At what point in our salvation is the blood of Christ applied?

[studier]

So, why are the traditions having such a hard time with truth?

The question of the ages and what I've been referring to in regard to everyone's view that the Spirit is teaching them and is with their teachers whatever their theological traditions/camps. Why all the disparity, the several theological traditions of interpretation, the lack of corporate unity spoken of at minimum in Eph4 that speaks of the Lord gifting His Ekklesia with gifted personnel for its growth and maturity?

It's easy to think we're the only ones getting truth and Berachah is known for making good soldiers who think that way. I was one of them. Then I wasn't and for one reason and one reason only, I saw some things in the Text that I began to view differently.

In regard to being taught from the languages, Berachah is one of the staunchest practitioners of this that I've still ever encountered. On the flip side I know that teaching from the languages at any level does not prevent carrying theological presuppositions into exegetical translational work. I've experienced it, seen it in many works, been asked to leave an online discussion for pointing it out in practice because it hurt some millennial's feelings.

I'm about to read an article by a guy that learned second hand from an RBT student who I believe became a pastor ordained at Berachah. This guy analyzes Scripture in as detailed a fashion as RBT last I read him. I contacted him years ago to connect and ask him if he in fact had learned from RBT. I read some of his work until I read an article where he analyzed a few verses word by word, classifying each piece of parsing and grammar and then ended it with a presuppositional conclusion that was no way in the language. Same thing the millennials were doing.

We still have a way to go IMO. Seems odd after 2,000 years. I asked my Greek professor at the beginning of my training what the problem is after 2 millennia. One word answer, "eisegesis."

 

[Genez]

Excuse me.

So, why are the traditions having such a hard time with truth?

The Lord Jesus Christ Propitiated the Father.......Equal privilege and equal opportunity for ALL for salvation.

The Lord Jesus Christ will never forsake a saved individual. Eternal security.

TRUTHS in His word. Not some tradition.

Some Calvinists had a hard time understanding how grace solves the depravity of man issue.

And, as a result? Theodore Beza and Co. came up with a presumptuous conclusion. TULIP.

Grace is power from God.
Grace removes the dominating effect of the flesh over one's soul.
As to free up one's soul, as to make that soul (being made free of the sin nature)...
able to actually choose!

Grace does not force you to believe.
Grace forces us into a state being made able to choose by means of the soul that has been isolated from the flesh.

Be that as it may? When grace has suppressed the flesh?
It still does not guarantee that one under the influence of grace will believe.


God found a way to clear the deck!

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Because we must discern our new dispensation with its own new type of baptism.
Our baptism that is the reality, that water could only symbolize.

After Jesus was resurrected, He appeared to his disciples to teach them the following change that was to take place.

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: ​

“Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you ​

have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you ​

will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:4-5​

Peter messed up at first, having forgotten what Jesus told him. For Peter continued doing what he had done before the Church age began.
Peter, without thinking, automatically did what he had been trained to do. He ordered water baptisms.

It was only later on that Peter recalled what Jesus had told him.
Then we see no more water baptisms being commanded by Peter once Peter remembered!

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. ​

Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be ​

baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Acts 11:15-16​

See that?

Peter finally remembered Jesus words, only after commanding thousands of water baptisms!


Grace and peace!

Ohhhhhhh I see Peter the apostle and Philip the apostle had it wrong hahahaha


at least you aconolwedge what your argument relies upon Peter who was filled with the Holy Ghost lol …he the chosen apostle of the Lord filled with the Holy Ghost speaking by the spirit he got it wrong 😂😂😂

“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:4, 37-39‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Peter messed up but , you guys explain how it “ really is “ that second different baptism lol

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:4-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It’s pretty hard to discuss the bible when people insist the scripture and men god empowers for it wrong to make thier own point that’s contrary .

As long as you acknowledge your argument relies on Peter having it wrong and also Philip who was filled with the spirit and baptized also in water …..

I think that pretty much says everything I agree with Peter and the other apostles I don’t think they got it wrong .

 

[studier]

Some Calvinists had a hard time understanding how grace solves the depravity of man issue.

And, as a result? Theodore Beza and Co. came up with a presumptuous conclusion. TULIP.

Grace is power from God.
Grace removes the dominating effect of the flesh over one's soul.
As to free up one's soul, as to make that soul (being made free of the sin nature)...
able to actually choose!

