Posted on 03/09/2017 7:25:55 PM PST by Salvation
I would love to respond at length, but i just got done unloading after 600+ miles today on the road, which started after trip prep, and my reply to the high and lofty one this morning. But I will make a short response tonight to one part.
**But later on under the New Covenant, Jesus did give these Eleven the power to remit sins, by only to them and no other ones succeeding them, and even then (under the bind/loose doctrine) only that which was already bound or loosed in heaven (Mt. 16:19, 18:18).**
Are you saying, that instead of what it says (..whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.), it should say it this way?......
And whatsoever is bound in heaven shall be bound on earth: and whatsoever is loosed in heaven shall be loosed on earth.
I promise to respond more fully tomorrow nite.
That is, whatsoever things (Matthew verses deal with doctrine, not persons) the Apostles decide to bind or loose, their decision must be ratified in Heaven, and their decision cannot be at variance with what has already been established as righteous in the heavenly sphere. Otherwise, they could force God to conform to their capriciousness, and that cannot be. Their decisions must be guided collegiately by the Holy Spirit, and must be consistent with God's righteousness and constancy throughout the ages.
But regarding the forgiveness of sins, that is dependent on saying the same thing, homologeoh, confessing and agreeing with what the Holy Ghost has pointed out to us. When we are willing to abandon that (those) sin(s), God is also willing to abandon and totally forget them, cleansing us from all unrighteousness. External application of water has nothing to do with God's spiritual operation of forgiving and cleansing us of the sin burden.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To clear the air, and differentiate between our views, I believe we approach baptism chronologically with the initial agreement:
By an appeal to the heart through the mind, the hearer (or reader) is convinced by hearing the Word preached, one becomes convinced that he/she is innately a sinner, guilty of sinful actions, agrees with the implicit accusation, and cannot escape a lifestyle of committing sin without a supernatural intervention.
Furthermore, he/she is completely aware that the intervention, while imminently at hand, will not be exercised until the condemned person asks/pleads for it.
Moreover, he/she realizes that the stipulation for God's intervention is that one is willing to permanently and irreversibly transfer one's allegiance from being inherently a child of Satan and Sin as a master, to being a child of God with Jesus, God's Messiah and Lord of all, to be one's Master.
And lastly, that when this transfer of loyalty takes place, one of the benefits will be that Almighty God as Judge of All will cease to hold the convert accountable for his/her sins/crimes, and will judicially declare the defendant "Not guilty"; and one's record will at that point be completely cleared.
And from then on, His/her eternal life is assured, the sin debt paid for by Jesus Himself.
With that in mind, I am thinking we are agreed up to this point. If not, Please tell me immediately. But going forward from this. let me state what I think our differences are:
(1)
- I believe that the moment one hears the complete, true Gospel and commits oneself to God and His Dominion through total trust in Jesus Christ of the Bible, that God saves him/her immediately, credits the debt of sin to the account of the crucified Christ, justifies the believer by imputing the righteousness of His son to the believer, declares him/her not guilty but sanctified/holy, and sends His Holy Spirit to dwell for ever in the believer as being newly born in the Spirit. God takes possession, and you can't go back. I believe that at the very moment, in the blink of an eye, when The Omniscient God with Foreknowledge knows the this is true, the salvation, sanctification, and justification happens all at once, is complete, and subsequent baptisms no matter how many, or even none cannot affect this new state of union with God.
- It is apparent that you believe the interpretation of Acts 2:38 that no matter how sincere the convicted believer is, nor how powerful the Blood of Christ is to wash away sins, that the sins are not forgiven at the point of irretractible belief, nor does the Spirit-birth take place unless and until the believer undergoes the rite of water baptism, and the Name of Jesus pronounced over it.
**********
To address your arguments:
imardmd1: **One does not wait until being baptized to make the decision to repent.**
Zuriel: Of course not. That would be contrary to Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38; 8:12-17, 35-39; 9:17,18 (retold in 22:16); 10:44-48; 16:30-34; and 19:1-6.
- Mark 16:16 One predicates that for forgiveness to take place, belief/repentance/willingness to abandon sins must precede Salvation. Although subsequent water baptism is commended, it is not necessary at all regarding saving faith.
- Luke 24:47 Repentance/remission of sins (by the shed blood of Jesus Christ in substitutionary death) is to be preached, nothing is said here about baptism (which is irrelevant to the passage).
