Blog
“What Is Hindering Me From Being Baptized? (#1)”
Categories: Baptism, Daily Living“What Is Hindering Me From Being Baptized?”
Jarrod Jacobs
Acts 8:26-39 records the teaching and conversion of the Ethiopian treasurer. A man named Philip was told by God to catch up to the Ethiopian’s chariot and teach him the gospel. When Philip the evangelist caught up to him, he did just that (Acts 8:35). As they traveled, they came upon some water, “And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Friend, have you ever had someone ask you what is stopping you from being baptized? We want to look at some reasons why people are “hindered” today and then try to remove those hindrances. What reason(s) might one have for not being baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?
Some respond by saying they think they are already saved without baptism. This response comes from those who have not been taught the truth concerning Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 and other similar verses. My question to those who honestly and sincerely believe they are saved without being baptized is, what did you to be saved? I read in the Bible that one is saved by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), by believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Jn. 8:24), by repenting of past sins (Acts 17:30), by confessing one’s faith in Christ (Rom. 10:10), and by being baptized (Mk. 16:16). Have you done this? If not, you are not saved. What is hindering you from being baptized?
You can have the final response.
Thanks for the discussion and please come back and visit us again whenever you can.
Sincerely,
Jarrod
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 06, 2017 at 4:59pm.
Hi Jarrod,
I appreciate your response on everything. It may be a simple miscommunication or misreading, but I feel we have just about reached that impasse' I mentioned earlier where we begin speaking past each other instead of to each other.
I say this because much of your response seems to ignore the clear points I was trying to make. Not that you're merely countering them. You appear to have overlooked them or ignored them entirely. No disrespect intended. It's easy to do in this medium. You begin reading a response, and start formulating your rebuttal before ever finishing the whole comment. I've done it in the past many times.
I say this for the following reasons. Again, no disrespect intended in any of this. Just commenting on what was said:
1. I clearly gave my reasons for not engaging in a "language battle" over the baptism verses. I also clearly showed how each one either was context-dependent, or had language issues that have been debated for years. I also did my best to point out that, without a context of concrete reality, these verses can mean either one. You will note that I stated that both sides could make strong arguments using only these verses.
What does all of this mean? It means that, if baptized is required, then the verses can definitely mean what you say. However, if it's not, then they can just as easily mean what I claim.
I gave clear comments on the verses in Paul's letters, so I won't waste space revisiting them.
Here's a link to an article on the Acts 2:38 issue: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html
Here's one to an article on Mark 16:16 - https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html
No, that site isn't my only source. I have looked at many others on both sides. These articles are well worded and answer the questions efficiently.
Moving on: Regarding your comment about John 14. You're correct. Simply stating that you are wrong does not make it so. What makes it so are the 4 different verse references I cited that directly contradict your statements. :)
For the sake of more completeness, here are a few more that prove that all Christians receive the person of the Holy Spirit.
Rom. 8:11 - Paul says "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells within you..."
1 Cor. 2:12 - "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God...."
2 Tim. 1:14 - "Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us....." (speaking to Timothy here, who was not an apostle, about the Holy Spirit dwelling in him)
There are many more that make broader implications of the truth of the Holy Spirit, but these are the more direct ones.
One other side note: Paul, himself, had the Holy Spirit, and he had the gift of wisdom like the original disciples. Yet he wasn't with them when Jesus promised it. I know Paul was a special case God called for that purpose, but it does further disprove your claim that the Holy Spirit gift was only for the apostles present in John 14.
With regards to the 12/120 thing. I said it was an irrelevant detail in relation to the rest of the discussion. But, simply because it piqued my interest to revisit it....your argument for the 12 over the 120 was that the pronouns "they" and "them" only referred to the apostles, and you cited 1:26.
Not to sound nit-picky, but if you go back and look at the verses, you will find that, working backwards, the pronouns were used all the way back starting from vs. 23. Backing up further, you have Peter speaking to the 120 talking about replacing Judas. Moving back before that, you have vs. 15, which is the last section that specifically mentions a noun in reference to the body of people present.
Vs. 15 says that Peter stood up with a group of 120 believers.
Vs. 16-19 has him recounting the betrayal of Judas, his death, and the resulting name of the field where he died.
Vs. 20 is Peter quoting the prophecy from Psalms commanding them to replace Judas.
Vs. 21-22 is Peter telling them that they must choose someone to replace Judas who was there from the beginning
Vs. 23 is the first use of "they", where they nominated 2 people.
Vs. 24-25 records the prayer for guidance in the selection. The verse begins with "then they prayed..."
Vs. 26 begins "Then they cast lots...." It ends with "so he was added to the eleven apostles." However, the reference to the apostles is merely saying that he was added to them. It's recording that he was added as the replacement 12th apostle as a result of the casting of lots. It doesn't make them the antecedent for the Acts 2 pronouns.
Acts 2:1 starts with "...they were all together..."
So, working back grammatically, the last place where a definite noun was used to which the pronouns referenced was vs. 15, which states that Peter was with a group of 120 people.
As you said: simply reading the plain statements and pronouns..... :)
Regarding the "gift of the Holy Spirit" thing: You're correct. It's simple English. If I said I received the gift of a car, what am I meaning? Does the car give me a specific gift separately? Or am I meaning that I received a car? The car, itself, was the gift. In the same way, the Holy Spirit IS the gift. How do we know this for certain? We go back to the many verses I cited previously that reference the Holy Spirit being the gift. The ones listed above in the letters from Paul. Peter saying that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit's gift. Go back and read Acts 10:47. 11:17 does say "gift," but vs. 15 says the Holy Spirit came on them. And, in order to be consistent with 10:47, we must interpret that to mean the person of the Holy Spirit, as is plainly stated in that verse.
Concerning the Acts 10/11 recounting: I think this will have to be a place where we call it quits on this particular topic. We are to the point of repeating ourselves. I made the effort to explain the logical inconsistency in your interpretation of "as I began to speak." Yet you continue to stick with the "he didn't have time to speak" defense. Maybe one more example will help. If not, I fear we are at another impasse'.
"As I began to speak" is a figure of speech here. As mentioned, we know that from the parallel story in Acts 10. It doesn't mean "before any words were spoken." It's a turn of phrase. It would be the same as if I said "As I began driving to work, I ran over a nail and got a flat tire." That doesn't necessarily mean "the second my wheels began to turn as I backed out of the driveway." It's a general reference to a block of time.
As I said, I'm already certain you will continue to disagree with me on that, but there it is. Take it or leave it. :) "While Peter was still speaking these words" (meaning the speech he gave them) can not mean anything else except that he was already speaking words to them. I thought I made that logic perfectly clear. As you're fond of saying, it's just simple English. :) It is understandable, though. Years of being taught your version is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome in one set of blog comment discussions.
One note on your Luke 1:15 reference: I will point out that it was before the New covenant was established and before Jesus made the Holy Spirit promise. If I'm not mistaken, one of the CoC's main counter arguments to the "thief on the cross" arguments is that it occurred before the new covenant was established. Is this correct? It's the same thing here. Before the new covenant, the Holy Spirit basically came on people and left as needed for specific purposes. Hence the wording in many of the books of the prophets "the spirit of the Lord was upon me...." The spirit came to John for the purpose of heralding Jesus. But once Jesus ushered in the new covenant (which included the Holy Spirit promise), the old covenant rules no longer applied. This is the basic defense for the aforementioned thief argument. With all due respect, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim it when it helps you, and then deny it when it doesn't. I don't think you have specifically mentioned that line of thinking in our discussion, but it seems to be a general CoC argument.