Grace does not force you to believe.
Grace forces us into a state being made able to choose by means of the soul that has been isolated from the flesh.

Be that as it may? When grace has suppressed the flesh?
It still does not guarantee that one under the influence of grace will believe.


God found a way to clear the deck!

You should post a link to this teaching to include the Scriptural detail to be reviewed. It's nice to read something about grace that is beyond the unmerited favor explanation that always seems to miss at minimum the Titus2:11-15 usage ending with Paul essentially commanding Titus to teach this and not let anyone disdain/disregard him. Always reminded me of RBT talking about taking disruptive pew sitters out by his ushers (aka his policemen) and if they didn't go quietly meeting them in the parking lot to show them what a pastor really is.

 

[Genez]

The question of the ages and what I've been referring to in regard to everyone's view that the Spirit is teaching them and is with their teachers whatever their theological traditions/camps. Why all the disparity, the several theological traditions of interpretation, the lack of corporate unity spoken of at minimum in Eph4 that speaks of the Lord gifting His Ekklesia with gifted personnel for its growth and maturity?

It's easy to think we're the only ones getting truth and Berachah is known for making good soldiers who think that way. I was one of them. Then I wasn't and for one reason and one reason only, I saw some things in the Text that I began to view differently.

In regard to being taught from the languages, Berachah is one of the staunchest practitioners of this that I've still ever encountered. On the flip side I know that teaching from the languages at any level does not prevent carrying theological presuppositions into exegetical translational work. I've experienced it, seen it in many works, been asked to leave an online discussion for pointing it out in practice because it hurt some millennial's feelings.

I'm about to read an article by a guy that learned second hand from an RBT student who I believe became a pastor ordained at Berachah. This guy analyzes Scripture in as detailed a fashion as RBT last I read him. I contacted him years ago to connect and ask him if he in fact had learned from RBT. I read some of his work until I read an article where he analyzed a few verses word by word, classifying each piece of parsing and grammar and then ended it with a presuppositional conclusion that was no way in the language. Same thing the millennials were doing.

We still have a way to go IMO. Seems odd after 2,000 years. I asked my Greek professor at the beginning of my training what the problem is after 2 millennia. One word answer, "eisegesis."

When I was attending Bible college there was teacher of ancient languages by the name of Stan Ashby.
He was a WWll generation, professor. Harvard.

He recommended RB Thieme Jr to me.
He said used RB Thieme, Jr for reference study.

Life is not fair in the Devil's world.
That is why we are not to live in it.

.......

 

[Genez]

Ohhhhhhh I see Peter the apostle and Philip the apostle had it wrong hahahaha


at least you aconolwedge what your argument relies upon Peter who was filled with the Holy Ghost lol …he the chosen apostle of the Lord filled with the Holy Ghost speaking by the spirit he got it wrong 😂😂😂

“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:4, 37-39‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Peter messed up but , you guys explain how it “ really is “ that second different baptism lol

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:4-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

It’s pretty hard to discuss the bible when people insist the scripture and men god empowers for it wrong to make thier own point that’s contrary .

As long as you acknowledge your argument relies on Peter having it wrong and also Philip who was filled with the spirit and baptized also in water …..

I think that pretty much says everything I agree with Peter and the other apostles I don’t think they got it wrong .

We are only held accountable to God for what can be known.
The new baptism was in it's infancy and not yet understood.

Since getting water baptized was not something sinful in itself?
God allowed for certain things to take place before the knowledge was made known to all.

 

[Kroogz]

The question of the ages and what I've been referring to in regard to everyone's view that the Spirit is teaching them and is with their teachers whatever their theological traditions/camps. Why all the disparity, the several theological traditions of interpretation, the lack of corporate unity spoken of at minimum in Eph4 that speaks of the Lord gifting His Ekklesia with gifted personnel for its growth and maturity?

It's easy to think we're the only ones getting truth and Berachah is known for making good soldiers who think that way. I was one of them. Then I wasn't and for one reason and one reason only, I saw some things in the Text that I began to view differently.

In regard to being taught from the languages, Berachah is one of the staunchest practitioners of this that I've still ever encountered. On the flip side I know that teaching from the languages at any level does not prevent carrying theological presuppositions into exegetical translational work. I've experienced it, seen it in many works, been asked to leave an online discussion for pointing it out in practice because it hurt some millennial's feelings.

