SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : What place does baptism have in Biblical salvation?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
“But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;”



So then as we follow along in this- is it possible that merely 'reading' the word of God would be suffucient to bring saving faith? I know the immediate answer will likely be 'yes', but it is important I think because so many have used Gospel Tracts as a means of "winning souls to Christ" and Paul seems to place a great importance on "utterance being given unto him." Maybe this is why so many have said that they read the Bible and do not get anything out of it or understand it. It is mere words on the page to them.

There has to be something (someone) bringing forth the word of God as an Oracle in preaching so that saving faith may be acquired. Once regenerated then there can be a passing from the "milk" of God's word to the 'meat'. When I say milk here I am referring to the substance of the word of God that has been prepared for feeding "babes in Christ" through the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the one ministering under the utterance. A babe in Christ may not have the means of taking the 'meat' and breaking it down usefully. For the born again Holy Spirit filled believers- it seems that they can 'read' the logos and God quicken it to them as 'rhema'. Not to go off the deep end here- but I think it is important for us to pray a similar prayer to Paul's. We need utterance- not so much for the believer- but for the unbeliever. This would then jibe with the necessity of the gift of prophecy in meetings.

Make sense?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/13 14:37Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

Quote:
I believe the proof text used for 'accepting' or more commonly called 'receiving Christ' is:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The question is- what does this receiving entail?



Well, "accepting" and "receiving" can be two very different things. You can "accept" facts which is different than "receiving" items. But you are right, what does "receiving" entail. Evidently this is receiving a PERSON and not ACCEPTING FACTS. Very important. Sounds to me like an experience! ;-)

Quote:
RT: This Scripture tells us that the Baptism in the Spirit is what puts us into the body of Christ. Quite a different concept from the "second work" of grace (after salvation) idea. You are quoting some GREAT Scriptures here. Listen to them.


Robert: I have to ask RT, are you UPC in your doctrine? If you assert that the baptism in the Spirit places us in the Body AND that one must speak with tongues to have the initial evidence of the baptism in the Spirit (which is the AG, PCG, CGC position) your doctrine is essentially the same as Oneness Pentecostal. The equation is simple: tongues = salvation. I cannot accept this view.



No, I am NOT UPC in my doctrine. I hope by what you wrote about the AG, PCG, etc. you weren't saying they believed that speaking in tongues was necessary for salvation. Because that is the farthest thing from the truth. I used to be a licensed AG minister and know from first hand knowledge. They preach against UPC doctrines. But if you were simply saying that they teach that tongues is the initial, physical evidence for the baptism in the Holy Ghost, you are correct.

Quote:
The equation is simple: tongues = salvation. I cannot accept this view.



That is not my view. I had to take a hard look at the tongues issue once I saw that the Bible clearly taught that receiving the Spirit was necessary for salvation and that there was no distinction in Scripture between being baptized with the Spirit and receiving the Spirit. It really messed me up. I was a good AG boy. I spoke (and still speak) in tongues.

But I had to take another hard look at Scripture. I looked at a Scripture I had categorized as being "only for the gifts" and "not for the evidence."

"Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"
[1 Corinthians 12:30]

It doesn't say "do all have the GIFT of tongues." It says, "do all speak with tongues?" That seems pretty clear to me. And the answer he is begging to the question is NO.

So receiving the Spirit is a crisis experience. Everywhere you look in Acts that we are given detail, this is the case. So something is going to happen, but what? This is up to God regarding manifestation. But is manifestation the issue?? No way! I've had the Spirit of God on me so strong it felt like from my belly to my mouth I was like a fire hose and living water was shooting out of my mouth. Just try and get words out then! :-P Take it from me. It's not so easy. And you really don't care. All you care about is that the God of heaven is coming down and filling and touching and indwelling you. In that moment it is all about Him. And you can't deny what you experienced. You KNOW you have Him.

Now does this experience continue on a day to day basis in such an extreme manner? No. After the experience I described to you happened, my body felt the effects for about a week afterwards. My whole body felt like it had ruptured or something. What I am saying is that our mortal bodies can't take the presence of God all of the time. He's just too awesome!

Excuse me while I praise Him.....

Hallelujah!!!! OK, I'll try to finish this up. Here's what I wrote:
Quote:
There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense.



How can you dismiss this as, "well I know that this is what the Bible says, but this sounds too much like the UPC so I won't receive it." What's the deal? Truth is truth. Who cares who believes what?? You don't have to say tongues=salvation to agree with this Scripture!! :-?

