Paul's Conversion

Yes, both were necessary as evidenced in scripture: (Acts 2:38-41, 8:12-18, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16), and Paul's epistles (Rom 6:3-5, 1 Cor 1:15-16, 1 Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:4-5, Col 2:12, Titus 3:5-6, Heb 4:1-2)

Jesus' death paid the penalty for the sin of all of mankind. Without Jesus' sacrifice there would be no way for anyone's personal sins to be washed away. God gave instructions requiring those who believed in Jesus' sacrifice to obey. One of the requirements He gave was that everyone be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of their sins. Those who believe God means what His word says will obey and their personal sins will be washed away. While others who refuse to believe God's message will not.

I don't know how anyone can say I am adding a personal interpretation when the scripture presented specifically says, Why wait? Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.

Are you suggesting that the scripture does not say that?

You're putting obedience before faith. Abraham believed before he was circumcised. There were plenty of other nations of that time who circumcised, who were not right with God.

The washing away of the sins is through faith in Christ (calling on the name of the Lord for forgiveness). The baptism is a demonstration of the immersion into Christ that has taken place. The Jews of that time also practiced baptism, but it was useless without saving faith (in Christ).

I have been reading all your posts.
I disagree that baptism saves us whereas as you believe if we are not baptised we are not saved.

To even suggest I think I am the Holy Spirit is really low. A messenger is someone who carries a message to others. Nothing more. We should all be doing that according to Jesus. (Matt. 28:19)

Furthermore the born again believer has been indwelt by the Holy Ghost. And according to scripture the Holy Ghost has the ability to teach us all things and prompts us how we should answer others.

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Luke 12:11-12
And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

The heavy burden you place on people is telling them that if they are not baptised then they are not saved as their sins are remissed.

Exactly the same burden laid on me when I was told because I did not speak in tongues I was not saved.

It’s akin to telling people that works save them.

Basically it’s heresy and building on the foundation with crap and precious stuff.

You obviously do not read my posts either and in fact a few you have not had the guts to answer.

This one would suffice.

Are we justified by faith or baptism?
Another one to throw out there.

Are we declared righteous by baptism or faith?

Hopefully at some you will just answer questions given to you not just by me but others.

Don’t quote bible verses as I know them.
I have already told my stance.

It was Jesus who told Paul he would be told all that he was required to do. Surely you are not suggesting that Jesus did not tell Ananias what to tell Paul, are you?

Also, scripture makes it clear that Paul both received the Holy Ghost and got water baptized. One does not replace the other.

Acts 22:10
And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Peter initially provided the message of salvation to both Jews and Gentiles, Afterward he assisted in the Samaritan's receiving the Holy Ghost. Afterward Paul was to carry the same message to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. While Peter continued to minister to the Jews.

You are choosing to accept opinions rather than what scripture says.

Everything you state does not change the fact that
Paul's sins were washed away through his obedience to the command to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 22:16) Was that the only requirement in order to receive the new birth? No. He had to believe in Jesus, repent and receive the Holy Ghost as well.

Faith is what prompts obedience. Paul believed it was Jesus who appeared to him, however, directly from scripture we see that his sins were no washed away at that moment. What we do see is Paul believed Jesus when he said go to Damascus where he would be told what he must do. Paul is told to be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord. He believes Ananias and does what he is told.

Now consider what would have happened if Paul believed it was Jesus but refused to obey what Jesus told him to do. Would Paul's sins have been washed away? Not according to scripture.

The word makes it clear that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him. (Heb. 5:9)

Both are required, see James' comment about the righteousness of Abraham:

James 2:19-23
"You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. 20 How foolish! Can't you see that faith without good deeds is useless?

21 Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see, his faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. 23 And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith."24 So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone." New Living Translation ®

I do not disagree with your reasoning at all but as you know, to help someone, first implies they want to be helped. I have read, as I am sure you have, his posts and he shows no signs of wanting help but remains stubbornly opposed to revealed Truth in the Scriptures.

There comes a point where one must take a final stand and walk away. I have always had tremendous patience with those who are questioning but little patience with those who think themselves teachers and have little or no Truth in their teachings. In short, "a religionist". Throughout The Gospels, our Lord had the strongest language for the religionist of His day. He also had extreme patience with those who were questioning. If one professes himself to be a religious guide but walks in darkness, then that one should be called a "hypocrite", "viper" and "blind guide".

Hello Wansvic,

Well, I would remind you of the thief on the cross who could not come down to be baptized or do anything at all, except have faith, which alone brought him into the kingdom of God. I would also mention Cornelius' household, who while Peter was still speaking the gospel them, the Spirit fell upon them and they spoke in languages and prophesied and that without being baptized, performing works, being under the law, etc. For Peter said later that God cleansed their hearts by faith.