I'm about to read an article by a guy that learned second hand from an RBT student who I believe became a pastor ordained at Berachah. This guy analyzes Scripture in as detailed a fashion as RBT last I read him. I contacted him years ago to connect and ask him if he in fact had learned from RBT. I read some of his work until I read an article where he analyzed a few verses word by word, classifying each piece of parsing and grammar and then ended it with a presuppositional conclusion that was no way in the language. Same thing the millennials were doing.

We still have a way to go IMO. Seems odd after 2,000 years. I asked my Greek professor at the beginning of my training what the problem is after 2 millennia. One word answer, "eisegesis."

How old are you?

If you can't discern that you are eternally saved. Have eternal life. And will never perish.....I will teach you in the eternal state when you have no "good" left in you.

 

[studier]

When I was attending Bible college there was teacher of ancient languages by the name of Stan Ashby.
He was a WWll generation, professor. Harvard.

He recommended RB Thieme Jr to me.
He said used RB Thieme, Jr for reference study.

Life is not fair in the Devil's world.
That is why we are not to live in it.

.......

I've no doubt I was led to Berachah through intense prayer and through Berachah to seminary to learn mainly Greek analysis. Over the years and in more prayer, I'm left with the understanding it was at minimum to learn the type of analysis and commitment Scripture deserves and to isolate for long periods for years and always be requesting the teaching by the Spirit. RBT used to speak of the joy of being in intense study trying to grasp something, asking and asking for the assist of the Spirit and at a point being given it. He was right, there's nothing like it.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Some Calvinists had a hard time understanding how grace solves the depravity of man issue.

And, as a result? Theodore Beza and Co. came up with a presumptuous conclusion. TULIP.

Grace is power from God.
Grace removes the dominating effect of the flesh over one's soul.
As to free up one's soul, as to make that soul (being made free of the sin nature)...
able to actually choose!

Grace does not force you to believe.
Grace forces us into a state being made able to choose by means of the soul that has been isolated from the flesh.

Be that as it may? When grace has suppressed the flesh?
It still does not guarantee that one under the influence of grace will believe.


God found a way to clear the deck!

We are only held accountable to God for what can be known.
The new baptism was in it's infancy and not yet understood.

Since getting water baptized was not something sinful in itself?
God allowed for certain things to take place before the knowledge was made known to all.

“We are only held accountable to God for what can be known.
The new baptism was in it's infancy and not yet understood. “

sure sure just eliminate what’s actually taught in the Bible and teach about secret “grace “baptisms lol …..that’s a good foundation the apostles filled with the Holy Ghost , they had it wrong to baptize in water Jesus had it wrong to be baptized in water all of his apostles had it wrong to be baptized and to baptize others in water in Jesus name

all for the sake of offering people a different gospel , a different baptism that’s supposedly going to end up replacing the one Jesus sent to everyone and promised salvation

Check . Good way to begin a doctrine remove the gospel and baptism Jesus sent for salvation in his name , create an alternative ….that won’t turn out well

 

[Pilgrimshope]

We are only held accountable to God for what can be known.
The new baptism was in it's infancy and not yet understood.

Since getting water baptized was not something sinful in itself?
God allowed for certain things to take place before the knowledge was made known to all.

Since getting water baptized was not something sinful in itself?

Hahaha no , commands of God like baptism for remission of sins in his name ….aren’t sinful lol your correct there

That ole apostle Peter filled with the Holy Ghost he didn’t sin when he baptized in water in Jesus name lol

“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:46-48‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I see now Peter didn’t sin by command baptism in water n the name of Jesus again here …..he just “didn’t understand as well as you guys today do so I should just reject what he taught and go with your new baptism that really means Nono e ever needs to get baptized at all it’s a secret one done by grace lol …“

tough choice but I’ll stick with Peter and the other apostles and then learn about baptism for remission of sins from Paul’s letter like we’re supposed to

Peter … this guy after he received the holy ghost had it all wrong …

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:

and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:17-19‬ ‭

Yeah we should probably ly just throw this out and pretend there’s another one

“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.