- Acts 2:38 Peter preaches "repent" (for the remission of sins) and "be baptised" (the rite for placement in the body of Christ, I Cor. 12:13); baptism succeeding the saving belief and repentance that saves, the two sides of the same coin. It is the repentance that is for the forgiveness of sins, and the baptism is a later public recognition of the remission of sins that has previously taken place.
- Acts 8:12-17 The believers of Philip's message were not regenerated, others had to come and re-preach the whole gospel, not tthe partial gospel of Philip. The visible effects of the Holy Spirit were visible at that time, but these days we no longer see such wonders. Simon indeed neither had saving faith nor regeneration by the Holy Spirit, as declared by Peter in verse 21-23: "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Though intellectually having been persuaded and being water-baptized, and hands laid on him, he was obviously not saved. Baptism had no impartation of holiness to him. His gospel was woefully incomplete, and not understood even from Peter's preaching.
- Acts 8:35-39 Philip made the process very plain. No baptism until you have professed a saving belief in Jesus The Christ as The Son of The God, based on the word preached to you from the Bible. Whether the water for immersion was there or not, the eunuch was saved before being baptized. And Philip did not wait for water to be present before preaching the saving word to the eunuch. No credit here for baptism being required for forgiveness of sins/salvation. Salvation only comes through the shed Blood of Christ, not the water of baptism. This passage does not confirm your thesis.
- Acts 9:17,18 Paul believed and was saved by the appearance of the Lord in verses 6 and seven, and received then and there remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Ghost. He went to the home of Ananias and was there later baptized, Ananias recognizing from Paul's obedience to Christ as Lord and confessing his salvation experience that Ananias was willing to baptize him. Nothing here says that Paul was saved by baptism.
- Acts 10:44-48 Pretty apparent here that these Scripture-believing Gentiles received saving faith by Peter's preaching (Rom. 10:17) and were afterward baptized. Nothing said here about baptismal remission of sins. That occurs with the acceptance of the washing of the Word of Jesus' Blood Atonement, not by the adoption into the visible family of God occasioned by obedience to be baptized as a believer.
- Acts 16:30-34 Again, professing believers baptized subsequent to their moment of salvation by faith in the shed Blood of Christ.
- Acts 19:1-6 Simple. they believed on Jesus Christ, were thus saved, and then baptized. This is the pattern expected at these later days of the formation of Gentile local churches, and not worthy of an exhaustive explanation. The effects of the Holy Ghost appeared upon Paul's laying on of hands, but there is no provable doctrine there that his laying on of hands imparted the Holy Ghost to them. Birth in the Spirit comes at the instant of unremitting faith, not because of baptism or laying on of hands.
You have no direct support for your doctrine in any of these citations.
======
Zuriel: Jesus told his disciples that THEY would remit sins (John 20:23). How do you interpret that?
They could only affirm the forgiveness of sins, and that only on the basis of surmising that they were already forgiven in heaven by the intellectual profession and behavioral signs of genuineness of the faith of a believer. Without faith it was, is, and always will be impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6)
=======
imardmd1: **In Acts 2:38, you must take into consideration the Greek grammar and syntax as it was understood by the first-century Common-Greek-speaking readers of Luke’s writings......**
Zuriel: So the scholars that prepared the KJV tried hard, but just didn’t have right stuff to do the job? What else did they inaccurately interpret?
They didn't interpret, as you do. They translated literally and faithfully, though their translation (uninspired) was imprecise enough to give wiggle-room for someone to imagine a false interpretation not consistent with God's plan of salvation.
=======
imardmd1: **However, the act of baptism is a human work involving the efforts and decisions of both the candidate and the baptizing agency**
Zuriel: So a candidate going to hear a preacher, and the preacher (baptizing agency) coming to preach, has no human work towards salvation? Maybe you don’t see an inconsistency in you belief system, but I sure do!
Sure, he has a human thing to do. He is to preach the full gospel, by which the Holy Spirit can germinate the seed of the word in the hearer, induce a conviction of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment in the hearer, permitting him/her to believe in Jesus and commit themselves totally to Him as their Lord and Savior, and have their sins remitted by grace through faith, not of any works on their own part or any further part of the preacher.
The preacher might be willing to immediately baptize a new convert, but that can be a real dangerous thing to do if one is not absolutely convinced through the new convert's changed behavior over some period of time observing the effects of his/her faith on one's lifestyle (1 Jn. 3:9).
