BAPTISM SAVES, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS"

[justbyfaith]

"Goes to show" ....

"Showing", is what a natural man can SEE.

"Realizing", is what a natural man, already Converted, can Understand.

Point being...to your comment.
A Converted man, absolutely EXPECTS, the WORLD to;
Hate him, reject him, call him insane, unjustly accuse him, fabricate lies against him, unjustly punish him, and on and on.

WHY?

Because EVERY man WHO accepts Gods Gift of SALVATION has agreed to the terms and conditions of DRINKING from the SAME CUP that Jesus drank of.

What was IN Jesus' CUP?
The World's "INDIGNATION".
Which is to say....If one DRINKS from the SAME CUP Jesus Drank... EXPECT...
INDIGNATION ... From the World.

IF a man HAS received the Gift of the Holy Spirit.....EXPECT to have the INTERNAL Power of God...and the Comforting Power of God..
TO Combat Against the Worlds Indignation.

Glory to God,
Taken

Not on the subject of baptism, but good.

 

[Jun2u]

[QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 469172, member: 7886"]Can a person be saved apart from baptism? You bet.[/QUOTE]

Time and again I’ve said that those who post in these forums have no understanding of how to read or understand Scripture.

For instance Romans 10:8-13 is one of many. Prior to Romans 10 we read in Romans 3:10, “As it is written, there is none that seeks after God, no, not one” If there is NONE that seeks after God, Who will, YOU? That would be an impossibility because Romans 3 is God’s assessment of the human race.!

Plus, God also said, “the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it?”

Can man truly seek and confess God?

To God Be The Glory

 

[mjrhealth]

It is the same today. People who have not been baptized are delineated by a certain hardness against the testimony that baptism saves through identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and as a confession of Jesus Christ before men (Matthew 10:32, Luke 12:8).

I suppose you could argue that point with God when you discover that not all who die had that chance to get baptized, " but God how dare you let them in they are not baptized", more rules for something that was sorry "IS", supposed to be a "FREE GIFT".

Ye we dont want anyone else to be saved but ourselves....

 

[mjrhealth]

I guess that leaves,
Enoch - He was not baptized yet he went to be with God, oh and Elijah,

what about Abraham, Jonah, Moses, David, Jeremiah, is God going to break His promise because they where not baptized. I think not, He is not like a man....

 

[Frank Lee]

I use the example of Cornelius in Acts 10 and how they received the Holy Spirit before baptism.

This was my experience all outside church walls. Jesus came and saved me I had to search the Bible to find what had happened to me. Then he baptized me in his Holy Spirit and I had to read about that. I was water baptized about three months after being born again a new creation and baptized in the Holy Spirit. I was glad to be water baptized but I was already forgiven and born again.

 

[mjrhealth]

As Pia put it to me. Jesus was Baptized by John yet HE was without sin????

 

[Taken]

The scriptures apply to all men; even and especially those who REJECT God's word. They will be held accountable for and will be judged because they rejected it. You seem to think that if someone rejects the word of the Lord, they will not be judged/condemned. Scripture actually teaches the opposite.



"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized <in the Holy Ghost, invisibly> or <in water, visibly>"

"And 3,000 souls were added to them that day."

How did they know there were 3,000 souls? How did they count them? And when did they count them? (my questions to you).

I would say they observed the size of the crowd and took and educated estimate of ABOUT how many souls were saved.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them ABOUT three thousand souls.


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

As Pia put it to me. Jesus was Baptized by John yet HE was without sin????

Jesus NEVER had sin.

Jesus IS makinds promised VISIBLE Example.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[justbyfaith]

I would say they observed the size of the crowd and took and educated estimate of ABOUT how many souls were saved.

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them ABOUT three thousand souls.


Glory to God,
Taken

So they just assumed that all of them had been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

 

[justbyfaith]

<post #162>: justbyfaith: Can a person be saved apart from baptism? You bet.

Jun2u: Time and again I’ve said that those who post in these forums have no understanding of how to read or understand Scripture.

For instance Romans 10:8-13 is one of many. Prior to Romans 10 we read in Romans 3:10, “As it is written, there is none that seeks after God, no, not one” If there is NONE that seeks after God, Who will, YOU? That would be an impossibility because Romans 3 is God’s assessment of the human race.!

Plus, God also said, “the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it?”

Can man truly seek and confess God?

To God Be The Glory

Romans 3:10-18 is defined by comparing Romans 3:19 to Romans 6:14; understanding that the passage defines what the law says to those who under it.

Also, there is Psalms 27:8.

I suppose you could argue that point with God when you discover that not all who die had that chance to get baptized, " but God how dare you let them in they are not baptized", more rules for something that was sorry "IS", supposed to be a "FREE GIFT".

Ye we don't want anyone else to be saved but ourselves....

I guess that leaves,
Enoch - He was not baptized yet he went to be with God, oh and Elijah,

what about Abraham, Jonah, Moses, David, Jeremiah, is God going to break His promise because they where not baptized. I think not, He is not like a man....

I don't know if you were all attempting to address my posts here; but I think you failed to notice that my pov is that a person can be saved apart from baptism.

