Why was Lydia Baptized?

[God_Is_Truth]

Acts 16

14A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.


15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

this is a question primarily for mid-acts dispensationalists who say baptism (water) is not a part of this dispensation.

why was Lydia baptized by Paul in Acts 16?

[Lighthouse]

Because baptism isn't wrong.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Because baptism isn't wrong.
That doesn't explain anything.

[Lighthouse]

I know. I just like being difficult.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by lighthouse

I know. I just like being difficult.
I finally understand your "user title."

[Lighthouse]

:eek:

[God_Is_Truth]

back to topic, anyone wager a guess?

[Lighthouse]

I'm going to bump this up for you, G_I_T.:jump:

[God_Is_Truth]

anyone?

[Berean Todd]

Because everyone who comes to faith should be baptised

[Turbo]

Originally posted by God_Is_Truth

Acts 16

14A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.


15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

this is a question primarily for mid-acts dispensationalists who say baptism (water) is not a part of this dispensation.

why was Lydia baptized by Paul in Acts 16? Are you sure she was baptized with water?

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5


And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?"

So they said, "Into John's baptism."

Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Acts 19:1-5

There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope when you were called– one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

Because everyone who comes to faith should be baptised Everyone who comes to faith is baptised. No ritual or ceremony is required.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Turbo

Are you sure she was baptized with water?

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5


And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?"

So they said, "Into John's baptism."

Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Acts 19:1-5

There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope when you were called– one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6
:think:

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Turbo

Are you sure she was baptized with water?

For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5


And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

So they said to him, "We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?"

So they said, "Into John's baptism."

Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Acts 19:1-5

There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to one hope when you were called– one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6

perhaps it wasn't water at all, interesting.

[Traditio]

Because Baptism is necessary to salvation, and dispensationalism is a horrible lie.

[writer]

Everyone who comes to faith is baptised.
To the contrary:
everyone who comes to faith should be baptised

no ritual or ceremony is required.
Baptism with water's required

[Mr. 5020]

Baptism with water's requiredRequired for what?

[writer]

salvation
Mk 16:16.

But not for salvation from eternal hell
Mk 16:16

[Mr. 5020]

salvationWhat makes you believe this?

[writer]

Mk 16:16

[Prisca]

Because Baptism is necessary to salvation, and dispensationalism is a horrible lie.
What did you think of Turbo's answer?

[Mystery]

Because Baptism is necessary to salvationRight! And how many baptisms are necessary?

dispensationalism is a horrible lieDo you know what that word means?

[Mr. 5020]

Mk 16:16So, if I believe at my house on Friday, and die in a car crash on my way to church to get baptized on Sunday, I go to hell, right?

[godrulz]

Few dispute that Lydia was water baptized (based on context and normative early church practice). Baptism is not regenerational, but a step of obedience subsequent to saving faith.

Mid-Acts assumptions are incorrect leading to wrong conclusions about Paul and the early church. There is one NT gospel, not two NT gospels for Jew vs Gentile, pre vs post Paul.

The cross, not Paul, is the dividing point and crux of the matter.

Quoting contexts about baptism into the Body of Christ by the Spirit or by Christ into the Holy Spirit (Pentecostal experience) should not be confused with contexts about water baptism. Spirit baptism passages do not negate water baptism passages.

Change a deductive theology to conform to the Word; don't twist the Word subjectively to retain a preconceived, erroneous theology.

[SaulToPaul]

Few dispute that Lydia was water baptized (based on context and normative early church practice). Baptism is not regenerational, but a step of obedience subsequent to saving faith.

Mid-Acts assumptions are incorrect leading to wrong conclusions about Paul and the early church. There is one NT gospel, not two NT gospels for Jew vs Gentile, pre vs post Paul.

The cross, not Paul, is the dividing point and crux of the matter.

Quoting contexts about baptism into the Body of Christ by the Spirit or by Christ into the Holy Spirit (Pentecostal experience) should not be confused with contexts about water baptism. Spirit baptism passages do not negate water baptism passages.

Change a deductive theology to conform to the Word; don't twist the Word subjectively to retain a preconceived, erroneous theology.

Why was Jesus baptized with water? A step of obedience subsequent to "saving faith"?

[Mystery]

Few dispute that Lydia was water baptized (based on context and normative early church practice). I am one of those few! In fact, an ignorant statement like that is expected from you, because you are clearly not in the few.

"For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it."

