different instructions

[Jaime]

Also for the record there is not two separate instructions nor two different gospels. Therw is ONE gospel.

[RichardBurger]

Addressimg each other in these discussions is what this forum is about. This is a discussion forum, not a sermon platform. Goodbye to you sir. However if you post something that I think warrants a comment, i will do so. I couldn't care less if you respond to me or not.

Besides if you make a global atatement to all that disagree with you, why is that somehow more gentlemanly than me specifically addressing the assertion YOU made.

No Jaime, What this forum is all about is spitting out snake venom on anyone that expresses an idea that is not approve by some. But I know your spirit and IMHO it is not from God

[Jaime]

Addressimg each other in these discussions is what this forum is about. This is a discussion forum, not a sermon platform. Goodbye to you sir. However if you post something that I think warrants a comment, i will do so. I couldn't care less if you respond to me or not.

Besides if you make a global atatement to all that disagree with you, why is that somehow more gentlemanly than me specifically addressing the assertion YOU made.

No Jaime, What this forum is all about is spitting out snake venom on anyone that expresses an idea that is not approve by some. But I know your spirit and IMHO it is not from God

Richard, IMHO you are wrong about my spirit. I have no ill feelings about you other than I contend with some of your views. No snake venom here. The term cherry pick has been used against me by some and I felt no animous other than they were wrong. Everybody here has been accused of that at some time or other, or we would all agree on every bit of doctrine. I have been accused of taking one verse and ignoring others from the day I joined here, and so has everyone else. You are not exempt. I think you definitely do take some scriptures and ignore others in this particular argument. That has to be the case or we would obviously agree. One of us might be including too much or the other might be including too little. I will never back down from the truth that the whole of scripture must be considered. If you don't, then we disagree. I used a term that described that with no malice in my useage. I apologize if it offended you, but I think you way over reacted. For me personally, I am most defensive when I am wrong and I assume it is the case with others.

All that said, I re-iterate, I intend no snake venom to be spit in your direction. You totally misconstrued my intent. And I will vehemently argue against the notion presented by you or anyone else that there are two different gospels. I don't know you so I don't have an opinion about you other than you are wrong on this, and wrong on my intent.

[RichardBurger]

Addressimg each other in these discussions is what this forum is about. This is a discussion forum, not a sermon platform. Goodbye to you sir. However if you post something that I think warrants a comment, i will do so. I couldn't care less if you respond to me or not.

Besides if you make a global atatement to all that disagree with you, why is that somehow more gentlemanly than me specifically addressing the assertion YOU made.

There is always a religious policemen/women on forum that feel as you do. Aother person can not have a different opinion without being put through a wringer.

When I said I know your spirit what I meant is that I see in what you do, and how you feel, the same spirit that the Pharisees had towards Jesus and Stephen and later, Paul.

I believe that the scriptures plainly teach that the gospel of the Kingdom (for the Jews under law) is not the gospel of grace that Paul taught. Because of this you will go out of your way to denigrate me and what I believe. Well go to it policeman/women it does not change the truth.

But the way, you can believe whatever you wish. I am not a religious policeman.

[Jaime]

No Richard, there are only people who disagree or agree. There is no overarching conspiracy against you or anyone else. I have not done anything untoward to you. And by the way, you have already denigrated me, thank you very much.

If you think there will or should never be any remarks made to anyone individually, you are mistaken. It's not you (Jesus) against the pharisees (moderators on GCM) This is an interactive forum, not a just a place to toss out opposing views with no debate. I did not get overly personal with you and I think you over reacted.

Iron sharpens iron on this forum and we learn from each other in the "wringer".

[RichardBurger]

No Richard, there are only people who disagree or agree. There is no overarching conspiracy against you or anyone else. I have not done anything untoward to you. And by the way, you have already denigrated me, thank you very much.

If you think there will or should never be any remarks made to anyone individually, you are mistaken. It's not you (Jesus) against the pharisees (moderators on GCM) This is an interactive forum, not a just a place to toss out opposing views with no debate. I did not get overly personal with you and I think you over reacted.

Iron sharpens iron on this forum and we learn from each other in the "wringer".