For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:38-39‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This is frustrating lol 😂 but I would never be so wise as to eliminate Jesus teachings and all the apostles teachings for the sake of inventing my own thing . You folks who hold to Paul’s letters tend to try to reject everything else but In Truth if someone shows you what Paul wrote in them you reject those as well but for a few verses

 

[studier]

How old are you?

If you can't discern that you are eternally saved. Have eternal life. And will never perish.....I will teach you in the eternal state when you have no "good" left in you.

What makes you think I don't think I'm eternally saved and that you can teach me something? I've likely studied under your pastor-teacher for more hours and with more commitment and intensity than you before being reviewed by him and his board then ordained by him. I've had many conversations with other pastors trained by him and one who lived with him for a while. And I've likely got more reading and listening to other theological systems and scholarship behind me than you may ever have if you sit in one place listening to one system forever.

When you branch out which I did after I realized mainly from the Text in some very isolated and intense studies in Christ in Spirit that Free Grace theology has some problems that I and many others don't agree with, you come to realize that the boogeymen according to FG have some thinkers and scholars that are every bit as intense and knowledgeable as RBT or any FG advocate and their work in the Text in some areas makes more sense than FG. I've done my own work and then found some of it confirmed outside of FG.

In my 70's if it's really meaningful. Our Lord pulled me out of a career about 40 years ago and for the greater part retired me and had me sit and study as my full-time new pursuit after showing me how messed up parts of organized christendom are.

 

[BillyBob]

Perhaps it is as follows:
The blood of Christ was provided for His people at the cross. And who are His people? They are the elect who are spoken of throughout scripture.
Hebrews tells us that the OT sacrifices were not sufficient to save. Otherwise, they would not be offered year after year.

Heb 9:11-14
The perfect sacrifice happened but once for all who were chosen by the Father. Therefore, His blood was shed for them only and the HS will eventually give them a new heart, drawing them to Christ.

Heb 10:8-10

Think about it:

• The blood is shed for His people only
• Not a drop is wasted

Christ's Mission Accomplished!

 

[Genez]

“We are only held accountable to God for what can be known.
The new baptism was in it's infancy and not yet understood. “

sure sure just eliminate what’s actually taught in the Bible and teach about secret “grace “baptisms lol …..that’s a good foundation the apostles filled with the Holy Ghost , they had it wrong to baptize in water Jesus had it wrong to be baptized in water all of his apostles had it wrong to be baptized and to baptize others in water in Jesus name

all for the sake of offering people a different gospel , a different baptism that’s supposedly going to end up replacing the one Jesus sent to everyone and promised salvation

Check . Good way to begin a doctrine remove the gospel and baptism Jesus sent for salvation in his name , create an alternative ….that won’t turn out well

They did not yet have the Bible that you speak of as having the obvious answers....

 

[Pilgrimshope]

They did not yet have the Bible that you speak of as having the obvious answers....

They were filled with the spirit of God they gave the answers and wrote the New Testament. The Bible just recorded those answers so we can hear and believe the truth

 

[Inquisitor]

It's answering from the perspective of Church history, so it's compiling from traditions.

Not if you restrict AI to N.T. only.

It depends on which posts your referring to.

Here is an example where the restriction on Ai is imposed.

The question follows.

Using the N.T. only, that is, Sola Scripture. Is there sufficient evidence to support the idea of seven sacraments listed in the scripture? Some recognize only two (Baptism and Eucharist), while others recognize seven (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage). Further, does the scripture endorse a water baptism or a Spirit baptism?

ChatGPT said:
Using Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone as the source of doctrine—and focusing strictly on the New Testament (NT), there are important distinctions to make regarding:

1. Whether the NT teaches seven sacraments.
2. Whether it supports only two (Baptism and Eucharist).
3. What kind of baptism it affirms: water or Spirit.