By the way, the scripture does not say that Jesus directly told Ananias to have Paul Baptized. Below is what the Lord said:

"Get up!” the Lord told him. “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

"So Ananias went to the house, and when he arrived, he placed his hands on Saul. “Brother Saul,” he said, “the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

Therefore, the "it shall be told thee what you must do" was for Ananias to place his hands on Saul so that he could receive his sight and to receive the Holy Spirit. Paul's being Baptized was/is a public proclamation of his faith in Christ, but it does not save a person. Don't get me wrong, since the word of God says for us to be Baptized, then we should. However, if someone received Christ and living a life of faith, but was never baptized, I don't believe that would keep them from receiving eternal life.

It was before Isaac was even born that Abraham was credited with righteousness for his faith. Below are the scriptures:

But Abram replied, “O Lord GOD, what can You give me, since I remain childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Abram continued, “Behold, You have given me no offspring, so a servant in my household will be my heir.”

Then the word of the LORD came to Abram, saying, “This one will not be your heir, but one who comes from your own body will be your heir.” And the LORD took him outside and said, “Now look to the heavens and count the stars, if you are able.” Then He told him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

So it was by faith alone that Abraham was credited with righteousness. It is the same for all believers, we also are credited with righteousness when we believe and trust in God as the One who sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sins.

We are not saved by performing works, but they follow as a result of our faith and the indwelling of the Spirit and by them we glorify God and are building up our treasures in heaven. But we are not saved by them.

Do you know what?
After I responded to your post I did actually start to think how would Jesus approached the situation and what would he say.

I came to same conclusion you have quoted above.
In fact in previous posts I think I have referenced the teaching of baptism saves is heresy and in fact akin to laying a millstone on a person and giving a heavy burden to a believer, just like the Pharisees did.

So yes I agree and commend what you say.

I think I came from the angle of someone who believes something that they have been told, rather than research for themselves.
That is where I got a bit worried.
However the person whose teaching we oppose as you say is teaching something that I believe has no biblical truth due to a lack of Hermeneutics.

So yes I agree with you.

Thank you for responding.

this is exactly why you cant talk to this person.

Hi gives his OPINION of what scripture says, Then when anyone disagrees with him. It’s THEIR OPINION.

A hypocrite at heart

Paul is no different from Peter or John all of them were appointed to preach to all people and nationalities

Paul and barnabus being appointed to the Gentiles , and then I here focusing on Jerusalem was something Jesus had told them who walked with him to do first they had to preach it to all of Israel and then we’re to go out to the Gentiles the same as Paul

Paul was a Roman citizen by birth , he was much better suited to move about and be respected and even protected in gentile communities around the Roman Empire it saved him more than once , the others were all devout Jews who weren’t Roman citizens and were hated now by the other Jews because of their message that the Jews had crucified thier messiah , Paul also became hated terribly when he converted by the Jews of the ot law thy he became instant pursuers of Paul above the rest tonthe Pharisees Paul was a traitor

because of this oaul couldn’t preach and be in Jerusalem until he was sent like Jesus when he avoided he jerusalem when they began to pursue him until the lord sent him there to die for us

Paul’s life is a reflection of Jesus life , it’s the reason Paul seems exalted to Gentiles they hadn’t known the scriptures but Paul was a Pharisee and knew them well he was able to take the message in the prophets and speak it to Gentiles intelligibly to explain the revelation of Christ they hold without the hearer having to know scripture.


Because he was a Roman citizen and didn’t purchase it but was a citizen by birth he had been educated in the gentile language of Greek far better than any other apostle it logistically and practically made sense for Paul who was already converting Gentiles ( just as Peter also had been doing when God gave him his dream and sent him to Gentiles )
he also had the ability to enter into places the non roman citizens couldn’t

his prior education on the gentile language of dominance and eloquent ability to express words made him the right choice to lead the gentile conversion but it doesn’t make him any different or his message .

Paul is probably my favorite apostle to read because of the magnitude of content and revelation in his epistles , I feel as if many hold that view , but John , held revelation that speaks a message that holds something unique in that it’s seperate from the other three gospels and reveals the identity of Jesus Christ and our relationship to God the father through the son and how we are his children unlike any other apostle

paul holds a message about jew and gentile being made one , Gentiles being included into the promises of Abraham unlike any other apostle , he truly as he claimed experesses revelations of exceeding glory in the subject matter of the law , prophets and psalms and revealed many things over but his ministry is focused on gentile and jew having no difference at all but flesh meaning nothing who we were before Jesus and who we are after changes everything jew or gentile according to Paul , repentance and faith in Christ and belief of the gospel is salvstion by grace and faith

Each has thier own unique focus in thier doctrine , and hilghkightbunderstsndkng that makes the other apostles doctrine clearer it’s all one message and is to jew and all gentile peoples to be made into Gods kingdom and it’s people

is this a language problem? I said DENOM which is short for denomination...demon, was never a part of my post. OK? again I said DENOM....that is short for denomination

ok....but that is off the charts not good...

no it is not of God. I agree

we are on the same page....an expression meaning we agree

so, are we ok now? I never said demon....please check my post....I said DENOM, short for denomination