And you have set yourself up to be the iron haven't you?

You have said that there was never any other gospel than the one that Jesus, the 12, and Paul taught because you believe that Paul's gospel was not hidden in God and revealed to Paul. That Paul's gospel was the same.

On this forum there is a thread I started asking posters to show me, where the scriptures are that say Jesus and the 12 receinded the Law of Moses. No one has been able to show any scriptures where they did. However I can't seem to find that thread now.

Yet Paul's gospel says we are """no longer under the Law"" and we are dead to the law.

Only Paul's gospel sets us free from the Law by telling us that the Holy Spirit places us "in Christ."

Only Paul teaches about being "in Christ."

Now be a good sport and see if you can find scriptures where Jesus and the 12 receinded the Law

[Jaime]

I admit that I have changed my views on a few things since being here and I credit that to the sharpening others have done on me. I am thankful for the discourse here and I definitely learn things.

I don't believe Jesus or the apostles including Paul ever rescinded the law. Jesus said he didn't come to do that and I don't know why his followers would either. They reinterpreted the Law to emphasize the spirit of the Law and not the letter. We are not only STILL not to murder, we are not to harbor anger in our hearts or we have by the spirit of the law committed murder. We are not just to avoid adultery, if we lust in our heart for woman, we have committed adultery per the Spirit of the Law. We are not free to murder or harbor anger, or commit adultery or lust etc, The bar has been raised, not removed.

the OT Jews were not saved by the Law. Paul points to Abraham, the father of the Jews who lived long before Moses, as his prime test case to prove that salvation comes through faith apart from works that we perform. Paul writes, "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness' " (Rom. 4:2-3; cf. Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6-9).

Obviously we don't have to sacrifice animals because Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice for all times.

If Jesus wanted the Law done away with, he could have said that. In the Hebrew idiom of the first century, the rabbis would accuse one another of abolishing the Law if they gave a wrong interpretation. When they correctly interpretted Torah, it was said that they fulfilled Torah. Abolish vs Fulfill. Jesus said he came to fulfill (correctly interpret) Torah as he literally did in Mathew chapter 5 in the sermon on the mount with the murder/anger thing as well as the adultery/lust in the heart thing. Jesus would never have abolished  the Law in the same sentence he said he didn't come to do that. Properly interpret? Yes. Wrongly interpret as the Pharisees had done and built fence after fence around simple Laws that God intended as a blessing and instructions for living, and not a burden, NO

Also, the Torah never saved and still doesn't. It is simply instructions for living and we are not saved by the Law, nor were the Jews. The blood of Jesus was the only thing that could permanently atone for sin, before or after the cross. Not the blood of bulls and goats.

I agree that Paul had to instruct the Jews including Peter that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews first in order to be saved. We ARE dead to the Law as a salvational thing, just as the OT folks were. The Law never saved. Had the Pharisees made it into a salavational checklist, Yes. They had wrongly interpretted it as Jesus asserted in the Sermon on the Mount. As in, "You have heard it said.............., but I say to you........................ He was asserting his Authority to properly interpret what they had perverted. Jesus was telling all that would listen, "You have missed the whole point, guys!, Here's what God meant!"

In fact the Scribes and Pharisees told Jesus, we thought you were a teacher of the Law (one who parrots the accepted interpretation), but you speak as one with Authority or Schmekah. They asked him who gave him his authority (to offer interpretation of Torah over and above the accepted party line). God of course gave him his Authority or Schmekah to be a rabbi that was able to offer interpretation. And he did. His proper interpretation of Torah trumped their faulty interpretation.

[RichardBurger]

I admit that I have changed my views on a few things since being here and I credit that to the sharpening others have done on me. I am thankful for the discourse here and I definitely learn things.