And again, the claim that my position has holes in it falls flat under the different scriptures I have presented over the course of this discussion.
I had a response to your last paragraph, but I honestly couldn't find a way to word it without sounding rude or condescending. I'm not trying to be funny, snarky, sarcastic, or anything of the sort. I seriously tried to find a way to respond graciously, but it just wasn't happening. So I'm opting to forgo it for now. Most everything has already been covered in a previous post.
I think that the major problem is that this narrative has been so ingrained in you, that you're overlooking clear scripture with regards to God's character and history. By doing that, you're utterly convinced that a) Peter was meaning that he could seriously withstand God and somehow stop the gospel from spreading. and b) that God would contradict himself just to appease the Jewish believers.
Again, I don't mean an ounce of disrespect, and I do believe that you're sincere in your beliefs. It's just become glaringly apparent that you are doing whatever is necessary to preserve the narrative that you have been taught. This includes denying scripture, ignoring basic logical reasoning, and reading meanings into verses that aren't there.
1. I showed you multiple verses proving the person of the Holy Spirit comes to us. You still deny that.
2. I showed you multiple verses proving that we all received the same Holy Spirit that the apostles did. You deny that.
3. I clearly show scripture debunking the "exception to the rule" theory. You still cling to it.
4. I make a clear case of how your narrative of the purpose of the Holy Spirit gift for Cornelius flies in the face of all of scripture and the general character of God. You ignored all of that and still stick with the story.
Sadly, I'm not sure what else can be done here. As I mentioned previously, I figured we'd hit a point of impasse. I think we're here now. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed the discussion. In all honesty, I never had any expectations of converting your thinking through a blog discussion forum. My main goal was to pass along the information in hopes that God would work on you in His time. Some plant the seed, others bring the harvest, etc.
God Bless
by Doug Turner on January 06, 2017 at 2:36pm.
Hello again Doug,
Thanks for the patience. Again, am sorry for jumping on you and thank you for your graciousness. Will try and cover the subjects you talked about in the order you presented them.
First, the list of verses on baptism – thank you for looking at them and commenting. I don’t agree with all your comments, but will say thank you for taking the time to read and comment anyway. You’re right when you say that not all of those verses I listed stated specifically the purpose of baptism, but Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:16-18; Colossians 2:12-13; and I Peter 3:21 definitely did. I meant to include also Acts 22:16, but failed to do it. Will add it in now as it goes with this study.
In these verses (in order), we see that baptism saves (Mk), is for the remission of sins (Acts), made free from sin (Rom), forgiven all trespasses (Col), and again it saves (I Pet). Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins. All of these verses taken in total shows baptism’s purpose. I am not offering an interpretation or a spin on it, but just stating what the verses say. Context is very important, and I encourage you to read the context, but when you do, you can’t deny what these verses say in plain language. It is not some interpretation. So far as the other verses, you correctly pointed out that not all those verses state baptism’s purpose, but they also show the consistency throughout the book of Acts that folks were being baptized, and Acts 10:48 again shows us that it is a command.
So far as Acts 2:38 and the word “eis” … I recognize that some will say “eis” means in order to be forgiven and others will say because you have already been forgiven. The word “eis” by itself is a preposition, and there are several words that might fit. However, when put in context, only one words fits. So, putting “eis” in context of Acts 2, which phrase makes more sense – Peter and the apostles speak to a group that are guilty of killing Christ, and he says, “repent and be baptized because you’re already saved”?? Or does it make more sense to tell the killers of Christ: “repent and be baptized in order to be saved”??
While we are on this subject, the phrase “for the remission of sins” is the exact phrase used by Christ in Matthew 26:28. It is identical in the Greek and English to Acts 2:38. Now, did Christ shed His blood (Matt 26:28) because people needed to be forgiven of sins, or because their sins were already forgiven? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you would say Christ’s blood was shed in order to forgive people of sin. I teach this. Therefore, plug that phrase back into Acts 2:38. It means the same thing and is identical wording in both passages. Repent and be baptized in order to be forgiven.
So far as the 2nd letter goes, you continue to say I am wrong about John 14. Yet, stating it does not make it so. Remember that the context of John 13-17 is Jesus exclusively talking to the apostles – not the population at large. There was no one else there with Him except His apostles! Thus, when He is using the term “you” in ch 14, He was talking about the apostles and them only. There is no other way to read that section, friend.
So far as the 12/120 controversy of Acts 1 and 2, am not sure why you would still disagree with this unless you are wanting to disagree with plain statements in Acts 1 and the pronouns used in Acts 2, but OK ….
So far as me being wrong about the “gift of the Holy Spirit” meaning the Holy Spirit’s gift, this is just simple English. “Of” is a word which shows possession.
Concerning Acts 10/11, which continues to be a sore spot, remember that Cornelius was told Peter would tell him “words whereby thou and all thy house shalt be saved” (11:14). Then the Holy Spirit fell “as I began to speak” (v. 15). Peter has not had time to tell him the words necessary. Therefore, it can’t be that those folks were saved or that the Holy Spirit showed they were saved. If so, then these folks were saved without faith (Rom. 10:17)! I can’t believe that, and don’t think you do either. I know this section has been a sore spot because you claim the Holy Spirit only falls upon saved people, but I would also remind you of Luke 1:15, and the promise to John. Was he saved in his mother’s womb? I don’t deny that there were saved folks that had the miraculous powers and the like, but your position that it must only and always be for saved people and no one else has holes in it. Cornelius and John say otherwise.
Further, the teaching of the Gentiles is something that we are hung up on. Yes, the apostles’ doctrine was taught to the Jewish Christians (Acts 2:42). However, the old prejudices still existed. Read earlier in Acts 10 and remember the sheet-like thing that came down and Peter saw it in his vision (v. 10-16). Then God had to tell Peter to go with the people who come to the door “doubting nothing” (v. 20). In other words, God is having to make him go and to do this against his judgment. Finally, when standing before Cornelius, Peter reveals he now understood what God was doing – don’t call any man common or unclean (v. 28). Evidently, this was something Peter had to deal with – a prejudice against the Gentiles. This is something that would be a temptation/hindrance later on in his life (Gal. 2:11-14). Am saying all of this to say that yes, the Jewish Christians had a problem with Peter going and converting a Gentile. This prejudice had not died yet. Thus, when Peter came back, folks “contended with him” (Acts 11:2-3). He rehearsed the thing in chronological order (v. 4), and yes, this is what it means – chronological. Then, when the people were told about what happened and the Holy Spirit coming to those folks, they were convinced – NOT that they were saved people, but that God had granted repentance unto life TO the Gentiles (v. 18). Read the verse. They didn’t need convinced they were saved people, but convinced to take them the gospel in the first place. Peter had to be convinced (Acts 10:28) and now these folks needed convinced. Furthermore, when Peter explained things, he said, “who was I that I should withstand God?” (v. 17) Withstand God for WHAT?? According to you, nothing, because the Holy Spirit just declared that they were saved. Peter has nothing to do and nothing to withstand. However, if it is that the Gentiles needed to be taught the gospel and needed to be saved (the truth) then verse 17 makes perfect sense. “Who was I that I should withstand God?” Peter then taught and he baptized those folks for their forgiveness (Acts 10:48). He came back to Jerusalem (Acts 11:1) and when folks contended with him, he explained it, and their concerns were quelled. The stubbornness then ended once they heard the entire account. Their stubbornness was evident when they were contending with Peter (v. 2). Now, it is over.
