Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10377 times)

e.r.m. · « **Reply #105 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24 »

Michael2012,

Quote

I cited the verses just to show what was the question asked and what was the answer given.

That's tunnel-visioned, assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Believing in Jesus is the first and greatest challenge.

Quote

Looking at the answer, so I asked why was the answer not the same as what others insist is how one is saved per Mk. 16:16, that is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That should have been the proper answer to the question isn't it? But that apparently is not what answer was given in Acts 16:31. Why is that?

You don't understand us very well. Me and those who believe as I do, when sharing our faith with an atheist or a pagan, the first issue we tackle is believing in God/Jesus. We don't start with belief and baptism. Once a person believes in Jesus, explaining the rest is a lot easier. With the Ethiopian eunuch Philip began with that very passage of scripture and talked about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. Even with Saul, they dealt with getting him to believe in Jesus first, and saved baptism for last. How Paul and Silas responded to the Philippian Jailer is exactly how we would first respond to him. And he can't really believe in Jesus until he can hear about Jesus. That was an introductory statement. Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis. The way and when they brought up baptism was consistent. Moreover, they were replying to the Philippian Jailer a question that he had asked, whereas in Mark 16:16 Jesus was giving instruction. The Philippian Jailer and Mark 16:16 is not a comparison.

Quote

The reason is obvious. This is why we can read in the second part of Mk. 16:16, that he who does not believe will be condemned, that is, will not be saved.

That is not a valid argument. Why would Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place if it was not part of getting saved?

Quote

Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".

How can you believe that what's in the narrative is not part of the answer to his question? According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply. I'm sure that was also covered in the narrative. You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31.

Quote

We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that?

And he did preach that! He preached that to the mob in Acts 22 when he told them of his baptism. Mostly though he taught about it, over and over.

Quote

And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?

By now you would have been exposed multiple times to the replies of a number of participants here on this matter. By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way diminish in his view the importance of baptism. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

The thing is that evangelicalism is so steeped in paradigms, it takes so much for granted that this means this, and this means that, that it no longer questions certain passages or tries to get in the original frame of mind of the author.

Like, Christ did not send me to baptize, now "automatically" means that baptism is not part of getting saved, when he didn't say that. It's just "assumed".

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #105 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24 »

e.r.m. · « **Reply #106 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:18:30 »

Jaime,

Quote

It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland? I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there.

Good analogy. Go north, and I'll tell you the rest on the way.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #107 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 14:00:01 »

4WD,

Quote

Perfectly?? I couldn't find that reference. Do you have it?

How about?
Philippians 3:6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #107 on:** Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 14:00:01 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #108 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 12:12:45 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

Michael2012,

Quote
I cited the verses just to show what was the question asked and what was the answer given.
That's tunnel-visioned, assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Believing in Jesus is the first and greatest challenge.

No Sir. I am not assuming that the entire answer was included in the first statement. Rather, it's just that you don't accept the answer as complete. Consider studying:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

Quote
Looking at the answer, so I asked why was the answer not the same as what others insist is how one is saved per Mk. 16:16, that is, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". That should have been the proper answer to the question isn't it? But that apparently is not what answer was given in Acts 16:31. Why is that?
You don't understand us very well. Me and those who believe as I do, when sharing our faith with an atheist or a pagan, the first issue we tackle is believing in God/Jesus. We don't start with belief and baptism. Once a person believes in Jesus, explaining the rest is a lot easier. With the Ethiopian eunuch Philip began with that very passage of scripture and talked about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. In Acts 2, Peter preached about Jesus, and he saved baptism for last. Even with Saul, they dealt with getting him to believe in Jesus first, and saved baptism for last. How Paul and Silas responded to the Philippian Jailer is exactly how we would first respond to him. And he can't really believe in Jesus until he can hear about Jesus. That was an introductory statement. Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis. The way and when they brought up baptism was consistent. Moreover, they were replying to the Philippian Jailer a question that he had asked, whereas in Mark 16:16 Jesus was giving instruction. The Philippian Jailer and Mark 16:16 is not a comparison.

It's not an issue about how you start when sharing your faith with an atheist or a pagan.

You said "Your argument that baptism has no part in Salvation based on Paul and Silas's initial response, has no basis." That's not my argument here. As per Mk. 16:16, the answer to the question should properly be , "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" if at all it is the truth that when not baptized, one is not saved. But that apparently is not the truth.

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

Quote
The reason is obvious. This is why we can read in the second part of Mk. 16:16, that he who does not believe will be condemned, that is, will not be saved.
That is not a valid argument. Why would Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place if it was not part of getting saved?

Jesus did not. For clearly, it is about believing that either one is saved or is condemned.