I don't believe Jesus or the apostles including Paul ever rescinded the law. Jesus said he didn't come to do that and I don't know why his followers would either. They reinterpreted the Law to emphasize the spirit of the Law and not the letter. We are not only STILL not to murder, we are not to harbor anger in our hearts or we have by the spirit of the law committed murder. We are not just to avoid adultery, if we lust in our heart for woman, we have committed adultery per the Spirit of the Law. We are not free to murder or harbor anger, or commit adultery or lust etc, The bar has been raised, not removed.

the OT Jews were not saved by the Law. Paul points to Abraham, the father of the Jews who lived long before Moses, as his prime test case to prove that salvation comes through faith apart from works that we perform. Paul writes, "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness' " (Rom. 4:2-3; cf. Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6-9).

Obviously we don't have to sacrifice animals because Jesus was the final and complete sacrifice for all times.

If Jesus wanted the Law done away with, he could have said that. In the Hebrew idiom of the first century, the rabbis would accuse one another of abolishing the Law if they gave a wrong interpretation. When they correctly interpretted Torah, it was said that they fulfilled Torah. Abolish vs Fulfill. Jesus said he came to fulfill (correctly interpret) Torah as he literally did in Mathew chapter 5 in the sermon on the mount with the murder/anger thing as well as the adultery/lust in the heart thing. Jesus would never have abolished  the Law in the same sentence he said he didn't come to do that. Properly interpret? Yes. Wrongly interpret as the Pharisees had done and built fence after fence around simple Laws that God intended as a blessing and instructions for living, and not a burden, NO

Also, the Torah never saved and still doesn't. It is simply instructions for living and we are not saved by the Law, nor were the Jews. The blood of Jesus was the only thing that could permanently atone for sin, before or after the cross. Not the blood of bulls and goats.

I agree that Paul had to instruct the Jews including Peter that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews first in order to be saved. We ARE dead to the Law as a salvational thing, just as the OT folks were. The Law never saved. Had the Pharisees made it into a salavational checklist, Yes. They had wrongly interpretted it as Jesus asserted in the Sermon on the Mount. As in, "You have heard it said.............., but I say to you........................ He was asserting his Authority to properly interpret what they had perverted. Jesus was telling all that would listen, "You have missed the whole point, guys!, Here's what God meant!"

In fact the Scribes and Pharisees told Jesus, we thought you were a teacher of the Law (one who parrots the accepted interpretation), but you speak as one with Authority or Schmekah. They asked him who gave him his authority (to offer interpretation of Torah over and above the accepted party line). God of course gave him his Authority or Schmekah to be a rabbi that was able to offer interpretation. And he did. His proper interpretation of Torah trumped their faulty interpretation.

Jesus did not rescind the law because it was God's will for it to remain in effect for the Jew and would be in effect in the promised Jewish kingdom that He was here to set up and will set up when He returns to set it up.

It was rescinded in the gospel of grace that was given to Paul by Jesus for the Gentiles.

If you can't see that, then you really do not know if you are under grace or law, and you can't be under both. To blend the gospel of the kingdom of heaven under law with the gospel of grace preverts both of them.

So you do not think the law was rescinded under Paul's gospel given to him by Jesus. Then what do you do with Paul's writings that say were are not under law but under grace, that we are dead to the law in Christ?

You wrote a lot of words but no where in them did you give scriptures that say Jesus and the 12 rescinded the Law of Moses. Since you can't find any you seem to want to jaw bone a bunch of words that do not answer the question. Why is that?

If the law has not been rescinded under grace then we must follow the Law of Moses.

By the way, I had not posted the OP that I mentioned on this forum. I will do so now.

[DCR]

It's also an account of an event, not an instruction manual for a how-to-be-saved.

Which means, you have to understand the situations are different when those words are spoken. Peter is speaking to Jews who believed the message about Jesus already. (see the previous verses where Peter explicitly says Jesus is the Messiah, and they were 'cut to the heart' -they were convicted of the truth of Jesus)  The question to Peter was more like: what shall we do now that we believe what you said about Jesus?  So Peter explains repentance and baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The question to Paul was what shall I do? Period. So Paul tells him the first thing.  He starts with Jesus.  (If you don't believe in Jesus, there's no purpose to being baptized or repenting or anything else.)  Later, the jailer and his family got baptized.  So they ended up doing the same things.  There's really no actual difference.

The stories merely quote people at different points in the explanation of how to become a Christ follower.

