Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants & Salvation

[Dave Hansen]

The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. DAVEH:   Yes indeed.....Paul knew that something was extremely wrong.  Had they been baptized by John, they would have known about the HG...... [2] He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. [3] And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. [4] Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. .........so it seems apparent that John's baptism had nothing to do with their baptism, otherwise they would have known about him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  IOW....They weren't properly baptized.  Unlike Jesus, these guys had been baptized by a counterfeit John.  Hence the need for Paul to baptize them again. DaveH wrote: FWIW.....Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? DAVEH:    I believe John had the proper authority to baptize (witness Jesus' baptism), yet those who Paul baptized thought they had been baptized unto John's baptism, but the fact that they had really NOT been baptized unto John's baptism meant that their first baptism was ineffective....unlike Jesus' baptism which was proper and effective.  Does that make sense? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: It seems obvious (to me) that whoever baptized them did not have the proper authority. If faith were the pivotal factor, why would they need to be rebaptized? Because their faith was not in Jesus Christ when they were baptized. The problem was not authority. The problem was that their covenant was with the Father through the baptism of repentance. Now they were hearing the gospel to which their previous covenant had pointed them. Once they heard about Jesus Christ and the promise of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now faith could operate. Before, faith could not operate because they had never heard of Jesus Christ or of the Holy Spirit. Notice that nowhere in the passage does Paul say, "who baptized you." The question was, "have you received the Holy Ghost." The fact that they had not even heard of the Holy Ghost told Paul that something was wrong here. He knew already that they had been baptized, and apparently he had assumed that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. Then he baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, because they had never received that kind of baptism. Their faith previously was in what John preached. Now their faith was in the person of Jesus Christ. DaveH wrote: These 12 had the faith, but not the proper baptism, IMO. They did not have faith in Jesus Christ. They had faith that God was bringing the kingdom of God to them and so they were baptized unto repentance. DaveH wrote: After their proper baptism, then Paul laid his hands upon them and conferred the Holy Ghost. FWIW.....Jesus was baptized by John, and did not need rebaptism. I'm not sure what this rebaptism statement is suppose to mean. What's the point? David Miller -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.