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

Quote
Verses 32ff is not part of the answer of Paul and Silas to the question asked of them. So, that is immaterial to the question. What we have in those verses is a narrative of what Paul and Silas did next. The plain and clear answer to the question is not there in those verses, but is found in v.31, which is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
How can you believe that what's in the narrative is not part of the answer to his question? According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply. I'm sure that was also covered in the narrative. You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31.

It's easy. The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".

You say "According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply."

No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

You said "You're really making a lot of unfounded conclusions from verse 31."

No Sir, I'm not. I have only one conclusion from verse 31, that is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

Quote
We need only to read the writings of Paul and see that it is this that Paul went out preaching. If baptism were a requirement for one's salvation, wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to preach that?
And he did preach that! He preached that to the mob in Acts 22 when he told them of his baptism. Mostly though he taught about it, over and over.

No sir. Paul did not preach that without getting baptized with water, one is not saved. Besides Acts 22 is not about Paul preaching, but about his defense.

Quote from: e.r.m. on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 13:04:24

And wouldn't Jesus have sent Paul to baptize?

By now you would have been exposed multiple times to the replies of a number of participants here on this matter. By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way diminish in his view the importance of baptism. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

The thing is that evangelicalism is so steeped in paradigms, it takes so much for granted that this means this, and this means that, that it no longer questions certain passages or tries to get in the original frame of mind of the author.

Like, Christ did not send me to baptize, now "automatically" means that baptism is not part of getting saved, when he didn't say that. It's just "assumed".

I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #108 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 12:12:45 »

Follow @GraceCentered Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

e.r.m. · « **Reply #109 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30 »

Michael2012,
I'm touched, I thought you had forgotten me.

Quote

Jesus did not. For clearly, it is about believing that either one is saved or is condemned.

Jesus did
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Baptized is in there.

There is no issue as you've been repeating "he who is baptized will not be saved", there is an issue, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". That can't be done away with, it's there. Why would Jesus include baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion, if it wasn't a part of getting saved?
Paul did preach to the mob about Ananias's instruction about his baptism and washing away his sins. Again, he put baptism into a getting saved discussion. Preaching can be done in one's defense. It came outta his mouth.

Quote

The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".

I beg to differ. The believing that he had done was only after all was said and done, beyond vs. 31.
Acts 16:32-34 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. [33] At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. [34] The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God---he and his whole household.

His family had not been there in vs. 31. All their belief and baptism came after they spoke the word of the Lord to them. And all of it was described as having believed.

You won't be able to play with these words as easily as you did the last.
By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way cancel out in his view baptism's place in getting saved. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

Quote

No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

Unlikely that this man and his family would have encountered John. And he still wouldn't have known about surrendering to Jesus as Lord of his life from that introductory phrase.

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #109 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #110 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:08:32 »

Quote from: Jaime on Wed Jul 18, 2018 - 10:02:07

Mochael, baptism, as evidenced in scripture is God’s mode of conveying the indwelling Spirit and remission of sin, an answer of a appeal to God for a clean conscience. He does the Spiritual lifting or work in baptism, man only drops his clinched fiat of resistance and passively submits. Baptism is NOT a work by man that earns or merits anything. Just like Naaman did not earn or merit his healing but he had to submit to God’s chosen mode.

As to the question that Paul and Silas answered, “what must I do to be saved?” Absolutely Ibagree with their answer. Belief is paramount, but it doesn’t negated other inspired scripe describing our faith response in baptism, confessing and repentance. It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland? I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there.

Baptism is a purification rite. The scriptural evidence that when one was baptized he receives the HS does not make baptism the mode by which God conveys the indwelling of the HS. Why the HS indwells one is because of one's repentance towards God and faith in Christ. Now, this repentance towards God and faith in Christ, as may be understood in the baptism events recorded in scriptures, is what is expressed in the baptism rite. So that, we read that those baptized receive the HS. But we also read of those who have repented towards God and believed in Christ, received the HS, even before their baptism. It is because it is not the baptism per se that the HS indwells one, but one's repentance towards God and faith in Christ that the HS indwells him.

You said that you agree with Paul and Silas' answer to the question “what must I do to be saved?” , that is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved". That's it then.

With regards your analogy of how to get to Midland, I'm sorry but it does not work. When one repents toward God and believe in Christ, the HS indwells the believer and works in and through the man. All that the believer does is obey what the HS tells or leads him to do, letting the HS do His work in him and through him, until he is made perfect. On the other hand, your analogy of one getting into the car and drive north, tells us that it is the man that works to get to Midland. Very different isn't it?

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #110 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:08:32 »

Michael2012 · « **Reply #111 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:48:23 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Baptized is in there.

Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30

There is no issue as you've been repeating "he who is baptized will not be saved", there is an issue, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". That can't be done away with, it's there. Why would Jesus include baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion, if it wasn't a part of getting saved?
Paul did preach to the mob about Ananias's instruction about his baptism and washing away his sins. Again, he put baptism into a getting saved discussion. Preaching can be done in one's defense. It came outta his mouth.

Paul was saved even before he was baptized sir. He was chosen by the Lord. Listen to what Ananias said to him, "The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30

Quote
The narrative simply was not the answer, but is this "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved".
I beg to differ. The believing that he had done was only after all was said and done, beyond vs. 31.
Acts 16:32-34 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. [33] At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. [34] The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God---he and his whole household.

His family had not been there in vs. 31. All their belief and baptism came after they spoke the word of the Lord to them. And all of it was described as having believed.

You won't be able to play with these words as easily as you did the last.
By now you would already know that although Paul wasn't sent to do the baptizing himself, that he did place great importance on those he preached to being baptized, and although he did baptize a number himself, him having others do the baptizing did not in any way cancel out in his view baptism's place in getting saved. You are importing an idea to his statement that he did not say himself. Why not, instead of repeating a long ago debunked argument, reply to the responses already given?

It seems to me that you are saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. If he were baptized before he believed, then his baptism is for what?

Quote

You say "According to your logic, the guy does not have to repent of any sins and he does not have to surrender to Jesus as Lord of his life Romans 10:10, just because these were not included in the first sentence of their reply."

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 13:07:30

Quote
No sir. That's not how it is. Don't you know why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance? And don't you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

Unlikely that this man and his family would have encountered John. And he still wouldn't have known about surrendering to Jesus as Lord of his life from that introductory phrase.

So, can you tell me what it is you know as to why why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance?

And can you tell me what you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

Jaime · « **Reply #112 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 14:29:12 »

Michael you went hay wire on my analogy. It was not to compare what man does vs what God does. It was an analogy mainly on sentence structure that you and others have a problem with. He that believes and is baptized is a very very simple sentence stucture.

Jaime · « **Reply #113 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 16:44:53 »

Michael, why did Paul have to wash away his sins in baptism? Could he be saved with his sins still credited to him?

Christian Forums and Message Board · « **Reply #113 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 16:44:53 »

Kenneth Sublett · « **Reply #114 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 19:04:34 »

Michael2012 is not a reader of the PLOT but here are a few verses for the watchers to watch.

Mal. 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me:
AND the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
Mal. 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming?
and who shall stand when he appeareth?
for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:
Mal. 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver:
and he shall purify the sons of Levi,
and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
Mal. 3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord,
as in the days of old, and as in former years.
Mal. 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment;
and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers,
and against the adulterers, and against false swearers,
and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless,
and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
Mal. 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of JACOB are not consumed.

You will remember from Amos 9 that ISRAEL had been scattered and SIFTED so that not a single SEED should drop: they would all be destroyed. SAVING that I will not UTTERLY destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

SO, there would be none of ISRAEL at Pentecost unless they were pilgrims from around the close nations.

Is. 4:2 In that day shall the BRANCH of the Lord be beautiful and glorious,
and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely
for them that are ESCAPED of Israel.
Is. 4:3 And it shall come to pass,
that he that is left in Zion,
and he that REMAINETH in Jerusalem,
shall be called holy,
even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem:

Is. 4:4 WHEN the Lord shall have WASHED away
the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall have PURGED the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof
BY the SPIRIT of judgment, and by the SPIRIT of BURNING.

It may be that those who refute ALL of the many passages about baptism to be added to the Assembly or SCHOOL of Christ (only) do not have the RIGHT to be baptized and are part of the MASSES who are hostile to the need for them to submit and obey.

Mark speaks of the BEGINNING, the ARCHE or the fundamental principle of Jesus beginning His Minstry after John prepared the way by separating a small number of those still alive in Jerusalem PREPARED to receive the Baptism FOR the Remission of sins AND having their spirit's purged so that they could enter into the kingdom. The least of those admitted into the Kingdom of Christ was greater than John the baptist.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall PREPARE thy way before thee.
Mark 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness,
and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea,
and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,
confessing their sins.

Jesus went out to be baptized to fulfill RIGHTEOUSNESS to be SANCTIFIED AND SENT INTO THE WORLD.

The Viper race would not qualify for baptism in WATER and John said that they would be Baptized by the Spirit (WIND) and separated from the Grain to be baptized in FIRE.

NO ONE COULD RECEIVE A HOLY SPIRIT, BE CONVERTED, BE ADDED TO THE CHURCH, HAVE THEIR SPIRITS TRANSLATED INTO THE HEAVENLY KINGDOM UNTIL PENTECOST AFTER JESUS HAD TAKEN HIS BLOOD INTO THE HEAVENLY TABERNACLE.

yogi bear · « **Reply #115 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 22:18:25 »

Michael, you said

Quote

I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.