Unlike you, Peter chose to recognize that he could be wrong...

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning. "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' "If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" And when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

They were not baptized with water. They were baptized with the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus said they would be.

Paul also chose to recognize that he could be wrong...

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.

Paul says that God did NOT send him to baptize, and he regretted having baptized those whom he did.

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

This verse clearly speaks about who does the baptizing... The Spirit!

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

The "one body" we have been baptized into by the Spirit is the body of Christ.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

Baptism is not regenerational, but a step of obedience subsequent to saving faith.You are once again found to be a false teacher (big surprise there). Baptism is absolutely necessary to be saved; to have His life. Without it you are not in His body.

Water baptism has nothing to do with being saved. Your faith is in the wrong baptism, just as it is in the wrong gospel, and in the wrong Jesus.

"For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions"

This verse says that you are a false teacher. Baptism not only places us in His body, but it also raises us from the dead and gives us His life.

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin."

When we were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ we were baptized into His death and were crucified with Him, so that we are also raised with Him to new life. A life that is free from sin.

Romans 6 is speaking of the One Baptism into the body by the Spirit, not by water.

Like Peter and Paul, you do not have the integrity to admit that you are wrong, but I'm sure you will stand before God quoting your favorite theologian anyway.

[elected4ever]

Why was Jesus baptized with water? A step of obedience subsequent to "saving faith"?The baptism of Jesus was his coronation of the King of Israel. It was necessary for the same reason that He was circumcised. To fulfill righteousness. You don't see many people around saying we must be circumcised. Baptism and circumcision were part of the old covenant and speaks of ceremonial law given to Israel. It was an identity thing. Not a salvation thing.

I see no harm in water baptism as an identity thing but it has no salvation value. We are not under law but under grace. It's sad because many use it as a hammer to control the congregations as they do many other things. Just remember that when you require things such as baptism, tithing, circumcision, and the Lord's supper (Passover) as requirements of the Christian faith as a matter of law, then you are a carnal church and no better than any civic club in your community.

[godrulz]

Why was Jesus baptized with water? A step of obedience subsequent to "saving faith"?

The baptism of Jesus was an example and not identical to NT believer's baptism. The pre-cross baptism of repentance under John should not be confused with the post-resurrection baptism of identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection for the early Church. Jesus was under OT and was obeying the Father and endorsing the ministry of JB. They are different baptisms and contexts. Jesus did tell us to baptize, though, as part of the Great Commission (last I heard, the gospel is being preached globally and He is still with us to the very end). This was years after His baptism under a different 'dispensation', so why make something that is analagous identical when the contexts are not identical?

Jesus is sinless. In your circumcision faith/works/baptismal regeneration gospel, it would not make sense for sinless Jesus to be baptized. No believer has ever been baptized for the remission of sins, but because they have been forgiven through repentant faith (Acts 2:38 is proof texted by Mid-Acts, but they fail to understand the grammatical antecedents and parenthetical issue...repentance, not baptism, leads to remission; baptism illustrates externally the heart repentant faith).

[Mystery]

The baptism of Jesus was an example and not identical to NT believer's baptism.... Jesus was under OT and was obeying the Father and endorsing the ministry of JB. They are different baptisms and contexts.

Wrong again, godrulz.

Jesus was not baptized as an example or to endorse John the Baptist. All you need to do is read a bible to know why Jesus was baptized...

"Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" John answered them saying, "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' "And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

[godrulz]

There is a difference between Spirit baptism and water baptism. The context determines which one is being talked about. Lydia and the jailer and their families believed, then were baptized in water. Baptists make a biblical case for baptism by immersion AND also affirm the Spirit's baptism into the Body of Christ upon repentant faith (Acts 16:31-33 believe and then be baptized, just like in the Great Commission; cf. Acts 2 3000; Paul in Acts 9:18 baptized in water after belief;

Pentecostals get the full picture and affirm what Paul did in Acts 19...another experience subsequent to conversion where the Spirit fills someone in a new way with speaking in tongues (so much for Mid-Acts and the ceasing of tongues when Paul preached the uncircumcision gospel).

Note the story of Philip and the Ethiopian in Acts 8. It uses the same language about baptism. Acts 8:38-39 has them going down into the water, being baptized, and coming out of the water. This does not negate Spirit baptism, but is the normative pattern after one believes in the early church (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).