I am sorry this is the case, but yes, it took a miracle to show those folks that the Gentiles were candidates for salvation as well. Remember, these folks had spent nearly 1500 years thinking they were the only ones God wanted saved! Go back and see the prejudice and racism of Jonah, and some others. Yes, it was going on. Then, in the NT, Jews became Christians, but their prejudice did not go away. It did, however, with the events surrounding Acts 10/11.
Will close for now. I hope this will be helpful to you and your study.
Sincerely,
Jarrod
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 06, 2017 at 10:11am.
Hello Jarrod,
Sorry for the delay in this last comment/rebuttal. I was busy at work (I have been typing these on my breaks) and didn't have a chance to get back to it until now. Also, I wanted to take the time to go back and reread your earlier comments so I can be sure to not misrepresent what you said.
With that being said, here are my thoughts/replies to your last full comment sent on the 4th at 12:17 (according to the website timestamp). I will try to go in order, but obviously omitting anything that I covered in the previous comment. There are actually only a few points I wish to make.
1. Since I covered the baptism verses earlier, I'll start with the John 14 paragraph. Your claim about the exclusivity and characteristic of the promise of Jesus are incorrect. You claimed that the promise was for the apostles only. You also claimed in your first every reply to me at the beginning that the apostles were the only ones who were promised the Holy Spirit as a person. You said the promised gift for "normal" people was a gift of fellowship, etc, and you contrasted that with the promise of the Holy Spirit himself, which you claim was for the apostles. (paragraph point 3 in the first reply on the 3rd)
With all due respect, you are completely wrong here. Those claims go directly against multiple scriptures. I'll explain here with relevant scripture:
a. Peter specifically said in Acts 10:47 and 11:17 that the gift Cornelius received was the same gift he and the Jews received. For completeness, I checked multiple translations, including the NASB, ESV, KJV, and NKJV. All versions of both chapters have Peter including himself in the group.
b. When Peter references the gift they receive, he doesn't say they received "a gift." He says they received the Holy Spirit.
c. All of Paul's letters that speak of the Spirit refer to the person of the Spirit living in people. Rom. 8:9 and the surrounding verses specifically mentioning the Spirit living inside the believers. Eph. 1:13 has Paul telling the believers that they received the promised Holy Spirit when they believed.
d. Yes, the apostles received a special gift of knowledge and wisdom not given to others. That's not in dispute. However, Paul specifically said in 1 Cor. 12:4 that there is only one Spirit, but He gives different manifest gifts.
I could list all of the verses referring to the fact that the Spirit (as a person) is what is promised and given to all believers, but I think these should suffice to prove your error in those claims.
As this negates most of the rest of that paragraph's arguments regarding the purpose of the gift for Cornelius and the comments about them not having perfect recollection, etc. I'll forgo any detailed rebuttal. I will comment on the "stubborn Jewish," but I'll reserve that for the end.
2. The next paragraph referring to the Acts 2 verses falls under my previous argument about the wording, as well as the above argument about the gift/person of the Holy Spirit thing. I had already mentioned that we would disagree on the 120 people part of Acts 1/2, so there's no need to beat that dead horse. :) That particular argument is irrelevant to everything else anyway. Even if you're correct on that, it doesn't negate the other verses showing that the Holy Spirit came to all who were saved.
I will make one note about your comment on the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe you are wholly wrong on your interpretation. The wording is "gift of the Holy Spirit" and not "Holy Spirit's gift" I know you didn't claim that specific wording, but you claimed that meaning. I have read multiple translations and commentaries. Everything I see shows the phrase meaning that the Holy Spirit IS the gift. Not that it's some gift the Holy Spirit gives apart from himself. This also follows along with my previously quoted verses to the fact.
3. I think you missed the point of my argument on the "order of events" thing. I won't go into again. You can reread my previous comments if you wish. My point was that your claim that "as I began to speak" can't be true because it would conflict with Luke's "while he was still speaking these words" claim. Luke was referring, of course, to the speech telling them about Jesus. Out of order or not (which I don't think it was, for the record) there is no way that Peter could have physically not been speaking and be in the middle of speaking at the same time. It is impossible. Either he was speaking to them, or he wasn't. If you're claiming he wasn't, then you're saying Luke was wrong. There is no way around that. Outside of this shaky claim regarding the phrasing of the two chapters, I also see no evidence to support the claim that Ch. 10 was out of order. It follows perfectly along. The only difference is that Peter doesn't recite the speech. In fact, he doesn't recite much of any of the dialogue. Short of that, the 2 chapters are basically perfect parallel tellings of the account.
I think that basically covers the issues I found in your reply. I don't believe I missed anything.
In conclusion, as promised, I want to make a comment about your reasoning that the Jews were so stubborn that God made the exception so they would be on board. Again, with all due respect, I believe this is a weak claim that flies in the face of everything we know about God, as well as the Jews at this point in time. I'll explain:
1. The end of Acts 2 tells us that the Jewish believers followed the apostles teaching basically without question. So they trusted their judgment on issues.
2. When Peter received his vision to go see Cornelius, they followed him without question. There is no evidence written of them objecting to his actions.
3. I submit that Peter knew before the Holy Spirit fell that God would accept the gentiles. Vs. 34 of Ch. 10 tells us that, before anything happened, Peter understood that God would accept them. Otherwise, I don't think he would have even preached to them.
4. The only statement made regarding the Jews in the story was that they were astonished, or amazed at the Spirit falling on Cornelius. They had the same basic reaction when the Spirit fell on the people in Acts 2.
5. The Jews who DID criticize Peter only made a statement about him eating with gentiles. But as soon as he told them the story, they immediately praised God and accepted that the gentiles were included. Not a single hint of stubbornness.
6. As I have mentioned already and exhaustively proved with scripture, Jesus specifically promised the Holy Spirit to believers. I find it difficult to believe that you can adequately refute this claim in light of the multitude of scriptures I have provided. Making an exception would have made Jesus out to be a liar. It's as simple as that. If Jesus tells them on Monday that only believers can receive the Holy Spirit, and on Friday, God says "eh, we'll make this exception," it means that Jesus lied. Plain and simple. He said something would never happen, and then it did. No way around that conclusion.
And finally,
7. I find it extremely hard to believe that the all-powerful God of the universe would have to resort to breaking his own rules in order to cater to the supposed stubbornness of the Jewish believers. I mean, seriously. For one, he could have performed any miracle if it really was required. Why choose the one solitary thing that Jesus said would never happen? Really?
Second, the conversion of the gentiles relied on their belief in Jesus and God's willingness to forgive them. It had nothing to do with the Jewish acceptance. Nothing whatsoever. Your claim is basically saying that, unless the Jews as a whole agreed to the gentile inclusion, that they were just doomed. That's a ridiculous conclusion. God could raise up anybody he chose to preach to them by themselves. He didn't need the approval of the Jews to complete His works. I urge you to revisit Job 38 for God's view about His need for man's approval of His plans. If God can cause the rocks to cry out in praise of him(Luke 19:40), then He can surely find someone who would preach to the gentiles if the Jewish believers refused.
I know you didn't specifically claim this, but that is what your "God had to make and exception to convince the Jews" argument is saying. God almighty had to bend the rules, making Jesus into a liar, and make a crazy exception to everything that would be established and taught in the entire New Testament....all so that the Jewish people would say it's ok for gentiles to be involved.