My question to you is why is baptism important?

What is baptism all about and scriptural purpose of baptism in Christ name with scripture backing your claim?

In all fairness we have stated our reasoning on baptism in Christ name as being for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit with many scriptures to back it word for word so you should be able to do the same if your scriptures read different please show.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #116 on:** Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 23:33:59 »

yogi bear,
Very good point. Because many forward this apostate shameful lie about baptism being a public confession of faith that has zero scriptural reference, yet they repeat it endlessly as though it did. It's shameful that any one person would ever teach this to another person. It's heresy for it's lack of Biblical reference. Perfect definition of fake teaching. It is one of the fakest teachings ever perpetrated onto Christendom. It needs to finally go away! There's no way a teaching without any scripture reference can stand up to baptism for salvation/forgiveness of sins which has multiple scripture references. If anyone wants to put forward this fake teaching that water baptism's "purpose" is for a public profession of faith, let them first come up with a scripture reference stating that is the purpose.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #117 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 03:02:15 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 14:29:12

Michael you went hay wire on my analogy. It was not to compare what man does vs what God does. It was an analogy mainly on sentence structure that you and others have a problem with. He that believes and is baptized is a very very simple sentence stucture.

You said "It’s like if someone asks me what must I do to get from Midlland?" And this you put in analogy with the jailer asking “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”, isn't it?

Then you said "I would be telling them the absolute truth by saying, get in your car and drive north, but it may not include every single tidbit of information they would need but implied without the paramount part of getting in the car and driving north, you ain’t gonna get there."

You seem to say that, the answer of Paul and Silas, that is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved", is analogous to "get in your car and drive north", and you'll get there. Both taken with all the implications to that to get saved or to get to Midland. Is that not what your analogy is getting at?

That is why I pointed out the failure of the analogy in my previous post, saying:

When one repents toward God and believe in Christ, the HS indwells the believer and works in and through the man. All that the believer does is obey what the HS tells or leads him to do, letting the HS do His work in him and through him, until he is made perfect. On the other hand, your analogy of one getting into the car and drive north, tells us that it is the man that works to get to Midland. Very different isn't it?

But perhaps if your answer as to how to get to Midland is "get in a vehicle that travels towards Midland, and let the driver take you there", it could have made some bit of analogy there.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #118 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 03:29:58 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 16:44:53

Michael, why did Paul have to wash away his sins in baptism? Could he be saved with his sins still credited to him?

As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.

yogi bear · « **Reply #119 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 04:11:13 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 03:29:58

As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.

Michael, seriously can you not see the injustice you did to that passage. You have Paul saved before he repented and yet in all your wordy response to undo the biblical teaching of baptism for the remission of sin you still failed for it clearly says that Paul was to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) to wash away his sin. You can not undo that part of the statement it is clearly stated why he was to be baptized. Therefore according to the scripture Paul was not saved before his baptism or he was saved but still remained in sin which way are you going to go with that.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #120 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 04:51:33 »

Quote from: yogi bear on Sat Jul 21, 2018 - 22:18:25

Michael, you said
Quote
I am not at all saying that baptism isn't important sir. What I'm saying is that what Paul preached is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" and not that one is not saved if he is not baptized.

My question to you is why is baptism important?

What is baptism all about and scriptural purpose of baptism in Christ name with scripture backing your claim?

In all fairness we have stated our reasoning on baptism in Christ name as being for remission of sin and the giving of the indwelling spirit with many scriptures to back it word for word so you should be able to do the same if your scriptures read different please show.

There are many baptisms spoken of in scriptures. Nonetheless, let us take the baptism we are talking about in this thread. The baptisms discussed in this thread are the baptism of repentance and baptism with the Holy Spirit. The former being that which is performed by John, and that with water, and the latter being that performed by Jesus, and that with the Holy Spirit.

Repeating what I have already said, a baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance (see my reply#75 to you). I would suppose you don't need scriptures for that one. This is the baptism that John came preaching about. And so John came preaching, saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mt. 1:2). While John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, he preached that they should believe on the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8). This is the work that John was sent out to do, for the coming of the Lord. Nothing beyond this preparatory work could have resulted from this that John had done. For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3), Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

Now, what is the "baptism in Christ name"? The "Christian" baptism with water is no different from the baptism of repentance that John and the apostles performed on each repentant sinner who comes to faith in God and Christ. This baptism does not take away our sins. Rather, through it, that is, by the baptism of repentance, we step right into and are brought into the grace and mercy of God in Christ and out from His wrath.