===========
imardmd1: **boastworthy human works**
Zuriel: The Lord commanded it, yet you regard it as a boastworthy human work? I fear your position takes you out of the first half of Mark 16:16, and threatens to put you in the latter half.
Your fear is misplaced. Thinking that submitting to baptism or proclaiming that baptism saves is about as boastful as anyone can get at diminishing the complete sovereignty of God in doing the saving. The doctrine of contributing to one's salvation is adding to the work of Christ on the Cross, and is a blatant work of supererogation, having no place in God's plan of salvation. However, this first step of obedience in baptism is surely the beginning of one's participation of progressive sanctification.
======
Zuriel: Paul was involved in many of those ‘human works’, even admitting to it in the verses leading up to the (horribly misunderstood) 1Cor. 1:17.
This only illustrates that in beginning the planting of a local gathering amongst Gentiles, there must be at first disciples converted to God from idols by regeneration of the Holy Spirit. In each case, baptism, while it is the visible ritual identification to the convert of his membership in the local ekklesia, and to the public of one's commitment to Christ as a committed disciple, is not an essential for salvation. However, preaching of the Gospel is a necessary ingredient for the salvation of the hearer, especially for one who does not read or write.
There is nothing here to support your approach. This verse is merely anecdotal, not conclusive in the settling of doctrine.
========
imardmd1: **No argument that you can come up with, or the RCC either, can be used to affirm that baptismal regeneration will agree with Ephesians 2:8-10. with Romans 10:8-10, or any legitimate statement of how God saves.**
Zuriel: The argument can be made that you are taking the word ‘believeth’, anywhere you find it, and as long as there are no details on conversion, it’s all you need.
Belief in the full preached gospel of Jesus Christ, and in Himself as the Savior, is enough and it is all that is necessary to have one's sins remitted and be saved. Period. Baptism is not required to be saved, and you cannot prove otherwise. You can only speculate, or offer it as a conjecture. And that kind of proof-lacking conjecture can easily be disproved.
*******
Zuriel: John 3:16 comes after instructions given in verses 3,5-8.
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn. 3:5 AV). "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any
such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27 AV).
It is the preached Word, that enters into one's heart and soul, which is the Word of the Shed Blood of Jesus of the Cross, that cleanses and redeems each member of the church, when he/she believes in it, and keeps on cleansing until He comes.
"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest,
any of you should seem to come short of it.
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath,
if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation
of the world" (Heb. 4:1-3 AV).
I see nothing here about being baptized.
Ephesians 2:8-10 and Romans 10:8-10 come after introductions that show that the respective bodies already have been converted.
So what? Paul reminded the Romans of their conversion, . . .
And that means what, concerning whether baptism saves or not?
. . . and baptized souls in Ephesus.
Easily misconstrued by those who wish to read into Scripture something that is not there, without corroborative evidence.
Those facts are conveniently overlooked for various reasons.
Both overlooked and misinterpreted by readers who have no ability to examine the verses with a literal/grammatical/historical/cultural hermeneutic, and just want to hear what their false doctrine desires.
Some probably feel that Eph. 4:5 is not water baptism, but Spirit baptism, when the previous verse already mentions the Spirit (I believe it is both, because I believe it is one birth).
Whatever it is, there is nothing to assert that the baptism causes the forgiveness of sin/sins. Even the Spirit baptism is consequential to belief, not the precursor of conviction, confession, belief, and repentance. It is a consequential and consecutive event, however proximate. Nothing here that baptism is required for sins to be forgiven.
On the other hand, 1 John 1:9 defines it precisely and tersely.
=======
imardmd1: **The water baptism of Matthew 28:18-20 has nothing to do wit conferring the forgiveness of sins.**
Zuriel: And no correlation with Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, or John 20:23?
Already dealt with, above.
The disciples were being sent before he ascended to heaven.
No, they were not. They were commanded to abide in Jerusalem until they received the gift of the (indwelling) Holy Spirit, "not many days hence," where eight days would be "few," and more than ten would be "many."
After that happened, Acts 2:38 was the first time his conversion commands were issued.
