I include it when it is pertinent to what I am saying.You keep forgetting to include "Even as many as the lord our God shall call" which includes everyone with a hope of entering in.![]()
I include it when it is pertinent to what I am saying.You keep forgetting to include "Even as many as the lord our God shall call" which includes everyone with a hope of entering in.![]()
fair enoughI include it when it is pertinent to my what I am saying.
Even as clearly as that was stated, there are still at least two things not accurately stated. One was that of "placed squarely on the back" which is a figure of speech but I'm guessing you'll all understand the meaning. If someone catches the other one, I'll give them acknowledgement and clarification will be made. Again, most people are going to make an assumption which conveys correct understanding despite the inaccuracies.This post is for any who want clarification as to the relationship between baptism and the blood of Jesus.
In John the baptist's time, the sins were remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and placed squarely on the back of Jesus, WAITING for Jesus to take them to the cross and atone for them with his blood.
In times since John the baptist, the sins are remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and are covered by the blood of Jesus BECAUSE Jesus atoned for them with his blood on the cross.
Both BEFORE Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) and AFTER Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc) water baptism is the mechanism for the removal (remission) part of this process. It doesn't accomplish the atonement part. Only the blood of Jesus accomplishes the atonement part.
Jesus completed HIS part of the process. Now he waits for all (who are willing) to RECEIVE the remission part. Baptism (for the remission of sins) is something you RECEIVE, not do. And it was established as such by God, not man. (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Correct. It appears Jesus was speaking about physical and spiritual birth in v.5.Here is another inspired verse that has to be true.
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.”
1 John 5:1 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/1jn.5.1.ESV
This verse is one reason that I don’t see any way the water in John 3:5 can be water baptism. If everyone who believes has already been born of God, then he timing for water baptism can’t work as a condition for being born again. Therefore the water refers to something else.
I'm tiring of your extreme stubbornness.That is an unbiblical statement (see Acts 2:39).
Wrong. It is positional sanctification that is related to justification.Also known as "justification".
zzzzzzzzzzzz.You have not.
You sure make a whole lot of assumptions; assumptions that are not biblical.Since my view is correct; and you purport that in my view God is irrational, you are purporting that the correct view of God intimates Him as being irrational. Therefore, in your view, the correct view of God sets Him forth as irrational. And therefore God is irrational in your view; not mine.
Doesn't matter. A lot occurs when a person puts their 100% trust in Christ for salvation.However, the contention is that remission of sins and receiving the Holy Ghost are two different aspects of salvation;
You need to support this assumption with actual Scripture. Please do.And that Cornelius and friends received the Holy Ghost when they spake in tongues but did not receive remission of sins until they were baptized in water.
I am in DENIAL of your presumptions, assumptions and speculations.Acts 2:39 tells us that the promise was to them and to their children and to all that were afar off.
For it is clear to me that you are in denial of what is taught by holy scripture (in Acts 2:39).
Well, how about that!!??Cornelius and friends were a part of the transitional period in Acts wherein the circumcision group was at that time opposed to Gentiles being included in the faith of Christianity.
Well, I guess that's the easy way out when vainly trying to defend false doctrine.Thus the issue with them may have indeed been an exception to the rule; the rule being found in Acts 2:38-39.
Is "positional sanctification" a practical thing in your opinion?FreeGrace2 said:
This is called positional sanctification.
Wrong. It is positional sanctification that is related to justification.
Apparently you didn't really read my post completely or carefully.
FreeGrace2 said:
I have refuted your flawed and misunderstanding of both Acts 2:38 and 39.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.![]()
You sure make a whole lot of assumptions; assumptions that are not biblical.
Just because you "claim" to have the correct view, doesn't make it correct.
Again, Cornelius refutes your view totally.
You need to support this assumption with actual Scripture. Please do.
Well, how about that!!??
You are now admitting that early Acts was "transitional". I made that point way back.
I'm sure they believed before they were baptized; and therefore Acts 2:38 is not an exception.Belief precedes receiving the Holy Spirit.
The EXCEPTION (your word) is Acts 2:38.
See 1 Corinthians 13:5 (RSV).