Yes, in scriptures we read that when one was baptized in the name of Christ, he receives the Holy Spirit. We also read of those who received the Holy Spirit, even before their baptism (Acts 10:44-48). By this we understand that it is not because of the baptism with water per se that the Holy Spirit is given to one, but one's repentance towards God and believing in Christ that the Holy Spirit is given to one.

Now sir yogi bear, let me take you to this situation:

If the question asked of Paul and Silas by the the jailer were asked of you, what will your answer be? Will it be different from the answer of Paul and Silas?

The jailer's question is "Sir, what must I do to be saved?"

Paul and Silas' answer is “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

What's yours?

Jaime · « **Reply #121 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:03:11 »

Michael, being chosen by God for a purpose as Paul was doesn’t save the person. Which is why Paul needed his sins ashed away. Pharoah was chosen for a purpose by God.

Baptism is the appeal to God For a clear conscience. 1Peter 3:21. It is NOT fROM a clear conscience as some translations say. Ananias was basically tellt Paul to wash away his ains in baptism, appealing to God FOR a clean conscience. God hears the appeal in baptism and answers it by remitting sins IN baptism. 100% God, no magic H2O. THAT’s why Ananias told him to do what he told him.

Ananias told Paul he WILL (future) bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s salvation was not yet complete at the time of Ananias statement about his future task.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #122 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:09:44 »

Quote from: yogi bear on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 04:11:13

Quote
Quote from: Michael2012 on Today at 03:29:58
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

After telling Paul that, Ananias said:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

It's not an instruction to get saved, but an instruction to repent towards God, to turn around from what he was doing, that is, persecuting Christ, and call on the name of the Lord. And that is what in the statement of Ananias, the instruction "be baptized" meant to convey. For it had been so since John preached and called everyone to repentance towards God and faith in the coming Messiah, which repentance was expressed by the baptism with water for which John was sent out to perform on those who accepts God's call of repentance, and later performed by the disciples who were with Christ, and still later performed by the apostles and the church, whom Paul was out to persecute and destroy.

Now, whoever repents towards God and faith towards Christ, it is them who may receive God's mercy and forgiveness, the washing away and the blotting out of their sins by God.

Michael, seriously can you not see the injustice you did to that passage. You have Paul saved before he repented and yet in all your wordy response to undo the biblical teaching of baptism for the remission of sin you still failed for it clearly says that Paul was to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) to wash away his sin. You can not undo that part of the statement it is clearly stated why he was to be baptized. Therefore according to the scripture Paul was not saved before his baptism or he was saved but still remained in sin which way are you going to go with that.

It is not I, but scriptures that says that Paul was chosen by God, even before Paul's repentance. This only points to the sovereignty in the election of Paul by God. If Paul were saved by God's election of him, must I not believe that? Of course I believe that, for who am I to question what God had done? In verse 10 of Acts 22, Paul said ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ Can't you not see by that Paul believed that the voice he heard was that of Jesus and that he believed in Him by asking Him what he shall do? That by that, he already had changed his mind about doing what he was doing and instead do what Jesus had to tell him what to do?

Apparently you don't want to listen to the truth of what Ananias said to Paul. Paul was chosen by God, to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. This spells what happened to Paul. What he is instructed to do are all with regards to this, not his getting saved. To say that his being baptized gets him saved is a perversion of the passage. While baptism may well be the rite that signifies the washing of sins, it is not the water of baptism that cleanses the heart of the man of the filth of his sins but the Holy Spirit. That is the baptism with the HS which Jesus does in a repentant one. While this could happen during one's baptism with water , it does not mean that it only happens during that time. Paul was instructed to be baptized for he was to set out to begin and carry on what has been appointed to him by God.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #123 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:09:43 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 06:03:11

Michael, being chosen by God for a purpose as Paul was doesn’t save the person. Which is why Paul needed his sins ashed away. Pharoah was chosen for a purpose by God.

Baptism is the appeal to God For a clear conscience. 1Peter 3:21. It is NOT fROM a clear conscience as some translations say. Ananias was basically tellt Paul to wash away his ains in baptism, appealing to God FOR a clean conscience. God hears the appeal in baptism and answers it by remitting sins IN baptism. 100% God, no magic H2O. THAT’s why Ananias told him to do what he told him.

Ananias told Paul he WILL (future) bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul’s salvation was not yet complete at the time of Ananias statement about his future task.

I agree that being chosen by God for a purpose doesn’t necessarily save the person, as in the case of Pharaoh. And I am not at all saying that such was so. However, we are discussing that of Paul, wherein Paul was chosen to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. That certainly amounts to his having been certainly sanctified and saved by God. In comparison, that of Pharaoh puts him unsaved, and amounts to his certain condemnation. For God had hardened his heart, and it was for that purpose that God have raised Pharaoh up. For as the scriptures says, God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. God, in Paul and in Pharaoh had demonstrated this.

