Why Acts 2:38?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by DAII

That's hilarious.

Hilarious?

Cornelius is the smoking gun against a paradigm that rose up a century ago.

Sorry, Cornelius was demanded to be baptized, and baptism is part of salvation according to Peter and Jesus. Case closed. (That pesky Peter. And JESUS?).

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hilarious?



Sorry, Cornelius was demanded to be baptized, and baptism is part of salvation according to Peter and Jesus. Case closed. (That pesky Peter. And JESUS?).

That pesky Paul said those who had the Spirit of Christ were saved. Didn't Cornelius have the Spirit of Christ before he was baptized?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That pesky Paul said those who had the Spirit of Christ were saved. Didn't Cornelius have the Spirit of Christ before he was baptized?

Here is what I believe you are all missing. Baptism is plainly stated to be part of salvation. Jesus did not say "he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized". Peter says baptism saves. There are two seals to any given contract or covenant. Spirit baptism is the seal of God and water baptism is the seal of man. I do not believe had Cornelius died of a heart-attack after being Spirit filled (which you are implying is part of salvation I now see) before baptism that he would have been sent to hell. God knows the heart that will or will not follow through with the "seals". Had Abraham refused circumcision after having believed, he would not have believed to the extent God demanded, so God would not have deemed him righteous.

God knows a heart, but we do not. Baptism is part of the church's and the believer's recognition of that believer coming into the Kingdom. it is not an option. In effect, Cornelius had to sign the dotted line still, after God gave his seal. Just because Cornelius received Spirit baptism, did not mean water baptism was unnecessary for his salvation. The church is commanded to baptize people because the church has a part to play in God's work. The church must recognize the believer, and the believer must recognize the church, and baptism is part of that necessary recognition.

Baptism is likened to circumcision! One could be truly born as an Israelite, but circumcision was necessary nonetheless. Similarly, one might be truly born of the Spirit, but water baptism is absolutely essential nonetheless. It is because THE CHURCH is involved in salvation by God.

Baptism is a circumcision, and involves the body of the sins of the flesh.

The bottom line is that we could go on all day like this, disagreeing. But the ONLY WAY the early church baptized and stuck to that mandate so strongly, is because the early church believed baptism was involved in salvation and was not an option. The idea that baptism does not save, despite Peter's words, will lead to people simply never getting baptized, unlike the emphasis upon baptism found in the book of Acts.

It may not be an issue so simplified as with those who think Cornelius was bound for hell after receiving the Spirit before baptism, but neither is it so simplified that baptism has no absolutely essential part in salvation of a person.

Romans 6 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

Col 2:11-12 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

When people disagree, baptism does not remain the mainstay that it was in the early church. IMHO.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is what I believe you are all missing. Baptism is plainly stated to be part of salvation. Jesus did not say "he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized". Peter says baptism saves. There are two seals to any given contract or covenant. Spirit baptism is the seal of God and water baptism is the seal of man. I do not believe had Cornelius died of a heart-attack after being Spirit filled (which you are implying is part of salvation I now see) before baptism that he would have been sent to hell. God knows the heart that will or will not follow through with the "seals". Had Abraham refused circumcision after having believed, he would not have believed to the extent God demanded, so God would not have deemed him righteous.

God knows a heart, but we do not. Baptism is part of the church's and the believer's recognition of that believer coming into the Kingdom. it is not an option. In effect, Cornelius had to sign the dotted line still, after God gave his seal. Just because Cornelius received Spirit baptism, did not mean water baptism was unnecessary for his salvation. The church is commanded to baptize people because the church has a part to play in God's work. The church must recognize the believer, and the believer must recognize the church, and baptism is part of that necessary recognition.

Baptism is likened to circumcision! One could be truly born as an Israelite, but circumcision was necessary nonetheless. Similarly, one might be truly born of the Spirit, but water baptism is absolutely essential nonetheless. It is because THE CHURCH is involved in salvation by God.

Baptism is a circumcision, and involves the body of the sins of the flesh.

The bottom line is that we could go on all day like this, disagreeing. But the ONLY WAY the early church baptized and stuck to that mandate so strongly, is because the early church believed baptism was involved in salvation and was not an option. The idea that baptism does not save, despite Peter's words, will lead to people simply never getting baptized, unlike the emphasis upon baptism found in the book of Acts.

It may not be an issue so simplified as with those who think Cornelius was bound for hell after receiving the Spirit before baptism, but neither is it so simplified that baptism has no absolutely essential part in salvation of a person.