With all due respect, I find that to be the most amazingly ridiculous claim of them all. I'm sorry if I seem overly passionate, but I can't help it. It's an absurd conclusion that anyone with a hint of the character of God should reject as laughable.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on that. Take them or leave them. I do hope that you will take a serious look at what I have said and consider them as you asked me to consider your words.
God Bless
by Doug Turner on January 05, 2017 at 5:33pm.
It's no problem at all. One of the downfalls of this medium is that we can't always be sure of the time frame and what the other person is doing while we wait for a comment to be submitted. Been guilty of it myself.
No hard feelings in the least. I do hope that you will thoroughly read both of my comments. I do explain that I am not dismissing your arguments out of hand. I'm merely declining to engulf both of us in the age-old debate of the verses that, historically has always come to the same stalemate. At least, that's my experience.
I do sincerely believe that, by themselves, a strong argument can be convincingly made for both sides equally. In order to solve that dilemma, we have to go outside those verses and find out what the context is in which they are speaking. I hope I have made that reasoning perfectly clear in my comments.
by Doug Turner on January 05, 2017 at 1:04pm.
Hello Doug --
In the spirit of humility I will apologize in advance for my quick letter. That will teach me!! You DID address the verses as I just saw a moment ago, and I look forward to reading what you had to say. Again, I apologize and hope you forgive me for shooting that letter off and accusing you of not addressing the verses, when you did in this next letter.
I hope you forgive me.
Sincerely,
Jarrod
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 05, 2017 at 12:28pm.
Hi Doug -
After this first message, I am wondering what the purpose of this study is? I gave you distinct, clear passages about baptism and what baptism's purpose is (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-9, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Colossians 2:12-13; I Peter 3:21), and you dismissed every one of them in one sentence.
No, my teaching on baptism is not like the Pharisee's teaching. They taught the doctrines of men (Matt. 15:8-9). This is what Jesus condemned. They had for many years taught doctrines which were not God's doctrines, like washing of hands, etc. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and proved He did no work when He healed. They falsely accused Jesus of working merely because He told someone to stretch their hand out or rise and walk, etc. So I take exception to what you claimed. The verses I cited (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-9, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Colossians 2:12-13; I Peter 3:21) is not my opinion, but I gave you book, chapter, and verse, and you chose to ignore it.
You continue to hang your hat on a misconstrued and misunderstood concept of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10. You don't like me saying that the events in Acts 10 were for the purpose of showing the Jewish Christians that Gentiles can be saved (Acts 11:18), and don't like that I said that this was not to save Cornelius; that this one event was different in purpose from Acts 2, and yet you will go so far as to say that Acts 10 negates the multiple passages I showed you in the last letter. What? "The legs of the lame are not equal."
Doug, I am sorry that you have such a prejudice against the Lord's will on the subject of baptism, but those verses still say what they say. If you claim I am taking them out of context, then prove it. Go to the passages and prove that baptism is not what the verse says it is. Here they are: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-9, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Colossians 2:12-13; I Peter 3:21. However, to just categorically dismiss them as you did is not dealing honestly with the text.
I hope you have a good day and genuinely consider those verses.
Sincerely,
Jarrod
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 05, 2017 at 12:24pm.
Hi Jarrod,
Even though I do not wish to get into a discussion over the verses you listed as per my previous reasoning, I will briefly address each one of them individually. Again, I'm not wanting a discussion on the meaning of each. My reasoning is to merely support my earlier argument of the context-dependent nature of each.
As I also mentioned previously, many scholars with much greater knowledge than I have explained and debated these issues for years. I will not attempt to detail an argument for each, but merely list the noted issue and move on. As you seem to be well-educated, you are probably aware of the various arguments on both sides, so there is no need to expound on them. If you wish, I'll be happy to provide links to articles which do a better job of explaining them than I can.
1. Mark 16:16 - There are issues here with the grammatical structure of the sentence which do not make this verse as plainly cut-and-dried as you claim. The technical argument is with a negative inference fallacy.
2. Acts 2:38 - The language of the word "eis" that is translated as "for" can have multiple meanings depending on context. Again, this has been long-debated, so I will not expound.
I will note the fallacy and error in your statement about the following verses. You stated " These are some of the passages that state specifically the purpose of baptism." That may be argued for the later ones, but the Acts verses listed merely give an account of a baptism that happened. Not a single one of them make any mention of the purpose of the baptism. This was actually my reasoning for listing the salvation accounts without mention of baptism. It was to point out that the fact that it was mentioned doesn't prove anything in an of itself. I hope I have made that clear enough.
3. Acts 8:35-9 - While it does mention baptism, there is no reference to the necessity of baptism in this verse. It is merely a statement of a man's desire to be baptized. Many of the next few references are the same type of error.
4. Acts 9 - You didn't specify the verse, but I assume you meant Saul's conversion. Again. Vs. 18 mentions that he was baptized. Nothing else to denote a specific purpose in this verse.
5. Acts 16:14-15 - Again, a statement that the baptism happened, nothing of the purpose.
6. Acts 16: 30-34 - Yet again, another statement that it happened. Nothing of the purpose.
7. Acts 18:8 - Another account simply stating that people were baptized.
8. Acts 19:5 - Another account of them merely being baptized. I will note here that, the reason Paul questioned their salvation and baptism was because he noticed an inconsistency. The first question he asked was whether or not they had received the Holy Spirit. He somehow recognized that they didn't have Him, so he was confused about their salvation. Something was off. This clearly supports my earlier theory that the Holy Spirit comes to saved people. That's just a side note on that section. :)
Again, I'm not saying my argument disproves baptism. I'm saying that they are not useful to either side because they mention nothing of the purpose of baptism, as you claim. They merely state that it happened. I'm not trying to nitpick here. I'm trying to point out a fallacy in the basis of your argument. The mere mention of, or lack of mention of, an account of baptism, in an of itself, does not prove one way or the other whether or not baptism is required. They just simply do not speak to the purpose. You might as well replace the verses with "and then they went to get a sandwich" and you would have the same effect on the argument.
Moving on:
9. Romans 6:3-6 - Paul is using descriptive, metaphorical language here. Unless you are physically burying people in the ground when you baptize them, then you must obviously understand that he is metaphorically comparing what happened to Christ with what happens to us in the spirit. The thing is, Paul can just as easily be referring to the spiritual baptism that actually saves us instead of the water baptism. An honest look at the scripture tells us that it doesn't say either way. The argument could be strongly made for either belief from this verse alone. This is what I meant by context-dependent.
10: I'm not sure what scripture you referred to next. I think it was a typo. It just says "Rom. 6:3-6, 16-18" but vs 16-18 in chapter 6 mention nothing of baptism.
11. Col. 2:12-13 - same thing as before. Another metaphorical comparison to what the effect of baptism was. Again, it doesn't mention water or spirit, so the argument can be made either way with equal strength.
12. 1 Peter 3:21 - Another context/grammatical/language issue that has been debated for years.
Again, I'm not declining the discussion out of fear of defeat or whatever, though you may choose to believe that. I have no control over what you think of me. :) I am declining because of my earlier stated reasons.
I have one more response I wish to make regarding some of your statements. Depending on how you choose to reply, we might have to call it quits on the discussion. I have no problem discussing and debating the issue. I rather enjoy it. I have, however, come to recognize the point when we begin talking past each other and reiterating the same points for the sake of talking. Hopefully we don't get there, but if we do, I'll be sure to let you know and save us both the headache.
