and they started speaking with tongues, now when Peter ordered the crowd to be baptized, how come they did not refuse to be baptized like they do now days. I mean now days they say no we do not have to be baptized because we have the Holy Spirit because we speak in tongues as proof. It is obvious to me that with this Scripture, one still needs to be baptized.
2007-06-20 07:55:51 · 14 answers · asked by Midge 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
if it was not neccessary, why did Peter even bother?
2007-06-20 08:06:37 · update #1
wow! pick and choose, pick and choose
2007-06-20 08:15:24 · update #2
it wasn't at Pentacost
2007-06-20 08:45:23 · update #3
Oh, I see now, even though it says baptism and it was clear to all even back then what baptism was, now your going to say they just made up anything for what the word baptism meant?
2007-06-20 09:03:44 · update #4
You are absolutely correct. Jesus said on more than one occasion that people need to be baptized in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. The problem with most protestants is that Luther and other early reformers wanted to totally reject the role of works, including baptism and other such sacraments/ordinances. If we are saved by faith alone, then baptism and other outward acts are irrelevant. However, when you take this view, you are excluding so much of scripture. So despite what many Christians say--baptism was a commandment from God and needs to be obeyed.
2007-06-20 08:06:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It should be obvious to everyone that, in harmony with all scripture, persons who become believers need to be baptized. Speaking in tongues is hardly proof of the Holy Spirit. At 1 Corinthians 12:30, Paul makes it clear that not all Christians spoke in tongues. Therefore, how can anyone say speaking in tongues is proof of holy spirit? It is obvious that the Corinthian congregation was made up of baptized Christians. And it is just as obvious that they all did not speak in tongues.
Moreover, Christ plainly commanded that disciples be made and that they be baptized. How can anyone ignore this command at Matthew 28:18-19?
Hannah J Paul
2007-06-20 15:08:12 · answer #2 · answered by Hannah J Paul 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You do need to be baptized still. You must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (proof of which is speaking in tongues). These may not happen in this order. The Holy Ghost sometimes occurs before the baptism, but baptism is necessary according to God's word. God bless.
2007-06-20 15:00:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Water baptism is an outward symbol of what the blood of Jesus cleansed us from. I haven't heard of anyone saying that they don't need to be baptized because they have already been filled with the Spirit. There can always be a missing component in our walk. In Acts 19, there were people who had been baptized via John's baptism but had not heard of the Holy Ghost. They were filled and baptized into the family of Jesus.
2007-06-20 15:04:47 · answer #4 · answered by studnet 15 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course a Christian needs to be baptized - as an outward expression of one's faith. However, we must be careful not to equate water baptism with receiving the Holy Spirit. The Samaritans in Acts were baptized yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit. Many people believed and received the Holy Spirit at the moment of faith and were water baptized later. I totally reject the idea of baptismal regeneration as taught by Churches of Christ and some Pentecostals groups. That is a heresy.
2007-06-20 15:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by helper725 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Error-
Peter did not command a baptism ( what version did you read), he only ask the other "Jews"-for what reason could someone stop them from being baptized.
The Gentiles had already received the Holy Spirit (born again). Baptism would be an after event.
2007-06-20 15:04:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes, one does still need to be baptised, but back then at pentecost, this was first time the holy Spirit had come to us. And you know what a overwhelming experience that is. So why would they say no at that point. but, God gave us free will, so they could have if they wanted. It also says, come forth and be baptised, it does not say all were. As for the false claims of having the holy Spirit and speaking in toungs, it is written that there will be many false profits that we need to be careful of.
2007-06-20 15:10:35 · answer #7 · answered by bear 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe you are correct. We should be baptized in obedience, remembering that it is not the baptism that saves us, only faith saves us. Speaking in tongues is wonderful and a powerful gift, but it is just that - a gift. It can be mis-used and abused - and taken away. All Christians have the Holy Spirit living in them. We should allow that Spirit to clear our understanding of the scriptures. We should also love our brothers and sisters in Christ, and not argue over doctrinal issues. Spend that effort sharing the wonderful gospel with the lost. Amen? Amen!
2007-06-20 15:03:35 · answer #8 · answered by Aristarchus 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
According to 1 Cor.10:2, the Israelites were baptized, fleeing the Egyptians thru the Red Sea, yet they passed thru on dry land. Could it be that 'water baptism' depends on one's perspective at that time?
2007-06-20 15:52:48 · answer #9 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
True,
And why are you giving us your opinion on this matter?
1Timothy 2:11-15 is obviously very clear about the roles of women in the community and in church and states that women shouldn't voice opinions and as they are the ones who ate the fruit, and will only be saved through child birth.
The bible is right, baptism is required and women should keep quiet.
P.S. I don't really believe these teachings because they are not very usefull for society, when taken literally.
2007-06-20 15:03:27 · answer #10 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