A Test Of Reading Comprehension and Honesty

[mailmandan]

First all you do repeatedly is misrepresentation. I'm not a water salvationist.
I do not believe water washes away anyone's sins.

Regardless of whether you specifically believe in 'baptismal regeneration' or 'baptismal remission,' as long as you believe that sins are not washed away until AFTER we are water baptized and that we MUST be water baptized in order to be saved, you are a water-salvationist.

Second: more misrepresentation. No, I do not argue the thief on probably was baptized by John.
The Bible is silent, therefore I will not speculate.

The points I made from scripture in post #214 proves that it's highly unlikely that the thief on the cross was converted, water baptized and the fruit of that we being crucified as a criminal and shaking his head, blaspheming and mocking Jesus before he repented and rebuked the other thief, then asked Jesus to remember him when He comes into His kingdom. It doesn't take much speculation here.

It is possible he was. It is possible he was not. I dont make any claims I cant back up with Scripture.
You, however repeatable make the claim the thief on the cross was not baptized. Pure speculation on your part. I make no claims either way.

So you simply discard Matthew 27:39-43 and Luke 23:39-43 and call my argument pure speculation. Your bias is really showing.

Third claim Dan's making is no way thief could have been baptized because he was crucified as a thief. More pure speculation, you have zero scriptural evidence to back up your assertions.

So being crucified as a thief, shaking your head at, mocking and blaspheming Jesus is the fruit of repentance according to you? You are really grasping for straws here.

It absolutely is possible for someone to be saved and immediately commit sin against God out of ignorance. New converts are babes in Christ. Do all new converts know it is a sin to to worry? Matthew 6:30-33. Sometimes worry can be caused by a lack of faith in God providing what we need.
Here's biblical proof new converts can sin immediately, Acts 8 Simon the Sorcerer believed and was baptized yet tried to buy the power that the apostles had. Peter did not tell him to believe to be saved because he was already a believer. Peter told him to repent of thy wickedness. Which Simon reply was a request for Peter to also pray for him. I dont speculate. I'm tired of Danthemailman's misrepresentation and his presuppositions.

I'm tired of your biased opinions. Of course it's possible for a new convert to sin, yet being crucified as a thief, shaking your head at, mocking and blaspheming Jesus is over the top!

In regards to Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8, he was said to have "believed and was baptized" at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13) but later, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God." (verses 20-21) Does that sound like saved to you?

Peter went on to tell Simon to repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Even though we read that Simon "believed," the remainder of the verse hints at the true object of his belief: "the miracles and signs which were done." No proof of salvation by water baptism or genuine saving belief here, but only of a false conversion.

 

[Titus]

AFTER we are water baptized and that we MUST be water baptized in order to be saved, you are a water-salvationist.

Wrong, as I've said to you multiple times water is nowhere mentioned in the gospel of Christ in any verse that teaches it can save.
Only in the old testament is it said water saved Noah. No new testament christian believes water saves. God made sure to have Peter preach baptism not water doth also now save us, 1Peter 3:20-21. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is where we contact the blood of Christ,
Revelation 1:5,
- And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in HIs own blood.

Dan, You are using a derogatory slur to insult and mislead others on my beliefs.

So you simply discard Matthew 27:39-43 and Luke 23:39-43 and call my argument pure speculation. Your bias is really showing.

Wrong, I can't have bias because I don't teach the thief was baptized. Nowhere does the Scriptures say he was or was not. You on the other hand repeatedly misrepresent me and say I teach he was water baptized.
It's you who are biased Dan.
You make claims he was not baptized,
Which is speculation.
Give the scriptures that says he was not.
Your doctrine that he could not have been baptized because of his sin is unbiblical.
The evidence you are wrong is Simon the Sorcerer.
Also does God teach He will remove your ability to sin the moment He saves you?
If so give the scriptures.
Could a herion addict believe and obey the gospel get saved and then go use heroin?

Would God miraculously take his addiction from him the moment he is saved?
Give scripture Dan, that teaches Christians cannot sin right after initial salvation?
This is just more speculation from you.

I apologize for the long post, I have to explain
In detail the three accounts of the two thieves crucified next to Jesus.

Dan makes a presumption that the thief could not have been baptized by John because he reviled Jesus.
That's mere opinion that has no evidence from scripture.

Two accounts, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say both thieves railed on Jesus.
The other gospel account in Luke 23:39 Luke says only one of the thieves railed on Jesus.

I don't speculate as to being dogmatic and teaching we know for sure one gospel or the others are the correct interpretation.
What I believe is the scriptures do not contradict.
Based on my belief that the scriptures do not contradict I believe that figures of Speech is being used. The figure of speech used here is synecdoche.
Now I will prove this with examples in scripture.

Genesis 21:7,
Sarah asked Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse  children, for i have borne him a son in his old age.

Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had ONE child. In certain contexts however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child as Sarah did by using the word children.

Another example
Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah's ark rested on the  mountains of Ararat.

The ark was big! But not that big. The ark did not rest on all the mountains of Ararat.
Rather it rested on ONE.

Conclusion:
It is possible Matthew and Mark are using Synecdoche as thieves meaning one.

Because the Bible uses this figure of speech as I have proven with scripture.
It is wrong and ignorant to claim that both thieves reviled Jesus.
Luke records only one.

Luke 23:39-40,
- And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be the Christ save thyself and us,
- But the other answering rebuked him saying, Dost not thou fear God? Seeing thou art in the same condemnation.
And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this Man hath done nothing amiss.

 

[Titus]

In regards to Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8, he was said to have "believed and was baptized" at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13) but later, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God." (verses 20-21) Does that sound like saved to you?

The Bible teaches Simon believed and was water baptized.
That's what the Bible says and I am a Bible believer!
I don't disagree with what the scriptures say.
Did Simon believe in Jesus? The says yes.
Dan speculates that Simon did not believe in Jesus only in the miracles he saw.
Once again we have Dan's imagination here. Can Dan prove his interpretation with Scripture that it ts factual. No, where does the scripture say Simon's faith was faith in the miracles and not in Jesus?
That's reading into the story.

This is how we know Simon the Sorcerer was saved just like the scriptures teach.
The Bible literally says that Simon also believed like the rest there that obeyed the gospel.
Acts 8:12-13,
But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ both men and women were baptized.

Simon is included with these folks as a believer just like them!
Is Dan going to say these folks dont have true faith also?

Acts 8:13,
- Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

No one in the new testament that is baptized in the name of Jesus is unsaved.
Who in the new testament qualifies for baptism? Unbelievers?
Only those who believe will be baptized by an apostle or a disciple of Christ.

Philip would have refused to baptize Simon if he was not a believer.
Also Simon would have confessed to Philip that he believed Jesus was God.
That is why Philip baptized him.

