In response to Post #106, Part 2.
Here is scripture # 7 That “proves (?)” that Faith has nothing to do with salvation because it is not mentioned in this (and all of the other) verses. According to Mailman.)
1 Peter 3:21. Here the apostle Peter says, guided by the Holy Spirit, that baptism saves us. Now, Mailman says that is a lie. You can’t actually believe what PETER says here. He MUST deny this very plain statement from God because if it is true, then it destroys His doctrine of salvation by faith only. But then he says if baptism is not mentioned in a verse that is teaching about faith, then that means, baptism is not necessary to salvation, thus protecting his faith only doctrine. So, if that is true, then, here is a verse that is teaching about baptism, but It does not mention faith. What should I believe about that? It MUST mean that since faith is not mentioned in this verse then faith is not necessary for salvation. After all, it only says baptism saves you, it does NOT say that faith saves you. That also means that I can ADD the word ONLY to that verse and say we are saved by baptism ONLY; or we are saved by baptism ALONE. This is what he does with faith; why can’t I do that with baptism????And to show how wrong that practice is, I can also follow that line of thinking with “repentance.” We’ve already seen 5 very strong scriptures from God that emphasizes the necessity of repentance. Would it be wrong for me to teach that we are SAVED BY REPENTANCE ALONE? Is it wrong for me to teach that, but it is NOT WRONG for them to teach SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE? They are BOTH wrong and for the same reasons! Because Jesus, The Son of God says and teaches that they are both necessary. Mark 16:16 and Luke 13:3., Acts 17:30.
8) Acts 22:16- Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on the name of the Lord. Where is faith? It’s not in that verse. Why didn’t Ananias tell Saul to believe and wash away your sins? He did not even know Saul, had never met him before. How does he know if Saul believes or not?? In fact, all he knows about Saul is that he is an UNBELIEVER who has been persecuting Christians. That’s what he says to God. So why doesn’t he tell him to believe? I guess that means faith does not save you. Faith is not mentioned here, so that means it is not necessary to WASH AWAY YOUR SINS. All you need to do is be baptized. You don’t have to believe. It’s not in that verse is it? Then it is not necessary for salvation Surely, Ananias would have mentioned it if it was necessary. ( this is NOT my thinking but Mailman’s belief)
And finally, # 9-1 Cor. 1. Paul simply lists 2 things that are NECESSARY, he says MUST BE before you can call yourself a “Christian” after Christ. One, is Christ must have been CRUCIFIED for you and second, you MUST HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO HIM. He doesn’t even mention faith! Where is faith? It’s not there. That means, by Mailman’s argument that faith, since it is not in those verses cannot be necessary to call yourself a “Christian.” All we need to do, according to 1 Cor. 1 is be baptized into Christ. That is all that chapter says we must do to be a Christian. Faith is not mentioned. It is not there. And we can support what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 1 with what he says in Galatians 3:27 that says “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So, in order to call yourself after Christ, you must be baptized into Him and put Him on. Obviously, faith has nothing to do with it because faith is not mentioned in any of those scriptures.
I ask you to have an honest heart. You see how this argument against baptism is foolish and proves nothing. If it doesn’t prove faith is unnecessary, then the same argumentation does NOT prove baptism is unnecessary.
Here is scripture # 7 That “proves (?)” that Faith has nothing to do with salvation because it is not mentioned in this (and all of the other) verses. According to Mailman.)
1 Peter 3:21. Here the apostle Peter says, guided by the Holy Spirit, that baptism saves us. Now, Mailman says that is a lie. You can’t actually believe what PETER says here. He MUST deny this very plain statement from God because if it is true, then it destroys His doctrine of salvation by faith only. But then he says if baptism is not mentioned in a verse that is teaching about faith, then that means, baptism is not necessary to salvation, thus protecting his faith only doctrine. So, if that is true, then, here is a verse that is teaching about baptism, but It does not mention faith. What should I believe about that? It MUST mean that since faith is not mentioned in this verse then faith is not necessary for salvation. After all, it only says baptism saves you, it does NOT say that faith saves you. That also means that I can ADD the word ONLY to that verse and say we are saved by baptism ONLY; or we are saved by baptism ALONE. This is what he does with faith; why can’t I do that with baptism????And to show how wrong that practice is, I can also follow that line of thinking with “repentance.” We’ve already seen 5 very strong scriptures from God that emphasizes the necessity of repentance. Would it be wrong for me to teach that we are SAVED BY REPENTANCE ALONE? Is it wrong for me to teach that, but it is NOT WRONG for them to teach SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE? They are BOTH wrong and for the same reasons! Because Jesus, The Son of God says and teaches that they are both necessary. Mark 16:16 and Luke 13:3., Acts 17:30.
8) Acts 22:16- Ananias tells Saul to be baptized, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on the name of the Lord. Where is faith? It’s not in that verse. Why didn’t Ananias tell Saul to believe and wash away your sins? He did not even know Saul, had never met him before. How does he know if Saul believes or not?? In fact, all he knows about Saul is that he is an UNBELIEVER who has been persecuting Christians. That’s what he says to God. So why doesn’t he tell him to believe? I guess that means faith does not save you. Faith is not mentioned here, so that means it is not necessary to WASH AWAY YOUR SINS. All you need to do is be baptized. You don’t have to believe. It’s not in that verse is it? Then it is not necessary for salvation Surely, Ananias would have mentioned it if it was necessary. ( this is NOT my thinking but Mailman’s belief)
And finally, # 9-1 Cor. 1. Paul simply lists 2 things that are NECESSARY, he says MUST BE before you can call yourself a “Christian” after Christ. One, is Christ must have been CRUCIFIED for you and second, you MUST HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO HIM. He doesn’t even mention faith! Where is faith? It’s not there. That means, by Mailman’s argument that faith, since it is not in those verses cannot be necessary to call yourself a “Christian.” All we need to do, according to 1 Cor. 1 is be baptized into Christ. That is all that chapter says we must do to be a Christian. Faith is not mentioned. It is not there. And we can support what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 1 with what he says in Galatians 3:27 that says “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So, in order to call yourself after Christ, you must be baptized into Him and put Him on. Obviously, faith has nothing to do with it because faith is not mentioned in any of those scriptures.
I ask you to have an honest heart. You see how this argument against baptism is foolish and proves nothing. If it doesn’t prove faith is unnecessary, then the same argumentation does NOT prove baptism is unnecessary.