Until I get a chance to write the other comment, God bless.
by Doug Turner on January 05, 2017 at 12:23pm.
Hi Jarrod,
My apologies for not responding sooner. I went out of town and was unable to sit down and follow up with out discussion.
I'm going to put my response in multiple parts again. Mainly because there are distinct points I want to make with this, they are rather lengthy, and I don't want each to get lost in the jumble of the whole. I prefer completeness and clarity over brevity and convenience. :)
My first response is to decline your invitation for a discussion of your list of baptism verses. My reasons are as follows. You can choose to believe my sincerity in those reasons or not. I have no control over that.
I have been in several conversations where the course turned to a discussion over the baptism verses. They always end in frustration and a stalemate. The reason is because all of the verses you listed are very context-dependent. What I mean by that is that the interpretation of them can go either way depending on the reality of baptism's purpose. Both of us can make equally strong cases supporting our sides. If baptism is required for salvation, then the verses can definitely mean what you claim. However, they can just as easily mean what I claim if baptism is not required. If you are truly honest with yourself, you will know that I'm telling the truth here. Many men on both sides of higher education and understanding of language nuances have debated for years over this.
This is not to say that you are wrong strictly because of those verses. My point is that they are not sufficient in and of themselves to prove either side. This is why I prefer to go with the concrete proof of what actually happened in reality. This is also why I began and based my argument on the reality of what happened with Cornelius. What God actually did trumps anything we can claim from our interpretation of scripture.
Here's an example of what I mean from the life of Jesus: The Pharisees, over hundreds of years of scripture study, had come to believe and teach that healing on the Sabbath was a sin. In Mark 3:1 and Matt. 12:10, we find that Jesus healed a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath. There is another story recorded in Luke 13:10 of Him healing a crippled woman. So here's the dilemma: We know that Jesus was sinless. However, the Pharisees believed He had sinned because of their interpretation of the law. Who was right? How do we determine this? The obvious answer is that, knowing Jesus never sinned, we must conclude that healing on the Sabbath was not a sin. This means that the Pharisees were incorrect in their interpretation of the meaning of the law.
Do you understand the point I'm making? We must look at the actual reality of what God did, and use that as our basis for the interpretation of meaning. So, the real discussion should be focused on that. If, as I have claimed and tried to show through scripture, the Holy Spirit will not come to unsaved people, then the fact that He came to Cornelius before baptism can only be interpreted as meaning that baptism is not required to be counted as saved.
I will point out here that you, yourself (and the majority of people trying to counter this argument) freely admit that this is an issue. You claimed that the "norm" was for the Holy Spirit to come to saved people only. Yet instead of using reality to shape your doctrine, you have attempted to bend reality to support the doctrine. This is where the "exception to the rule" argument was birthed. You made this exact claim in your reply from January 4th.
I sincerely fear that, because you are so entrenched in the argument from years of study/repetition of it, that you are blind to the fallacy of the argument. I mean no disrespect. I am sincerely speaking out of love and concern for right teaching.
Seriously take a step back and look at the what's happened. Just for a moment.
1. You make the correct claim that the Bible is completely true.
2. You claim that Jesus is God. Also true. As I stated previously, we know that God cannot lie.
3. Jesus plainly stated that the Holy Spirit could not come to unsaved people.
4. Peter stated in Acts 2:38 that the Holy Spirit was a gift after salvation.
5. Paul teaches in multiple places across nearly every letter that the Spirit is for saved people. He also teaches that there is only one Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12:4, he specifically states that there are different outward gifts, but the same Spirit gives them all.
6. There are no teachings anywhere in the NT after the New Covenant with regards to the Spirit coming to unsaved people. His only interaction mentioned with unsaved people is with regard to conviction of sin. Nothing is said anywhere about indwelling or gifts for the unsaved.
These are simple, scriptural facts. Nothing added or insinuated. Just a clear, simple reading of scripture. Look it up yourself and tell me if I'm wrong.
Now, with these simple base facts, here are two more:
1. Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before baptism.
2. Peter plainly stated in Acts 10:47 and 11:17 that the Holy Spirit gift was the same one they had received. This includes Peter, himself, so it negates your theory that the promise from Jesus was only for the apostles.
So please tell me, taking a honest look at the scripture. After seeing the very clear teaching about the aspects of the Holy Spirit. How is it possible to see the events of Cornelius as meaning anything except that he was already saved when he received the Spirit?
There is no Biblical teaching about an "exception to the rule" That is a Church of Christ conclusion of what "must have happened" based on an adherence to the required baptism doctrine. Many articles I've read defending baptism freely admit to this issue. The counter argument almost always begins with some version of "since we know baptism is required, then this must be a time when God changed the rules"
There is no indication that anything out of the ordinary chain of events happened according to the reactions of the Jewish people present. They saw that the Holy Spirit had fallen, and concluded that God chose to save the gentiles as well.
I'm asking you, pleading with you, to take a sincere look at this apart from your internal narrative of how things "must have been" and look at what actually happened.
I will answer the other points in a subsequent part as soon as I can get it typed.
by Doug Turner on January 05, 2017 at 11:14am.
Hello again Doug,
Am glad to hear from you. I agree that letter was long. :-) I hope that my response will cover what you said sufficiently.
First, let me go back by listing my original Scriptures that show the purpose of baptism: Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-9, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Romans 6:3-6, 16-18; Colossians 2:12-13; I Peter 3:21. These are some of the passages that state specifically the purpose of baptism. Yet, you continue to deny that baptism is for salvation. Why? When I asked you what baptism was “for,” or its purpose, you said that the purpose of baptism was to identify the believer. Please read these verses that state specifically that baptism saves, forgives transgression, washes away sin, remits sin, frees us from sin, and then reevaluate your answer.
Doug, you’re not the only one who does this, but it never ceases to amaze me that folks say they wish to take issue with what I teach on baptism, and then talk about passages that do not refer to baptism at all. You listed several passages in Acts for study (4:4, 5:14, 9:31, 9:35, 11:21, 13:12, 13:48, 14:1, 14:21, 16:5, 17:4, 17:12, 17:34, 28:24). Let me begin by saying I believe every passage. There is not a passage in the Bible that I do not believe. However, how can we have a study on baptism if we do not read passages that speak to what baptism does or does not do? That doesn’t seem right to me. Regardless of the topic, if we want to know what God’s mind is on that subject, we have to look at passages that speak to it, and not the passages that do not mention it. Therefore, if we are going to study about baptism’s purpose as our specific study, it seems to me the logical thing would be to look at passages which speak about baptism and then accept what those verses say. Would you agree to this? If so, then let us talk about those passages that actually speak about baptism and learn its purpose.
Back to John 14. Please understand I am not denying that Jesus uses the term “world” and that the term “world” often (but not exclusively) refers to unsaved people. My point is that the audience Jesus was speaking to was exclusively His apostles and no one else. Thus, saying that the “world cannot receive” the Holy Spirit is never in dispute in my mind. We read these passages to see what power/ability Christ was giving to His apostles. The power of the Holy Spirit to come upon them and given them perfect recall and reveal to them things He had not said yet (ex: Jn. 16:8) was applicable only to the apostles and no one else. I realize such a position flies in the face of most of the “religious world,” but this is not the first time the “religious world” was wrong about something. To jump to Cornelius for a moment, this is why I used the word “exception.” Perhaps there is a better word to use, but this event in Acts 10/11 was done so as to convince the Jewish Christians that Gentiles could be saved. It was not to save Cornelius, nor to declare he was already saved. They had the ability to speak in tongues (Acts 10:46), but they did not have perfect recall of Christ’s words, nor revelation, as Christ promised the apostles in John 14-16. If they did, the Peter’s preaching is unnecessary, because they already knew the truth. So, this miracle was done for another purpose, not to save, or show salvation, but to show that they were candidates to hear the gospel and be saved, just like the Jews. This whole account speaks volumes not only concerning God’s grace and love, but it also says something to me about the stubbornness of the Jewish folks in that it took a miracle of this magnitude to convince them of what God had in His mind from eternity (Eph. 3:3-6)!