To deny water baptism (does not save in any dispensation) as pictured in the NT early church is virtually unheard of and shows the extent that Mid-Acts must twist Scripture to try to make the chronology and proof texts fit a flawed hyper-dispensational view. I do not need 'The Plot' to explain why water baptism and tongues are not Pauline. I can read the Scriptures to prove that they are.

Sorry to disappoint those who wanted me to quote a theologian, but the onus is on you guys to explain why you are so out of step with every credible Christian thinker for 2000 years. I would be here all day trying to find someone in academia who would defend water baptism contexts as something else. These same guys would also fully support Spirit baptism into the Body of Christ, even as Mr. Pentecostal (me) fully does without contradiction to the water baptism passages.

Hermeneutics 101:
Is the passage talking about baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ/Christ at initial salvation (Rom. 6:3 baptism into Christ also illustrated by water baptism as a symbol of spiritual reality; I Cor. 12:27)? Water/believer's or John Baptist baptism, etc. AFTER belief (Acts 2:38)? or Pentecostal infilling/baptism by Christ with the Spirit AFTER salvation for power to be a witness with the evidence of tongues (Acts 1:8; Acts 2:4)?

[godrulz]

Wrong again, godrulz.

Jesus was not baptized as an example or to endorse John the Baptist. All you need to do is read a bible to know why Jesus was baptized...

""Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" John answered them saying, "I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' "And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

It would help to have a link or chapter/verse for context. John's baptism paved the way for the Messiah. It was a message of repentance and pointed to the King in their midst (setting up His kingdom/rule in the hearts of men).

Matthew 3:15 is even more explicit. His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness!

The million dollar question is 'what does this mean'? The text answers our question, but we need to dig into first century mindset to understand the phrase. To not disappoint you (and to let you argue with the commentator, not me, so you do not risk banning), I will not quote a commentator (I know, it is out of character, but why reinvent the wheel?):

The Bible Knowledge Commentary (for dummies, not a technical commentary; you can give us your dummy version in response):

"Jesus' response to John was that it was fitting for Him to take part in John's baptism at this time in order to fulfill all righteousness. What did Jesus mean? The Law included no requirements about baptism, so Jesus could not have had in view anything pertaining to Levitical righteousness. But John's message was a message of repentance, and those experiencing it were looking forward to a coming Messiah who would be righteous and bring in righteousness for sinners. He must be identified with sinners (rulz- Lamb of God who takes away sins). It was therefore in the will of God for Him to be baptized by John in order to be identified (the real meaning of the word 'baptized') with sinners. The significant thing about the baptism of Jesus was the authentication from heaven....This verified for John that Jesus is the Son of God....The descent of the Holy Spirit empowered the Son, the Messiah, for His ministry among people."

Note that water and Spirit baptism are in the same context. It is both/and, not either/or. (baptism= immersion, dipping, submersion whether in the Spirit or water as a symbol of Spirit baptism; cf. circumcision/faith/identification/obedience, not merit or efficacy by external ritual).

[SaulToPaul]

The baptism of Jesus was an example and not identical to NT believer's baptism. The pre-cross baptism of repentance under John should not be confused with the post-resurrection baptism of identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection for the early Church. Jesus was under OT and was obeying the Father and endorsing the ministry of JB. They are different baptisms and contexts. Jesus did tell us to baptize, though, as part of the Great Commission (last I heard, the gospel is being preached globally and He is still with us to the very end). This was years after His baptism under a different 'dispensation', so why make something that is analagous identical when the contexts are not identical?

Jesus is sinless. In your circumcision faith/works/baptismal regeneration gospel, it would not make sense for sinless Jesus to be baptized. No believer has ever been baptized for the remission of sins, but because they have been forgiven through repentant faith (Acts 2:38 is proof texted by Mid-Acts, but they fail to understand the grammatical antecedents and parenthetical issue...repentance, not baptism, leads to remission; baptism illustrates externally the heart repentant faith).

Why did Jesus experience three baptisms? (with water, with the Spirit, and into death). Why is there only one baptism for the Body of Christ?

[SaulToPaul]

It would help to have a link or chapter/verse for context. John's baptism paved the way for the Messiah. It was a message of repentance and pointed to the King in their midst (setting up His kingdom/rule in the hearts of men).

Matthew 3:15 is even more explicit. His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness!