Acts 8:37-38,
- Then Philip said, if you believe with all your heart you may,
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
- So he commanded the chariot to stand still and both Philip and the Eunch went down into the water and he baptized him.

Philip guided by the Holy Spirit asked the Ethiopian Eunch if he believed.
That must also be true of Simon even though it is not recorded.
Because there is one gospel, Ephesians 4:5.
That one gospel is the same for all who hear it.
Jesus commands we confess him before men,
Matthew 10:32-33,
- Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Last obvious reason Dan is wrong about Simon the Sorcerer not being saved.

What is the first thing the apostle Peter would have told Simon after he sinned if he was unsaved?
Answer: He would have told Simon to believe in Jesus!
Faith, he would have preached faith in Jesus to Simon.
Peter never mentioned faith in Jesus to Simon.
The reason why is Peter knew Simon had already believed and was baptized.
So what did Peter tell him, repent of your sins.
That is what you tell a christian when he sins,
You tell an alien sinner to believe in Jesus.

Christians are taught to repent of sins in prayer and publicly confess them to your brethren.
1John 1:9,
- If we confess our sins, Jesus is faithful and just to forgive us(christians) our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Why would the apostle Peter tell an unsaved, unbelieving man to repent of his sins?
If an atheist came to you would you say repent of your sins to get right with God and not mention belief in Jesus?
That would not save any unbeliever!
Peter would have said believe in Christ repent of your sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus if Simon was not a believer.

Here is the final nail in the coffin for Dan's misinterpretation:

Listen to Simon's response when told by Peter to repent,
Acts 8:24,
- Then Simon answered and said Pray to the Lord(Father Jesus Holy Spirit) for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me.

Is that the response of an unbeliever?

 

[n2thelight]

So if on your dying bed and accept Christ and die without being baptized ,are you condemned ?

 

[mailmandan]

Wrong, as I've said to you multiple times water is nowhere mentioned in the gospel of Christ in any verse that teaches it can save.
Only in the old testament is it said water saved Noah.

You believe that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and that we are not saved until AFTER we are baptized in water, which makes you a water (and works) salvationist. The 4 step gospel plan of the church of Christ is 1. Believe 2. Repent 3. Confess 4. Be baptized and one is not saved until AFTER all 4 of steps are completed. I know because I at one time had temporarily attended the so called church of Christ. Your church also has a 5th step "remain faithful" which involves remaining saved based on works.

No new testament christian believes water saves.

You believe that the obedient act of being water baptized saves.

God made sure to have Peter preach baptism not water doth also now save us, 1Peter 3:20-21.

In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it.

Peter said that baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you), "but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).

Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an ARK for the SAVING of his household). The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is where we contact the blood of Christ,
Revelation 1:5,
- And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in HIs own blood.

"Washed us from our sins in His own blood" is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). Our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ the moment that we place our faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. (Acts 26:18; Romans 3:24-26; 5:1, 9)

Dan, You are using a derogatory slur to insult and mislead others on my beliefs.

I have mislead no one. Do you teach that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation or not? Do you believe that sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized or not? I you answer YES then you are a water salvationist.

Wrong, I can't have bias because I don't teach the thief was baptized. Nowhere does the Scriptures say he was or was not. You on the other hand repeatedly misrepresent me and say I teach he was water baptized.
It's you who are biased Dan.
You make claims he was not baptized,
Which is speculation.
Give the scriptures that says he was not.

I gave scriptures that proves it was "highly unlikely" that the thief on the cross was water baptized prior to his death.

Your doctrine that he could not have been baptized because of his sin is unbiblical.

Not just any sin. He was being crucified as a thief and along with the chief priests, scribes and elders, and the other thief being crucified, he was blaspheming and mocking Jesus. Yet moments later he repented and was converted.

The evidence you are wrong is Simon the Sorcerer.
Also does God teach He will remove your ability to sin the moment He saves you?
If so give the scriptures.
Could a herion addict believe and obey the gospel get saved and then go use heroin?

Would God miraculously take his addiction from him the moment he is saved?
Give scripture Dan, that teaches Christians cannot sin right after initial salvation?
This is just more speculation from you.

It's not about after our conversion we never sin again. That's not the point. After Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit, Peter rebukes him and says to Simon:

"May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!
You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God."
Peter went on to tell Simon to repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.

So Simon had no part no part or share in this ministry, his heart was not right before God and he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity, yet you still call that saved? If you can believe that, you can believe anything!

Dan makes a presumption that the thief could not have been baptized by John because he reviled Jesus.
That's mere opinion that has no evidence from scripture.

Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 are not presumptions. You need to bear in mind that with the four gospels we have four
independent accounts. The different accounts, when taken together, give us a fuller understanding of what happened with the thieves. Not all accounts give a full report of the exact same events, but together, they sum up the full report.

Two accounts, Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say both thieves railed on Jesus.

So why question scripture here?

The other gospel account in Luke 23:39 Luke says only one of the thieves railed on Jesus.

At that point the other thief stopped railing against Jesus and repented. No contradiction.

I don't speculate as to being dogmatic and teaching we know for sure one gospel or the others are the correct interpretation.
What I believe is the scriptures do not contradict.

Of course the scriptures do not contradict so stop pitting scripture against scripture.

Based on my belief that the scriptures do not contradict I believe that figures of Speech is being used. The figure of speech used here is synecdoche.
Now I will prove this with examples in scripture.

Genesis 21:7,
Sarah asked Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse  children, for i have borne him a son in his old age.

Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had ONE child. In certain contexts however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child as Sarah did by using the word children.

Another example
Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah's ark rested on the  mountains of Ararat.

The ark was big! But not that big. The ark did not rest on all the mountains of Ararat.
Rather it rested on ONE.

Conclusion:
It is possible Matthew and Mark are using Synecdoche as thieves meaning one.

Because the Bible uses this figure of speech as I have proven with scripture.
It is wrong and ignorant to claim that both thieves reviled Jesus.
Luke records only one.

Luke 23:39-40,
- And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be the Christ save thyself and us,
- But the other answering rebuked him saying, Dost not thou fear God? Seeing thou art in the same condemnation.
And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds, but this Man hath done nothing amiss.

You sound more like a lawyer than a Berean.

 

[mailmandan]

The Bible teaches Simon believed and was water baptized.
That's what the Bible says and I am a Bible believer!
I don't disagree with what the scriptures say.
Did Simon believe in Jesus? The says yes.

There are different levels of belief, and different objects of belief, and not all that’s called "belief" is saving belief in Christ. In the parable of the soils, we see a shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit, lacks moisture and withers away. (Matthew 13:20-21; Luke 8:6). Such soil represents a sinner not properly prepared in heart to believe unto salvation.