1. Are There Seven Sacraments in the New Testament?
The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy affirm seven sacraments, but this sacramental system is a result of theological development over centuries. From a strictly NT Sola Scriptura standpoint, here's how each of the seven sacraments fares:
a. Baptism ✅

• Clearly instituted by Christ: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38
• Practiced by apostles: Acts 8:36–38; Acts 10:47
• Theological meaning explained: Romans 6:3–4

b. Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) ✅

• Instituted by Christ: Matthew 26:26–28; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
• Practiced and theologically explained: 1 Corinthians 10–11

These two have direct institution by Jesus, are commanded, and are normatively practiced in the NT. That’s why many Protestants recognize only these as sacraments.
The other five:
c. Confirmation ❓

• Often associated with the laying on of hands and reception of the Spirit: Acts 8:14–17; Acts 19:5–6
• However, it's not explicitly instituted by Jesus as a distinct sacrament.
• Ambiguity over whether it is a separate rite or part of baptism/Spirit reception.

d. Penance (Confession) ❓

• Jesus gives authority to forgive sins: John 20:22–23
• Confession of sins encouraged: James 5:16
• But no clear ritual or command to perform it as a sacrament distinct from repentance.

e. Anointing of the Sick ❓

• James 5:14–15 describes elders anointing the sick with oil
• Seen as an act of healing and prayer, but not called a sacrament.
• No explicit command by Jesus to do this.

f. Holy Orders (Ordination) ❓

• Appointing elders/deacons: Acts 6:1–6; 1 Timothy 4:14
• Paul discusses church leadership roles: 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1
• While there’s a laying on of hands and roles defined, there’s no direct institution by Christ of this as a sacrament.

g. Marriage ❓

• Marriage is honored (Hebrews 13:4) and Jesus speaks about its divine design (Matthew 19:4–6)
• But it predates the NT and is not instituted by Jesus as a new sacrament.
• Paul describes marriage symbolizing Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32), but it lacks sacramental command.

👉 Conclusion: From a Sola Scriptura perspective, only Baptism and the Eucharist are explicitly instituted by Christ, practiced in the early Church, and theologically explained as continuing rites—qualifying them as sacraments. The other five may be biblically supported practices, but not clearly instituted sacraments.
2. Water Baptism or Spirit Baptism?
The NT speaks of both:
a. Water Baptism ✅

• Commanded by Jesus: Matthew 28:19
• Practiced by apostles: Acts 2:38; 8:36–38; 10:47
• Seen as a normative initiation rite

b. Spirit Baptism ✅

• Prophesied by John the Baptist: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5
• Fulfilled at Pentecost: Acts 2; Acts 10:44–48
• Seen as the inward reality of regeneration and empowerment (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Relationship between the two:

• Often occur together, though sometimes in different order: Acts 10 (Spirit comes before water), Acts 19 (water before Spirit)
• Paul links both in theology: Titus 3:5–6; 1 Corinthians 12:13
• Yet, water baptism is never replaced by Spirit baptism in NT practice.

👉 Conclusion: The NT affirms both water and Spirit baptism. Water baptism is the visible, commanded rite; Spirit baptism is the inward, spiritual work associated with conversion and empowerment.
Summary Answer:

• From a Sola Scriptura (NT only) viewpoint:
  • Only Baptism and the Eucharist are clearly instituted as sacraments by Jesus.
  • The other five may have biblical roots, but lack NT evidence as sacraments per se.
  • Both water and Spirit baptism are affirmed, with water baptism being the visible sign and Spirit baptism being the inner transformation.

 

[Ouch]

The elementary principles of the Lord Jesus Christ Is not some tradition. And the elementaries are NOT known.

We can all believe and be saved.

And He will lose NONE.

The tradition says......We may be able to forfeit/ walk away/ lose salvation. And the majority can't even believe to be saved

The TRUTH...

He died and rose again for ALL.

He will lose NONE who have put their trust in Him.


If one thinks that salvation can be lost for any reason......They are believing tradition and not His truth.

If one thinks that some cannot believe in the Lord for their salvation.....They believe tradition and not His truth.

So you think we can be reborn, Believe, repent, get baptized in JESUS name to get rid of our sins and he fills us with HIS spirit like he did his disciples in Acts 2:4.

Then we can do anything we like, lie, cheat be a drunker what ever and sill be reborn?

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Paul said he dies daily, because just the wrong though we commit sin and sin will not enter heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

1 John 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

After we are reborn, and we sin all we need to do is repent and coffess them to him.

Even if a person (like myself did) was reborn and just live life as usual not even going to church will be hell bound we are suppose to work for him like his disciples did. Yea I'm back luck I didn't die when I was going down the wrong path.

 

[studier]

Not if you restrict AI to N.T. only.

It depends on which posts your referring to.

Here is an example where the restriction on Ai is imposed.

The question follows.