The million dollar question is 'what does this mean'? The text answers our question, but we need to dig into first century mindset to understand the phrase. To not disappoint you (and to let you argue with the commentator, not me, so you do not risk banning), I will not quote a commentator (I know, it is out of character, but why reinvent the wheel?):

The Bible Knowledge Commentary (for dummies, not a technical commentary; you can give us your dummy version in response):

"Jesus' response to John was that it was fitting for Him to take part in John's baptism at this time in order to fulfill all righteousness. What did Jesus mean? The Law included no requirements about baptism, so Jesus could not have had in view anything pertaining to Levitical righteousness. But John's message was a message of repentance, and those experiencing it were looking forward to a coming Messiah who would be righteous and bring in righteousness for sinners. He must be identified with sinners (rulz- Lamb of God who takes away sins). It was therefore in the will of God for Him to be baptized by John in order to be identified (the real meaning of the word 'baptized') with sinners. The significant thing about the baptism of Jesus was the authentication from heaven....This verified for John that Jesus is the Son of God....The descent of the Holy Spirit empowered the Son, the Messiah, for His ministry among people."

Note that water and Spirit baptism are in the same context. It is both/and, not either/or. (baptism= immersion, dipping, submersion whether in the Spirit or water as a symbol of Spirit baptism; cf. circumcision/faith/identification/obedience, not merit or efficacy by external ritual).

The Law did include water baptism. Read Leviticus. See washings for Priests.

[godrulz]

Why did Jesus experience three baptisms? (with water, with the Spirit, and into death). Why is there only one baptism for the Body of Christ?

Jesus was not a sinner. Each baptism has merit. You are also proof texting a verse about one baptism. By the same wooden logic, Jesus and the Father cannot both be Lord, because there is only 'ONE' Lord. The early church also believed in water baptism, Spirit baptism for power, and Spirit baptism into the Body of Christ. If you would not cut and paste the NT, you would understand the full teaching, not a dispensationalized, rationalized-away version of NT Christianity.

[godrulz]

The Law did include water baptism. Read Leviticus. See washings for Priests.

There is a big difference between Judaistic rituals, John the Baptists baptisms, and NT Church/Believer's baptism (see Hebrews 6).

[Mystery]

By the same wooden logic, Jesus and the Father cannot both be Lord, because there is only 'ONE' Lord. The Father is Lord? Verse please.

[SaulToPaul]

Jesus was not a sinner. Each baptism has merit. You are also proof texting a verse about one baptism. By the same wooden logic, Jesus and the Father cannot both be Lord, because there is only 'ONE' Lord. The early church also believed in water baptism, Spirit baptism for power, and Spirit baptism into the Body of Christ. If you would not cut and paste the NT, you would understand the full teaching, not a dispensationalized, rationalized-away version of NT Christianity.

Not sure why you won't discuss a topic without throwing in a dispensational slur.
You seem very defensive, as if everyone is trying to take away your right to water baptize or "speak in tongues" :)

Why was Jesus baptized with water, with the Spirit, and into death?

[SaulToPaul]

There is a big difference between Judaistic rituals, John the Baptists baptisms, and NT Church/Believer's baptism (see Hebrews 6).

Rituals? There were laws for Priests. Was not Jesus the High Priest and Israel
to be a kingdom of Priests?

[writer]

23 So, if I believe at my house on Friday, and die in a car crash on my way to church to get baptized on Sunday, I go to hell, right?
Rong.
"He who believes into Him isn't condemned"
Jn 3:18a.

"He who believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and doesn't come into judgment but's passed out of death into life"
Jn 5:24.

"He who doesn't believe shall be condemned"
Mk 16:16b.

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God"
1 Jn 4:15.

"He who confesses the Son has the Father also"
1 Jn 2:23b.

"In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He's given to us of His Spirit"
1 Jn 4:13.

"When I see the blood, I will pass-over you"
Exodus 12:13.

"Him who comes to Me I''ll by no means cast out"
Jn 6:37b.

"As many as received Him to them He gave authority to bceome children of God, to those who believe into His name"
Jn 1:12.

"I've written these things to you that you may know that you have eternal life, to you who believe into the name of the Son of God"
1 Jn 5:13.

[SaulToPaul]

Which is it, Writer? Earlier you said water baptism was necessary to Mr. 5020
and now you say it isn't.

[godrulz]

The Father is Lord? Verse please.


The entire OT uses YHWH/Lord about the Father. Jesus refers to His Father as God. God and Lord are used interchangeably in the OT.

Matthew 22:44 and Ps. 110:1 would show that both the Father and Son are called the one Lord, a triune understanding.