By Peter, for whom this was his first sermon, and for whom to be consistent with the rest of Scripture, would not have been so imprecise as some of the translators have made it. But even for Peter, the baptism was to take place for an individual after repentant remission of sins would have already occurred prior to being baptized into the church, into the culture and discipline of committed, certified supervised students of the doctrine of the Apostles, to be trained by more spiritually mature teachers.
========
imardmd1: **Let me ask you if you can explain who baptized Andrew and Beloved John and Peter and Judas Iscariot and the others of The Twelve, when they were baptized, and for what purpose?**
Zuriel: They were baptized unto John the baptist’s baptism unto repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). Andrew was a disciple of his (John 1:35,40), Peter’s brother, and business partners with James and John. Yet, Paul rebaptized disciples in Ephesus because they only knew John’s baptism.
You're a little confused on this. Yes, Jesus' Twelve were baptized with John's baptism as his disciples, but they were later on baptized by Jesus when He enlisted them for admission to His inner circle of intimate, daily supervised students. Jesus' baptism into discipleship was a different and separate baptism. It was also the baptism with which they inducted more committed disciples by baptizing them:
"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus
went in and out among us,
Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us,
must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias" (Acts 1:21-23 AV; my emphasis).
You see, this is one place where the term of "Company" is used. You will find out the applicable passages by searching on συνέρχομαι (sunerchomai, Strong's Greek Number G4905) to find it used "to assemble" or "to gather together" or "to company with" exactly as we use the more familiar customary Greek term "ekklesia" or English "church," as, for instance, in Acts 1:6, "to come together" or to "enchurch" or "to accompany."
I use this, often instead of the word "church," because many use "church" far too loosely.
========
Zuriel: You see it’s the NAME that gives the power since Calvary.
You think that just pronouncing the Name (as in Acts 2:38) engages the power of Christ to perform something. In this case, it does not. It only proclaims that the person baptizing is operating as a delegated agent of the Godhead with Scriptural authority to perform the rite. It simply does not call forth the resurrection power to cause the forgiveness of sins by being the one to apply water in the rite. To think so is a gross misperception of what Matthew 28:19 commands.
That’s why those in Ephesus were rebaptized in the name of Jesus.
They were not "rebaptized." They were baptized with another baptism with a different purpose, and that was to recognize them visibly as a certified member of Christ's invisible Church.
There is no other name with power to remit sins.
Invoking the Name of Jesus does not give any human the ability to revoke condemnation or to forgive another person's sins. When the person desiring to have his sin-debt removed, he does call in faith on God/Jesus to honor His Promise to cleanse the pleader from all unrighteousness by applying the Blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7) according to Scripture. When the baptizer uses the Name, he is not calling forth sin-cleansing. He is only declaring that he has administrative authority (exousia) to announce that he has the right to conduct the baptism rite as an authorized person to admit the candidate to the local church under which the baptism is performed.
As Paul reminded those converts in Rome and Colosse; they were buried with HIM (Jesus Christ) in baptism unto death.
That baptism is the Spirit baptism birthing a new spiritual man, crucifying the old man/nature (verses 6 and 7). For your use of this, it would have to be a real death by drowning, not a figurative death of the old man's nature. Romans 6 is not about water baptism, although the water baptism is symbolic of a true Spirit baptism; and that Spirit baptism has already taken place before the water baptism is administered.
While the symbolism is appropriate as to the expected response to forgiveness of sins--that is, dying to Satan, to Sin as a master, to one's own selfish passions, and to the world system, and coming alive to Christ as Master and His Kingdom as the new location of our citizenship--the function is very similar to that of being sworn into the armed services--being inducted as a recruit into the kingdom of a new commander and His culture, for which we must be trained to be productive, and that the change of venue and allegiance is permanent.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This is the end of the first part.
That was so good I can’t wait for part two! SELA!
You danced, but I can’t say to what song.
“Have you ever heard of Paul Harvey’s, “The rest of the story”?
Why did you stop short of verse 32?....”
Because salvation had already taken place... just as was already said by you and me. I’ll post it again for your recollection.
“The “baptism discounter’s” version is apparently this:
“He that believeth, is saved, and should be baptized....”
That’s exactly what Scripture says no more no less.
“Did the thief need to be born again? No. The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus Christ was not yet glorified.”
So your saying that the Apostles and disciples that followed Christ wasn’t born again because they hadn’t received the Holy Spirit yet?
