Colossians 2:12 - The baptism with the Holy Spirit

Posted in the Bassett Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 135 Comments Last updated Oct 28, 2013
First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Marc Taylor

Zhengzhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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 (Colossians 2:11, 12, NASB).

All who have undergone this baptism have at the same time experienced the “circumcision of Christ”(Colossians 2:11). The “true circumcision”(i.e., Christians)“worship in the Spirit”(Philippians 3:3). Since the Gentiles possessed the Holy Spirit and were worshiping in the Spirit (cf. Acts 10:46) this means they were the “true circumcision”/Christians before their water baptism.

Concerning Colossians 2:11:
1. NIDNTT: The already established link between Pentecost, covenant renewal and the giving of the law probably prompted the first believers to interpret their experience of Spirit as the fulfillment of the promise of a new -> covenant, as the -> law written in their hearts (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:31-4; Ezek. 36:26 f.; 37:14; cf. Acts 2:38 f.; 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; Heb. 10:15 f., 29). But the implications of this insight for continuing faith and conduct were not recognized and elaborated until Paul (Rom. 2:28 f.; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3:1-4:7; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11; 1 Thess. 4:8)(2:786, Pentecost, J.D.G. Dunn).

Concerning worshiping in the Spirit (Acts 10:46):
1. NIDNTT: When later in Caesarea the first pagans received the Holy Spirit and became members of the church, they also shared in the grace of worshipping and praising God "in other tongues", as again later the disciples of John the Baptist who became believers in Ephesus (Acts 10:46; 19:6)(3:1080, Word, H. Haarbeck).
Josh

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he who believes not will be condemned. Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Acts 19:5-6.....they where baptized... AND when Paul laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came upon them. The Ephesians where baptized in water. So Ephesians 4:5 could not be talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There is only two examples of that. The Apostles Acts 2. And Acts 10:44-45 Which was a sign that gentiles where to be saved too. The apostles had the power to lay hands on you and give you a gift. The baptism for us today is water baptism for the remission of sins. Acts 2:28, Acts 22:16. It is a commandment Acts 10:48. Acts 2:41&47 says the Lord added to the church daily. What is the church? Ephesians 1:22-23 It is his body. How do we get into that body?Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27. You are baptized into it. Jesus is head over the body the savoir of the church.
William

Birmingham, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Acts 3:19 (KJV)

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Interesting then that Peter never told these Jews that their sins were "washed away when they came up out of the water", as some today insist regarding water baptism.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Laying on of hands = Sacraments

Church = Catholic Church

Body of Christ = Church
Josh

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

William wrote:
Acts 3:19 (KJV)
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Interesting then that Peter never told these Jews that their sins were "washed away when they came up out of the water", as some today insist regarding water baptism.

John 3:16 says I don't even have to repent. I guess one verse salvation is the way to go...Mark 16:16 and acts 2:38 say it's necessary. Mathews account of the great commission says to make disciples baptizing them in the name of the father son and holy ghost. That puts the Christian IM the role of baptizer. So it has to be water baptism because no man can baptize you will the holy spirit.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Josh wrote:
<quoted text>
John 3:16 says I don't even have to repent. I guess one verse salvation is the way to go...
I wouldn’t be knocking one-verse salvation too hard if I were you because at the end of the day if you believe you have to be water-baptized to be saved then that is exactly what you are left with, one-verse salvation.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn’t be knocking one-verse salvation too hard if I were you because at the end of the day if you believe you have to be water-baptized to be saved then that is exactly what you are left with, one-verse salvation.
At the end of the day, all of you Prots have picked out whatever verse your parents taught you to put your salvation hopes on.

"they ain't just one"
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
At the end of the day, all of you Prots have picked out whatever verse your parents taught you to put your salvation hopes on.
"they ain't just one"
I love Catholics. God does too!:-)

II Timothy 3:14-15 “But CONTINUE thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a CHILD thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus.”

Paul is telling Timothy what to preach so that he will be able to lead others to Christ. He tells him to preach from the scriptures that he (Timothy) studied as a child because those scriptures contained sufficient directions for leading others to Christ.

The only scriptures that existed at the time of Timothy’s childhood were the OT because none of the NT that mentions baptism had been written yet.

Since Paul tells Timothy to preach from the OT so that others can be saved, and since baptism isn’t in the OT, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.

Instead of baptism for salvation being a one-verse doctrine, it’s actually a no-verse doctrine.
William

Jacksons Gap, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 18, 2013
 
xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn’t be knocking one-verse salvation too hard if I were you because at the end of the day if you believe you have to be water-baptized to be saved then that is exactly what you are left with, one-verse salvation.
And Acts 2 is really the condensed version of the entire Bible. Catholic or Protestant.