I am sure if you look at all the contexts using Lord/lord (sir), you can show that God, Father, Son, Spirit, and human lords can all be referred to depending on context.

[writer]

Baptism with water's required for salvation
Mk 16:16a.

Baptism with water's not required for salvation from eternal hell
Mk 16:16b.

Mark 16:16, being God-breathed, corresponds with all the rest of Scripture. Eg Exodus 12, 14; John 3; 1 Peter 3; Acts; Hebrews 11; etc; on this topic. And on all topics.

Thanks

[SaulToPaul]

Oh my, writer.

What's the difference between salvation and "salvation from eternal hell"?

[godrulz]

Oh my, writer.

What's the difference between salvation and "salvation from eternal hell"?

I don't get his arbitrary point either.

[writer]

Salvation in the Bible, OT and N, is much more, much more wonderful, much more practical, much more contemporaneous, and much more meaningful than mere salvation from unpleasant eternal destiny.

Firstly, NT salvation refers to Christ. Who is the embodiment of the life of God. Christ Jesus, man, person, God, is God's life living out in a human man. Jesus Christ is God's man. The God-man. The Son of God, Son of Man. He came that we might have life, His same life, God's eternal life, and have it abundantly.

Although this includes salvation from eternity apart from God, eternity without God, and eternity in torture, in fire:
it's much more, much more positive, much more important, much more significant on God's side, and much more worthy of the unique eternal Creator, Planner, Willer, and Father,
than a mere 'ticket' from eternal condemnation to not eternal condemnation.

Salvation also begins now, in our lifetime, during lifetime, currently in lifetime. Hence the importance, place, and necessity of baptism in water as an open, public, confession and even birth. Just like Israel went through the red sea. For their immediate and current salvation from Satan, represented by Pharaoh. Baptism of course depends on faith, and exists only where there's faith on the part of the baptized. And faith is also now, and critical. Not just something for 'hereafter.' But faith alone can, and will, save one from eternal damnation (Mark 16:16b). But no Christian should or should want to stop there! God the Father surely doesn't want to

[SaulToPaul]

So, what does water baptism save you from then?

It doesn't save you from persecution, all of the water baptized first century believers suffered and many suffered persecution unto death.

[jeremysdemo]

Just like Christians to want to be saved from persecution, get "raptured up "before the tribulations..... :)

Real troopers....

keep shinin'

jerm :cool:

[writer]

So, what does water baptism save you from then?
From the world
"eight souls were brought safely through by water"
1 P 3:20.

To appealing to God
"the appeal of a good conscience to God"
1 P 3:21.

From Adam's life
"baptized into Christ's death"
Rm 6:3.

To "growing together with Him in the likeness of His resurrection"
Rm 6:5.

From living alone to living with and in the Triune God as one's kingdom
"baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Mt 28:19.

From grip of Satan as Pharoah to Jesus Christ as our Moses
"and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea"
1 Cor 10:2.

Into His Body and Spirit as our drink
"in one Spirit we were all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and were all given to drink one Spirit"
1 Cor 12:13

It doesn't save you from persecution, all of the water baptized first century believers suffered and many suffered persecution unto death.
Likewise with relatives of mine born again as teenagers raised in Ukranian Orthodoxy. But then kicked out by their father when they took the step of baptism.
And oodles of Christians martyred for precisely that in the 1500s

[sentientsynth]

Acts 16

14A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.


15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

this is a question primarily for mid-acts dispensationalists who say baptism (water) is not a part of this dispensation.

why was Lydia baptized by Paul in Acts 16?

Because she, as a righteous Gentile, and not a member of the Body of Christ, was subject to such ordinances. That she was a righteous Gentile is given by the description of her as being "a worshiper of God" who had not yet heard the glad tidings of the Messiah, much as the disciples of Jon who did not yet know if there was even such thing as holy spirit.

SS

[godrulz]

Because she, as a righteous Gentile, and not a member of the Body of Christ, was subject to such ordinances. That she was a righteous Gentile is given by the description of her as being "a worshiper of God" who had not yet heard the glad tidings of the Messiah, much as the disciples of Jon who did not yet know if there was even such thing as holy spirit.

SS

Sounds like a loophole. Despite a transitional period, the Pauline gospel should be the correct one after Paul's conversion. The historical narrative and chronology does not support Mid-Acts assumptions. There was nothing stopping her from being born again into the Body of Christ after the cross (even in your view, it should be a given after Paul).