Using the N.T. only, that is, Sola Scripture. Is there sufficient evidence to support the idea of seven sacraments listed in the scripture? Some recognize only two (Baptism and Eucharist), while others recognize seven (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Marriage). Further, does the scripture endorse a water baptism or a Spirit baptism?

ChatGPT said:
Using Sola Scriptura—Scripture alone as the source of doctrine—and focusing strictly on the New Testament (NT), there are important distinctions to make regarding:

1. Whether the NT teaches seven sacraments.
2. Whether it supports only two (Baptism and Eucharist).
3. What kind of baptism it affirms: water or Spirit.

1. Are There Seven Sacraments in the New Testament?
The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy affirm seven sacraments, but this sacramental system is a result of theological development over centuries. From a strictly NT Sola Scriptura standpoint, here's how each of the seven sacraments fares:
a. Baptism ✅

• Clearly instituted by Christ: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38
• Practiced by apostles: Acts 8:36–38; Acts 10:47
• Theological meaning explained: Romans 6:3–4

b. Eucharist (Lord’s Supper) ✅

• Instituted by Christ: Matthew 26:26–28; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26
• Practiced and theologically explained: 1 Corinthians 10–11

These two have direct institution by Jesus, are commanded, and are normatively practiced in the NT. That’s why many Protestants recognize only these as sacraments.
The other five:
c. Confirmation ❓

• Often associated with the laying on of hands and reception of the Spirit: Acts 8:14–17; Acts 19:5–6
• However, it's not explicitly instituted by Jesus as a distinct sacrament.
• Ambiguity over whether it is a separate rite or part of baptism/Spirit reception.

d. Penance (Confession) ❓

• Jesus gives authority to forgive sins: John 20:22–23
• Confession of sins encouraged: James 5:16
• But no clear ritual or command to perform it as a sacrament distinct from repentance.

e. Anointing of the Sick ❓

• James 5:14–15 describes elders anointing the sick with oil
• Seen as an act of healing and prayer, but not called a sacrament.
• No explicit command by Jesus to do this.

f. Holy Orders (Ordination) ❓

• Appointing elders/deacons: Acts 6:1–6; 1 Timothy 4:14
• Paul discusses church leadership roles: 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1
• While there’s a laying on of hands and roles defined, there’s no direct institution by Christ of this as a sacrament.

g. Marriage ❓

• Marriage is honored (Hebrews 13:4) and Jesus speaks about its divine design (Matthew 19:4–6)
• But it predates the NT and is not instituted by Jesus as a new sacrament.
• Paul describes marriage symbolizing Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31–32), but it lacks sacramental command.

👉 Conclusion: From a Sola Scriptura perspective, only Baptism and the Eucharist are explicitly instituted by Christ, practiced in the early Church, and theologically explained as continuing rites—qualifying them as sacraments. The other five may be biblically supported practices, but not clearly instituted sacraments.
2. Water Baptism or Spirit Baptism?
The NT speaks of both:
a. Water Baptism ✅

• Commanded by Jesus: Matthew 28:19
• Practiced by apostles: Acts 2:38; 8:36–38; 10:47
• Seen as a normative initiation rite

b. Spirit Baptism ✅

• Prophesied by John the Baptist: Matthew 3:11; Acts 1:5
• Fulfilled at Pentecost: Acts 2; Acts 10:44–48
• Seen as the inward reality of regeneration and empowerment (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Relationship between the two:

• Often occur together, though sometimes in different order: Acts 10 (Spirit comes before water), Acts 19 (water before Spirit)
• Paul links both in theology: Titus 3:5–6; 1 Corinthians 12:13
• Yet, water baptism is never replaced by Spirit baptism in NT practice.

👉 Conclusion: The NT affirms both water and Spirit baptism. Water baptism is the visible, commanded rite; Spirit baptism is the inward, spiritual work associated with conversion and empowerment.
Summary Answer:

• From a Sola Scriptura (NT only) viewpoint:
  • Only Baptism and the Eucharist are clearly instituted as sacraments by Jesus.
  • The other five may have biblical roots, but lack NT evidence as sacraments per se.
  • Both water and Spirit baptism are affirmed, with water baptism being the visible sign and Spirit baptism being the inner transformation.

I can see how this is more Sola Scripture than the previous one.