Again, Acts 2:38 speaks of the Holy Spirit’s gift that one receives from baptism. It is not taught that someone repented and got the gift and later was baptized. It is not taught that one believed on Christ, received the Holy Spirit’s gift and later repented and was baptized, or any other combination like that. The facts are that the Jews were told to repent AND be baptized and then the Holy Spirit’s gift was received. That is the order. BTW, while we are here in this context, by simply reading Acts 1:26-2:4 and respecting the pronouns, we see that the pronouns (“they”, “them”) refer back to the antecedent, the apostles (1:26). Thus, only 12 received the Holy Spirit’s power, not 120, and this was Christ’s promise fulfilled (1:4-5, 7-8, 2:1-4).
Back to Cornelius and the Acts 10/11 questions. Acts 11 is the account of Acts 10 written in chronological order (v. 4). This is my point. It is not that one version is right and one wrong, or whatever. It is just that Acts 10 is not in perfect chronology. This doesn’t make it wrong, untrue, etc. We write/speak like this all the time. Furthermore, the order of Bible books themselves is not necessarily a chronological order. There are several examples I could give, but for space sake I’ll wait to post unless you just want to see it. Anyway, when Peter was called on the carpet (my words) for going to the house of a Gentile, he rehearsed the things “in order” so as to explain to the Jewish Christians what he was doing in Caesarea. In so stating, he showed that the Holy Spirit fell “as I began to speak” (11:15). This is not contradictory of ch. 10, it only explains the exact point in time when it happened. This is why I said if your position is true, then the Holy Spirit fell on supposed “saved” people who didn’t even have a chance to believe yet. He fell as Peter began to speak, but faith comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17). No, Jesus didn’t lie about anything. His words are true. Your problem is you’re getting the words out of order at times, and sometimes you have redefined words. What was promised to all saved people is not “the Holy Spirit personally,” or miraculous gifts. What was promised to all saved people is the Holy Spirit’s gift (Acts 2:38). I discussed this earlier that Acts 2:38 and 3:19 are parallel statements, and the Holy Spirit’s gift is parallel to the “times of refreshing.” Fellowship, salvation, unity with God, spiritual blessings (I Jn. 2:9; Eph. 1:3; etc.), and the like are the gifts given to every saved person. Thus, Christ was consistent and not a liar, for when Cornelius and his household were baptized (Acts 10:48), they received those very blessings (Acts 2:38, 3:19)! The Holy Spirit falling on the household, however, did not prove salvation (as I showed above), but only proved that God expected the Gentiles to receive the same gospel and receive the same truth that the Jews had been getting in these last 10 years since Pentecost (Acts 2). Proof: Acts 11:18 – once this event occurred, there was never an incident where the Jewish Christians turned against someone and said they were wrong or in sin because they went to the Gentiles and preached the gospel to them.
I will close for now. Thanks for the discussion, and hope this is helping you. Have a good day and come visit our website anytime you can.
Sincerely,
Jarrod Jacobs
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 04, 2017 at 12:17pm.
Since my other response was so long, I thought I would respond to the Jewish riot comment separately.
My reference to the Jews rioting was this: If baptism were really required, then the Jews would have thrown a massive fit if the gentiles received the spirit before baptism.
Let's assume you're correct for a moment and that baptism was a requirement for salvation:
The Jewish believers were clearly told that the gift was a result of salvation (Acts 2:38). If they had to be baptized to get it, then fine. No big deal. But then, they go to these filthy, despicable gentiles with Peter (the same guy who had told them to be baptized to be saved). They don't like it, but they go. He starts to preach to them, and then the Holy Spirit falls on them before baptism.
How would you feel in that moment? Here's a special gift from the living God that was promised specifically to you once you believed in Jesus and followed the steps to salvation. You followed all of the rules, etc. But here are these gentiles, who were historically despised by Jews. These unclean, pagan sinners are given God's special gift without the same requirements? How is that fair?
Think of it this way: Let's say that you needed a car, so you went to your parents for help in buying one. They agree to do it, but ask you to make a contribution to it by paying the down payment. They tell you that they can't do it for you any other way. That's perfectly fine with you. You make a small contribution, and you get a car out of the deal.
But then two weeks later, you find out that the local drunkard who is in and out of jail almost weekly asked them for the same thing. You also find out that, not only did they do it, but that they also did it for him without the required down payment.
How do you think you would feel then? You are their flesh and blood. Their child who has loved them and been faithful to them for your whole life. Yet they give this gift to a drunkard free of charge while requiring you to help pay for your own car.
Now do you understand? The Jews were God's chosen people. He loved them, revealed Himself to them, and sent His son to them first. They responded and believed. Sure, He required baptism, but that's no big deal. Then one day, they go with Peter to a gentile, people they considered lower than slaves. And right in front of their eyes, God gives these sub-humans the precious gift that He gave them, minus the requirement for baptism.
That is why I said they would have rioted. I hope that clears things up.
by Doug Turner on January 04, 2017 at 9:45am.
I'll be happy to respond and hopefully clarify my arguments. I do apologize in advance for the length.
In all honesty, I felt I gave plenty of scriptural proof for my points in my initial argument. My replies to your arguments were pointing out the error in those responses. I do apologize if I didn't quote enough scripture. I didn't feel it necessary with the nature of my rebuttal at the time. I will try to do better in the future.
In the interest of clarity, I'll be happy to reiterate my initial scriptural proofs.
a. Jesus said in John 14:17 that the Holy Spirit could not be received by the world. "The world" is the common phrase used all across scripture to refer to unsaved people. This statement could not be any more clear as to His meaning.
b. In Acts 2:38, Peter supports this belief when we tells the people that the gift of the Holy Spirit will be given to them once they are saved. I know you disagreed with my statement on the scripture, but I definitely cited a scripture, so your complaint is unfounded here.
c. Though I didn't reference a specific scripture, I mentioned that Paul also referred to the Holy Spirit as something only for saved people. The first part of Romans 8 is one example of this. Vs 9 in particular tells us that if we have the Spirit in us, we belong to Christ. If not, then we don't. I'm summarizing, of course.
These (and others I'll be happy to supply if needed) gave the simple basis for my initial question/argument regarding Cornelius. All of scripture clearly points to the Holy Spirit only being for saved people. Jesus specifically said He wasn't for unsaved people and that they couldn't receive Him. You make the claim that baptism is a required step in order to be saved. In other words, until the moment you are baptized, it doesn't count and you are still lost. However, in Acts 10 (and the recounting in Acts 11), we have Cornelius clearly receiving the Holy Spirit before the baptism.
So the problem here is this: If baptism is required for salvation, and the Holy Spirit is only for saved people; how did Cornelius receive Him before the baptism? Do you see the problem? Somebody HAS to be in error here. Either baptism is required, or it isn't. Either the Holy Spirit is only for saved people, or He isn't. One of these two statements has to be false. I choose to believe the baptism statement is false for the following reason: The Holy Spirit statement is straight from the mouth of Jesus. And Jesus, being God himself, cannot lie. (Num. 23:19)
If Cornelius truly was not saved until the baptism, then Jesus lied. This is the very simple, and only conclusion to be drawn.
Your conclusion you listed in your last response was that Cornelius was "an exception to the rule." I'll answer your specific reasons in a bit, but I want to reiterate that you are very clearly claiming that "the rule" is that the Holy Spirit only comes to saved people, so you at least agree with me there. In light of that, I want to emphasize again that, by resorting to a "God must have changed the rules" defense, you are effectively saying Jesus lied. I only mention this again because of the huge implications of that belief. If Jesus can lie, then He's not God (according to His own rules in scripture). If He's not God, then we have no business worshipping Him in the first place. I know that sounds like a harsh conclusion, but it's the truth. That's what concerns me most about this errant doctrine. You are well-meaning, but you make the "exception to the rule" claim without really understanding the implications of such a claim. It just kind of gets glossed over in favor of keeping the baptism doctrine. My sincere plea is that you take a serious look at that.
Now, if you're still hanging in with me, I'll directly answer your ending responses:
In response to you question about what baptism is "for"? It has the same purpose as the OT circumcision. It is a way of publicly identifying as a follower of Jesus. Paul clearly makes this comparison in Col. 2:11-12. We know from Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith before the circumcision. Similarly, we are justified by faith before baptism. In the interest of space-saving, that's the short version of it. I think it should suffice, but I'll expound if you require.
Moving on to your Cornelius arguments: With all due respect, the Acts 11:18 verse you cited doesn't really support your case. It merely says that after they heard Peter's testimony, they glorified God and said the gentiles could be saved as well. It says nothing about them having to be convinced by making the "exception to the rule." as you claim. Interestingly, the recount mentioned nothing of the baptism. Only that the Holy Spirit fell on them, and then they said the gentiles were saved. It appears that the mere fact that the Holy Spirit fell on them told them gentiles were saved. :) My point is that it doesn't really support your theory. It was just a statement of their reaction to the story. Yes, they initially "called Peter on the carpet" for socializing with gentiles, but they quickly changed their tune once he started speaking to them.
Your claim that the Holy Spirit norm was only for the apostles is false. Acts 2 (following the ending passages of Acts 1) tells us that as many as 120 people were there when the Holy Spirit fell. I know that is contested by many CoC members. Even so, the multitude of accounts in Acts tells us that thousands received the Holy Spirit. If there is only one Spirit (Eph. 4:4), then they all must have had the same Spirit. Yes, they received different outward gifts, and the apostles received special wisdom. This doesn't change the fact that it was the same Spirit. Paul supports this in 1 Corinthians when is teaching about the different gifts. Also, Peter said in both chapter 10 and 11 that Cornelius received the same gift they did. So your argument fails there too.
Your claim that the Jews weren't convinced until they heard about the Holy Spirit is stretching it a bit to support your views. Nothing was said that THAT was the turning point. The scripture simply says "When they heard these things..."(ESV), meaning when they heard all of the things Peter said. There is no indication regarding any single thing that convinced them over the others.
To your reasons for the exceptions:
1. As a point of note, there are just as many, if not more, accounts of salvation in Acts that do not mention baptism at all. Here's the list: 4:4, 5:14, 9:31, 9:35, 11:21, 13:12, 13:48, 14:1, 14:21, 16:5, 17:4, 17:12, 17:34, 28:24.
I'm not claiming that these disprove required baptism in and of themselves. I'm merely countering your accounts of baptism with salvation in an effort to show that not every account mentions it, as some claim. That's just an aside point. :)
Again, your claim that "it therefore must have been for the same reason" is a weak claim. No disrespect intended, but it is. Instead of looking at the facts of what happened (Holy Spirit before baptism when Jesus said He couldn't come to unsaved people) and concluding that they were saved, you're using your conclusion of required baptism to construct a reason for the anomaly. Does that make sense?
2. Your argument about him not hearing the words, etc., is completely in error. It makes decent sense, except for the fact that you're basing it on a faulty understanding of the verses you cite. Your claim is that "as I began to speak" (11:15) means that before he spoke any words. Therefore, Cornelius couldn't have "heard the word" as required for salvation. Correct?
The problem with this claim is that is contradicts Acts 10:44 where Luke says "While Peter was still speaking these words..." It's not a "better recollection" as some claim. It's a direct contradiction. Peter can't have begun to speak (meaning no words spoken yet) and have been "still speaking" at the same time. If your interpretation is correct, then one of the accounts is wrong. That takes us back to the error in the Bible argument. If one part is wrong, then we can't trust any of it. Notice that Luke's version in 10:44 comes after the whole speech. Also, vs. 45 tells us that they were all astonished. The next verses tell us that Peter told them to be baptized as a result of the Holy Spirit.
In all honesty, there are a number of issues with your interpretation of that verse. Here's the quick version. I can expound if you wish.
a. Peter's version doesn't mention the speech at all. If your "full chronological better version" is correct, then he never gave the speech and Luke made it up.
b. As mentioned above, Vs 45-48 tells us that Peter spoke and gave them the command to be baptized once they saw the Holy Spirit fall. If your interpretation is correct of them not having heard the word when He fell, then Peter commanded them to be baptized without allowing them to hear the word. Does that make sense? You're claiming that the Holy Spirit fell immediately as soon as he began to speak, before any words came out. But the scripture tells us that, once he saw the Holy Spirit had fallen, Peter ordered them to be baptized. So even if required baptism were true, that interpretation violates your own rules for salvation.
As to your question of what the Lord would have to say for me to believe in required baptism: Considering my years of study into the subject have shown me that it's not required, then I guess I would have to say that He would have to tell me that the Bible we have is false.
Again, I do apologize for the length. It's not a one-line discussion.
Best wishes
by Doug Turner on January 04, 2017 at 9:30am.
Hello again Doug,
I am glad to talk to you, but am at a loss as to how to give you any more Scriptural evidence than I already gave you in my first response. I gave you many Scriptures that say baptism is necessary for salvation (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-39, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Rom. 6:3-6, 16-18; Col. 2:12-13). I find it ironic that you wrote a second letter to me demanding I offer Scriptural proof and you yourself didn't cite one verse in the entire response.
My question is what would the Lord have had to say in order for you to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?
You said you were baptized because it was commanded. Fine. Then, what do you believe baptism is "for"? What is its purpose since you did it? Don't forget to provide Scriptural proof for your answer.
Concerning Cornelius, the reason I emphasized that he was commanded to be baptized was based on how you began the question when you said, "If baptism is required...." I wanted you to see it is a command (Acts 10:48), and therefore required. As to the rest of the record of Cornelius, I am glad that you have heard others offer this answer about the Holy Spirit falling so as to prove the Gentiles could be saved. This is what the Bible said (Acts 11:18). I am not sure I understand your argument on the Jews rioting. The whole reason Acts 11 is in the Bible is to show that Peter got "called on the carpet" for preaching to the Gentiles in the first place. He rehearsed all that happened, and it is when the Jewish Christians heard about the Holy Spirit falling that they were finally convinced. Again, this was a special instance and not the "norm" because the "norm" you are referring to was only promised to the apostles in John 14-16.