[thelaqachisnext]

Why was Jesus baptized with water? A step of obedience subsequent to "saving faith"?

To fulfill all righteousness.
To transfer the office of Firstborn of earth from the Levitical priesthood to Himself, with John, a Levite, officiating; which office of "Firstborn" they had been given from the time of Moses, only, when the High Priest served in the office of Christ/Messiah as a Living Oracle of the Day of the Son of Man/Son of God, who was to come, whose name is Israel and who is the second creation human and the Firstborn of God, of humankind.

Lydia heard Paul preach the great commission and heeded his words and so submitted her old man flesh to the obedience of a New Master.

[bling]

Godrulz, you might help my old Greek on this.
Acts 19: 4And Paul said, `John, indeed, did baptize with a baptism of reformation, saying to the people that in him who is coming after him they should believe -- that is, in the Christ -- Jesus;'
5and they, having heard, were baptized -- to the name of the Lord Jesus,
6and Paul having laid on them [his] hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were speaking also with tongues, and prophesying, (I am using a literal translation here)
My understanding of the Greek (I studied this long ago), when uses a conjunction between verse 5 and 6 (at the beginning of 6) would denote two separate acts. In other words, if Luke is using proper grammar, Paul laying his hands on them is not another description of the “baptism” or even part of it, but a separate act. The Holy Spirit gifts came with Paul laying hands on them, exactly the way it happened in Acts 8. The “baptism” in Acts 8 was undisputedly “water baptism”, was definitely separate from the laying on of hands by the apostles for gifts of the Spirit.

[thelaqachisnext]

So, what does water baptism save you from then?

It doesn't save you from persecution, all of the water baptized first century believers suffered and many suffered persecution unto death.

From a very bad conscience when you stand before the LORD of Glory and answer to Him for every word and deed done in your Adam flesh, in rebellion to His absolute LORD-Ship over your being and against His own commands.

[godrulz]

Godrulz, you might help my old Greek on this.
Acts 19: 4And Paul said, `John, indeed, did baptize with a baptism of reformation, saying to the people that in him who is coming after him they should believe -- that is, in the Christ -- Jesus;'
5and they, having heard, were baptized -- to the name of the Lord Jesus,
6and Paul having laid on them [his] hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were speaking also with tongues, and prophesying, (I am using a literal translation here)
My understanding of the Greek (I studied this long ago), when uses a conjunction between verse 5 and 6 (at the beginning of 6) would denote two separate acts. In other words, if Luke is using proper grammar, Paul laying his hands on them is not another description of the “baptism” or even part of it, but a separate act. The Holy Spirit gifts came with Paul laying hands on them, exactly the way it happened in Acts 8. The “baptism” in Acts 8 was undisputedly “water baptism”, was definitely separate from the laying on of hands by the apostles for gifts of the Spirit.


Muz could better comment on the Greek (do you mean the word 'when'?). I am not sure a connecting word proves anything here, but the context and statements stand on their own in context.

I agree that the baptism into Christ and His Church at conversion is symbolized by water baptism and that the laying on of hands/tongues was subsequent to this as a gift of the Spirit for believers. It is possible to be placed into the Body of Christ by the Spirit upon initial faith and not experience the gift of tongues at all are many years later (or proximal, like in Acts 2).

[sentientsynth]

Sounds like a loophole. Despite a transitional period, the Pauline gospel should be the correct one after Paul's conversion. The historical narrative and chronology does not support Mid-Acts assumptions. There was nothing stopping her from being born again into the Body of Christ after the cross (even in your view, it should be a given after Paul).
I don't understand you, godrulz. In one post, you'll admit that you know little about the mid-acts dispensationalist position (godrulz: "in other words, to the delight of my detractors, I don't know what I believe or I do not know enough of the various views to be dogmatic", here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1498264&postcount=8) ), yet then in this post you'll write to me as though you're my teacher concerning such things (godrulz: "even in your view, it should be a given after Paul").

Since you admit that you don't know what you believe, and don't know enough about anything, truthfully, then why not merely post a question, instead of telling me what "should be a given in my view"? Seems to me that would be the consistent thing to do. But I've yet to see a shred of consistency out of the likes of you.