John has portrayed people who "believe" but are clearly not saved. There is a stage in the progress of belief in Jesus that "falls short of firmly rooted and established belief resulting in salvation." As we see in John 2:23-25, in which their belief was superficial in nature and Jesus would not entrust/commit Himself to them.

Also, in John 8:31-59, where the Jews who were said to have "believed in him" turn out to be slaves to sin, indifferent to the words of Jesus’, children of the devil, liars, accused Jesus of having a demon and were guilty of setting out to stone and kill the one they have professed to believe in.

In James 2:19, we read that the demons believe "mental assent" that there is one God, yet they do not believe in/have faith in/trust in/reliance in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, they do not believe in/on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.

Dan speculates that Simon did not believe in Jesus only in the miracles he saw.
Once again we have Dan's imagination here. Can Dan prove his interpretation with Scripture that it ts factual. No, where does the scripture say Simon's faith was faith in the miracles and not in Jesus?
That's reading into the story.

Offering to buy the gift of God (Holy Spirit) with money, having no part or share in that ministry because his heart is not right before God and being poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity proves my point. You must think that ALL belief is the same. If that were the case, then the demons would be saved. (James 2:19) I proved my case. It's your eisegesis that does not line up with scripture here.

This is how we know Simon the Sorcerer was saved just like the scriptures teach.
The Bible literally says that Simon also believed like the rest there that obeyed the gospel.
Acts 8:12-13,
But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ both men and women were baptized.

Simon is included with these folks as a believer just like them!
Is Dan going to say these folks dont have true faith also?

Simon's conversion was bogus and so is your eisegesis.

Acts 8:13,
- Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

No one in the new testament that is baptized in the name of Jesus is unsaved.
Who in the new testament qualifies for baptism? Unbelievers?
Only those who believe will be baptized by an apostle or a disciple of Christ.

More eisegesis. Simon's faith was spurious and he was not saved, as demonstrated by the words of Peter. We have another account of someone being water baptized, but was not saved. In Acts 19:2, Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed and their answer in verse 3 reveals that they were not yet believers. They had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit and they received the baptism of John but did not realize that Jesus Christ was the One to whom John's baptism pointed. Paul gave them instructions about Jesus and after they believed Paul's presentation of the gospel and came to saving faith in Christ, they were then (afterwards) baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Sadly, there are many folks over the years who attend false religions and cults who have been water baptized, but do not truly believe the gospel/believe in Jesus unto salvation.

Philip would have refused to baptize Simon if he was not a believer.
Also Simon would have confessed to Philip that he believed Jesus was God.
That is why Philip baptized him.

Bogus confession, as demonstrated by Peter's rebuke of Simon.

Acts 8:37-38,
- Then Philip said, if you believe with all your heart you may,
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
- So he commanded the chariot to stand still and both Philip and the Eunch went down into the water and he baptized him.

The Eunuch's conversion was genuine, unlike Simon's.

Philip guided by the Holy Spirit asked the Ethiopian Eunch if he believed.
That must also be true of Simon even though it is not recorded.

Not according to the words of Peter. "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God." Repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity." SAYS IT ALL.

Because there is one gospel, Ephesians 4:5.
That one gospel is the same for all who hear it.

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (and not in water and works) as the ALL-SUFFICIENT means of our salvation.

CONTINUED...

 

[mailmandan]

Jesus commands we confess him before men,
Matthew 10:32-33,
- Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

You turn confession into a work for salvation. In context, this passage relates to the fact that the Pharisees had continuously denied Jesus while the disciples continued to speak about Him in every city they visited. We might paraphrase His teaching this way: "Whoever confesses me before men (such as you disciples), I will confess him before my Father in heaven. But whoever denies me before men (like the Pharisees), I will deny him before my Father in heaven.

Those who confess Jesus are those who recognize Him as being the true Messiah and trust in Him as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. Those who deny Jesus (and those who give mere lip service confession) but refuse to trust in Him alone for salvation place themselves beyond any possibility of salvation, since salvation is found only in Him (John 3:15,16,18; 10:9; 14:6).

The word for "deny" is an aorist tense. This points to the fact that Jesus is not talking about a single instance of denial (as was the case with Peter, who actually denied Jesus three times (Luke 22:56-62) but is referring to life in its entirety. Hence, the person who throughout his life denies Christ (as was typically the case with the Pharisess and includes unbelievers who may even give mere "lip service confession" - Matthew 7:21-23, but lack saving faith in Christ) will be denied by Christ before the Father.

Last obvious reason Dan is wrong about Simon the Sorcerer not being saved.

You certainly sound like a lawyer speaking to a jury.

What is the first thing the apostle Peter would have told Simon after he sinned if he was unsaved?
Answer: He would have told Simon to believe in Jesus!
Faith, he would have preached faith in Jesus to Simon.
Peter never mentioned faith in Jesus to Simon.
The reason why is Peter knew Simon had already believed and was baptized.
So what did Peter tell him, repent of your sins.
That is what you tell a christian when he sins,
You tell an alien sinner to believe in Jesus.

Peter told Simon that his heart is not right before God and to repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Yet you call that saved. Peter is not gullible like you.

Christians are taught to repent of sins in prayer and publicly confess them to your brethren.
1John 1:9,
- If we confess our sins, Jesus is faithful and just to forgive us(christians) our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice that - If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (vs. 9) is IN CONTRAST TO - If we say that we have no sin, (present tense) we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (vs. 8) and - If we say that we have not sinned, (past tense) we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (vs. 10).

Some people misunderstand verse 9 to mean that we "must confess each and every sin that we commit as we commit them" (keep a specific inventory) as an "additional requirement" to "remain cleansed" and "if we forget a sin we are toast!"

Believers speak the same/acknowledge/agree with God's perspective about their sins and have a settled recognition and acknowledgment that one is a sinner in need of cleansing and forgiveness.

Why would the apostle Peter tell an unsaved, unbelieving man to repent of his sins?
If an atheist came to you would you say repent of your sins to get right with God and not mention belief in Jesus?
That would not save any unbeliever!
Peter would have said believe in Christ repent of your sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus if Simon was not a believer.

You can speculate all you want, but Peter's rebuke was crystal clear.

Here is the final nail in the coffin for Dan's misinterpretation:

You don't even have one nail in the coffin, let alone the final nail in the coffin.

Listen to Simon's response when told by Peter to repent,
Acts 8:24,
- Then Simon answered and said Pray to the Lord (Father Jesus Holy Spirit) for me, that none of the things which you have spoken may come upon me.

Is that the response of an unbeliever?

Yes, a frightened unbeliever who needed to repent, had no share in that ministry, thought he could buy the gift of God with money, his heart was not right with God, he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. That is the final nail in the coffin against your argument. Just deal with it. You are WRONG.