Warmed over Judaism.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I love Catholics. God does too!:-)
II Timothy 3:14-15 “But CONTINUE thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a CHILD thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus.”
Paul is telling Timothy what to preach so that he will be able to lead others to Christ. He tells him to preach from the scriptures that he (Timothy) studied as a child because those scriptures contained sufficient directions for leading others to Christ.
The only scriptures that existed at the time of Timothy’s childhood were the OT because none of the NT that mentions baptism had been written yet.
Since Paul tells Timothy to preach from the OT so that others can be saved, and since baptism isn’t in the OT, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.
Instead of baptism for salvation being a one-verse doctrine, it’s actually a no-verse doctrine.
That is one verse description of something. I don't know what. First I ever heard of that interpretation.

But you are just as right as any other Protestant. I think you make # 40,989 protestant communities.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

We = Church

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

us = Church
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is one verse description of something.
There’s really no description necessary. The only thing we have to figure out is what scripture existed at the time of Timothy’s childhood and then look and see what that scripture says about being saved.
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text> First I ever heard of that interpretation.
Glad I could be of assistance.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
There’s really no description necessary. The only thing we have to figure out is what scripture existed at the time of Timothy’s childhood and then look and see what that scripture says about being saved.
<quoted text>
Glad I could be of assistance.
Just wondering what if you were one of the 95% of the population who could not read. For 1400 years the illiteracy rate never got lower than 90%.

It's hard to be Sola Scripturarized if you can't read.

Were you doomed to hell by being ignorant?
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Just wondering what if you were one of the 95% of the population who could not read. For 1400 years the illiteracy rate never got lower than 90%.
It's hard to be Sola Scripturarized if you can't read.
Were you doomed to hell by being ignorant?
By raising the Sola Scriptura argument you are conceding that the scripture Paul is speaking of in II Timothy 3 is that of the OT and not any verse mentioning baptism. In doing this, your earlier statement saying “they aint just one” regarding baptism not being a one-verse doctrine is rendered moot.

The point you are now implying also fails, and it does so for a number of reasons:

1.) Paul tells Timothy to preach the OT. He does not tell him to preach traditions of men that may or may not someday be considered scripture. If Timothy preached the path to salvation any different than that found in the OT by either adding to it or taking from it, he preached error, just as the supposed first pope taught error regarding circumcision and was rebuked for it by Paul in Galatians. This in and of itself should shoot down the supposed notion of the infallibility of the religious leadership.

2.) The Levitical Priesthood could make the same claim that the Catholic Church is making today as it was unquestionably ordained by God. Yet when Jesus came, a large portion of his sermons focused on the errors of the religious elite. This also should shoot down the supposed notion of the infallibility of the religious leadership.

3.) Claims of the literacy rate being too low for anyone to understand the Bible without the leadership of man are unfounded due to the example in Acts of the Bereans.

4.) The literacy rate was probably even lower in the days of the OT than it has ever been in the Church Age, yet, again this does not automatically mean that the Pharisees or any of the other sects were infallible and should not be used to show that the church is infallible either.

5.) The occurrences of the Catholic Church chaining Bibles to the church building for the ostensible purpose of allowing everyone to read it due to the overall scarcity of books also shows that the literacy rate was not as low as you claim. http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/did-the-c...
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
By raising the Sola Scriptura argument you are conceding that the scripture Paul is speaking of in II Timothy 3 is that of the OT and not any verse mentioning baptism. In doing this, your earlier statement saying “they aint just one” regarding baptism not being a one-verse doctrine is rendered moot.
The point you are now implying also fails, and it does so for a number of reasons:
1.) Paul tells Timothy to preach the OT. He does not tell him to preach traditions of men that may or may not someday be considered scripture. If Timothy preached the path to salvation any different than that found in the OT by either adding to it or taking from it, he preached error, just as the supposed first pope taught error regarding circumcision and was rebuked for it by Paul in Galatians. This in and of itself should shoot down the supposed notion of the infallibility of the religious leadership.
2.) The Levitical Priesthood could make the same claim that the Catholic Church is making today as it was unquestionably ordained by God. Yet when Jesus came, a large portion of his sermons focused on the errors of the religious elite. This also should shoot down the supposed notion of the infallibility of the religious leadership.
3.) Claims of the literacy rate being too low for anyone to understand the Bible without the leadership of man are unfounded due to the example in Acts of the Bereans.
4.) The literacy rate was probably even lower in the days of the OT than it has ever been in the Church Age, yet, again this does not automatically mean that the Pharisees or any of the other sects were infallible and should not be used to show that the church is infallible either.
5.) The occurrences of the Catholic Church chaining Bibles to the church building for the ostensible purpose of allowing everyone to read it due to the overall scarcity of books also shows that the literacy rate was not as low as you claim. http://fallibleblogma.com/index.php/did-the-c...
Your knowledge of history appears to be very poor and your private interpretation of the Catholic book called the Bible means something only to you.