There was nothing stopping her from being born again into the Body of Christ after the cross.
She was already called to a different hope, regenerated toward such promises altogether different than that of the Body, and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Read how Paul addresses the Gentiles in letters such as Ephesians or Galatians, whose audience is the members of the Body, how he says to them that before God had mercy on them, they were wholly blind and were worshipers of idols. Not so of Lydia. She was a worshiper of God.

[thelaqachisnext]

I don't understand you, godrulz. In one post, you'll admit that you know little about the mid-acts dispensationalist position (godrulz: "in other words, to the delight of my detractors, I don't know what I believe or I do not know enough of the various views to be dogmatic", here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1498264&postcount=8) ), yet then in this post you'll write to me as though you're my teacher concerning such things (godrulz: "even in your view, it should be a given after Paul").

Since you admit that you don't know what you believe, and don't know enough about anything, truthfully, then why not merely post a question, instead of telling me what "should be a given in my view"? Seems to me that would be the consistent thing to do. But I've yet to see a shred of consistency out of the likes of you.


She was already called to a different hope, regenerated toward such promises altogether different than that of the Body, and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Read how Paul addresses the Gentiles in letters such as Ephesians or Galatians, whose audience is the members of the Body, how he says to them that before God had mercy on them, they were wholly blind and were worshipers of idols. Not so of Lydia. She was a worshiper of God.

Hello S.S.,
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

When AbraHAm received the promise of the Spirit, he also received the sign of circumcision, which circumcisiono signs the cutting off of Adam flesh from the inheritance in the 8th day, which is the day of "New Beginnings" and the day of the restoration of all things that have been spoken of by all the prophets from the beginning of the world.

AbraHAm was also given the blessing of "firstborn", high priest and high king over earth, by Melche/Shem, who received it from Noah, who received it from his father, and so on, back to Seth, who was born to it after Cain killed Abel, who had the succession of it to hold til the promised Seed of Zion should come, and we who are the 'Seed' of Abraham, being born of the Spirit promised to AbraHAm, are in the Firstborn who inherits the earth by His ransom of it, and so we are co-heirs with Him, Christ, by that Spirit.

Scripture shows that there is a City, called Zion, which is built upon the Chief Foundation Stone/second Human creation Man, which human being was promised to come "from the beginning" to restore all things, by first ransoming the kingdom; who would crush the devil, and who would, as Kinsman/Redeemer [next of kin to Adam who had the power and the will] marry the "barren widow" and adopt the dead in spirit seed of the first human being =the dead heir= as His own; by first cleansing them by the Reconciliation/Atonement and then re-garmenting them in garments of Salvation/Yeshua, which are the generated New Spirit and body, made in His image as the second human.

His name as that second human is Israel, and the promise of the inheritance of the world to come, as citizens of the City which is to come down from God out of heaven, which City re-unites heaven with the New earth of the re-generation is the spiritual inheritance Israel was formed for, which forming is for the purpose of establishing the heavens in the Name.


There is so much missed by those who do not have their eyes opened to understand His Message taught by "the Tutor", of these things, in His One Plan revealed in the Living Oracles.

The Promise to Israel:
Isa 51:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant/establish the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou [art] my people.

Everything Moses received and wrote was a pattern of heavenly Truth, and copies of the heavenly things. Even the 'stretched out Tabernacle' itself is a type/pattern of the established heavens to come, in the regeneration of the heavens and the earth, by the Name and in the Name which was to come and is come and shall come. That name is Israel, who alone is given the Glory which Adam lost forever and Who alone shares it, in the regeneration, with all His own "born into His Spirit" seed.

We who are born again in Spirit share the spiritual promises [the heavenly -regenerated heavens and earth to come- promises] given to the namesake people of the Promise =Israel.

Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

Some 'natural' branches 'born into the promised Name' ='born in Israel' are cut off for unbelief, and we who are born again in the promised Spirit are grafted into the 'commonwealth of Israel'; Zion above is that commonwealth of Israel, and is the Spiritual inheritance of all born again in Spirit Believers.

[sentientsynth]

Hello S.S.,
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

When AbraHAm received the promise of the Spirit, he also received the sign of circumcision, which circumcisiono signs the cutting off of Adam flesh from the inheritance in the 8th day, which is the day of "New Beginnings" and the day of the restoration of all things that have been spoken of by all the prophets from the beginning of the world.