 

[Titus]

You believe that the obedient act of being water baptized saves

No I dont.
I dont believe if someone gets themselves water baptized they are saved by water.
I have a niece that tried that. I tell her to this day, God did not save her because she got wet. She has no intention of taking up her cross and submitting her whole life to God.She has never been faithfull to God, Revelation 2:10.
She thinks she found a loophole that God is forced to save us if we get wet. Many believe the same thing if they just believe.
I believe that to be saved God does the saving, we only follow His instruction.
If we do not follow His instruction we will not receive His grace.

Can a unbeliever be water baptized and be saved, No.
Can a impenitent man be water baptized and be saved, No.
Could the Jews in John 12:42 who would not confess Jesus be saved if they were water baptized, No.
Could any man save himself through good deeds all his life but neglect obedience to any part of Jesus' gospel, No.

God requires belief, does your faith save you? According to scriptures Yes, Romans 4:3.

This is the same as anything God requires of us.
Faith without Gods grace, the shed blood of Christ does nothing.
All the faith in the world could not save you without Jesus' blood.
The same is true with obedience.
Does faith and obedience save us without Gods grace, No
Obeying Gods command to be water baptized on it's own does not save.
God only gives those access to His unmerited favor who believe in Him and obeys His gospel.

The faith only religion requires you to believe to recieve Gods grace.
Jesus' gospel requires faith and obedience to recieve Gods grace.
Conclusion:
No one can be saved by their faith alone.
No one can be saved by their baptism alone.
God requires us meet His conditions in His gospel.
Once we obey these conditions like faith, repentance, baptism
Then HE ALONE TAKES AWAY OUR SINS by His grace.

No grace if no faith. No grace if no obedience.
Does man play a part in his salvation, Yes.
Does man save himself by his own works, no.

Calvinism teaches we can do nothing to save ourselves. That is why they teach unconditional election.
Is it true we play no part in our salvation?
Do you believe or as the calvinist teaches does God do the believing for you?
The bible teaches we do play a part in our salvation but dont mistake this as merit.

Acts 2:40,
- and with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying save yourselves from this perverse generation.

If man played no part in his salvation then calvinism is correct. We should all become calvinists.
If God refused to allow us to make choices to "save ourselves" then salvation would be onesided.

It would be God only. Man would have no free will in the matter of going to heaven or hell.
If this doctrine is true then all that go to hell are not accountable, God is guilty for who goes to hell.
Since God gives us the freewill to choose Him or self, we are guilty if we go to hell.

Therefore the true gospel of Christ allows man His part in his salvation. How?
By Faith. He gives us the ability to believe in Him or reject Him.

Ephesians 2:8-9,
By grace(Gods part) you have been saved through faith(mans part) and that not of yourselves(not by our merit) it is the gift of God(by grace).

Does water baptism save? Not on its own. Does our faith save? Not on its own.
We are saved by Gods grace, our faith and obedience to Jesus' gospel,
Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:8-9;

 

[Titus]

I have mislead no one. Do you teach that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation or not? Do you believe that sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized or not? I you answer YES then you are a water salvationist.

Until you or someone else shows me a passage in the new testament that teaches water has the power to wash away sins, I will never believe in water salvation.
I believe in the gospel.
I believe the gospel saves,
Romans 1:16,
- For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the jew first and also for the gentile.

You wrongly say the gospel is faith alone.
Jesus never said His gospel which saves us is faith alone.

Mark 16:15-16,
Go into all the world and preach the gospel, he that believeth and is baptized will be saved; he that believeth not will be condemned.

 

[Titus]

Peter told Simon that his heart is not right before God and to repent of his wickedness and said he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Yet you call that saved. Peter is not gullible like you

No, more misrepresentation.
I do not believe in the false doctrine of once saved always saved.
Simon was saved, then sinned against God.
Simon was lost and would have stayed lost if he had not repented of his sins.

Some people misunderstand verse 9 to mean that we "must confess each and every sin that we commit as we commit them" (keep a specific inventory) as an "additional requirement" to "remain cleansed" and "if we forget a sin we are toast

Dan, you believe you can be saved without repenting of ALL your sins?
That's not what the Bible teaches.
I believe what the Bible says,
1John 1:9,
- If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Where does it say we can leave some sins out of repentance Dan?

Dan has a belief that repenting of every sin means each sin most be spoken in prayer.
God does not require what is impossible.
We sin and are not even aware of our sins. That's called sins of ignorance.
How do we repent of all our sins like the Bible commands?
Simple: "Almighty Father forgive me of all my sins, in Jesus name Amen."

Here is the Biblical example.
Luke 11:4,
- And forgive us our sins for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.

Here Jesus teaches how to be forgiven of all our sins in prayer. It's so simple, men make things overcomplicated.

blaspheming and mocking Jesus. Yet moments later he repented and was converted.

That's your opinion, not found anywhere in the scriptures. Unless you believe Matthew, Mark and Luke's account contradict themselves.

At that point the other thief stopped railing against Jesus and repented. No contradiction

Pure speculation.
Prove he was mocking then stopped mocking? Where does Luke ever say the thief mocked Jesus?
I believe the Bible. I dont read into what I want to believe.
Since Luke actually says only one thief mocked Jesus and the other thief rebuked him for mocking Jesus. That is the true account of Luke. You are putting words in Luke's mouth.

Since the scriptures do not contradict there is a sound explanation for why Matthew and Mark used the word thieves.

The Bible speaks this way in other passages and they clearly do not mean literally more than one.
The speech is figurative and literally means one.

 

[Titus]

So Simon had no part no part or share in this ministry, his heart was not right before God and he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity, yet you still call that saved? If you can believe that, you can believe anything!

You need to understand why Peter told Simon he has no part in his ministry.
Peter was given the responsibility as an apostle. Only Peter was given all the abilities of the Holy Spirit through baptism of the Holy Spirit, Acts 1 and 2.
Simon, was not chosen by Jesus to be his apostle. Therefore Simon was not told to preach to all nations. Simon, was not given the spiritual gift of miraculous knowledge in all things as the apostles were. Only the apostles were given this gift to know all that Jesus had taught during His earthly ministry,
John 16:13,
- However when He(Holy Spirit) the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth(apostles)
Peter's ministry was not for Simon. God had not chosen him for that work. Apostles had their own work Simon and other first century Christians had theirs.
The miracles Peter and the other apostles performed was to prove that they were Gods chosen apostles. They had been given the job to preach the gospel to every creature.
The purpose of Peter performing miracles was to confirm the word he spoke was from God.
No bibles during this period. Only spoken through the mouths of the apostles and some disciples like Philip.

Yet men like Ananias and Philip and Simon were not commanded to go into all, the word preaching
the gospel. That was the apostles ministry.
Miracles were to confirm the word,
Mark 16:20,
- And they(apostles) went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and CONFIRMING the word through the accompanying signs(miracles). Amen.

