born of water

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

Oops. Sorry.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

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.

No it doesn't. That's a paradigm. Why would not someone look to Acts 8 and say it is out of the norm for folks to not automatically get the Spirit as occurred there?

You are only seeing this from your paradigm. But others in other paradigms could say the same thing about other passages that violate their tradition.

Acts 8 is the only chapter where Spirit baptism is shown to not occur automatically withotu required evidence. Someone could say that was an exception.

With all due respect, sorry, bro., you're wrong on this one.

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.

God simply does not break His order. Acts 10 does not say it was out of God's order. It's just tradition that says that.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No it doesn't. That's a paradigm. Why would not someone look to Acts 8 and say it is out of the norm for folks to not automatically get the Spirit as occurred there?

You are only seeing this from your paradigm. But others in other paradigms could say the same thing about other passages that violate their tradition.

Acts 8 is the only chapter where Spirit baptism is shown to not occur automatically withotu required evidence. Someone could say that was an exception.

Sorry, bro., you're wrong on this one.





God simply does not break His order. Acts 10 does not say it was out of God's order. It's just tradition that says that.

I never said everyone gets the Holy Ghost automatically as in Acts 2. I'm referring the specific command and order given by Peter in verse 38. What authority to you have to tell someone unbaptized that they can receive the Holy Ghost? There was a slight delay in Acts 8 with those of Samaria because these were the first Samaritan half-Jews to receive the Spirit. Rather than pray for them to receive the Spirit immediately, Phillip deferred to his leaders in Jerusalem. This is the only mention of a delay and this too was an anomaly.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I never said everyone gets the Holy Ghost automatically as in Acts 2.

I never said you did say that. I said some believe they do without tongues.

I'm referring the specific command and order given by Peter in verse 38. What authority to you have to tell someone unbaptized that they can receive the Holy Ghost? There was a slight delay in Acts 8 with those of Samaria because these were the first Samaritan half-Jews to receive the Spirit. Rather than pray for them to receive the Spirit immediately, Phillip deferred to his leaders in Jerusalem. This is the only mention of a delay and this too was an anomaly.

You are speaking from paradigms left and right, though. What's wrong with saying all the events in Acts properly balance things out so we derive the proper doctrine about the whole issue rather than get stuck in a false paradigm that makes one passage an "exception to the norm"? It's a box, bro. A man-made one.

[obriencp]

Originally Posted by Originalist

So if the one being baptized has faith in his name but the baptizer does not say the right words, the person being baptized is not forgiven by God?

Sean never did give a clear answer on this.

Originally Posted by Originalist

You won't answer because you realize the implications.

Amen! The implications are this... if someone is truly repentant and being water baptized all of the sudden their salvation hinges on the baptizer. If the baptized is seeking His will and the Lord sees fit to fill them with the Holy Ghost, but a minister water baptized them wrong, they're lost? I don't think so. Salvation is between God and the individual. God will judge the "minister" based on their understanding, but to say that the actions of a third party determines someone else' salvation is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I cannot say for sure what God will do with such a person but it almost sounds like a person saving himself.

Originally Posted by Originalist

To be consistent then, when you baptize somebody you must believe that you are saving them.

Bingo.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I never said everyone gets the Holy Ghost automatically as in Acts 2. I'm referring the specific command and order given by Peter in verse 38. What authority to you have to tell someone unbaptized that they can receive the Holy Ghost? There was a slight delay in Acts 8 with those of Samaria because these were the first Samaritan half-Jews to receive the Spirit. Rather than pray for them to receive the Spirit immediately, Phillip deferred to his leaders in Jerusalem. This is the only mention of a delay and this too was an anomaly.

Confusion awaits them that do not follow the context and sequence of events
according to the Lord's commandments and teachings.

1) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom;
2) The Lord told the disciples they would be witnesses "...in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria...the uttermost parts of the world.";
3) Receiving the Holy Spirit by those in Jerusalem and Judea, by the Samaritans,
and by Cornelius' house was the end result of Peter fulfilling the Lord's instructions;
however, but it was just the beginning of the ministry;
4) Phillip was NOT in any office of the ministry; he could be considered a
prototype of that which is "...the work of the ministry..." of the church;
5) Both Peter and John were sent to Samaria: both laid hands on the Samaritans:
but it was Peter who would first use the keys to the kingdom (per the
Lord's instructions) on the Samaritans;
6) Afterwards, Phillip exercised the ministry of the Church on a lone eunuch, and Paul
reaffirmed the FULL GOSPEL to the Ephesians;
7) This is the order that the gospel should be presented to the world: repentance,
baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit (but not necessarily in that sequence):

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Confusion awaits them that do not follow the context and sequence of events
according to the Lord's commandments and teachings.

1) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom;
2) The Lord told the disciples they would be witnesses "...in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria...the uttermost parts of the world.";
3) Receiving the Holy Spirit by those in Jerusalem and Judea, by the Samaritans,
and by Cornelius' house was the end result of Peter fulfilling the Lord's instructions;
however, but it was just the beginning of the ministry;
4) Phillip was NOT in any office of the ministry; he could be considered a
prototype of that which is "...the work of the ministry..." of the church;
5) Both Peter and John were sent to Samaria: both laid hands on the Samaritans:
but it was Peter who would first use the keys to the kingdom (per the
Lord's instructions) on the Samaritans;
6) Afterwards, Phillip exercised the ministry of the Church on a lone eunuch, and Paul
reaffirmed the FULL GOSPEL to the Ephesians;
7) This is the order that the gospel should be presented to the world: repentance,
baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit (but not necessarily in that sequence):

Jesus did indeed give us the correct sequence.....

He that.....

1) Believeth......

and is.....

2) Baptized......

shall be......

3) Saved (saved by washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Titus 3:5)

This is why I stopped praying for unbaptized people to receive the Holy Ghost years ago.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by obriencp

Sean never did give a clear answer on this.


Amen! The implications are this... if someone is truly repentant and being water baptized all of the sudden their salvation hinges on the baptizer. If the baptized is seeking His will and the Lord sees fit to fill them with the Holy Ghost, but a minister water baptized them wrong, they're lost? I don't think so. Salvation is between God and the individual. God will judge the "minister" based on their understanding, but to say that the actions of a third party determines someone else' salvation is ludicrous.


Bingo.

Amen. Sometimes I think some Apostolics are literally going to be angry that some people are in Heaven that they had consigned to Hell. Then they're going to weep in shame as their "sinners with the Holy Ghost" teaching passes through the fire and does not pass the test. Wood, hay and stubble.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by obriencp

Sean never did give a clear answer on this.



Amen! The implications are this... if someone is truly repentant and being water baptized all of the sudden their salvation hinges on the baptizer. If the baptized is seeking His will and the Lord sees fit to fill them with the Holy Ghost, but a minister water baptized them wrong, they're lost? I don't think so. Salvation is between God and the individual. God will judge the "minister" based on their understanding, but to say that the actions of a third party determines someone else' salvation is ludicrous.





Bingo.

You believe God violated the norm in acts 10 too?

If the preacher does not preach nor baptize the true way then Romans 10 says the recipient never believed correctly.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Amen. Sometimes I think some Apostolics are literally going to be angry that some people are in Heaven that they had consigned to Hell. Then they're going to weep in shame as their "sinners with the Holy Ghost" teaching passes through the fire and does not pass the test. Wood, hay and stubble.

Wow you assume a lot. First God violates his own word and order, and now folks who claim otherwise will be angry certain ones are saved. Wow.