born of water

[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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You'll have to argue with God.

I don't understand. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Baptism saves us. Be baptised and wash away your sins, calling in the name of the Lord. Baptism is to be done "in the name of Jesus Christ." We must be born again, that is, born of water and spirit.

All this speculation seems to go beyond what is written. Why not just stick with what is written?

If a person receives the Spirit before water baptism, then let them be baptised in the Lord's name! If a person repents, let them be baptised and pray for them to receive the Spirit! If a person was baptised in some other name, let them be baptised in the Lord's name!

I really don't see the point of arguing about that which the apostles never addressed and about which they would probably shake their heads and say something about foolish and unlearned questions and doubtful disputations?

What PRACTICAL difference is any of this going to make?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, 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

I think you meant to address this to Originalist, not me. Lol

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't understand. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Baptism saves us. Be baptised and wash away your sins, calling in the name of the Lord. Baptism is to be done "in the name of Jesus Christ." We must be born again, that is, born of water and spirit.

All this speculation seems to go beyond what is written. Why not just stick with what is written?

If a person receives the Spirit before water baptism, then let them be baptised in the Lord's name! If a person repents, let them be baptised and pray for them to receive the Spirit! If a person was baptised in some other name, let them be baptised in the Lord's name!

I really don't see the point of arguing about that which the apostles never addressed and about which they would probably shake their heads and say something about foolish and unlearned questions and doubtful disputations?

What PRACTICAL difference is any of this going to make?

I think sometimes we do not think through some of the things we teach. If someone was baptized in a less than perfect manner, and God still gives them the Holy Ghost, then I need to come up with a reason to convince them to be re-baptized other than telling them they are still in their sins.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I think sometimes we do not think through some of the things we teach. If someone was baptized in a less than perfect manner, and God still gives them the Holy Ghost, then I need to come up with a reason to convince them to be re-baptized other than telling them they are still in their sins.

How about "why not do everything the Bible way"? Too much of this "I'll do it my way" thinkibg going on in the world... needs to change.