Now you know why Peter told Simon that he was not going to get the miracles that God had bestowed on the apostles. God had not chosen Simon just as he not chosen Lydia or Cornelius to do the work of an apostle.

Simon new he was not going to have these miraculous gifts the apostles were given therefore he tried to buy them.
That is why he sinned. He was greedy, thinking he could profit of of theses gifts from God.
Remember Simon made money from magic tricks. People thought he was really great.
He went back to his old self- thinking he could use Gods miracles to be even greater in his magic shows.

It's not about after our conversion we never sin again. That's not the point. After Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit, Peter rebukes him and says to Simon

Dan, you assume because an apostle rebukes Simon that proves he was not saved.
Wrong,
Mathew 16:16,
- Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Is Peter's faith not geniune Biblical faith ?
Is Simon's faith not geniune Biblical saving faith because Peter rebuked him?

You forgot that Peter himself was rebuked by Jesus Himself!
For loosing his faith in Jesus,
Mark 16:14,
- Later Jesus appeared to the eleven(apostles) as they sat at the table and Jesus rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen Jesus after He had risen.

Now using your same interpretation methods, Peter and the rest of the apostles as well as Simon did not have faith in Jesus. They were all un-believers.


Finally, you missed the most obvious reason you are wrong about Simon being saved.
Simon, asked Peter to pray to God that he not perish in hell.

No unbeliever would believe he would perish if an apostle told him he was lost.
An unbeliever would not have responded to Peter as asking him to pray for him.
Unbelievers dont ask others to pray for them that they not perish.
Simon knows Peter is a Christian. Therefore Simon knows that Peter refers to Jesus when he refers to God.
Simon believed Peter, therefore Simon believed Jesus was the true living God,
Acts 8:23-24,
- for I see that you are poised by bitterness and bound by inquity,
Then Simon said to Peter, pray to the Lord(Father, Jesus, Holy)for me, that none of these which you have spoken may come upon me.

Simon knows Peter's God is the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
If Simon did not believe in this God that is Peter's God, Simon would not ask Peter to pray to his God to keep himself from perishing.

Simon was a saved born again Christian.

 

[Titus]

What should be obvious to all Bible believing folks is that the Thief on the cross could not be subject to the new testament gospel of Jesus Christ. No way!
Paul taught the gospel in 1Corinthians 15:1-4.
Paul said the death, burial and ressurection is the gospel of Christ.
One MUST believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins was buried and ressurected from the dead. Folks, The Thief never new Jesus ressurected from the dead!!!! He could not believe the gospel Paul preached. Unless you want to change the gospel of Christ to death only belief.
Earnest T Bass has the correct answer.

Joke time:
"Hello I'm a christian and I'd like to share the gospel with you."
Prospect: "Well ok
"Good, let me tell you about Jesus"
Prospect: "I heard this before, can I just be saved like the thief on the cross"?
"Absolutely!"
Prospect: How?
"Well you must believe that Jesus died for your sins was buried and rose from the dead"
Prospect: "No I dont!" Cause if I'm gonna die crucified on a cross next to Jesus I'm not staying alive on this cross for three days to believe He rose from the dead!"

 

[mailmandan]

No I dont.

Yes you do. Water baptized or condemned/must be water baptized to be saved/not saved until after one is baptized is what you teach.

I dont believe if someone gets themselves water baptized they are saved by water.

You may not believe that the water itself saves as if the water is magical or mystical, but you still believe that baptism saves.

I have a niece that tried that. I tell her to this day, God did not save her because she got wet. She has no intention of taking up her cross and submitting her whole life to God. She has never been faithfull to God, Revelation 2:10.
She thinks she found a loophole that God is forced to save us if we get wet. Many believe the same thing if they just believe.
I believe that to be saved God does the saving, we only follow His instruction.
If we do not follow His instruction we will not receive His grace.

We are saved by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Teaching a false plan of salvation/perverting the gospel by teaching salvation by works is not being faithful, it's being faithless. (2 Corinthians 4:3,4)

Can a unbeliever be water baptized and be saved, No.
Can a impenitent man be water baptized and be saved, No.

Can a believer who dies physically be saved before having the opportunity to be water baptized? YES.

Could the Jews in John 12:42 who would not confess Jesus be saved if they were water baptized, No.

In John 12:42, we do not know the real condition of these "believing" rulers' hearts (mere mental assent belief James 2:19) or (trust and reliance saving belief John 3:16), but we do know that they loved men's praises (v. 43) more than God's. The unwillingness of the chief rulers to confess Christ in this isolated situation may throw doubt on the complete genuineness of their faith or did they simply have a weak moment in this isolated situation in front of the Pharisees? Does this mean they did not confess Christ to others? The Apostle Peter at one point failed to confess Jesus before men in an isolated situation (John 18:17-27), but after the Holy Spirit was given, he was a different man who boldly confessed Him. (Acts 4:8-13) We know that Peter was saved even though he had a weak moment and the same may be true for these chief rulers as well. Does the text specifically say that they were saved or not saved? If the chief rulers truly believed (trusted in Christ for salvation) even though they had a weak moment, then they were saved. (John 3:16) If their lack of confession was the result of a lack of genuine belief, then they were not saved. (John 3:18)

Could any man save himself through good deeds all his life but neglect obedience to any part of Jesus' gospel, No.

How many parts do you "add" to the gospel of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) Salvation by "water and works" is not the gospel, but is a "different" gospel.

God requires belief, does your faith save you? According to scriptures Yes, Romans 4:3.

Amen! John 3:18; Acts 10:43; Romans 5:1 Ephesians 2:8 etc..).

This is the same as anything God requires of us.
Faith without Gods grace, the shed blood of Christ does nothing.
All the faith in the world could not save you without Jesus' blood.

We have access by faith into grace.. (Romans 5:2)

The same is true with obedience.

This is where you cross the line into salvation by works.

Does faith and obedience save us without Gods grace, No

Faith + obedience is faith + works.

Obeying Gods command to be water baptized on it's own does not save.
God only gives those access to His unmerited favor who believe in Him and obeys His gospel.

We obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel. (Romans 10:16; 1:16) Water baptism is not a part of the gospel.

The faith only religion requires you to believe to recieve Gods grace.

Faith that trusts only in Christ for salvation saves. (Romans 4:5-6) Not to be confused with "faith only" per James 2:24, which is an empty profession of faith/dead faith that remains barren of works. (James 2:14) Campbellites cannot seem to grasp this.

Jesus' gospel requires faith and obedience to recieve Gods grace.

So how much obedience/works does it take? How much obedience must we accomplish and "add" as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Christ save us? Christ's finished work of redemption is sufficient and complete to save believers. No supplements needed. (Romans 3:24-28)

Conclusion:
No one can be saved by their faith alone.