Paul never included water baptism in his answer. The baptism that followed was not part of Paul's instructions.

Well, who else would have instructed it?  The jailer's only exposure to matters of the faith was whatever Paul and Silas said to him on this occasion.  

How else would the jailer and his household know to be baptized if Paul and Silas didn't discuss it with him?

Let's be reasonable.

[Jaime]

It's also an account of an event, not an instruction manual for a how-to-be-saved.

Which means, you have to understand the situations are different when those words are spoken. Peter is speaking to Jews who believed the message about Jesus already. (see the previous verses where Peter explicitly says Jesus is the Messiah, and they were 'cut to the heart' -they were convicted of the truth of Jesus)  The question to Peter was more like: what shall we do now that we believe what you said about Jesus?  So Peter explains repentance and baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The question to Paul was what shall I do? Period. So Paul tells him the first thing.  He starts with Jesus.  (If you don't believe in Jesus, there's no purpose to being baptized or repenting or anything else.)  Later, the jailer and his family got baptized.  So they ended up doing the same things.  There's really no actual difference.

The stories merely quote people at different points in the explanation of how to become a Christ follower.

Paul never included water baptism in his answer. The baptism that followed was not part of Paul's instructions.

Well, who else would have instructed it?  The jailer's only exposure to matters of the faith was whatever Paul and Silas said to him on this occasion.  

How else would the jailer had known anything about baptism if Paul and Silas didn't tell him?

Let's be reasonable here.

I said plainly that I believe that Jesus and the 12 and Paul did NOT rescind the Law.

The Torah never saved. It is only God's instruction for living. Still good instructions, but not salvational because it never was.

And why insult me by addressing your statements to "you" and saying mean things like I am jawboning? Is that somehow on a higher plain that "cherry picking"? I am confused. I thought addressing each other was off limits?

[Jaime]

It's also an account of an event, not an instruction manual for a how-to-be-saved.

Which means, you have to understand the situations are different when those words are spoken. Peter is speaking to Jews who believed the message about Jesus already. (see the previous verses where Peter explicitly says Jesus is the Messiah, and they were 'cut to the heart' -they were convicted of the truth of Jesus)  The question to Peter was more like: what shall we do now that we believe what you said about Jesus?  So Peter explains repentance and baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The question to Paul was what shall I do? Period. So Paul tells him the first thing.  He starts with Jesus.  (If you don't believe in Jesus, there's no purpose to being baptized or repenting or anything else.)  Later, the jailer and his family got baptized.  So they ended up doing the same things.  There's really no actual difference.

The stories merely quote people at different points in the explanation of how to become a Christ follower.

Paul never included water baptism in his answer. The baptism that followed was not part of Paul's instructions.

Well, who else would have instructed it?  The jailer's only exposure to matters of the faith was whatever Paul and Silas said to him on this occasion. 

How else would the jailer had known anything about baptism if Paul and Silas didn't tell him?

Let's be reasonable here.

I agree.

[RichardBurger]

It's also an account of an event, not an instruction manual for a how-to-be-saved.

Which means, you have to understand the situations are different when those words are spoken. Peter is speaking to Jews who believed the message about Jesus already. (see the previous verses where Peter explicitly says Jesus is the Messiah, and they were 'cut to the heart' -they were convicted of the truth of Jesus)  The question to Peter was more like: what shall we do now that we believe what you said about Jesus?  So Peter explains repentance and baptism and the Holy Spirit.

The question to Paul was what shall I do? Period. So Paul tells him the first thing.  He starts with Jesus.  (If you don't believe in Jesus, there's no purpose to being baptized or repenting or anything else.)  Later, the jailer and his family got baptized.  So they ended up doing the same things.  There's really no actual difference.

The stories merely quote people at different points in the explanation of how to become a Christ follower.

Paul never included water baptism in his answer. The baptism that followed was not part of Paul's instructions.

Well, who else would have instructed it?  The jailer's only exposure to matters of the faith was whatever Paul and Silas said to him on this occasion. 

How else would the jailer and his household know to be baptized if Paul and Silas didn't discuss it with him?

Let's be reasonable.

