Are we justified by faith when we have faith?

[Thistle]

And, you're a labelist. Alinsky was good at that technique.

There is nothing wrong with dispensationalism. Its sound thinking.

I suppose that depends on whether you believe there is a dispensation starting in the middle of the book of Ephesians.

 

[Thistle]

Would it be fair to say,
You believe it is possible to schedule a baptism of the Holy Spirit with your Churchs baptism calendar?

What do you mean schedule a baptism? That makes less than zero sense to me. You're going to tell someone, no you can't respond to the gospel now? That never happened in the book of Acts.

As Scripture says the Spirit is like the wind you never know when it will hit you.

Except if God the Spirit tells you he will do something at a particular time [in the form of a promise] are you going to then reserve the right to disbelieve him? The choices are clear cut. One can believe the promise of the Holy Spirit or disbelieve it.

"Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."" - Acts 2:38–39 NASB​

 

[GeneZ]

I suppose that depends on whether you believe there is a dispensation starting in the middle of the book of Ephesians.

Unless you explain how I gave you that impression I have no idea what you are talking about.

And, its not what I think.

But what ever the subject was we were discussing that brought this on, you have surely diverted from it.

 

[GeneZ]

Would it be fair to say,
You believe it is possible to schedule a baptism of the Holy Spirit with your Churchs baptism calendar?

As Scripture says the Spirit is like the wind you never know when it will hit you.

Spirit baptism takes place the moment one believes. With me it happened totally unawares. Then months later the dreams and visions started. I had no idea what was going on. It was ten years later, that when shown in retrospect, that I realized a major change took place after reading a simple prayer while walking to class in a college.

For others it can be quite dramatic when they first believe.

 

[GeneZ]

in Acts 8:37. Why did the NIV remove that verse?

Because they were not afraid to tell the truth.

My pastor always taught us from the Hebrew and Greek texts.

When it came to Acts 8:37?

37 {not in the original manuscripts - omit}

 

[Thistle]

Unless you explain how I gave you that impression I have no idea what you are talking about.

You said "That is why the Lord raised up Paul to present the "mystery" that had been hidden." I assume you are talking about this.

"which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;"​

- Ephesians 3:5 NASB​

Or you could be talking about this.

"[that is,] the mystery which has been hidden from the [past] ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,"​

- Colossians 1:26 NASB​

It makes no difference as they were written at the same time. This is where Mid-Acts Dispensationalists divide history. For the record, Paul is discussing what was revealed through the gospel message forward [i.e. Pentecost forward], not what when Paul was incarcerated in Rome.

And, its not what I think.

But what ever the subject was we were discussing that brought this on, you have surely diverted from it.

You compared Philip to a baby Christian wetting his pants in service of an argument for dry baptism. That's what brought this subject on. Nobody but a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists would do that.

 

[GeneZ]

You said "That is why the Lord raised up Paul to present the "mystery" that had been hidden." I assume you are talking about this.

"which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;"​

​

- Ephesians 3:5 NASB​

Or you could be talking about this.

"[that is,] the mystery which has been hidden from the [past] ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,"​

​

- Colossians 1:26 NASB​

It makes no difference as they were written at the same time. This is where Mid-Acts Dispensationalists divide history. For the record, Paul is discussing what was revealed through the gospel message forward [i.e. Pentecost forward], not what when Paul was incarcerated in Rome.

You compared Philip to a baby Christian wetting his pants in service of an argument for dry baptism. That's what brought this subject on. Nobody but a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists would do that.

The Dispensation of the Church began at Pentecost. Paul was raised up to explain it when they were ready for it.

 

[Thistle]

The Dispensation of the Church began at Pentecost. Paul was raised up to explain it when they were ready for it.

The idea that Peter was not speaking the words of the Holy Spirit in his sermon on Pentecost, or that Philip was not doing the same with the eunuch, strains credulity to the breaking point. I assure you the Holy Spirit is not confused about baptism.

 

[GeneZ]

The idea that Peter was not speaking the words of the Holy Spirit in his sermon on Pentecost, or that Philip was not doing the same with the eunuch, strains credulity to the breaking point. I assure you the Holy Spirit is not confused about baptism.

I said the dispensation had begun on Pentecost. Did I not? I did say that. Why are you CLAIMING I did not? The New dispensation had begun.

I said about Paul.. Paul was raised up to explain for them what was taking place. Not to bring the new dispensation in. It was already begun.

The others were simply mystified as to what was happening to them. Paul was raised up to expound and explain what that mystery is.

grace and peace........