Yes they can, by faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone. (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9)

No one can be saved by their baptism alone.

No one can be saved by their baptism period.

God requires us meet His conditions in His gospel.

His conditions or the conditions of your church?

Once we obey these conditions like faith, repentance, baptism
Then HE ALONE TAKES AWAY OUR SINS by His grace.

Your false gospel is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics.

No grace if no faith. No grace if no obedience.

We have access by faith (and obedience? NO) simply faith into grace.. (Romans 5:2)

Does man play a part in his salvation, Yes.

Grace is God's part and faith is man's part.

Does man save himself by his own works, no.

No.

Calvinism teaches we can do nothing to save ourselves. That is why they teach unconditional election.
Is it true we play no part in our salvation?
Do you believe or as the calvinist teaches does God do the believing for you?
The bible teaches we do play a part in our salvation but dont mistake this as merit.

Although it is our responsibility to choose to believe in Christ for salvation and we will be held accountable for unbelief (John 3:18), saving belief in Christ is never exclusively a matter of human decision. Unless the Father draws us (John 6:44) and enables us, (John 6:65) we would NEVER come to believe all by ourselves. The approach of the soul to Christ is initiated by the Father, but He doesn't force us to believe in Christ, we must choose to believe in Him. The impulse to faith in Christ comes from God. Your idea of playing a part in our salvation by works results in merit no matter how much you try and sugar coat it.

Acts 2:40,
- and with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying save yourselves from this perverse generation.

Save yourselves from this perverse generation by choosing to believe in Christ for salvation and He ultimately saves us.

If man played no part in his salvation then calvinism is correct. We should all become calvinists.
If God refused to allow us to make choices to "save ourselves" then salvation would be onesided.

I'm not a 5 point Calvinist. If you fell into a well with no way out and someone threw down a rope and pulled you out, "in a sense" you can say that you "saved yourself" by choosing to grab and hold onto the rope until that person pulled you out, but ultimately, the person who pulled you out of the well saved you and ultimately, it is Jesus Christ who saves us.

Therefore the true gospel of Christ allows man His part in his salvation. How?
By Faith. He gives us the ability to believe in Him or reject Him.

Amen!

Ephesians 2:8-9,
By grace(Gods part) you have been saved through faith (mans part) and that not of yourselves(not by our merit) it is the gift of God (by grace).

Amen! But the problem is you "add" works to salvation through faith, not works.

Does water baptism save? Not on its own. Does our faith save? Not on its own.
We are saved by Gods grace, our faith and obedience to Jesus' gospel,
Mark 16:15-16, Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:8-9;

Again, your false gospel is the result of bad semantics and flawed hermeneutics.

 

[mailmandan]

Until you or someone else shows me a passage in the new testament that teaches water has the power to wash away sins, I will never believe in water salvation.

Water salvation does not merely apply to baptismal regeneration. Any form of "must be water baptized in order to be saved" also = water salvation.

I believe in the gospel.
I believe the gospel saves,
Romans 1:16,
- For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the jew first and also for the gentile.

You believe in a "different" gospel that "adds" salvation by water baptism + other works to salvation through faith.

You wrongly say the gospel is faith alone.
Jesus never said His gospel which saves us is faith alone.

The Bible clearly states in many passages of scripture that we are saved through belief/faith "apart from additions or modifications." (John 1:12; 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:22-28; 4:5; 5:1; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:15; 1 John 5:13 etc..). Did Jesus forget to mention baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25-26?

You don't need to add the word "alone" next to "belief/faith" in each of these passages of scripture in order to figure out that the words, "belief/faith" stand alone in connection with receiving eternal life/salvation. Do these many passages of scripture say belief/faith "plus something else?" Plus works? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) in Christ alone.

Mark 16:15-16,
Go into all the world and preach the gospel, he that believeth and is baptized will be saved; he that believeth not will be condemned.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that BELIEVES; (believes plus what? Simply believes) to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. *What happened to baptism?

1 Corinthians 1:18 - For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21 - For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that BELIEVE.

 

[mailmandan]

No, more misrepresentation.
I do not believe in the false doctrine of once saved always saved.

Works-salvationists typically don't believe in OSAS because they have no assurance of salvation based on their performance. ALL false religions and cults that teach salvation by works strongly oppose OSAS, which has always been a red flag for me.

Simon was saved, then sinned against God.
Simon was lost and would have stayed lost if he had not repented of his sins.

Simon was not saved. He had no part or share in that ministry because his heart was not right with God. He was also poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Simon needed to repent of his wickedness.

Dan, you believe you can be saved without repenting of ALL your sins?

Repentance is a "change of mind" (and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation) which is necessary for salvation. When you say repent of ALL sins do you mean completely stop sinning as some teach? When we repent we acknowledge that we are sinners (Romans 3:23) and need a Savior. (Romans 6:23)

That's not what the Bible teaches.
I believe what the Bible says,
1John 1:9,
- If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

What I shared with you in post #227 in regards to 1 John 1:9 is what the Bible teaches. You fail to interpret 1 John 1:9 IN CONTRAST with 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 1:10. The Bible does not teach exhaustive, inventory confession/works salvation.

Where does it say we can leave some sins out of repentance Dan?

Leave some sins out? What straw man argument are you building now?

Dan has a belief that repenting of every sin means each sin most be spoken in prayer.
God does not require what is impossible.
We sin and are not even aware of our sins. That's called sins of ignorance.
How do we repent of all our sins like the Bible commands?
Simple: "Almighty Father forgive me of all my sins, in Jesus name Amen."

You do not understand what Dan really believes. We are not aware of every sin that we have ever committed. We could never sit down and write an exhaustive list of every sin that we have ever committed and that's not what repent and confess mean. That would be impossible.

Here is the Biblical example.
Luke 11:4,
- And forgive us our sins for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.

Here Jesus teaches how to be forgiven of all our sins in prayer. It's so simple, men make things overcomplicated.

I thought you were against the sinners prayer.

That's your opinion, not found anywhere in the scriptures. Unless you believe Matthew, Mark and Luke's account contradict themselves.

It's not about contradiction. It's about separate eye witness accounts.

Pure speculation.

Says you.

Prove he was mocking then stopped mocking? Where does Luke ever say the thief mocked Jesus?

Matthew 27:39 - And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, 42 “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. 43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ 44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing. *Also see Mark 15:29-32

I believe the Bible. I dont read into what I want to believe.

No you don't and reading into the text what you want to believe is exactly what you have done. Eisegesis - an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

Since Luke actually says only one thief mocked Jesus and the other thief rebuked him for mocking Jesus. That is the true account of Luke. You are putting words in Luke's mouth.