So I am to be reasonable and ""like you"" assume that Paul should have included water baptism as a requirement. I don't think I am supposed to add to scriptures that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I think I am being reasonable. I am certainly posted the scriptures as they are.

[Mercy777]

Matthew 3
1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.

[RichardBurger]

Peter's instructions:

Acts 2:36-38
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

Paul's instructions:

Acts 16:27-31
27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself.
28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here."
29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.
30 And he brought them out and said,"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
31 So they said,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."
NKJV

There is more here than what some have said on this thread and are not looking at.

Peter said "Then Peter said to them,"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  --- What were the Jews to repent of? In context they were to repent of killing Jesus.

Paul said "So they said,"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household. (period)" -- Paul said nothing about repenting, being water baptized, or believing in the name of Jesus for remission of sins. He simple said to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

In what Acts 2 says the Jews asked "what shall we do" in answer to their being convicted of killing their Messiah. The jailer asked "what must we do to be saved."

I find it amazing that people can't seem to consider that there is a major difference in what each said. What they do is re-write the scriptures so they all fit what they believe.

[DCR]

So I am to be reasonable and ""like you"" assume that Paul should have included water baptism as a requirement. I don't think I am supposed to add to scriptures that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I think I am being reasonable. I am certainly posted the scriptures as they are.

The scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit there says that the jailer and his household were baptized that same hour.

If Paul gave the jailer no instruction on baptism, then explain to us this:  Why were the jailer and his household baptized?


If you're going to make the assumption that Paul did not require baptism of the jailer, then you must give an explanation to the satisfaction of this question.

[RichardBurger]

So I am to be reasonable and ""like you"" assume that Paul should have included water baptism as a requirement. I don't think I am supposed to add to scriptures that are inspired by the Holy Spirit. I think I am being reasonable. I am certainly posted the scriptures as they are.

The scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit there says that the jailer and his household were baptized that same hour.

If Paul gave the jailer no instruction on baptism, then explain to us this:  Why were the jailer and his household baptized?


If you're going to make the assumption that Paul did not require baptism of the jailer, then you must give an explanation to the satisfaction of this question.

So I am assumming and you are not??? The fact remains that they recieved the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptised. In other words they already had the Holy Spirit so water baptism did not make them recieve the Holy Spirit.

You said "then you must give an explanation to the satisfaction of this question."

You have chosen the wrong words. There is nothing I have to do because you say I have to.

The book of Acts is a transitional book, from law to grace. It is not a book that combines law with grace.

Under the Jewish law water washing was a fact under the law. Jesus was baptized (water washing) to fulfill the law that requires a priest to be washed before he could carry out the ministry to the people.

Water baptism faded from view as the gospel of grace became the gospel for this age.

Since you say I HAVE TO give an answer, this is all you will get.

[Jaime]

"Must" is rhetorical in DCR's statement. 

[RichardBurger]

"Must" is rhetorical in DCR's statement. 

Jamie, people should learn by their mis-takes so as not to repeat them.

[DCR]

So I am assumming and you are not??? The fact remains that they recieved the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptised.

Where is that "fact" stated exactly?  The text in this particular situation says nothing about their receiving the Holy Spirit.  The exact moment when they received the Holy Spirit can therefore only be an assumption you're making.  You do not know that they received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.  The text doesn't state that they did.  In fact, the text says nothing about their receiving the Holy Spirit.   

In other words they already had the Holy Spirit so water baptism did not make them recieve the Holy Spirit.

You don't know that they already had the Holy Spirit.  The text doesn't tell us that.

You said "then you must give an explanation to the satisfaction of this question."

You have chosen the wrong words. There is nothing I have to do because you say I have to.

I didn't say "you have to."  There's no need to get defensive.  I simply stated that if you're going to claim that Paul didn't instruct the jailer and his family to be baptized, then you need to explain why they were baptized (if it is the case that Paul didn't instruct them to be baptized, as you claim), because something doesn't add up.

The book of Acts is a transitional book, from law to grace. It is not a book that combines law with grace.

Under the Jewish law water washing was a fact under the law. Jesus was baptized (water washing) to fulfill the law that requires a priest to be washed before he could carry out the ministry to the people.