Romans 6 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

Col 2:11-12 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

When people disagree, baptism does not remain the mainstay that it was in the early church. IMHO.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is what I believe you are all missing. Baptism is plainly stated to be part of salvation. Jesus did not say "he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized". Peter says baptism saves. There are two seals to any given contract or covenant. Spirit baptism is the seal of God and water baptism is the seal of man. I do not believe had Cornelius died of a heart-attack after being Spirit filled (which you are implying is part of salvation I now see) before baptism that he would have been sent to hell. God knows the heart that will or will not follow through with the "seals". Had Abraham refused circumcision after having believed, he would not have believed to the extent God demanded, so God would not have deemed him righteous.

God knows a heart, but we do not. Baptism is part of the church's and the believer's recognition of that believer coming into the Kingdom. it is not an option. In effect, Cornelius had to sign the dotted line still, after God gave his seal. Just because Cornelius received Spirit baptism, did not mean water baptism was unnecessary for his salvation. The church is commanded to baptize people because the church has a part to play in God's work. The church must recognize the believer, and the believer must recognize the church, and baptism is part of that necessary recognition.

Baptism is likened to circumcision! One could be truly born as an Israelite, but circumcision was necessary nonetheless. Similarly, one might be truly born of the Spirit, but water baptism is absolutely essential nonetheless. It is because THE CHURCH is involved in salvation by God.

Baptism is a circumcision, and involves the body of the sins of the flesh.

The bottom line is that we could go on all day like this, disagreeing. But the ONLY WAY the early church baptized and stuck to that mandate so strongly, is because the early church believed baptism was involved in salvation and was not an option. The idea that baptism does not save, despite Peter's words, will lead to people simply never getting baptized, unlike the emphasis upon baptism found in the book of Acts.

It may not be an issue so simplified as with those who think Cornelius was bound for hell after receiving the Spirit before baptism, but neither is it so simplified that baptism has no absolutely essential part in salvation of a person.

Romans 6 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

Col 2:11-12 is about WATER BAPTISM and the required faith to be had in it.

When people disagree, baptism does not remain the mainstay that it was in the early church. IMHO.

Before ever being baptized Cornelius could be called a child of God based on Romans 8. In fact Peter uses the reasoning that since God had obviously already accepted Cornelius by the imparting of the Holy Ghost that there was no reason to forbid baptism.

Do you notice what I said? God already accepted Cornelius before his baptism. So just as faith justified Abraham before circumcision, faith also justified Cornelius before baptism.

I agree with you on the other part though, we must be doing something much different than the early church did because we who believe baptism isn't required for salvation don't place the same emphasis on baptism that they did. Of course I think the problem with emphasis stems with so little being said in the bible about WHY baptism is important and not because of our stance on baptism being salvational.

[mfblume]

That is a strong point that makes me so concerned... why did the early church focus on water baptism so much? Something needs to be adjusted on both sides of the argument, I think.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is a strong point that makes me so concerned... why did the early church focus on water baptism so much? Something needs to be adjusted on both sides of the argument, I think.

Now that I can agree with. The early church was in a hurry to baptize the new believers. The new believers themselves were in a hurry to be baptized. I don't know how to reconcile that with baptism not being essential for salvation but I am sure there must be a way.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hilarious?



Sorry, Cornelius was demanded to be baptized, and baptism is part of salvation according to Peter and Jesus. Case closed. (That pesky Peter. And JESUS?).

It is part of of what a saved, born again person as part of his conversion... not a Christian I know denies this ...

It's the other stuff, Blume ....

Sin washed away at a properly administered baptism
Glossalia ... the only and necessary initial evidence of Spirit baptism

Romans 8 is not figurative, my friend ... it shows the spiritual reality of a person who even in your paradigm is quickened to life from death ...

If those things be true of a Spirit-filled person as described by Paul in said passage... then the REALITY is Cornelius was gennao anothen .... or born from above prior to baptism.

Let's stop the theatrics and exclusivism ... the paradigm is flawed ....
and has gaping holes supported by assumptions and prooftexting.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hilarious?



Sorry, Cornelius was demanded to be baptized, and baptism is part of salvation according to Peter and Jesus. Case closed. (That pesky Peter. And JESUS?).

Cornelius was not "demanded" to be baptized. You're reading your own doctrines into the text. Peter said,

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

That fact that neither yourself nor anyone that you've ever known has NOT ever "received the Holy Ghost as well as" (in the same manner as) the apostles did on the Day of Pentecost further complicates your case, but it is another matter.

Suffice to say, you're simply wrong about what Peter "demanded" in Acts 10.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Cornelius was not "demanded" to be baptized. You're reading your own doctrines into the text. Peter said,

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

That fact that neither yourself nor anyone that you've ever known has NOT ever "received the Holy Ghost as well as" (in the same manner as) the apostles did on the Day of Pentecost further complicates your case, but it is another matter.

Suffice to say, you're simply wrong about what Peter "demanded" in Acts 10.

Come now.


Act 10:48 KJV And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

You have to "keep reading."

I got my doctrine from this passage.