Now it becomes a battle of man's interpretation vs. AI. It seems as if AI thus at this stage becomes one of the debaters and should be asked to compare its conclusions with the various conclusions of men and give reason why its conclusions are correct, just like we do with one another.

 

[mailmandan]

Ok what does JESUS mean by water?

I already explained what Jesus meant by water after properly harmonizing scripture with scripture.

If he ment living water he would have said "unless a man is born of living water and the spirit you can not enter"!!

Jesus already connected living water and the Holy Spirit with eternal life in (John 4:10,14; 7:37-39) Notice in John 4:14, Jesus said - but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. *Also see 1 Corinthians 12:13 for drink into one Spirit. Plain ordinary H20 has no power to accomplish this. The natural man can only seem to understand natural water. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

I know you don't like Acts 2:38 and in the past you told me it said something ridiculous but IT ALMOST says the same thing as John 3:5

I have no problem with your pet verse Acts 2:38. I only have a problem with your eisegesis. You have a problem with Biblical hermeneutics. Compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism. (Acts 10:47)

Acts 2:38-39
38 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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

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.

In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

*So, 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; 13:38-39; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*

WATER AND SPIRIT!!!

(John 4:10,14; 7:37-39) WATER AND SPIRIT!!!

Now lets look who Peter was talking to, all of those who was responsible for putting JESUS on the cross!!

What happened? THEY HEARD the same message I'M SHARING WITH YOU BUT YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN.

They OBEYED and what happen then? 3 THOUSAND SOULS WERE ADDED!!!

I don't refuse to listen to Peter. I just don't listen to you. I also don't refuse to listen to Peter in Acts 3:19 - Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. *What happened to baptism? Repentance (faith implied or assumed) is unto the remission of sins and water baptism "follows." We also see repentance (faith implied or assumed) connected with remission of sins in Acts 5:31. In Acts 10:43, Peter said - Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. *What happened to baptism? In Acts 11:17, we read - If therefore God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” *Hermeneutics.

According to you they were reborn in Acts 2:37 BUT HIS word does NOT SAY 3 thousand souls were added UNTIL after they were baptized. No idea if they got the Holy Ghost I can't say they did, YOU can't say they didn't.

No, they were reborn, and three sounds souls were added when they repented unto salvation (faith implied or assumed) and water baptism "followed." In Acts 4:4 we see that those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand. In Acts 5:14, we read - And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. Nothing here about water baptism being the cause. In Acts 13:38, we read - Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. Repentance is implied or assumed. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

So tell if you LOVE sharing other scriptures which may not go in to detail of being baptized and speaking in tongues WHY DON'T YOU LIKE Acts 2:38-39?

It seems like scriptures that mention baptism and speaking in tongues are about the only scriptures you even care to read. You basically ignore multiple passages of scripture that I have shared with you which refute your eisegesis.

FYI, Peter knew what needed to happen for people to be saved, NO way would have Peter baptized the Gentiles he wasn't even suppose to speak to them so when JESUS FILLED them with the Holy Ghost HE KNEW what to do and COMMANDED them to be baptized.

Peter did know what needed to happen for people to be saved. (Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:14-18) If water baptism was necessary for salvation, then he would have surely mentioned it here.

I don't need your twist on what he word says, I DON'T FOLLOW MEN or their personal views of what YOU THINK HIS WORD says.

That statement is the epitome of IRONY.

Once saved always saved is a lie from Satan keeping you comfortable in your sins. You should get a RED FLAG thinking you can enter Heaven WITH SIN!!!

I never said I was comfortable in my sins. That is a strawman argument. Works-salvationists hate once saved always saved because it strips them of credit and boasting in SELF. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23) The blood of Christ washed away my sins when I placed my faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Him alone for salvation. (Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 26:18; Romans 3:24-26) Faith is accounted for righteousness and God imputes righteousness apart from works. (Romans 4:5-6)

Romans 10, Paul is telling the church to get out and preach or they will lose their salvation.

Absolutely false. More eisegesis. Salvation is not probation. Eternal life is not temporary life. Jesus is the door. He is not a revolving door.

Acts 4 and 5 are you just grabbing a couple of verse out of a story to make a doctrine?

How ironic! That is exactly what YOU do. You are a one string banjo. Acts 2:38 - plink, plink.