Water baptism faded from view as the gospel of grace became the gospel for this age.

It doesn't seem to make sense for Paul and Silas to instruct this Gentile family to submit to a Jewish law, especially after the discussion in Acts 15 where it was decided that Gentiles would not be required to submit to the law of Moses.

The Christian baptism we read about in the New Testament is not a Jewish law.

Since you say I HAVE TO give an answer, this is all you will get.

Again, there's no need to get defensive.  I'm just pointing out some things for you to consider.

[RichardBurger]

So I am assumming and you are not??? The fact remains that they recieved the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were water baptised.

Where is that "fact" stated exactly?  The text in this particular situation says nothing about their receiving the Holy Spirit.  The exact moment when they received the Holy Spirit can therefore only be an assumption you're making.  You do not know that they received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.  The text doesn't state that they did.  In fact, the text says nothing about their receiving the Holy Spirit.    

In other words they already had the Holy Spirit so water baptism did not make them recieve the Holy Spirit.

You don't know that they already had the Holy Spirit.  The text doesn't tell us that.

You said "then you must give an explanation to the satisfaction of this question."

You have chosen the wrong words. There is nothing I have to do because you say I have to.

I didn't say "you have to."  There's no need to get defensive.  I simply stated that if you're going to claim that Paul didn't instruct the jailer and his family to be baptized, then you need to explain why they were baptized (if it is the case that Paul didn't instruct them to be baptized, as you claim), because something doesn't add up.

The book of Acts is a transitional book, from law to grace. It is not a book that combines law with grace.

Under the Jewish law water washing was a fact under the law. Jesus was baptized (water washing) to fulfill the law that requires a priest to be washed before he could carry out the ministry to the people.

Water baptism faded from view as the gospel of grace became the gospel for this age.

It doesn't seem to make sense for Paul and Silas to instruct this Gentile family to submit to a Jewish law, especially after the discussion in Acts 15 where it was decided that Gentiles would not be required to submit to the law of Moses.

The Christian baptism we read about in the New Testament is not a Jewish law.

Since you say I HAVE TO give an answer, this is all you will get.

Again, there's no need to get defensive.  I'm just pointing out some things for you to consider.

Yes there is. Your words assume that you can control me. I don't use those words at you so don't use them at me. I don't want this to be the focus of discussion on this thread. All I am saying is show me the same respect you want others to show you.

In the scriptures below we see that the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the words Peter spoke """"" before they were water baptised """"" In other words water baptism """" did not make the Holy Spirit fall on them. """

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
NKJV

My point has been, and still is, that the act of water baptism will not save anyone in this age of God's grace.

[Jaime]

"Must" is rhetorical in DCR's statement.  

Jamie, people should learn by their mis-takes so as not to repeat them.

You mean like YOUR mistake of not recognizing a rhetorical statement? Yes, I think learning to not take rhetorical statements literally would be good. No one here would ever presume that anyone can make any of us do anything. DCR didn't and you misunderstood. So I assume you won't repeat that mistake again?

By the way, DCR is one of the most non-offensive people you will find anywhere, especially here. I can't make that claim about myself, as you know.

[Jimmy]

In the scriptures below we see that the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the words Peter spoke """"" before they were water baptised """"" In other words water baptism """" did not make the Holy Spirit fall on them. """

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
NKJV

My point has been, and still is, that the act of water baptism will not save anyone in this age of God's grace.

The events of Acts 10:44 for the Gentiles was the same as the events of Acts 2:4 for the apostles.  Neither event is a salvation event.  Both were occasions where the Holy Spirit came upon them to empower them to speak in tongues and prophesy.  Nothing in either case is indicating salvation.  Such events happened throughout the history of God and his people.

Exo 31:3  "And I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship,

There was no salvation associated with Bezalel's having been filled with the Holy Sprit.  A situation similar to both Acts 2:4 and Acts 10:44 is found in Numbers.