Granting, and not to argue on this, that Baptism is the appeal to God for a clear conscience, in the case of Paul, he really need not an appeal to God, for had not God chosen him and appointed things for him to do? Ananias instructed Paul to arise and get himself purified by getting himself baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. For he had just told Paul what God has appointed of him to do, that is, to know His will, see the Just One, hear His voice, and will be His witness to all men. First thing then that Paul must do is purify himself and be sanctified for this work that the Lord had appointed of him, so that Ananias said "And now why are you waiting?". For the Jews, such as is Paul, knows the right thing to do for one who sets out to do what has been appointed by God of him to do, just like in the case of Jesus. For even Jesus, who really needs not purify himself as He is clean, pure, and holy, went to John to be baptized, as He sets out to begin what the Father had appointed of Him to do.

Jaime · « **Reply #124 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:29:08 »

Ananias told Paul God’s will. Arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling upon the Lord. One is not saved until their sins are removed. God can abide no sin. He chose a way to do that. And HE does the remitting in the water, the spiritually inert and powerless water, even for Paul whom he chose for a special purpose.

4WD · « **Reply #125 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:42:40 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 07:29:08

Ananias told Paul God’s will. Arise and be baptized washing away your sins calling upon the Lord. One is not saved until their sins are removed. God can abide no sin. He chose a way to do that. And HE does the remitting in the water, the spiritually inert and powerless water, even for Paul whom he chose for a special purpose.

+1

e.r.m. · « **Reply #126 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:00:32 »

Michael2012,
Would Paul baptize the Philippian jailer for a reason other than for which he was baptized?

e.r.m. · « **Reply #127 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:05:26 »

Michael2012,

Quote

Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."

You're working your way backwards with the second sentence to try to invalidate the first sentence, but that's not strong enough to make it go away. What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?

Quote

As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

I think the others have done a fabulous job answering this.

Jaime · « **Reply #128 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:19:12 »

Michael, the first century folks INCLUDING Jesus never contemplated an unbaptized believer, since immediate baptism was ALWAYS the case. That is why Jesus addressed 2 realities: 1) a believer that is baptized and saved and 2) a non-believer that is condemned. A non-believer cannot be scripturally baptized, so that is a non-sequitor.

yogi bear · « **Reply #129 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:02:14 »

Quote

Repeating what I have already said, a baptism of repentance means a baptism characterized by repentance (see my reply#75 to you). I would suppose you don't need scriptures for that one. This is the baptism that John came preaching about. And so John came preaching, saying “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Mt. 1:2). While John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, he preached that they should believe on the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ (Acts 19:4). Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:7-8). This is the work that John was sent out to do, for the coming of the Lord. Nothing beyond this preparatory work could have resulted from this that John had done. For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins, but rather, to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:3), Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit.

You said "For John was not sent for the forgiveness of sins,"
Michael can you seriously not see this statement here is a direct misstatement of scripture. Scripture says

Mark 1:4 (KJV)
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The scripture teach John was sent to preach forgiveness of sin. That is what his baptism was for it was the beginning of the gospel of Christ. Mark 1:1
You can not say that Johns baptism was not for the remission of sin for it is clearly recorded that it is for such.

You said "Also, John had confessed, he baptized with water, but the coming Messiah will baptize them with the Holy Spirit "

Yes Johns baptism will wax away and the baptism in Christ name will overtake it but what does scripture teach on that?
Is the baptism with the holy spirit john foretold a dry baptism or is it what you call the Christian baptism by the way where in scripture is this told of?

Look at what is promised. John was saying that Jesus would give the indwelling spirit in which his baptism could not do because Jesus had of yet not went to the cross.

John 7:38-39 (KJV)
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

After the cross we read

Acts 2:38-39 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

John's prophecy did come true Jesus in the baptism in his name is giving the indwelling spirit just as John had said would come to pass. It is the indwelling that was promised to all back when Johns was baptizing for the remission of sin pointing to this day.

Paul cleared that up in Acts 19

Acts 19:1-5 (KJV)
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
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.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Clearly you can see that Paul says that the indwelling spirit is given in the baptism in Christ name that is what was lacking in John's that John's could not do.

Now that Paul has corrected their baptism in accordance to Acts 2:38 he then lays hands on these Ephesians so as they can build the church in Ephesus. The difference shown in the spirit with in and the spirit upon that you keep getting confused in.

The indwelling produces fruit with in you change you from inside out. The spirit upon is the spirit working through you as a sign to further the building of the church to confirm the word is of God with signs to show it is authentic

Mark 16:17-20 (KJV)
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

You said "Jesus Christ, who alone could effect the forgiveness of sin. And this the Lord will do by washing away the sins by baptizing him, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit."

