Are you Saved if you have not been Baptised? (punishment, women, zealous)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm focusing on the tongues because that's what happend. They received the gift of tongues (a gift of the Holy Spirit). They did not receive the Spirit, Himself.While it is true that receiving the Spirit indicates that one has been baptized into Christ through faith it also indicates that one has been baptized. Obviously this is not the function of the gift of tongues. According the Paul we are all baptized into the body in one Spirit. Since everyone doesn't speak in tongues, tongues cannot be the indicator that one has received the Spirit.
Black - That's impossible. You can't get the gifts of the Spirit without possessing the Spirit.
Blue - It's either one or the other - not both.
Red - You have that backwards. While not all who have the Spirit speak in tongues, all who display the miraculous gift of tongues have the Spirit. It is not THE indicator, but it is AN indicator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GREATDIVIDE46
I am taking Christ at what He said. He said, John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, meaning you will be immersed in water with the Holy Spirit, since baptism means immersion in water, just like a bath means using water.
I'm sorry - I just don't know how you reconcile the bold above. Jesus said what would be done.
Maybe you can answer this. I posted verses from the gospels saying Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit - not anyone else - Jesus. How does He (from heaven) do this with using water?
The unnecessary and unwarranted distinction you introduce is agreeing that they "received the Holy Spirit" (just as Peter had), and then trying to claim that's not a salvific reception, and/or doesn't include the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". The rest of the NT makes no such distinction upon Holy Spirit receptions - if you receive the Spirit, you're good to go as a Christian (c.f. Romans 8:9)
The only reason it's not a salvific event for you is because you have to make it fit your system, and I'm not buying it.
No, the main reason it's not a salvific event for me is because I've seen a lot of people experience salvation and not a one of them spoke in tongues but everyone of them received the gift of the Holy Spirit. First Corinthians 12:13 is clear that in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Therefore, if speaking in tongues is the baptism of the Holy Spirit we all should be speaking in tongues when we get saved. It just don't happen that way.
That's impossible. You can't get the gifts of the Spirit without possessing the Spirit.
So there really is something that is impossible for God to do? Sorry, I can't accept that.
Quote:
You have that backwards. While not all who have the Spirit speak in tongues, all who display the miraculous gift of tongues have the Spirit. It is not THE indicator, but it is AN indicator.
Sorry, I can't accept that all who display the miraculous gift of tongues have the Spirit, either. I have personally witnessed people immersed in the occult speaking in tongues. I don't believe they had the Spirit of God.
Quote:
Maybe you can answer this. I posted verses from the gospels saying Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit - not anyone else - Jesus. How does He (from heaven) do this with using water?
You seem to have a limited view of the power of God. First, it is impossible for God to give spiritual gifts to people unless they have the Spirit of God and now it appears that you think it's impossible for Jesus to be a participant in our baptism because He's in heaven. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned nothing is impossible for God even giving people gifts of the Spirit while they don't have the Spirit and even Jesus participating in our baptism from heaven.
No, the main reason it's not a salvific event for me is because I've seen a lot of people experience salvation and not a one of them spoke in tongues but everyone of them received the gift of the Holy Spirit. First Corinthians 12:13 is clear that in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Therefore, if speaking in tongues is the baptism of the Holy Spirit we all should be speaking in tongues when we get saved. It just don't happen that way.
Stop (deliberately?) misinterpreting what I'm saying - especially when I have clarified it multiple times. It's like you want to read something into what I write that's not there, and it's getting really tiresome.
Let me repeat for the 20th time: not everyone speaks in tongues. Speaking in tongues does not save you. There are two distinct, but related events happening in Acts 10. The Gentiles Peter was with received the Holy Spirit. They also spoke in tongues. The former is evidence they are saved. The latter is a particular manifestation of their receipt of the Holy Spirit that does not occur for everyone, though it did for them.
"Holy Spirit fell upon them" (44)
"gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles" (45)
"received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (47)
This is completely independent of whether or not they spoke in tongues - though they happened to in this case. For you to take those three phrases and claim that particular reception of the Holy Spirit is non-salvific and completely unrelated to the baptism of the Holy Spirit is incredulous. It's the same thing!!
"Holy Spirit fell upon them" (44)
"gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles" (45)
"received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (47)
All three of these phrases are referring to speaking in tongues. This is because the phraseology assumes that there was something that Peter and those with him saw with their eyes. "The Spirit fell upon them" is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a "falling upon" -- it is a "coming within." The gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a "pouring out" -- it is a "coming within." When Peter says, "Received the Holy Spirit just as we have" he is obviously referring back to when the disciples spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. So none of these phrases are referring to the reception of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regeneration.
Quote:
For you to take those three phrases and claim that particular reception of the Holy Spirit is non-salvific and completely unrelated to the baptism of the Holy Spirit is incredulous. It's the same thing!!
What is incredulous is that you think they are the same thing when its so obvious that Peter is talking about something he saw with His eyes. That can only be when they spoke in tongues, which even you agree does not result in salvation.
