Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132860 | ||
Greetings Country Girl! Thanks for the response my friend! Actually, I'm not as concerned about the 'miracles' as I am your belief that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the age of the Apostles. But, either way, I am simply not convinced by 'inferences'. :-) As far as Acts 2:38 and 10:45 go, I would say that the same phrase, in the same book, by the same author has the same meaning! ;-) So, I would say that both refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that it is clearly for all believers, not just the Apostles. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Country Girl | 132864 | ||
So, how do you reconcile this baptism of the Holy Spirit with the other watery type baptism as cited throughout the NT and the fact there's only supposed to one baptism as Paul teaches in Eph 4? One can't simply dismiss the importance of watery baptism as it is administered for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38. If the one baptism is that of the Holy Spirit, how come it takes on so many different interpretations and meanings for nearly everybody in the world? In contrast, almost everybody agrees to most of the details of baptism. At least most everyone agrees it means immersion and most serious Bible students know it as part of the Plan of Salvation. I think that's one reason why God chose such a simple act as baptism in something as plentiful as water on this planet. A person really will have a tough task to argue this point on Judgment Day, but looking forward to your response. Blessings to you. Country Girl |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132878 | ||
Greetings Country Girl! I would certainly argue that the 'one baptism' is the one that really matters, the baptism of the Holy Spirit that actually makes us part of the Body of Christ. If 'water' baptism were so important, why is there the contrast in Scripture between water baptism and Spirit baptism? Note the following passages: 1) Mt. 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." If water baptism was so important, why didn't John say that Jesus would come to baptize us in water? Instead, he says that He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 2) 1 Cor. 12:13 - "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. " This is the one baptism. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that makes us part of the Body of Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Country Girl | 133227 | ||
You seemed to have left out a very important detail of this discussion and these words are from Christ himself: John 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' John 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." I've mentioned this kind of logic before but I'll repeat myself yet again. When the Bible teaches two or more different ways to answer a particular question such as this, it behooves one to be thorough and study all of what Scripture says about it. Now readily enough, everyone knows about Paul's statement: "one faith, one baptism,... But then the Bible also clearly states there are two different kinds of baptism cited within the Scriptures which were apparently applicable in their day when these Words were written. So we're left with a puzzle. Oviously Paul's words about "one baptism" were issued for guidance to ALL christians throughout all the age or this dispensation. The one single baptism that we can know for certain is indeed applicable to ALL christians is the one as Jesus referred to in being born again and thus the phrase "born again christian." Like I've mentioned before the age of miracles was a temporary one in this Christian dispensation. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers so since the Apostles, Cornelius and his family were the only ones blessed with these miraculous abilities from this primary source, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is no longer applicable in this day and time. This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers. I think it is correctly inferred from all this that God never really meant for us as His children to have these miraculous powers throughout this dispensation because in addition to the strife, it takes away from our development of our faith. If we had physical manifestations or demonstrations of miracles all the time like the Jews did in their world, they would become commonplace like they did then. The worst thing is that they lost their respect for God as shown at the very giving of the 10 Commandments to Moses. God wants us to grow up spiritually and learn to come to Him in simple faith based on what we know to be Bible based facts and the historical records that match them so perfectly. So, my friend, I must conclude the one baptism that's so important to Paul is the same watery grave of baptism important to today's christian. I hope this is all clear. Blessings to you. Country Girl PS: I know you know this being the learned Bible student you are but I need to mention for everyone else's benefit. The conclusion cited above is shared now and has been promulgated by christians by the tens of millions plus throughout all 2000 years of the church's existence. PSS: As to why our Lord didn't make this more clear i.e. as in a Standard Operating Procedure or a manual, etc. I'd have to refer you to God Himself upon Judgment Day. |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 133229 | ||
Hello Country Girl, "The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers..." The purpose of baptism is for identification. This is the use of the term throughout Scripture. The primary source for miraculous power was the filling of the Spirit which was periodic. And even then, the primary use of that power in Acts was preaching the gospel. "This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers." Any of God's gifts can be misused--even helps and administration. That is not a good measuring stick for appropriateness today. "Subject: why was the thief saved without baptism? Note: You seemed to have left out a very important detail of this discussion and these words are from Christ himself: John 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' John 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." I've mentioned this kind of logic before but I'll repeat myself yet again. When the Bible teaches two or more different ways to answer a particular question such as this, it behooves one to be thorough and study all of what Scripture says about it. Now readily enough, everyone knows about Paul's statement: "one faith, one baptism,... But then the Bible also clearly states there are two different kinds of baptism cited within the Scriptures which were apparently applicable in their day when these Words were written. So we're left with a puzzle. Oviously Paul's words about "one baptism" were issued for guidance to ALL christians throughout all the age or this dispensation. The one single baptism that we can know for certain is indeed applicable to ALL christians is the one as Jesus referred to in being born again and thus the phrase "born again christian." Like I've mentioned before the age of miracles was a temporary one in this Christian dispensation. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers so since the Apostles, Cornelius and his family were the only ones blessed with these miraculous abilities from this primary source, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is no longer applicable in this day and time. This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers. I think it is correctly inferred from all this that God never really meant for us as His children to have these miraculous powers throughout this dispensation because in addition to the strife, it takes away from our development of our faith. If we had physical manifestations or demonstrations of miracles all the time like the Jews did in their world, they would become commonplace like they did then." They weren't commonplace. Some were not even witnessed by anyone but the author who recorded it (see Jonah). What we have in Scripture is a condensed timeline of history. Take a Bible history chart and note the miracles against the chart. You'll find several decades, even centuries, between miracles. "The conclusion cited above is shared now and has been promulgated by christians by the tens of millions plus throughout all 2000 years of the church's existence." Which of the church fathers agrees with you? I only request one citation. Steve |
||||||