Here you are correct up to the point you said not of water. It is clearly recorded in scripture that the baptism that Jesus was to baptize with is in water. It is the only one that bears his name that of Act 2:38 and in Acts 10

Acts 10:47-48 (KJV)
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Jesus was to give the indwelling spirit that is what John was speaking of in baptize with the Holy Ghost it is promised to all who call upon the Lord through baptism in the name of Christ and scripture show that came true in Acts 2:38

What you call the dry baptism of the spirit is not what the scriptures teach you say it is. I find that nowhere but in your mind. You and I have been over this several times but you still can not see the difference in what you teach compared to what the scripture back them selves with other scripture to drive home the true teaching on this subject. To many other scriptures back Acts 2:38 and says it means just what was recorded Baptism in Christ name is for the remission of sin and the receiving of the indwelling spirit.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #130 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:20:13 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:00:32

Michael2012,
Would Paul baptize the Philippian jailer for a reason other than for which he was baptized?

No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?

yogi bear · « **Reply #131 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:30:54 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:20:13

No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?

The one of Acts 2:38 just like all the other references which is the one of Eph. 4:5

e.r.m. · « **Reply #132 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 11:48:48 »

Michael2012,

Quote

No.

He and his household were baptized. And what baptism is that?

Since Paul would baptize the Phillipian jailer and his household for the same reason he was baptized, then to answer your question, look at the purpose for which Paul was baptized Acts 22:16.

And
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

He didn't get up and get Holy Spirit baptized, he got up and was baptized.

Kenneth Sublett · « **Reply #133 on:** Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 12:13:39 »

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
and preach the GOSPEL to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth [complies] AND is baptized SHALL be saved;
but he that believeth NOT shall be damned.

Believeth Not's do not COMPLY with the gospel command in order to be saved. They do not just lack faith but are active agents refuting the Holy Scriptures: that is their job and cannot change.

Faith or trust means to COMPLY which is the opposite of NOT Comply--Apistis

2. comply, OPPOSITE to APISTEO

Example of the BELIEVETH NOT

A. [7] Periander, [apistiês] SKEPTICAL,
B. kept him in confinement, letting him go nowhere, and waited for the sailors.

Those who COMPLY NOT Apist-eô I. disbelieve, distrust, was distrusted, i.e. no one could be sure of knowing,

II. = apeitheô, disobey, to be DISOBEDIENT, they refuse to comply, They are not to be trusted, and so of persons and their acts, not trusty, faithless, Act., mistrustful, incredulous, suspicious, Treacherously, cause to REVOLT from. also kleptô meaning: seize or occupy secretly, effect or bring about clandestinely, gamon, to be 'smuggled in' get rid of imperceptibly

OF THOSE WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL COMMANDED IN ISAIAH BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF CHRIST

Rom. 10:16 But they have not all OBEYED the gospel.
For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath BELIEVED our report?
2Th. 1:8 In FLAMING FIRE taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that OBEY NOT the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Pet. 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the HOUSE (church0 of God:
and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that OBEY NOT the gospel of God?

THIS IS PROOF THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW GOD

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his WORD were baptized:
and the same day there were ADDED unto them about three thousand souls.

John's Baptism of SPIRIT and FIRE is to be baptized with WIND AND FIRE.

Matt. 3:11 I indeed baptize you with WATER unto repentance:
but he that cometh after me [Jesus] is mightier than I,
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost [WIND], and with FIRE:
Matt. 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand,
and he will throughly purge his floor,
and gather his wheat into the garner;
but he will BURN up the chaff
with UNQUENCHABLE FIRE

It is reasonable to be "consumed" even if it takes forever. The Word or Logos is God's Regulative Principle and it is widely used in the literature to EXCLUDE whatever you had performed for you this morning. People can begin to be consumed by the BREATH OF THEIR LIPS.

g762. asbestos, as´-bes-tos; from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 4570; not extinguished, i.e. (by implication) perpetual: — not to be quenched, unquenchable.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #134 on:** Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 12:15:36 »

Michael2012,
I missed these before, so I am addressing them now.

Quote

It seems to me that you are saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. If he were baptized before he believed, then his baptism is for what?

I am not saying that he was baptized even before he came to believe. I am saying that, as in Acts 19 when Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed, and then asked them 'Then what baptism did you receive?', baptism was also included in the definition of the jailer and his household "having believed".
Acts 16:33-34 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Quote

So, can you tell me what it is you know as to why why John the baptist was sent ahead of Christ to call everybody to repentance?

And can you tell me what you know what it means to repent towards God and Christ?