AbraHAm was also given the blessing of "firstborn", high priest and high king over earth, by Melche/Shem, who received it from Noah, who received it from his father, and so on, back to Seth, who was born to it after Cain killed Abel, who had the succession of it to hold til the promised Seed of Zion should come, and we who are the 'Seed' of Abraham, being born of the Spirit promised to AbraHAm, are in the Firstborn who inherits the earth by His ransom of it, and so we are co-heirs with Him, Christ, by that Spirit.

Scripture shows that there is a City, called Zion, which is built upon the Chief Foundation Stone/second Human creation Man, which human being was promised to come "from the beginning" to restore all things, by first ransoming the kingdom; who would crush the devil, and who would, as Kinsman/Redeemer [next of kin to Adam who had the power and the will] marry the "barren widow" and adopt the dead in spirit seed of the first human being =the dead heir= as His own; by first cleansing them by the Reconciliation/Atonement and then re-garmenting them in garments of Salvation/Yeshua, which are the generated New Spirit and body, made in His image as the second human.

His name as that second human is Israel, and the promise of the inheritance of the world to come, as citizens of the City which is to come down from God out of heaven, which City re-unites heaven with the New earth of the re-generation is the spiritual inheritance Israel was formed for, which forming is for the purpose of establishing the heavens in the Name.


There is so much missed by those who do not have their eyes opened to understand His Message taught by "the Tutor", of these things, in His One Plan revealed in the Living Oracles.

The Promise to Israel:
Isa 51:16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant/establish the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou [art] my people.

Everything Moses received and wrote was a pattern of heavenly Truth, and copies of the heavenly things. Even the 'stretched out Tabernacle' itself is a type/pattern of the established heavens to come, in the regeneration of the heavens and the earth, by the Name and in the Name which was to come and is come and shall come. That name is Israel, who alone is given the Glory which Adam lost forever and Who alone shares it, in the regeneration, with all His own "born into His Spirit" seed.

We who are born again in Spirit share the spiritual promises [the heavenly -regenerated heavens and earth to come- promises] given to the namesake people of the Promise =Israel.

Rom 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

Some 'natural' branches 'born into the promised Name' ='born in Israel' are cut off for unbelief, and we who are born again in the promised Spirit are grafted into the 'commonwealth of Israel'; Zion above is that commonwealth of Israel, and is the Spiritual inheritance of all born again in Spirit Believers.

What about the Book of Enoch? I'm sure that fits in somewhere.

[-FoC-]

Acts 16

14A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.


15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.

this is a question primarily for mid-acts dispensationalists who say baptism (water) is not a part of this dispensation.

why was Lydia baptized by Paul in Acts 16?

Because apparently dispensationalists are preaching false doctrine....

[thelaqachisnext]

Because apparently dispensationalists are preaching false doctrine....

YA -it's called hear-say/heresy.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables/mythos.


shall be turned/ektrepo
1) to turn or twist out
a) in a medical sense used of dislocated limbs
2) to turn off or aside
3) to be turned aside
4) to turn aside

fables/ mythos [-from myeo/1) to initiate [fully instruct] into the mysteries]


mythos 1) a speech, word, saying
2) a narrative, story
a) a true narrative
b) a fiction, a fable
1) an invention, a falsehood

[thelaqachisnext]

What about the Book of Enoch? I'm sure that fits in somewhere.
As it was quoted by Jesus about Himself and by John, Peter, James and Jude [womb brothers to Jesus], and as Paul also was versed in it and quoted from it as he also did the OT and the Gospel/Good News of Jesus [which He learned from Barnabus, who was one of the 70 chosen by Jesus, whom the Holy Spirit chose to send to the Gentiles as He also did send Saul at the same time], and as it predates all MAD doctrine books invented in modern times after Jesus sent the last word by John to all in the book of Revelation [which is complimentary to and explanatory of Enoch's writings, itself] and as it pre-dates "the Plot" by about 5,000 years, being written to counter all false doctrine about the Person and work of the Son of Man/Son of God in all hear-say/heresys, then you shouldn't show your complete ignorance of the doctrine of Christ as taught already by the seventh from Adam which does contradict all doctrine of MAD, as it does all false teachings, about the person and work of the Son of Man/Son of God who is now come in flesh and who was to come in flesh from the beginning, and who is returning in the same flesh.

[godrulz]

What about the Book of Enoch? I'm sure that fits in somewhere.


Good one.

I still find your position to beg the question (assume what you try to prove). Lydia worshipped God, but moved to a fuller understanding of the gospel over time. This does not mean she was converted under a different NT gospel than the rest of NT believers.