The Berean priests agreed with everything that Paul, the Church, taught about the OT. They were more noble than the Thesslonians who kept believing their own interpretation.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

If it’s a Catholic book then maybe Catholics should actually...read it, instead of letting others decide what it means for them.

The Bereans didn’t tell Paul to go talk to the Pharisees claiming that the Pharisees were always right because of tradition. They did the exact opposite of what you claim and looked at the scriptures themselves instead of relying on the interpretations of the ruling elite. That’s why they were more noble than the Thessalonians, who trustingly clung to the traditions of the Jews.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I love Catholics. God does too!:-)
II Timothy 3:14-15 “But CONTINUE thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a CHILD thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto SALVATION through FAITH which is in Christ Jesus.”
Paul is telling Timothy what to preach so that he will be able to lead others to Christ. He tells him to preach from the scriptures that he (Timothy) studied as a child because those scriptures contained sufficient directions for leading others to Christ.
The only scriptures that existed at the time of Timothy’s childhood were the OT because none of the NT that mentions baptism had been written yet.
Since Paul tells Timothy to preach from the OT so that others can be saved, and since baptism isn’t in the OT, baptism isn’t necessary for salvation.
Problems with your logic- Paul had written all of his letters except Titus by this point; not factoring in oral teachings by others; baptism indeed is in the OT in shadows and types; Peter's Pentecost sermons and others were spoken 30 years prior. Timothy had already been with Paul previously, why would he not know what to preach?

Not a good logical attempt.
xxx

Nashville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Problems with your logic- Paul had written all of his letters except Titus by this point; not factoring in oral teachings by others; baptism indeed is in the OT in shadows and types; Peter's Pentecost sermons and others were spoken 30 years prior. Timothy had already been with Paul previously, why would he not know what to preach?
Not a good logical attempt.
You missed my point. Yes virtually all of Paul’s epistles had been written at this time, but Paul does not tell Timothy to preach his (Paul’s) epistles. He tells him to continue to preach from the scripture that existed at the time of his (Timothy’s) childhood and that would be the OT.

Example: Timothy is first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 16. From this, we can see that the events and writing of Acts came after Timothy had already reached adulthood. Because of this, Acts 2:38 cannot be part of the scripture that Paul is telling Timothy to preach in II Timothy 3:14-15 because Acts 2:38 did not exist at the time of his (Timothy’s) childhood.

Even if baptism is in the OT as a type (I do not accept this BTW), it is not taught in it as the means by which we access the blood of Jesus. Yes there are ritualistic washings, but to say that these washings are the equivalent to baptism is to say that the blood of goats and calves is equivalent to the blood of The One.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

xxx wrote:
If it’s a Catholic book then maybe Catholics should actually...read it, instead of letting others decide what it means for them.
The Bereans didn’t tell Paul to go talk to the Pharisees claiming that the Pharisees were always right because of tradition. They did the exact opposite of what you claim and looked at the scriptures themselves instead of relying on the interpretations of the ruling elite. That’s why they were more noble than the Thessalonians, who trustingly clung to the traditions of the Jews.
If you think Sola Scirptura is what the Bible teaches, then why is the Church's interpretation wrong? Then you don't believe in Sola Sciptura, you believe in xxx scpriptrua.

Think about has asinine Sola Scriptura has to be. Everybody believe what you want.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah....

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures....

Why did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Because they were the sole source of revelation and authority? No, but to see if Paul was in line with what they already knew—to confirm additional revelation. They would not submit blindly to his apostolic teaching and oral tradition, but, once they accepted the credibility of Paul’s teaching as the oral word of God, they put it on a par with Scripture and recognized its binding authority. After that, like the converts who believed in Thessalonica, they espoused apostolic Tradition and the Old Testament equally as God’s word (see 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:16). Therefore they accepted apostolic authority, which means that the determinations of Peter in the first Church council, reported in Acts 15, would have been binding on these new Gentile converts.

By contrast, the Jews of Thessalonica would have condemned Peter’s biblical exegesis at the Council of Jerusalem. They would have scoffed at the Church’s having authority over them—the Torah was all they needed.

But the Bereans received "the word" (i.e., oral teaching; proclamation) with eagerness. They were open to it (that is why Paul commended them). Then they went to the Scriptures to confirm Paul's oral teaching. In other words, it was a "both / and" methodology. They weren't opposing one thing to the other. Both were true, and their harmony with each other confirmed that. They didn't rule out the possibility that the oral proclamation was true (simply because it was oral); they merely confirmed it from existing written, inspired revelation.
William

Cusseta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 19, 2013
 
"The things that thou hast heard of me, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the cross. So he didn't tell Timothy to baptize, lay hands on anybody, or anything about Peter "being in charge", etc.

It would have been better for Catholics and Protestants if 1 Corinthians 1 had been edited to take out Paul's statement about baptism. Then the unrelenting water baptism worship could've been truly legitimized.

Can we get a new translation?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 7
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••