Both thieves started out reviling Jesus with the same thing as those who passed by including the scribes and elders, but later, one of the thieves repented. You are pitting Luke against Matthew and Mark for the sake of your bias.

Since the scriptures do not contradict there is a sound explanation for why Matthew and Mark used the word thieves.

Eisegesis is not a sound explanation. Matthew and Mark are correct. It's thieves (plural).

The Bible speaks this way in other passages and they clearly do not mean literally more than one.
The speech is figurative and literally means one.

False. Matthew 27:44 - The thieves (plural) also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. (KJV)
Matthew 27:44 - Even the robbers (plural) who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing. (NKJV)
Matthew 27:44 - The robbers (plural) who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words. (NASB-1995)
Your desperation to get around the truth here is unbelievable!

 

[mailmandan]

You need to understand why Peter told Simon he has no part in his ministry.
Peter was given the responsibility as an apostle. Only Peter was given all the abilities of the Holy Spirit through baptism of the Holy Spirit, Acts 1 and 2.
Simon, was not chosen by Jesus to be his apostle. Therefore Simon was not told to preach to all nations. Simon, was not given the spiritual gift of miraculous knowledge in all things as the apostles were. Only the apostles were given this gift to know all that Jesus had taught during His earthly ministry,
John 16:13,
- However when He(Holy Spirit) the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth(apostles)
Peter's ministry was not for Simon. God had not chosen him for that work. Apostles had their own work Simon and other first century Christians had theirs.
The miracles Peter and the other apostles performed was to prove that they were Gods chosen apostles. They had been given the job to preach the gospel to every creature.
The purpose of Peter performing miracles was to confirm the word he spoke was from God.
No bibles during this period. Only spoken through the mouths of the apostles and some disciples like Philip.

Yet men like Ananias and Philip and Simon were not commanded to go into all, the word preaching
the gospel. That was the apostles ministry.
Miracles were to confirm the word,
Mark 16:20,
- And they(apostles) went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and CONFIRMING the word through the accompanying signs(miracles). Amen.

Now you know why Peter told Simon that he was not going to get the miracles that God had bestowed on the apostles. God had not chosen Simon just as he not chosen Lydia or Cornelius to do the work of an apostle.

Simon new he was not going to have these miraculous gifts the apostles were given therefore he tried to buy them.
That is why he sinned. He was greedy, thinking he could profit of of theses gifts from God.
Remember Simon made money from magic tricks. People thought he was really great.
He went back to his old self- thinking he could use Gods miracles to be even greater in his magic shows.

Too much rambling. Why don't you simply stop fighting against the truth?

Dan, you assume because an apostle rebukes Simon that proves he was not saved.
Wrong,
Mathew 16:16,
- Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Is Peter's faith not geniune Biblical faith ?
Is Simon's faith not geniune Biblical saving faith because Peter rebuked him?

Peter's faith was genuine, but not Simons. What part of, "may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" don't you understand?

You forgot that Peter himself was rebuked by Jesus Himself! For loosing his faith in Jesus,

Mark 16:14,
- Later Jesus appeared to the eleven (apostles) as they sat at the table and Jesus rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen Jesus after He had risen.

That's not loosing faith. They just had a hard time believing those who had seen Jesus after He had risen. Prior to the cross, show me in scripture where the disciples were preaching about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

In Matthew 16:15, Jesus Christ asked His disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Now Peter had no clue that Jesus Christ would be crucified and resurrected. He only believed that Jesus was the Messiah at that time. This is obvious when only moments later, Peter rebukes Jesus Christ for saying he will be killed, and be raised again the third day" (Matthew 16:21).

In verse 22, "..Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!” Before his death, Jesus told the twelve that he had to die and that he would rise on the third day. However, the disciples were ignorant of its meaning.

“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,…And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. (Luke 18:31-34)

Now using your same interpretation methods, Peter and the rest of the apostles as well as Simon did not have faith in Jesus. They were all un-believers.

You mean using your interpretation methods.

Finally, you missed the most obvious reason you are wrong about Simon being saved.
Simon, asked Peter to pray to God that he not perish in hell.

Sounding fearful and wanting to escape the consequences of his sin doesn't mean he was saved. His heart was not right with God. Period.

No unbeliever would believe he would perish if an apostle told him he was lost.
An unbeliever would not have responded to Peter as asking him to pray for him.
Unbelievers dont ask others to pray for them that they not perish.

More speculation in a vain attempt to dance around the truth. Once again, what part of, "may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" don't you understand? Why doesn't this sink in?

Simon knows Peter is a Christian. Therefore Simon knows that Peter refers to Jesus when he refers to God.
Simon believed Peter, therefore Simon believed Jesus was the true living God,
Acts 8:23-24,
- for I see that you are poised by bitterness and bound by inquity,
Then Simon said to Peter, pray to the Lord (Father, Jesus, Holy )for me, that none of these which you have spoken may come upon me.

So may your money perish with you/no part or share in this ministry/your heart is not right with God/repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity = Christian? On what planet? Even the demons believe that Jesus was the true living God, but they are not saved. Peter knew that Simon was NOT a Christian, but keep dancing.

Simon knows Peter's God is the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
If Simon did not believe in this God that is Peter's God, Simon would not ask Peter to pray to his God to keep himself from perishing.

Simply believing those facts alone don't make you a Christian. Even the devils believe that and they are not Christians. Even people in false religions and cults who are not genuine Christians pray.

Simon was a saved born again Christian.

Absolutely false. Simon had no part or share in that ministry, his heart was not right before God, he needed to repent of this wickedness and he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Deal with it and stop fighting against the truth!

 

[Titus]

Peter's faith was genuine, but not Simons. What part of, "may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" don't you understand?

I do.
Peter tells Simon to repent of his sin: trying to purchase the power that the apostles were given.
Peter tells Simon he was not chosen by Jesus to apostleship, this is why Peter tells Simon he has no part in his ministry.

What is Simon's response? Begs Peter who believes that Jesus is God, to pray to his God for him, that he not perish.
Dan, unbelievers do not ask believers to pray that they not perish.

Dan, please try this experiment.
Go to someone you know that has no faith in Jesus like you claim with Simon.

Tell them to pray to God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) for forgiveness that they not perish from their sins against Jesus.

See if their response is the same as Simon the Sorcerer's was.

Do you think they will say:

A) Please pray to God for me that I don't suffer this punishment for my sins?
B) Why? I don't believe in your God?

It is clear to me that Simon the Sorcerer's response proves he was a man of faith just as the Scriptures say.
Acts 8:13,
- Then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

 

[mailmandan]

I do.
Peter tells Simon to repent of his sin: trying to purchase the power that the apostles were given.
Peter tells Simon he was not chosen by Jesus to apostleship, this is why Peter tells Simon he has no part in his ministry.