All three of these phrases are referring to speaking in tongues. This is because the phraseology assumes that there was something that Peter and those with him saw with their eyes. "The Spirit fell upon them" is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a "falling upon" -- it is a "coming within." The gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit because the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a "pouring out" -- it is a "coming within." When Peter says, "Received the Holy Spirit just as we have" he is obviously referring back to when the disciples spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost. So none of these phrases are referring to the reception of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of regeneration.
Yes they are! Because there isn't any difference!
The only reason you can think there is one is due to very bad, false presuppositions. You ignore what's obvious to everyone else to make it fit your beliefs.
Look at the connection of his last statement in verse 43 with the interruption in verse 44. They believed just as Peter was saying they should, and look what happened. (why else would the Holy Spirit have come to them? and why at that moment?) Furthermore, because it was true salvation (i.e. salvific and regenerative Holy Spirit event, i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit), Peter knew he should baptize them.
Look at the order of what went down: believing in Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, baptism with water.
[quote=snowdenscold;25975642]Yes they are! Because there isn't any difference!
Quote:
Look at the order of what went down: believing in Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, baptism with water.
I guess where we differ is I don't the order of events the same way you do. Here's what I see happening in Acts 10: believing in Christ, speaking in tongues, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:38). In Acts 10 receiving the Spirit is synonymous with speaking in tongues. It is not something separate. And since we both agree that tongues is not for salvation, salvation had to occur at some other time. According to numerous passages in the Bible that occurred when they were baptized.
Look at the connection of his last statement in verse 43 with the interruption in verse 44. They believed just as Peter was saying they should, and look what happened. (why else would the Holy Spirit have come to them? and why at that moment?) Furthermore, because it was true salvation (i.e. salvific and regenerative Holy Spirit event, i.e. baptism of the Holy Spirit), Peter knew he should baptize them.
"Why else would the Holy Spirit have come to them?" I'm glad you asked that question. The Holy Spirit came to them at that time because the Jews were not yet convinced that Gentiles should be added to the church. When Peter saw the Gentiles speaking in tongues just like they had done on the Day of Pentecost he was then convinced that God intended for the Gentiles to be added to the church and we know that we are added to the church when we are baptized (see 1 Corinthians 12:13). No one is added to the church by speaking in tongues.
"Why else would the Holy Spirit have come to them?" I'm glad you asked that question. The Holy Spirit came to them at that time because the Jews were not yet convinced that Gentiles should be added to the church.
But before they believed anything? Um, OK. Weakest explanation ever. You have to really strain to see that in the text.
Quote:
When Peter saw the Gentiles speaking in tongues just like they had done on the Day of Pentecost he was then convinced that God intended for the Gentiles to be added to the church and we know that we are added to the church when we are baptized (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).
Yeah, and not by water! (notice it says "baptized by one spirit")
Quote:
Here's what I see happening in Acts 10: believing in Christ, speaking in tongues, being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:38).
Um, I have no idea where you got that order considering the text says otherwise.
Quote:
No one is added to the church by speaking in tongues.
I hope your arms aren't sore from all these strawmen you're knocking over.
Quote:
In Acts 10 receiving the Spirit is synonymous with speaking in tongues. It is not something separate.
No, they are separate - there just happens to be two things going on at once. They spoke in tongues as a result of receiving the Spirit - a result that not everyone experience, btw. They received the Holy Spirit because they believed. Apparently their speaking in tongues was the easiest or most accessible evidence to give Peter to show what had happened internally (since you can't instantly 'prove' your belief to another). Why you continue to conflate these two ideas is beyond me.
Quote:
And since we both agree that tongues is not for salvation, salvation had to occur at some other time. According to numerous passages in the Bible that occurred when they were baptized.
Except for all those numerous passages when it occurs when they believe. Otherwise you're doing a work to earn your salvation.
But before they believed anything? Um, OK. Weakest explanation ever. You have to really strain to see that in the text.
No, not before they believed anything (see Acts 10:2). And actually I didn't have to strain to see that in the text. The first time I read this text that's how I understood it. However, I did stray for awhile because I listened to teachers who tried to make the text say something other than what it really says, but I could never get totally away from the idea that tongues were a sign, not of salvation, but of God's desire for the Gentiles to be included in the church.
Quote:
Yeah, and not by water! (notice it says "baptized by one spirit")
Actually the ESV which I use says, For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Water is inherent in the word baptism, just like it is in the words bath or shower. So this is a baptism in water.
Quote:
No, they are separate - there just happens to be two things going on at once. They spoke in tongues as a result of receiving the Spirit - a result that not everyone experience, btw. They received the Holy Spirit because they believed. Apparently their speaking in tongues was the easiest or most accessible evidence to give Peter to show what had happened internally (since you can't instantly 'prove' your belief to another). Why you continue to conflate these two ideas is beyond me.
Again, tongues was not for a sign that they were saved since they were not yet indwelled by the Holy Spirit, but had only spoken in tongues.
Quote:
Except for all those numerous passages when it occurs when they believe. Otherwise you're doing a work to earn your salvation.
There are no passages that say we receive the gift of the indwelling, regenerating Holy Spirit the moment we believe. That thought is found only in some of the old hymns of the church. Certainly belief is a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit -- it's just not the only one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