 

[Thistle]

I said the dispensation had begun on Pentecost. Did I not? I did say that.

That does not that bear on the prescience of my comment.

Why are you CLAIMING I did not? The New dispensation had begun.

My comment does not come to bear on that point.

I said about Paul.. Paul was raised up to explain for them what was taking place.

That does not confute my comment.

Not to bring the new dispensation in. It was already begun.

Again this is tangential to my comment.

The others were simply mystified

as to what was happening to them. Paul was raised up to expound and explain what that mystery is.

grace and peace........

"His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" were mystified? To me, that is a pretty odd reading of "in the Spirit."

 

[GeneZ]

That does not that bear on the prescience of my comment.

My comment does not come to bear on that point.

That does not confute my comment.

Again this is tangential to my comment.



"His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" were mystified? To me, that is a pretty odd reading of "in the Spirit."

OK.. I got your game.... nice to have "messed" you.

bye! You are after playing a game of chess, not truth.

 

[Thistle]

OK.. I got your game.... nice to have "messed" you.

bye! You are after playing a game of chess, not truth.

The only way to establish the truth, when disagreement arises about what the bible says and means, is for us to do the hard work of sorting through the sustainability of those truth claims. That requires some going back and fourth.

 

[water only for JOHN]

You said "That is why the Lord raised up Paul to present the "mystery" that had been hidden." I assume you are talking about this.

"which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;"​

​

- Ephesians 3:5 NASB​

Or you could be talking about this.

"[that is,] the mystery which has been hidden from the [past] ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,"​

​

- Colossians 1:26 NASB​

It makes no difference as they were written at the same time. This is where Mid-Acts Dispensationalists divide history. For the record, Paul is discussing what was revealed through the gospel message forward [i.e. Pentecost forward], not what when Paul was incarcerated in Rome.

You compared Philip to a baby Christian wetting his pants in service of an argument for dry baptism. That's what brought this subject on. Nobody but a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists would do that.

Not sure where you are about Paul being chosen... but in my opinion Paul was chosen to go to the gentiles because Peter in acts 10:48 made a mistake, should have never water baptised gentiles in water.. because they were already saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 2: 14
Paul opposes Peter for forcing gentiles to follow old Jewish customs. ceremonial washing

 

[GeneZ]

Not sure where you are about Paul being chosen... but in my opinion Paul was chosen to go to the gentiles because Peter in acts 10:48 made a mistake, should have never water baptised gentiles in water.. because they were already saved by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 2: 14
Paul opposes Peter for forcing gentiles to follow old Jewish customs. ceremonial washing

You cite Acts 10:48. In the next Chapter of Acts 11:15-16 Peter corrects his mistake.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 11:15-16

Peter, in Acts 11:15-16, let everyone know that he had totally forgotten how Jesus had told him (Acts 1:5) that water baptism was to be replaced by Spirit baptism!

In doing so, Peter admitted that he was not acting accordingly to what the Lord had told him earlier. That he was wrong when Peter commanded water baptisms. It was all new for everyone. Peter took a while to catch on. Until he did, he ordered water baptisms like he had known before the Church age came suddenly upon them.

The following passage is what Peter had forgotten about while he was ordering water baptisms.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command:
“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you
have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days
you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5

Peter was making a mistake. I would say almost a understandable one considering how so many amazing distracting things were taking place.
It was a mistake which did not interfere with the hearers of his Gospel message from getting saved.


grace and peace.....

 

[water only for JOHN]

You cite Acts 10:48. In the next Chapter of Acts 11:15-16 Peter corrects his mistake.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 11:15-16

Peter, in Acts 11:15-16, let everyone know that he had totally forgotten how Jesus had told him (Acts 1:5) that water baptism was to be replaced by Spirit baptism!

In doing so, Peter admitted that he was not acting accordingly to what the Lord had told him earlier. That he was wrong when Peter commanded water baptisms. It was all new for everyone. Peter took a while to catch on. Until he did, he ordered water baptisms like he had known before the Church age came suddenly upon them.

The following passage is what Peter had forgotten about while he was ordering water baptisms.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command:
“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you
have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days
you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5

Peter was making a mistake. I would say almost a understandable one considering how so many amazing distracting things were taking place.
It was a mistake which did not interfere with the hearers of his Gospel message from getting saved.


grace and peace.....

The vision Peter had ..
Acts 10: 9-16
he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

THE VOICE SPOKE TO HIM spoke a second time, “DO NOT not CALL ANYTHING IMPURE THAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN .


PETER was calling the Gentiles unclean in Acts 10:48
By water baptizing them.