You just have to be willing to believe the truth no matter what it will cost you. You've got to be willing to believe what the Bible says even if you are the only one you know who believes it. Truth is most important. Who cares what the AG, or UPC, or any other denomination or fellowship says?? I'm just going to believe the truth. At least that is my passion and goal.

I hope it is yours as well. Look forward to your response.

RT

 2005/6/13 16:16Profile









 Re:

Pastor Ron said:
Philogos said:
You are not listening. Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either. I accept one ordination which is available to 'all and only' those who are in Christ where there is neither male not female.

----------------

Stever said:

Stever's question to Pastor Ron (AKA Philogos)

My question to you still stands, Philogos----
Since we are all "Priests" and Jesus is our High Priest, do you believe in the ordination of women as Pastors and Leaders in the Church (on this earth)?"
------------------

Pastor Ron (Philogos) answer again:

What part of 'Not only do I NOT agree with the ordination of women I don't agree with the ordination of men either.' don't you understand?
---------------------------
Stever's response:

What I do not understand is you inability to answer a direct question about women's leadership in the Church. Are you, sir, an ordained Minister? Yes or no?

Do you, Sir, agree with women in leadership positions in the Church, specifically as Pastors and Ministers in charge of a congregation?

Ron, you have walted around this question, dodging it at all costs.

What is your answer, please. What is wrong with the telling the truth?

Thank You,

Stever

 2005/6/13 20:02
InTheLight
Member



Joined: 2003/7/31
Posts: 2722
Phoenix, Arizona USA

 Re:

Quote:
I didn't say His influence was absent. I said that "accepting" Jesus doesn't seem to equal "receiving the Spirit" Biblically. None of the Scriptures you quoted said that. In fact, "accepting" Jesus doesn't exist in Scriptural salvation teaching.



I agree that the phrase "accept Jesus" is probably not the best choice of words however,I don't care to get into semantics and that was not the point of my post,

The Samartians heard the gospel as preached by Philip and believed and were baptized(Acts 8:12).Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?

Also, why do you suppose that Philip didn't lay hands on the Samaritans? Why did the apostles have to come? Is the Holy Spirit given by men?

In Christ,

Ron


_________________
Ron Halverson

 2005/6/13 20:50Profile
lyndon
Member



Joined: 2003/12/8
Posts: 65
Manitoba, Canada

 Re:

Stever

With all due respect, in your communications with brother Ron, you are being offencive and it seems deliberatly so. If you would bother to read the posts that brother Ron has made in this thread alone, he has answered every one of your questions. Is it so hard to understand?

I am seeing a lack of christian charity in the posts you are making. To me they (your posts) seem to be lacking in humility and I find it hard to believe that the Holy Spirit which you are proclaiming so loudly is leading you in the writing of these posts.

I know I am being harsh, but I am being grieved over the lack of thought that you give your posts concerning philogos. Please examine your motives in this matter.

Lyndon

 2005/6/14 2:22Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
What I do not understand is you inability to answer a direct question about women's leadership in the Church. Are you, sir, an ordained Minister? Yes or no?


1. by 'ordained' do you mean formally approved by a denomination and prayed over by their officers?
2. Why do you persist in the use of the phrase 'pastor Ron'? when you have been requested not to do so?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/14 2:25Profile
ReceivedText
Member



Joined: 2005/4/22
Posts: 257
Seattle, Washington, USA

 Re:

InTheLight,

Quote:
I agree that the phrase "accept Jesus" is probably not the best choice of words however,I don't care to get into semantics and that was not the point of my post,



I understand that. While it is a bad choice of words, it IS what people think of when they think "receive Christ." Receiving Christ happens WHEN YOU RECEIVE CHRIST. When you receive HIS SPIRIT. No great semantics here. This is not something WE DO. This is something He does.

Believing is what WE DO. Repenting is what WE DO. Being baptized in water is something WE DO. Giving us the Holy Ghost is something Jesus does as a response to our repentance and faith. It is His approval of us and His earnest given to us. This is an EXPERIENCE. That is what I am saying.

Why do we tell people who merely pray a prayer yet have NO EXPERIENCE of receiving God's Spirit and NO WITNESS of the Spirit "Welcom to the family of God???" What right do we have to do this? What Scriptural grounds. And for those that know better than to tell someone "welcome to the family of God," why do we think praying a prayer equals salvation? Whatever happened to receiving the Holy Ghost?

Quote:
The Samartians heard the gospel as preached by Philip and believed and were baptized(Acts 8:12).Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"?



This is your assumption. This is what a lot of folks assume. But this is NOT what the Bible says. If you want to see what receiving the Spirit looks like, read the book of Acts. It is an experience.