To your last question: Yes, it is generally seen in the 1st century that folks had the various gifts of the Holy Spirit as a result of being saved and then the apostles laid their hands on those people (ex: Acts 8:14-17; I Tim. 4:14). The only thing I know to tell you is that Cornelius and the other Gentiles' ability to speak with other tongues before salvation was an exception to this rule. I say this for the following reasons:
1) All through the New Testament, baptism was required before salvation (see the long list of verses above). In the text, Cornelius was commanded to be baptized (Acts 10:48), and it therefore must have been for the same reason.
2) Cornelius and the rest had this ability given to them before they had even believed. I say this because when we read Acts 11, we read of the account of Cornelius and his household's conversion in chronological order (Acts 11:4). When we read this, we find the Holy Spirit falling as Peter "began to speak" (Acts 11:15). Since faith comes through hearing God's word (Rom. 10:17) then this passage is saying the Holy Spirit came upon them before they had a chance to believe. According to your logic, if the Holy Spirit fell on only saved people without exception, then in this case, He fell on folks who were saved without faith! I do not say you believe this, but I say this is the consequence of your argument, Doug. This is the consequence if you say that the Holy Spirit only fell upon saved people and there is no exception.
I am fine with you wanting Scriptures for your study. I hope I have proven to you that I use Scriptures every time I write on Scriptural matters. I hope you will take your own advice and use Scripture in this next response, rather than writing a letter with no Scriptures like your last letter.
Remember, my question: What would the Lord have had to say in order for you to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation?
I hope that this letter might help you in your study. Sorry you live so far from us, but have been to Texas to preach several times. I hope to go back again sometime and maybe we can meet then. Make sure and visit our website as we strive to update several times in the week.
Sincerely,
Jarrod Jacobs
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 04, 2017 at 1:13am.
Thanks for your quick response. Here are my rebuttals to your replies. I'll follow your numbering for ease of reference.
1. I never dismissed the baptism outright. I believe in baptism. I just know from scripture that it is not a requirement to be counted as saved. I was baptized as is commanded, but u was saved the moment I chose to make Jesus Lord of my life.
But to continue the discussion, your last statement that he was saved only after his baptism has no support based on the text alone. It is your assertion based on your belief regarding the necessity of baptism. That may seem like nitpicking, but I'm just trying to point out that you are using your preconceived belief to make an assumption about the text that isn't explicitly there. Th e only thing in that text that explicitly mentions salvation requirements is where Paul tells him to belive in Jesus.
Like I said. I'm not trying to nitpick. I'm pointing out how you're adding to the scripture here.
2. With regards to Cornelius: I never said he wasn't baptized. I said the Spirit came to him BEFORE the baptism. Every scripture reference in the New Testament points to the Holy Spirit only coming to saved people. As I mentioned originally, Jesus himself said He could not come to unsaved people. Paul speaks of him as being the proof of our salvation.
Your last statement regarding the reason for the Holy Spirit coming to Cornelius is a classic Church of Christ response to this problem. I will say emphatically that you are completely in error and pose the same question as I have others. Can you prove that with scripture? You are, in essence, claiming that the Holy Spirit came to them "out of order" from the norm in order to prove to the Jews that gentiles could be saved.
I will need you to provide solid scriptural proof of this, please. Something that backs up your claim of this being an exception.
In all of my personal study over the course of several years on this topic, I have yet to find anything that supports this claim.
I don't mean to sound rude. This is just always the immediate "go to" argument, and nobody has ever been able to back it up with scripture. Most conversations end with the people abruptly cutting off the discussion.
So please show proof of that claim.
I would ask you to keep this in mind: if the Jews were required to be baptized before salvation and receiving the Holy Spirit, then they would have rioted if the gentiles received the Holy Spirit before unless there was a solid teaching about it. But they said nothing.
3. Again, I believe you are in error on your claim. Paul said there is one spirit, and we have no scriptural evidence of anyone receiving gifts without receiving the Spirit himself. Again, please show evidence of some sort of separation in this manner. The only you will find will be some receiving the outward gifts later than their conversion, but never the other way around.
Thanks again for the conversation. I'll be happy to explain or expound on my statements. And I do apologize for the repeated demand for scriptural backing. I've been in several conversations on this topic, and I find that, unless I force scriptural evidence consistently, the majority of people on your side revert to unfounded opinions such as with the Cornelius statement you made.
I'm in Texas, so no chance of face to face time, but I'm enjoying the discussion.
by Doug Turner on January 03, 2017 at 7:02pm.
Hello Doug,
Thanks for writing and responding to our blog. I am thankful to know you are reading these and that you wished to respond. So far as your questions go, I am glad to answer these.
1)In Acts 16:30-34, we see that the Jailor and his family were baptized. I know you dismissed baptism as unnecessary, but you can't do that. When the Jailor was told to believe (Acts 16:31), remember the next thing was that he was taught the gospel (v. 32). Hearing the word is necessary for faith (Rom. 10:17). Therefore, though ti says believe, he had to first hear the gospel, and this is what happened. Based upon what he heard from Paul, the Jailor repented and was baptized (v. 33). Only after this happened was the Jailor saved.
2)Concerning Cornelius, he was baptized, and in fact, it was commanded (not an option) that he be baptized (Acts 10:48). When we read about the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius, it was not to show that he and his family were saved, but to convince the Jews that the Gentiles had the right to be taught the gospel and be saved (Acts 11:18).
3) I never denied that Acts 2:38 says at the end of the verse that those who repent and are baptized will receive the remission of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, this phrase is not saying you receive the Holy Spirit, but you receive the Holy Spirit's gift. This is a common misunderstanding, so am glad to be able to explain this. The Holy Spirit's gift comes to each person when they have repented and are baptized. Acts 3:19 is a parallel to Acts 2:38 where we see the "times of refreshing" is parallel to "gift of the Holy Spirit." This gift has to do with fellowship with God, salvation, HIs hearing our prayers (I Pet. 3:12), etc. In contrast, the promise of the Holy Spirit in John 14 (also 15 and 16) was promised to the apostles, and not to people in general.
3) There is no disparity between what I am teaching and the Scripture because I am teaching what Scripture says (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, 8:35-39, 16:14-15, 30-34, 18:8, 19:5; Rom. 6:3-6, 16-18; Col. 2:12-13; etc.).
Thanks so much for writing, and thank you for reading our blog. Make sure and read this week's blog as we will continue in this study on baptism. If you live in the Grayson county, KY area, please come and visit with us at Caneyville. We would love to see you.
Sincerely,
Jarrod Jacobs
by Jarrod Jacobs on January 03, 2017 at 5:11pm.
In response to your question "What did you do to be saved?" I would have to answer that I believed in Jesus as my savior, as Paul answered when the jailer asked him directly "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30-34) And before you comment about the baptism in the passage, you will note that the baptism wasn't a stated condition of the direct question of salvation.
My question to you would be this: If baptism is required to be saved, how do you explain, with scripture, the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10. He received the Holy Spirit before baptism. Jesus clearly told the disciples in John 14 that the Holy Spirit could not come to unsaved people. Even your Acts 2:38 verse supports this. The verse ends with "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Regardless of your belief about the baptism part of that verse, you can not deny that the Holy Spirit is the gift promised to people once they are saved. There are a multitude of other supporting verses for this belief as well, but I think these should suffice.
So, I'll repeat the question: How do you Biblically account for the apparent disparity between your belief and the experience in scripture? You're welcome to email me and discuss privately if you prefer not to clog up your blog post with the discussion. I've asked dozens of Church of Christ members this question, and nobody has been able to provide a sufficient answer based in scripture.
Thanks for your time.
by Doug Turner on January 03, 2017 at 4:18pm.