John was sent to prepare the way for the Lord and so he did. It wasn't required for him to reach the entire world to make such preparation. To repent toward God is make a decision to turn away from sin. What the jailer and his household learned about repentance and verbally surrendering to Jesus as Lord, they learned in verse 32, which is also part of getting saved.

e.r.m. · « **Reply #135 on:** Mon Jul 23, 2018 - 23:08:39 »

Here's another proof that baptism, proposed as a mere public profession of faith, is a heresy.
I've been looking through different websites of people explaining the purpose of baptism as such, and in their explanation, not one of them cites a scripture indicating it as such. You can do your own search and confirm this, here is one example from a different forum
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/is-baptism-a-public-profession-of-faith.7917833/?amp=1

And here is another example
http://m.grace.church/purpose-baptism

By their own explanation, they should know that this is a made-up teaching cause no one can come up with a scripture reference to justify it. How could anyone look you straight in the face and say this is biblical? They should at least scrap this one, go back to the drawing board, and come back with something more believable.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #136 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:38:32 »

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:05:26

Quote
Michael2012,
Quote
Yes, "baptized" is there. Considering what is stated, taking away believing leaves being baptized, and that still gets one to be condemned. Now take away being baptized leaves believing. Does that gets one to be condemned? The statement obviously tells us the answer, which is, NO. If not getting baptized gets one to be not saved and so is condemned, the statement obviously is lacking. It should have been "..but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned."
You're working your way backwards with the second sentence to try to invalidate the first sentence, but that's not strong enough to make it go away. What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?

No Sir. I don't intend to invalidate any part of the statement sir. I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned. Would you like me to cite scriptures? Had not Jesus said in John 3:18, "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

As with e.r.m., consider studying the following:

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Consider also this passage:

John 11:25-27
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

You asked "What is baptism doing there in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place?"

What else, but to be taken in connection to believing. For in baptism, one repents towards God and faith towards Christ. It is this repentance towards God and faith towards Christ that one receives forgiveness of sins. And this is why we read scriptures that says "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin".

One would ask, would one who repents towards God and faith towards Christ, be forgiven of his sins, even when he is not yet baptized, or before he is baptized, or when he is baptized at a later time, or when there is no time to be baptized?

Quote from: e.r.m. on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:05:26

Quote
As I pointed out, Paul was saved, not because he washed away his sins in baptism. Paul was saved because he was chosen by God. Listen to what Ananias said to him:

"The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard."

I think the others have done a fabulous job answering this.

And I forgot to add, Paul was saved because he repented and believed in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes they have done a fabulous job, but answering what? The fabulous thing that they can do is to listen and try to understand what Ananias said to Paul. It was an unconditional election and appointment by God of Paul. If they don't see that as the salvation of Paul, who himself confessed and considers himself as the chief of sinners, but insist that Paul was saved because he was baptized with water, then they have closed their eyes to the truth that salvation belongs to God and is the work of God and is accomplished by God.

4WD · « **Reply #137 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:47:18 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 08:38:32

I was just trying to point out to you that it is the matter of believing or faith that is really that which tells whether one is saved or is condemned.

And now you have to define what it means to believe. Can you believe the gospel and yet reject the gospel and still be saved? I don't think so.

Michael2012 · « **Reply #138 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:11:38 »

Quote from: Jaime on Sun Jul 22, 2018 - 10:19:12

Michael, the first century folks INCLUDING Jesus never contemplated an unbaptized believer, since immediate baptism was ALWAYS the case. That is why Jesus addressed 2 realities: 1) a believer that is baptized and saved and 2) a non-believer that is condemned. A non-believer cannot be scripturally baptized, so that is a non-sequitor.

That is not quite right sir. A believer is a believer the moment he believes in his heart, in God and in Christ. And if you will think about it, that is repentance towards God and towards Christ. Getting baptized may well be the outward expression of the repentance and faith that comes from within the heart and the confession of it. A believer in Christ is saved not really because he is baptized with water, but because God had forgiven him of all the sins he had done. And that because of Christ. Having believed, the believer was sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, in Christ.

A non-believer, needless to say, is condemned, for he is not in Christ. Now, can a false believer get himself baptized? Yes he can. For he can lie about believing, and say that he believes in Christ and so may be baptized by the unsuspecting minister. For no man truly knows the heart of man. That the minister could then just presume that one who confesses to repent and believe in Christ is truthful and so baptizes him.

4WD · « **Reply #139 on:** Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:58:13 »

Quote from: Michael2012 on Tue Jul 24, 2018 - 09:11:38

That is not quite right sir.

He is absolutely right. Anyone with a lick of sense, understands what it means when Jesus said, "believes AND is baptized". It means that both are included -- Period. Any argument to the contrary is simply a demonstration of ignorance of language.

Now if you can find any scriptural statement that says that there is no need for baptism, that would be different. But of curse you can't.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Romans 3:25 (Read 10377 times)

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board

Christian Forums and Message Board