Num 11:23  And the LORD said to Moses, "Is the LORD'S power limited? Now you shall see whether My word will come true for you or not."
Num 11:24  So Moses went out and told the people the words of the LORD. Also, he gathered seventy men of the elders of the people, and stationed them around the tent.
Num 11:25  Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him; and He took of the Spirit who was upon him and placed Him upon the seventy elders. And it came about that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied. But they did not do it again.

In neither the old nor the new testament is such filling with the Holy Spirit an act of salvation.

[DCR]

Yes there is. Your words assume that you can control me. I don't use those words at you so don't use them at me. I don't want this to be the focus of discussion on this thread. All I am saying is show me the same respect you want others to show you.

I have never presumed that I can control you.  I'm sorry if that was your perception, but we'll move on.

In the scriptures below we see that the Holy Spirit fell on all that heard the words Peter spoke """"" before they were water baptised """"" In other words water baptism """" did not make the Holy Spirit fall on them. """

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
NKJV

My point has been, and still is, that the act of water baptism will not save anyone in this age of God's grace.

I acknowledge that the Holy Spirit came upon those in Acts 10 before they were water baptized.  But, I can also show you other examples where the Holy Spirit wasn't given until after water baptism (Acts 8:14-16; Acts 19:5-6).

Acts 16 doesn't tell us anything about the Philippian jailer and his family receiving the Holy Spirit, whether that was before or after they were baptized.  You were asserting that they received the Spirit before they were baptized.  My point is... you don't know that, especially when we have examples of the Holy Spirit clearly being received after baptism in other cases.

[Jimmy]

The act of the Holy Spirit falling on them, coming upon them, filling them, etc. does not save them.

[gospel]

Some people make a big deal about repentance when in truth they never do it except to say they did it. To them repentance is a ritual they perform when they are with others. Most do not really think they sin any longer because their theology teaches the prefection of the flesh sin nature and therefore the need to repent is mute.

But true repentance is a constant attitude of understanding and admitting to God that you are a sinful person in the flesh. I have discussed this with many religious people and because they think they getting better at not sinning they do feel any need to repent.

Yes and the initial repentance is the one that matters most of all

Turning from dependence upon our own efforts for salvation to dependence upon Jesus finished work

That is the dependence that underscores all others

For when one is 1st Saved one barely has any idea of ALL THE MYRIAD manner of sin in one's life

One scarcely recognizes pride except in its basest manifestation, one scarcely recognizes lust of the flesh except in its most gross characterizations like gluttony and sexual lust

There is no way we can ever know to repent from everything we are fallen short in

We can only repent as far as we know

And that is only as the Holy Spirit through the Word shows us ourselves

When we read the Word looking at the perfect reflection of Jesus and measure ourselves against Him
and do so continually, we begin to see more and more that how short we have fallen and more and more just how much Grace God has shown us in Saving us by Christ Jesus!

[RichardBurger]

Some people make a big deal about repentance when in truth they never do it except to say they did it. To them repentance is a ritual they perform when they are with others. Most do not really think they sin any longer because their theology teaches the prefection of the flesh sin nature and therefore the need to repent is mute.

But true repentance is a constant attitude of understanding and admitting to God that you are a sinful person in the flesh. I have discussed this with many religious people and because they think they getting better at not sinning they do feel any need to repent.

Yes and the initial repentance is the one that matters most of all

Turning from dependence upon our own efforts for salvation to dependence upon Jesus finished work

That is the dependence that underscores all others

For when one is 1st Saved one barely has any idea of ALL THE MYRIAD manner of sin in one's life

One scarcely recognizes pride except in its basest manifestation, one scarcely recognizes lust of the flesh except in its most gross characterizations like gluttony and sexual lust

There is no way we can ever know to repent from everything we are fallen short in

We can only repent as far as we know

And that is only as the Holy Spirit through the Word shows us ourselves

When we read the Word looking at the perfect reflection of Jesus and measure ourselves against Him
and do so continually, we begin to see more and more that how short we have fallen and more and more just how much Grace God has shown us in Saving us by Christ Jesus!

I agree ecept I would leave out these words you wrote, "For when one is 1st Saved" I believe that once we are saved we are kept by the power of God, not by our own power to perform good while living in sinful flesh.