anything about people who have not been baptized. I specifically referred to people who have been baptized, howbeit in an imperfect manner, but unto whom God still bestows the gift of his Spirit, thus signifying that he considers them to have obeyed the gospel per Acts 5:32.

However, speaking of Cornelius, I do feel that the fact that God was able to give him the Holy Ghost "on credit" (so to speak) before baptism is evidence that there is no literal cleansing or internal work that happens at baptism. Baptism is simply part of repentance.

I know what you said, and I still respond the same. I knew you meant incorrect baptism. If someone is baptized incorrectly, then they're like one not baptized. Again, the truth believed is what counts in Acts 5, not just belief from a preacher who doesn't know how to properly baptize. None of the apostles would have preached anything less than Jesus' name baptism. And they repeated over and over again, as in Romans 10 as I noted, the belief can only exist if one believes what a TRUE preacher preaches. So, you cannot say a person believed adequately if they were not informed of Acts 2:38.

"On credit" baptism of the Spirit is something that really makes no sense. There does not have to be a cleansing for one to receive the Spirit. Who said there was? This comes from the same false notion that repentance is death and baptism is burial so that Spirit baptism is resurrection. But the bible does not say that anywhere. Baptism is both death and burial. And I agree repentance goes along with it.

So I maintain an actual internal work is done in baptism with repentance that is not done with repentance alone.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I know what you said, and I still respond the same. I knew you meant incorrect baptism. If someone is baptized incorrectly, then they're like one not baptized. Again, the truth believed is what counts in Acts 5, not just belief from a preacher who doesn't know how to properly baptize. None of the apostles would have preached anything less than Jesus' name baptism. And they repeated over and over again, as in Romans 10 as I noted, the belief can only exist if one believes what a TRUE preacher preaches. So, you cannot say a person believed adequately if they were not informed of Acts 2:38.

"On credit" baptism of the Spirit is something that really makes no sense. There does not have to be a cleansing for one to receive the Spirit. Who said there was? This comes from the same false notion that repentance is death and baptism is burial so that Spirit baptism is resurrection. But the bible does not say that anywhere. Baptism is both death and burial. And I agree repentance goes along with it.

So I maintain an actual internal work is done in baptism with repentance that is not done with repentance alone.

We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (Acts 5:32)

You'll have to argue with God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You'll have to argue with God.

That reasoning doesn't fly.

If you do not get the Holy Ghost until you first obey God, then baptism is not required to get the Holy Ghost, because people got the Holy Ghost without baptism in Acts 10. So the obedience noted in Acts 5 is not the full obedience required for all of what God has for us. And if your "on credit" baptism is a valid truth, then that violates your view of Acts 5. Can you have a credit of obedience without actual obedience?

[mfblume]

If a person does not obey the truth, and you claim they have to, they can merely say they get "obedience on credit" for their lack because of the "on credit" doctrine you espoused from Acts 10.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That reasoning doesn't fly.

If you do not get the Holy Ghost until you first obey God, then baptism is not required to get the Holy Ghost, because people got the Holy Ghost without baptism in Acts 10. So the obedience noted in Acts 5 is not the full obedience required for all of what God has for us. And if your "on credit" baptism is a valid truth, then that violates your view of Acts 5. Can you have a credit of obedience without actual obedience?

Stop using Cornelius as your fire escape, brother. That was a unique case that really should not be used as a justification to pray for unbaptized people to receive the Spirit. Normatively 99% of people who receive the Holy Ghost do so after baptism in both 3 stepper and 1 stepper churches. Let's talk about the norm. Peter is clear that God gives the Spirit only to those who have obeyed him. If God was not accepting less than perfect baptisms, then he would not be giving those people the Holy Ghost as he would not have counted them as having obeyed. Wiggle wiggle wiggle but you are going to have to find another reason to convince those people to be rebaptized other than than trying to convince them that they are still living under condemnation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Stop using Cornelius as your fire escape, brother. That was a unique case that really should not be used as a justification to pray for unbaptized people to receive the Spirit.

Sorry, it is part of the book and I cannot help but stand on it.

It was NOT an exception.

Normatively 99% of people who receive the Holy Ghost do so after baptism in both 3 stepper and 1 stepper churches.

That is not true. There is no on-credit concept in the bible in the way you present it.

Let's talk about the norm.

The norm is what includes Acts 10's experience.

Brother, the Book of Acts covered all sorts of situations to ensure we get the doctrine correct. People getting the Spirit before baptism necessitating a demand for baptism, people getting it afterwards necessitating a demand for Spirit baptism, people who believed PART truth who required water and Spirit baptism both, Jews, and Gentiles. Etc. The NORM is the picture that comes through from the entirety of all accounts mentioned in Acts, not MOST.

Peter is clear that God gives the Spirit only to those who have obeyed him. If God was not accepting less than perfect baptisms, then he would not be giving those people the Holy Ghost as he would not have counted them as having obeyed. Wiggle wiggle wiggle but you are going to have to find another reason to convince those people to be rebaptized other than than trying to convince them that they are still living under condemnation.

What is wiggling is saying Acts 10 cannot be part of the NORM. Again, someone could say they don't have to obey your sermon because God will give them obedience on credit with your view on Acts 10.

I fully reject in strong terms the "on credit" concept.

[mfblume]

Originalist, if we took things like Acts 10 and excused them away as out of the norm, with God doing what He pleases aside from the normal prescribed plan, then people could say the same thing about any given scripture that violates their interpretation of doctrine. I cannot accept this concept.

We could show them a scripture that violates their doctrine, and say it is not the norm and they do not necessarily have to adhere to it. Open that can of works all you like. Not me. lol

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry, it is part of the book and I cannot help but stand on it.

It was NOT an exception.



That is not true. There is no on-credit concept in the bible in the way you present it.



The norm is what includes Acts 10's experience.

Brother, the Book of Acts covered all sorts of situations to ensure we get the doctrine correct. People getting the Spirit before baptism necessitating a demand for baptism, people getting it afterwards necessitating a demand for Spirit baptism, people who believed PART truth who required water and Spirit baptism both, Jews, and Gentiles. Etc. The NORM is the picture that comes through from the entirety of all accounts mentioned in Acts, not MOST.



What is wiggling is saying Acts 10 cannot be part of the NORM. Again, someone could say they don't have to obey your sermon because God will give them obedience on credit with your view on Acts 10.

I fully reject in strong terms the "on credit" concept.

In Acts nobody before or after Cornelius received the Holy Ghost prior to baptism. That tells us the norm is the Acts 2:38 order. Furthermore, nobody, including Cornelius, was ever prayed for by the Apostles to receive the Spirit prior to baptism. Therefore, we must view the Cornelius incident as an exception God made out of the necessity to make the Jewish Christians understand that Gentiles were a part of God's plan.

God has the right to break his order of things. We do not.

[Hesetmefree238]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The norm is what includes Acts 10's experience.

I fully reject in strong terms the "on credit" concept.