domokunrox wrote:Wow, logic required here.
If I gave you a million dollars, and you had it. It was yours.
What purpose would it serve to say, "ok, let's go find water. I want to dunk you for fun"?
I am serious. This line of reasoning is a major sidestep to the clearly obvious. I am truly baffled. I cannot help further other then point back to Jesus' baptism.
Heaven opened, and the SPIRIT of God came upon him AFTER he came up out of the WATER.
If you are not convinced still. I cannot help further then say keep reading Acts.
Dom... seriously, WOW!!!
1)... and let me try and keep this simple to see if you make the connection, God gives Freewill (your million dollars); can't put a price on salvation by the way, then you have it and its yours. This is just a side note, I know this is about baptism and the Holy Spirit and salvation.
2)Your the one preaching obedience... my point exactly as to an answer for what purpose would it serve; it serves as obedience, Hello! (By you asking that question though its clear that you admit they were baptized with the Holy Spirit (evidence speaking in tongues) before they were baptized with water!!!
a. You've clearly said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit comes after the baptism of Water... and you've not in so many words admit in Acts the gentiles were baptized with the Holy Spirit before the baptism of Water. Again, no two truths are the same, it has to be one or the other.
Lets look at Acts 10:43-48
43)"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins"
-Through His name (not through water), whoever believes in Him (also not water).
44)"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word."
-will faith then not come by hearing???
45)"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."
-They of the circumcision (Jews) were astonished and amazed that they of the uncircumcised (Gentiles) received the Holy Spirit! But but, wait, they can't have the Holy Spirit God, You can't give them the Holy Spirit... they aren't circumcised nor have they been baptized with water!!! Hogwash!! As Dom would say He is GOD, we are not, He can do what He wants. But wait a second... do all need to be circumcised too on top of water baptism, really? Oh wait, didn't physical circumcision change to a spiritual circumcision, that of the heart. circumcision of the heart, hmmm....!!!!
46)"For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47)"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
-I'm curious as to how literal are we wanting to take this cause um, well it says then answered Peter... what was he answering, did someone ask him a question, or um doesn't it just mean simply Peter said. LOL!!! Its also funny he is answering with a question. Anyways, Peter isn't asking, can any man as in the Gentiles (uncircumcised) with the Holy Spirit forbid water, He's asking can any man as in the other Jews (circumcised) forbid them, the Gentiles to get water baptized since they like them already have the Holy Spirit, Hello!!! There's that um, logic you were talking about. His question like ours to you was Rhetorical as Rhetorical could get... and so what did he do verse... 48)And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Lets Review...
This is why in verse 46 they knew the Gentiles had received the same Spirit baptism that they had received 8 years before at Pentecost. This experience proves that the Holy Spirit baptism is given at the time of conversion, as in the case of Paul (Acts 9:17-18), proving can be received before water baptism. Verse 47 question is, shall we baptize these Gentile converts who have been born again (without water), whose sins are already remitted (without water), and who have received the Spirit baptism (without water), as we did at Pentecost? Or, shall we not baptize them at all? Here and in the case of Paul its clear that sins were remitted and the Holy Ghost given before water baptism. If water baptism was essential to the remission of sins and salvation, shall we accuse God? Should we tell Him He isn't doing His job right as if we could do any better? Again, these just like Peters questions are all Rhetorical. Or, shall we be more SENSIBLE and ACCEPT God's work (not ours) without water baptism? And verse 48 since no man could "forbid water" baptism to these new converts and new Spirit-baptized people, Peter commanded them to be baptized as all converts should be (as in obedience, isn't that right Dom and not required); not to save the soul, but as an answer to a good conscience and an outward testimony of an inward work!!! The end.
Sorry if the text seems harsh or sarcastic, its really not, I just tried to break down as if I was speaking to my kids.
side note: I wished there were like buttons on the comments of threads so if we liked what someone said we could say so just as an encourager tool!!!