Quote:
Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?



Baptism in water is a commanded activity whereby the believer is untited with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom. 6:1ff) It is the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is the only physical means of obeying the gospel.

So it is more than just a picture or symbol. It is the action that evidences saving faith. Faith w/o works is dead. It seems to be the activation of faith. (Scriptually of course)

Quote:
Also, why do you suppose that Philip didn't lay hands on the Samaritans? Why did the apostles have to come? Is the Holy Spirit given by men?



Whatever "I" think doesn't really matter. The Bible says that up until the apostles came, they hadn't received that Holy Ghost. The Bible says that.

You haven't dealt with the substance of my post. Please deal with WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in Acts 8. I took good time to lay it out for you. Before we go on, please deal with it.

Blessings,

RT

 2005/6/14 2:45Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

inthelight writes:

Quote:
Based on the verses I quoted from John, Titus, and 1 Corinthians, doesn't New Testament baptism presuppose the "renewing of the Holy Ghost"? Isn't baptism a symbol, a wedding ring if you will, declaring you to be of the Bride of Christ. Isn't it a picture of entering into His death, burial, and resurrection? Does that happen outside of the inward "renewing" work of the Holy Ghost?

Ron
I know we have talked about this before but I do wonder whether 'water batism' presupposes the Holy Spirit. Do I understand you right? are you saying that Spirit baptism is 'biblically' a prerequisite of water baptism? The pattern of Acts, with the single exception of the Cornelius incident, would seem to suggest that 'generally speaking' water baptism was a prerequisite of receiving the Spirit. How do you see this? After all the original proclamation was “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
(Acts 2:37-39, KJVS) and in every instance, but that of Cornelius, water-baptism occured before Spirit baptism.

The Cornelius incident forbids us ever making a hard and fast rule that this pattern must be adhered to, but there does seem to be a 'pattern' nevertheless.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/6/14 3:38Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Hi RT,

Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:
How can you dismiss this as, "well I know that this is what the Bible says, but this sounds too much like the UPC so I won't receive it." What's the deal? Truth is truth. Who cares who believes what?? You don't have to say tongues=salvation to agree with this Scripture!



We have had this whole discussion on other forums and there is a growing movement towards the UPC position in repentance circles. Some are saying that a person does not have biblical salvation until they repent, are baptized in water, and are baptized in the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. When asked if whether or not Wesley or Finney was really saved if they did not speak in tongues- the answer is generally that- "they did speak in tongues we just have no record of it." I do not buy this at all.

So as Pentecostals we have to understand biblically how this plays out soteriologically. The issue gets even more complicated because there must be a point in linear time when a person is justified by faith. Would you consider yourself 'saved' (in the general sense of the word) before you had the crisis experience of this "Baptism in the Holy Spirit"? There are likely to be many reading this that can attest to no such experience and are serving God with great zeal with the fruit of the Spirit evidenced in their life. Understand that I am not in complete disagreement, I am saying that we have yet to fully understand how this very complex issue ultimately plays out.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/14 8:33Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

RT wrote,

Quote:
You haven't dealt with the substance of my post. Please deal with WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in Acts 8. I took good time to lay it out for you. Before we go on, please deal with it.



This passage is generally used by Pentecostals to demonstrate the sequence of the second blessing doctrine.

Quote:
Let's look at Acts 8 one more time:

Acts 8:12 "But [u]when they believed (1)[/u] Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, [u]they were baptized[2)[/u], both men and women."
(v.14) "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might [u]receive the Holy Ghost(3)[/u]:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

Now did you get that? They believed. They were baptized. But until the apostles came and layed hands the Holy Ghost "was fallen upon none of them." (v. 16) And verse 15 says that the apostled prayed that "they might receive the Holy Ghost." So we see that they hadn't even received Him yet.

[u]There is ONE baptism in the Holy Ghost. Your Bible says that it is THAT baptism that puts us into the body of Christ. To say that a person receives the Holy Ghost and then receives the Holy Ghost again doesn't make sense.[/u] And you can't use this Scripture to say they merely were "filled" with the Spirit because it plainly and redundantly says that they "received" Him.



The problem I see in this theory is that it neglects the operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the entire process leading the sinner to repentance and saving faith. The Holy Spirit is long at work in salvation before the Baptism in the Holy Ghost. I am not arguing against the necessity of receiving the Holy Spirit; I am trying to understand chronologically at what point the persons in Samaria had believed and been baptized were actually 'saved.' Reason being, if there had been no Apostles coming down from Jerusalem- then what?

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/6/14 8:51Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy