-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Baptism again is just a word.
baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").
there can be multiple baptisms, one into the body of Christ, one into the Holy Ghost, one in water. you can baptize yourself in many things of God like His word, prayer, worship, it is just a word.
baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").
there can be multiple baptisms, one into the body of Christ, one into the Holy Ghost, one in water. you can baptize yourself in many things of God like His word, prayer, worship, it is just a word.
*Acts 10:43-47 blows your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 right out of the water. Acts 10:43 - To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. 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. (Received the gift of the Holy Spirit when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ BEFORE WATER BAPTISM - also see Acts 11:17 and Acts 16:31. They also spoke in tongues--spiritual gift which is ONLY for the body of Christ - see 1 Corinthians 12). Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
It's a shame that you did not repent and believe the gospel while attending Campus Crusade for Christ and still stubbornly refuse to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation. Instead, you continue to trust in "water and works" for salvation.
For the umpteenth time, In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Here is your faith, here is your repentance and here is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:43-48; 11:17,18; 15:8,9. Roman Catholics and Mormons and other works-salvationists also stumble over Acts 2:38 and ignore multiple other passages of scripture that teach faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18).
Yes, there is baptism in verse 48 *AFTER* THEY BELIEVED AND RECEIVED THE REMISSION OF SINS AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND SPOKE IN TONGUES. (Acts 10:43-47).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
We can argue "he said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* so your flawed hermeneutics is not going to fly.
The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.
Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.
Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; 11:17,18; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.
It's also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior prior to receiving water baptism since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.
*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.
Why fail to add baptism if belief is not enough? (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
*So in 1 Peter 3:21; it's not the water itself that saves us, but the "appeal-to-God-for-good-conscience". Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
There are only a handful of verses that "on the surface" appear to teach that we are saved by water baptism, yet there are a multitude of verses that make it clear we are saved through belief/faith in Christ. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5,9,11,13,16,17; 5:1; 10:4; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-8,14,22,24,26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.
That is the illogical conclusion made by works-salvationists, including Roman Catholics, Mormons and Campbellites, but the ONLY logical conclusion *when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture* is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
I am not looking for a loophole. Water baptism FOLLOWS repentance/faith/remission of sins and no loophole will change this. Your theology is water logged.
The thief was being crucified and went from blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus (not the fruit of repentance/faith) to a "change of mind" (repentance) and placing his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). He died on the cross without having the opportunity to receive water baptism and that is good enough for me.
The Bible does address the condition of the heart of the thief BEFORE (blasphemed, mocked and shook his head at Jesus) and AFTER (rebuked the other thief, admitted his guilt, defended Christ and declared Him innocent, asked Jesus to remember Him when He comes into His kingdom) his conversion while hanging on the cross. So the issue is not moot, but since you are determined to accommodate your biased church doctrine, you will continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.
It's a shame that you did not repent and believe the gospel while attending Campus Crusade for Christ and still stubbornly refuse to place your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation. Instead, you continue to trust in "water and works" for salvation.
For the umpteenth time, In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Here is your faith, here is your repentance and here is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:43-48; 11:17,18; 15:8,9. Roman Catholics and Mormons and other works-salvationists also stumble over Acts 2:38 and ignore multiple other passages of scripture that teach faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18).
Yes, there is baptism in verse 48 *AFTER* THEY BELIEVED AND RECEIVED THE REMISSION OF SINS AND THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND SPOKE IN TONGUES. (Acts 10:43-47).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson comments on Acts 2:38 - he shows how the grammar of this verse can be used to support more than one interpretation of this text. He then reaches this conclusion: "One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received." The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol (although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
We can argue "he said/they said" all day long, but what ULTIMATELY settles the issue for me is that *SCRIPTURE MUST HARMONIZE WITH SCRIPTURE* so your flawed hermeneutics is not going to fly.
The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.
Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name" (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
As Greek scholar AT Robertson points out - baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ.
Our sins are already washed away by the blood of Christ and we are saved when we repent/believe/call upon the name of the Lord (Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; 11:17,18; Romans 3:24-26; 10:13) BEFORE water baptism. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."
It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.
It's also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior prior to receiving water baptism since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved.
*No single text of Scripture is to be interpreted out of context, and this includes the entirety of Scripture. No scripture is to be interpretated in isololation from the totality of Scripture. Practically speaking, a singular and obscure verse is to be subservient to multiple and clear verses, and not vice versa.
Why fail to add baptism if belief is not enough? (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He says that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism). Baptism is a pledge to God made from a good conscience. We could paraphrase Peter's statement by saying, "Baptism now saves you--not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which baptism represents." By saying, "not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Peter guards against saving power to the physical ceremony itself.
*So in 1 Peter 3:21; it's not the water itself that saves us, but the "appeal-to-God-for-good-conscience". Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
There are only a handful of verses that "on the surface" appear to teach that we are saved by water baptism, yet there are a multitude of verses that make it clear we are saved through belief/faith in Christ. The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (Luke 7:50; 8:12; John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; 20:31; Acts 10:43; 11:17; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5,9,11,13,16,17; 5:1; 10:4; 26:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:6-8,14,22,24,26; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 3:9; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 10:39; 1 John 5:13 etc..).
You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) IN CHRIST ALONE.
That is the illogical conclusion made by works-salvationists, including Roman Catholics, Mormons and Campbellites, but the ONLY logical conclusion *when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture* is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
I am not looking for a loophole. Water baptism FOLLOWS repentance/faith/remission of sins and no loophole will change this. Your theology is water logged.
The thief was being crucified and went from blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus (not the fruit of repentance/faith) to a "change of mind" (repentance) and placing his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). He died on the cross without having the opportunity to receive water baptism and that is good enough for me.
The Bible does address the condition of the heart of the thief BEFORE (blasphemed, mocked and shook his head at Jesus) and AFTER (rebuked the other thief, admitted his guilt, defended Christ and declared Him innocent, asked Jesus to remember Him when He comes into His kingdom) his conversion while hanging on the cross. So the issue is not moot, but since you are determined to accommodate your biased church doctrine, you will continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts.
That quote so far is my FAVORITE explanation of how grace operates (or fails, if you remove the action items from it).
And I would add, concerning works (whether works are a part of faith, or against faith) please consider the following sincerely:
When the Israelites properly applied the blood of passover to the lintel and doorposts of their houses....were they doing that as a part of faith and belief in God...or by doing so were they failing to believe and trust God?
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
PLEASE NOTE: Of the portion of DJ2's posting that I quoted... I slightly changed the wording of the first and fourth questions in the shoes analogy, and removed (what I considered) a generalization not necessary to the point DJ2 was making. The original posting is #1050 in this thread. I just happened across it again today and thought more people needed to see it. (Thanks DJ2)
And I would add, concerning works (whether works are a part of faith, or against faith) please consider the following sincerely:
When the Israelites properly applied the blood of passover to the lintel and doorposts of their houses....were they doing that as a part of faith and belief in God...or by doing so were they failing to believe and trust God?
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
PLEASE NOTE: Of the portion of DJ2's posting that I quoted... I slightly changed the wording of the first and fourth questions in the shoes analogy, and removed (what I considered) a generalization not necessary to the point DJ2 was making. The original posting is #1050 in this thread. I just happened across it again today and thought more people needed to see it. (Thanks DJ2)
And as for the thief in the cross:
Whether you are convinced that a person only needs to "believe the gospel" to be saved in the new covenant... or if you believe a person has to "receive the Holy Ghost" to be saved... or both. Neither of these was even available to the thief on the cross...so he wasn't under the new covenant. He was still under the OLD covenant at the time of his death. (proof is in post #1285)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Whether you are convinced that a person only needs to "believe the gospel" to be saved in the new covenant... or if you believe a person has to "receive the Holy Ghost" to be saved... or both. Neither of these was even available to the thief on the cross...so he wasn't under the new covenant. He was still under the OLD covenant at the time of his death. (proof is in post #1285)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
w...,
You have no authority to set standards for G-d's word...it says what it says...no one has to take it out of contxt;
John 3;5....[FONT="] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [/FONT]of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I Peter 3:21....[FONT="]The like figure whereunto [/FONT]even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Acts 2:38...[FONT="]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.
[/FONT][FONT="]Acts 22:16...And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Roman 6:3....[/FONT][FONT="] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[/FONT]Gal. 3:21...[FONT="] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[/FONT]Mark 16:16....[FONT="]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.,
[/FONT]et al.
You have no authority to set standards for G-d's word...it says what it says...no one has to take it out of contxt;
John 3;5....[FONT="] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [/FONT]of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
I Peter 3:21....[FONT="]The like figure whereunto [/FONT]even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Acts 2:38...[FONT="]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.
[/FONT][FONT="]Acts 22:16...And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Roman 6:3....[/FONT][FONT="] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[/FONT]Gal. 3:21...[FONT="] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[/FONT]Mark 16:16....[FONT="]He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.,
[/FONT]et al.
John 1:29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
John himself explains what water baptism is all about but false teachers don't want anything to do with his explanation.
John himself explains what water baptism is all about but false teachers don't want anything to do with his explanation.