I would suggest that the salvation comes first and then the filling of the Holy Spirit, but that’s my view of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord doesn’t seal anyone except His children and you can’t become a child of the Living God until you are saved.
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
“Overconfidence is not a virtue, IMO.”
Well my friend when you read the Holy Scripture below as it’s written in terms of a Roman Soldier you would comprehend it and as a retired soldier it MEANS don’t be a wimp as the Devil tries to make us. Stand boldly in the Word of God and preach the Gospel with the Spirit of the Living God. Your idea of confidence not being a virtue is “EXACTLY” how we have arrived at this watered down wimpy false christianity of today. I am a messenger of the Living God if that comes off as over confidence I’m sorry, but His Spirit empowers me and it should you.
Ephesians 6:16-17 King James Version (KJV)
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
No one was, is, or will be saved under the Law of Moses it was, is, and will be by faith in the Messiah/Christ.
Acts 13:39
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Actually it does say those who seen the faith from afar were saved by faith in the coming Messiah. So those who had faith in the future Messiah to come, those who seen the Messiah in the flesh, and those of us who has current faith in Him are saved, are being saved, and will be saved.
Faith in the Messiah is faith whether under the Abrahamic Covenant, the Law Old Covenant, or under Grace the New Covenant. It’s always been about faith in the Messiah Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 11:13 while they seen it from afar it was still faith just like ours should be based on faith.
What must I DO to be saved???
Finally some time to reply! ( but still no internet at our place here in TN. I refuse to buy the overpriced package deals, so I need to learn how to hotspot our pc from the smartphone. Hopefully that will work as good as I’ve been told it does).
You labeled this, (1), so I will start there.
**(1) - I believe that the moment one hears the complete, true Gospel and commits oneself to God and His Dominion through total trust in Jesus Christ of the Bible, that God saves him/her immediately, credits the debt of sin to the account of the crucified Christ, justifies the believer by imputing the righteousness of His son to the believer, declares him/her not guilty but sanctified/holy, and sends His Holy Spirit to dwell for ever in the believer as being newly born in the Spirit. God takes possession, and you can’t go back. I believe that at the very moment, in the blink of an eye, when The Omniscient God with Foreknowledge knows the this is true, the salvation, sanctification, and justification happens all at once, is complete, and subsequent baptisms no matter how many, or even none cannot affect this new state of union with God.**
You start this with “I believe”, and end with an opinion that seems to render water baptism to nothing more than vanity. The Lord commanded it, yet it is vanity?
I will start with first part of Matt. 28:19..
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them..”
Bang! He promptly gives a detail that is a faith based act.
**-It is apparent that you believe the interpretation of Acts 2:38 that no matter how sincere the convicted believer is, nor how powerful the Blood of Christ is to wash away sins, that the sins are not forgiven at the point of irretractible belief, nor does the Spirit-birth take place unless and until the believer undergoes the rite of water baptism, and the Name of Jesus pronounced over it.**
This I will say to set the basis for applying the blood. Yes, knowing why the blood is necessary, is a pillar of the gospel message. Seeing the foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice, we know that the first Passover sacrifice required not just the death and shedding of blood, but the application of the blood to their physical habitation. And we know that under the law the people did not lie under the sacrifice to have the blood sprinkled on them. It was told to them what it was for by Moses and the priests, and that they needed to have it applied to them.
So, your opinion is to imply, that Peter was poorly instructed by the Master?
The Lord specifically commanded baptism in Matt 28:19. And you agree that Mark 16:16 is speaking of water baptism.
**-Mark 16:16 One predicates that for forgiveness to take place, belief/repentance/willingness to abandon sins must precede Salvation. Although subsequent water baptism is commended, it is not necessary at all regarding saving faith.**
Yet the Lord doesn’t mention “shall be saved” until after he mentioned “believe and is baptized”.
Now,....I KNOW that you surely know the difference between “commended”, and “commanded”? For an act that many say is not essential, how do they measure its importance,......by personal opinion?
**- Luke 24:47 Repentance/remission of sins (by the shed blood of Jesus Christ in substitutionary death) is to be preached, nothing is said here about baptism (which is irrelevant to the passage).**
This the same time frame ( after the resurrection, but before the ascension, and is under the same situation): they were being sent, and being given instructions on what to do and say. (And, yes, I know that before their ministry was to begin, they were to tarry in Jerusalem for the Holy Ghost to be given.)