Peter went against the vision.

In Acts 11

JEWISH Conscul was upset because Peter gave them ceremonial washing.

I believe this was the reason Paul was chosen to go to the gentiles..

Galatians 2:14 Paul opposes Peter: For ordering gentiles to follow all Jewish custom ceremonial washing.

 

[GeneZ]

The vision Peter had ..
Acts 10: 9-16
he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

THE VOICE SPOKE TO HIM spoke a second time, “DO NOT not CALL ANYTHING IMPURE THAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN .


PETER was calling the Gentiles unclean in Acts 10:48
By water baptizing them.

Peter went against the vision.

In Acts 11

JEWISH Conscul was upset because Peter gave them ceremonial washing.

I believe this was the reason Paul was chosen to go to the gentiles..

Galatians 2:14 Paul opposes Peter: For ordering gentiles to follow all Jewish custom ceremonial washing.

No. Peter was following the old ways he was conditioned for as a Disciple under Jesus.

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining
and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was
not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." John 4:1-2

Prior to the church age Peter was inculcated to water many people who were believers.
He and the disciples were water baptizing more people than even the highly popular John the Baptist!

OK I realize now that I did not say anything. I must have sneezed, or something.

 

[water only for JOHN]

No. Peter was following the old ways he was conditioned for as a Disciple under Jesus.

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining
and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was
not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." John 4:1-2

Prior to the church age Peter was inculcated to water many people who were believers.
He and the disciples were water baptizing more people than even the highly popular John the Baptist!

OK I realize now that I did not say anything. I must have sneezed, or something.

Question..
Priscilla and Aquilla
Acts 18:24

They explained to Apollo's more accurately about John's baptism?

Who did the the teaching to Paul....
Priscilla and Aquilla or did Paul teach them .

I believe before Paul met Priscilla and Aquilla he believed in water baptism but after being taught by Priscilla Aquilla
Water Baptism has ENDED.

Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians saying CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel..

 

[GeneZ]

Question..
Priscilla and Aquilla
Acts 18:24

They explained to Apollo's more accurately about John's baptism?

Who did the the teaching to Paul....
Priscilla and Aquilla or did Paul teach them .

I believe before Paul met Priscilla and Aquilla he believed in water baptism but after being taught by Priscilla Aquilla
Water Baptism has ENDED.

Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians saying CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel..

​

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man,
with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and
he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of
John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited
him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." Acts 18:24-26



We are to have in the Church age only One Baptism. Ephesians 4:5!

One Lord, one faith, one baptism.​

Not, two baptisms.

So... What does common sense tell us what "saves?"

Baptism of the Spirit at the point of believing?

Or, water that must come after the point of believing?

Water would require faith + works to be saved.

Water baptism requires that one first be saved! The Jews got water baptized by John, because the Jews were already believers in the coming Messiah. On the other hand.. We get the the baptism of the Spirit because we believe in the messiah who is now here.

grace and peace......

 

[water only for JOHN]

​

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man,
with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and
he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of
John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited
him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." Acts 18:24-26



We are to have in the Church age only One Baptism. Ephesians 4:5!

One Lord, one faith, one baptism.​

Not, two baptisms.

So... What does common sense tell us what "saves?"

Baptism of the Spirit at the point of believing?

Or, water that must come after the point of believing?

Water would require faith + works to be saved.

Water baptism requires that one first be saved! The Jews got water baptized by John, because the Jews were already believers in the coming Messiah. On the other hand.. We get the the baptism of the Spirit because we believe in the messiah who is now here.

grace and peace......

John 3:5
And argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing.

Jews where confused thinking JOHNS water baptism was old ceremonial washing,

What if.... the certain Jew was Jesus telling his disciples to quit water baptizing.


You believed there's only one baptism,
Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Is it fair to say water baptism makes 2

 

[GeneZ]

John 3:5
And argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing.

Jews where confused thinking JOHNS water baptism was old ceremonial washing,

What if.... the certain Jew was Jesus telling his disciples to quit water baptizing.


You believed there's only one baptism,
Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Is it fair to say water baptism makes 2

If we could only bring John the Baptist back and have him tour all the churches that teach water baptism is for today...

“As for me, I baptize you with water because of [your] repentance [that is, because you are willing
to change your inner self—your old way of thinking], but He (the Messiah) who is coming after me
is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to remove [even as His slave]; He will baptize you
[who truly repent] with the Holy Spirit and [you who remain unrepentant] with fire (judgment)."

That is my truncated version of the Amplified Bible - Matthew 3:11.