What is Simon's response? Begs Peter who believes that Jesus is God, to pray to his God for him, that he not perish.
Dan, unbelievers do not ask believers to pray that they not perish.

Dan, please try this experiment.
Go to someone you know that has no faith in Jesus like you claim with Simon.

Tell them to pray to God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit) for forgiveness that they not perish from their sins against Jesus.

See if their response is the same as Simon the Sorcerer's was.

Do you think they will say:

A) Please pray to God for me that I don't suffer this punishment for my sins?
B) Why? I don't believe in your God?

It is clear to me that Simon the Sorcerer's response proves he was a man of faith just as the Scriptures say.
Acts 8:13,
- Then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

I have already proved my arguments from scripture and exhausted my explanation in regards to Simon the sorcerer. Again, "may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" is crystal clear. That is not descriptive of a born again Christian. Period.

 

[Titus]

I have already proved my arguments from scripture and exhausted my explanation in regards to Simon the sorcerer. Again, "may your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" is crystal clear. That is not descriptive of a born again Christian. Period.

If that cannot be a description of a born again christian, then according to you Christians today are incapable of committing sins that go against Jesus.
Give scripture that a Christian cannot commit sins, like unbelief or murder or preaching for earthly gain. These are all sins like Simon.
You give opinions Dan. Where is the scripture to prove it.

Peter believes then completely loses his faith in Jesus, then Jesus REBUKES him and the rest of the apostles for losing faith in Jesus. Simon never even lost his faith when he committed sin.
Dan says Simon's sin is so bad! The apostles sin was so bad that GOD REBUKED THEM FOR IT!
Matthew 16:15-16,
- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered and said to Peter, Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Now Peter and the rest of the apostles loose their faith in Jesus,
Jesus then rebukes their sin.
Mark 16:14,
- Later Jesus appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table and Jesus rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

This sin is just as wicked as Simon's. Sin is Sin to God.
Hebrews 3:12,
- Beware brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

Love you Danthemailman.
Simon was rebuked by Peter. Peter was rebuked by Christ. And Peter was again rebuked by Paul.

Give scripture Dan, that born again christians cannot commit sin like Simon did.

Galatians 2:11-13,
-Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed,
For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and sepearated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 -But when I saw they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel....
Peter a born again Christian being a hypocrite and not following after the true gospel.
Wow.

Simon was a born again christian.
Acts 8:13,
- Then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

Nowhere does the Bible say Peter's faith was not true faith.
It says he believed in Jesus like the rest of those that day who believed just as Simon.
I am a Bible believer so I just believe what it says.

 

[mailmandan]

If that cannot be a description of a born again christian, then according to you Christians today are incapable of committing sins that go against Jesus.
Give scripture that a Christian cannot commit sins, like unbelief or murder or preaching for earthly gain. These are all sins like Simon.
You give opinions Dan. Where is the scripture to prove it.

I already proved my argument using scripture and did not simply give my opinion. May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God, repent of this wickedness/poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" is not descriptive of a Christian.

Peter believes then completely loses his faith in Jesus, then Jesus REBUKES him and the rest of the apostles for losing faith in Jesus. Simon never even lost his faith when he committed sin.

You are completely mixed up. Simon never had saving faith in Christ. His belief was no better than the belief of demons. (James 2:19) His heart was not right with God and he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Peter did not lose faith in Jesus. He always did believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. He just did not at first believe those who saw Jesus resurrected.

Dan says Simon's sin is so bad!

Titus says Simon's sin was no big deal and wanting to buy the gift of God with money, having a heart that is not right before God, needing to repent of wickedness and being poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity is just another sin. No biggie.

The apostles sin was so bad that GOD REBUKED THEM FOR IT!

Jesus did not describe the disciples as having no part or share in this ministry, or having a heart that is not right before God or being poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Did He?

Matthew 16:15-16,
- Jesus said to them, But who do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered and said to Peter, Blessed are you Simon Bar- Jonah for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

The apostles never stopped believing this.

Now Peter and the rest of the apostles loose their faith in Jesus,
Jesus then rebukes their sin.
Mark 16:14,
- Later Jesus appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table and Jesus rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.

I already explained this. Do you even read my posts? They did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. Apparently they did not believe this before Jesus' resurrection either. Before the cross, apparently Peter had no clue that Jesus Christ would be crucified and resurrected, although he did believe that Jesus was the Messiah. This is obvious when, only moments later, Peter rebukes Jesus Christ for saying he will be killed, and be raised again the third day" (Matthew 16:21). In verse 22, "..Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”

Before his death, Jesus told the twelve that he had to die and that he would rise on the third day. However, it is unquestionable that the disciples were ignorant of its meaning. “Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem,…And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. (Luke 18:31-34)

This sin is just as wicked as Simon's. Sin is Sin to God.

You just keep dancing.

Hebrews 3:12,
- Beware brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.

Hebrews 3:8-10 says, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, 'They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.' Not descriptive of genuine believers. Verses 18-19 - And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. That explains the hardened heart. It took them in the opposite direction of God. Heard the truth for a time, but then hardened heart and departing from God became their final answer. Jude 1:5 - The Lord delivered His people (the Israelites) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.

Love you Danthemailman.
Simon was rebuked by Peter. Peter was rebuked by Christ. And Peter was again rebuked by Paul.

So what. What's in the description of the rebuke?

Give scripture Dan, that born again christians cannot commit sin like Simon did.

Where is scripture are born again Christians described as having no part or share in this ministry, heart is not right before God, poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity? That is very strong language!

Galatians 2:11-13,
-Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed,
For before certain men came from James, he would eat with the gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and sepearated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 -But when I saw they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel....
Peter a born again Christian being a hypocrite and not following after the true gospel.
Wow.

Peter had a weak moment in front of the Jews, just like he had a weak moment when he denied knowing Christ 3 times during Jesus' arrest. He is human.

Simon was a born again christian.
Acts 8:13,
- Then Simon himself also believed and when he was baptized he continued with Philip and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done.

No he wasn't. His belief fell short of saving belief in Christ. Simon no part or share in this ministry, because his heart is not right before God, he need to repent of this wickedness and he was poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity. Never heard the apostle Peter or any of the other apostles described that way.

Nowhere does the Bible say Peter's faith was not true faith.

Peter had true faith and was saved, unlike Simon.

It says he believed in Jesus like the rest of those that day who believed just as Simon.

If Simon's belief in Jesus was authentic and he was saved, then he would not have thought he could buy the gift of God with money and he would not be said to have no part or share in this ministry because his heart is not right before God and he would not be told to repent of this wickedness or be described as poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity if he was a genuine born again Christian.

I am a Bible believer so I just believe what it says.

You believe what you want to believe (eisegesis). Whatever fits your narrative and biased church doctrine.