Do you look for loopholes? Are you selective when looking for what is desired to be separate instances? When comparing the accounts of the centurion’s servant, one account seems to have him face to face with the Lord, and another has him sending servants to relay the message. In the account of the cursing of the fig tree, we read of a day passing before the disciples pass by it and marvel at how fast it dried up. Whereas, in another account, all there is to be noticed is a comma, between the curse, and the confirmation of the drying up.
That is part one of my response. Fortunately, I think I will be able to move along a little faster come tomorrow evening.
I see this measurement, and that is used quite often: “saving faith”
The desire show that people are saved, without any physical obedience, is to the point of obsessive.
Even the convenient readjusting of verses and passages don’t say “saving belief” or “saving faith”, before hearers were baptized.
Saying that water baptism, in the name of Jesus, is merely a public profession of faith, would seem to put the Lord and his apostles emphasis on it at a minimum. I mean, look at the way those men got after it:
-Peter mentions it before he mentions the gift of the Holy Ghost.
-Philip baptized the Samaritans before they received the Spirit.
-Philip must have been thorough in his testimony to the eunuch, for the eunuch was the one that spoke up about getting baptized pronto.
-Peter, seeing that the household of Cornelius had received the Spirit, knew his job (that HE was to remit sins. How?...by burying souls in baptism in the name of Jesus) was to baptize them.
-Paul an Silas baptized the jailer and his household “straightway” (which appears to mean instantly or without delay).
-Paul, upon finding out that the certain disciples in Ephesus had not been baptized in the name of Jesus, did so pronto, and then they were filled with the Holy Ghost.
To go to Romans 6, and say that being buried with Jesus unto death, is Spirit baptism, is simply not correct; for the Spirit is life, not death. In Genesis 1, the earth was buried beneath the water. But the Spirit of God brought it up out of the water to create new life.
**- Acts 9:17,18 Paul believed and was saved by the appearance of the Lord in verses 6 and seven, and received then and there remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Ghost**
Where does it say that in that accounting, or in his witness to it in Acts 22?
God told Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel, but there was no mention of what you assert. God chooses people. Peter was sent to Cornelius. Philip was sent to the eunuch. The Lord told Paul, in Corinth, that he had “much people in this city”.
**Nothing here says that Paul was saved by baptism.**
That’s not what Paul said in Acts 22:16, where Ananias told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”.
You will admit that confession is made unto salvation, so calling on the name of the Lord is essential by your own admission.
**On the other hand, 1 John 1:9 defines it precisely and tersely.**
1 John 2:13 shows that he is writing to those that already know the Lord. That is made plain throughout that epistle. Just the mention of the word
“brethren”, makes the context obvious.
**but they were later on baptized by Jesus when He enlisted them for admission to His inner circle of intimate, daily supervised students.**
Where did you find that?
**You think that just pronouncing the Name (as in Acts 2:38) engages the power of Christ to perform something.**
John 16:23 is just one example of the power of the name.
The Holy Ghost is sent in the name of Jesus (John 14:26).
The Son’s name is Jesus.
The Son said he came in his Father’s name (John 5:43). And Hebrews 1:4 says that the Son inherited his name.
So, there you have the “name” that Jesus Christ is declaring in Matt. 28:19. And that is why the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus.
I’m a father, but that’s not my name.
I’m a son, but that’s not my name.
I’m a husband, but that’s not my name.
(I couldn’t believe how many times I had to sign my name when selling my home in IL, and purchasing this one in TN)
**I would suggest that the salvation comes first and then the filling of the Holy Spirit, but that’s my view of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord doesn’t seal anyone except His children and you can’t become a child of the Living God until you are saved.**
I suggest that you read my posts #208 and #209 to see in more detail what I’ve been saying. Whether you agree with what I’m saying or not, you will definitely know more about this matter.
**So your saying that the Apostles and disciples that followed Christ wasn’t born again because they hadn’t received the Holy Spirit yet?**
Jesus had to depart for the Comforter to come (John 16:7). So no, they weren’t born again at that point.
**Your idea of confidence not being a virtue**
I never said that confidence is not a virtue. I said that overconfidence is not a virtue. Many a football team lost because of overconfidence (45 yrs ago, been there, done that).
Thanks for replying. Since you like the reference to the armor in Ephesians, I’m sure you’ll agree that a little “sword sharpening” is certainly appropriate most anytime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.