However, my point it that baptism does have the power to save as a point of contact for faith (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-6, Colossians 2:12-15, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:20-21; Ezekiel 36:25-27, and maybe even a few more).

 

[Taken]

So they just assumed that all of them had been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Well of course MEN make assumptions and presumptions regarding OTHER MEN...
based on what other men say and do.

If you are sitting in a Church and the Preacher says....All who would like to Come to the Alter and give their life to the Lord...
And 18 or 21 men walk to the Alter...

Can you estimate there were about 20 men who walked to the alter?

Can you assume or presume about 20 men gave their life to the Lord?

Can you assume or presume there may be more SEATED among you, who were NOT SAVED, and still chose to NOT Give their life to the Lord?

Have you not read, in Scripture, men who CHOSE to give their life to the Lord spoke with their mouth, raised their hands or stood up, to show their agreement?

Have you not read, in Scripture, men who CHOSE TO DISAGREE, TO NOT Believe, TO NOT participate in the agreement...
WALKED AWAY?

Have you not understood from Scriptural study.....SOME PEOPLE LIE? Even LIE, when claiming BELIEF IN GOD? Even LIE, when claiming they are giving their LIFE to the Lord?

DO YOU know if they are lying? No.
You assume and presume them giving testimony, of agreement, means they agree, to Believe, Confess, Commit to the Lord.

However GOD KNOWS "IF" they are LYING...
God is NOT FOOLED.
God DOES NOT GIVE a man (having made a LYING Confession To God)....Gods Gift of Forgiveness, of his body crucified with His Word, a Saved Soul, of a new Heart, of a new born again spirit, of a Gods Seed, of Gods Spirit with or within the man.

IN the meantime...men absolutely can ASSUME and PRESUME other men WHO declared they are Saved and Born Again....
ARE Saved and Born Again...

Until and unless they are FOUND to be frauds.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[justbyfaith]

It seems to me that baptism in itself was defined by John the Baptist's ministry.

Why would Peter, in telling the people to be baptized in Acts 2:38, be referring to something that was defined differently?

(Also, Acts 2:38-39 is a conditional promise that if someone repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins, that they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If the baptism Peter spoke of was in the Holy Ghost but not in water, it seems to me that Peter was being redundant.)

In Acts 10:44-47, the evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost was their speaking in other tongues; as well as in Acts 2:1-13.

So if these people had been baptized in the Holy Ghost (but not in water) in Acts 2:41, it should be expected that there would have been the evidence of speaking in tongues and that they would have counted the 3,000 that were "baptized" by this criteria. But it is evident that they were only baptized in water (they may have come out of the water speaking in other tongues). Because, again, in Acts 10:44-47, it is clear that the only way that they knew that Cornelius and friends were baptized in the Holy Ghost was because they had the evidence of speaking in tongues. And the fact that Peter himself baptized in water as a general rule can be seen in Acts 10:47-48.

Because you are saying that Peter told them to repent and be baptized and that they were then baptized in the Holy Spirit (not in water). Peter didn't baptize them in water; even thought he later wrote that water baptism doth also now save us.

It is clear to me that it was Peter's belief that baptism in water was very important if not essential (Acts 10:47-48).

 

[bbyrd009]

It seems to me that baptism in itself was defined by John the Baptist's ministry.

which baptism though? You don't even have a ritual for the fire one that i am aware of?

 

[Taken]

It seems to me that baptism in itself was defined by John the Baptist's ministry.

It is my belief that John the Baptist himself understood his own ministry....and revealed it to others....who wrote about it and is available for other men to read.

Mark 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize youwith the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Why would Peter, in telling the people to be baptized in Acts 2:38, be referring to something that was defined differently?

Water baptism is a outward symbol of a mans inward acceptance of Death, Buriel and Ressurection by and of the Belief in God, the Power of God and Word of God.

Water baptism does not Save a man.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit makes a man WHOLE and SAVES that WHOLE man, body, soul, spirit...to be forever with the Lord God.

(Also, Acts 2:38-39 is a conditional promise that if someone repents and is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins, that they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If the baptism Peter spoke of was in the Holy Ghost but not in water, it seems to me that Peter was being redundant.)

In Acts 10:44-47, the evidence of being baptized in the Holy Ghost was their speaking in other tongues; as well as in Acts 2:1-13.

So if these people had been baptized in the Holy Ghost (but not in water) in Acts 2:41, it should be expected that there would have been the evidence of speaking in tongues and that they would have counted the 3,000 that were "baptized" by this criteria. But it is evident that they were only baptized in water (they may have come out of the water speaking in other tongues). Because, again, in Acts 10:44-47, it is clear that the only way that they knew that Cornelius and friends were baptized in the Holy Ghost was because they had the evidence of speaking in tongues. And the fact that Peter himself baptized in water as a general rule can be seen in Acts 10:47-48.

Because you are saying that Peter told them to repent and be baptized and that they were then baptized in the Holy Spirit (not in water). Peter didn't baptize them in water; even thought he later wrote that water baptism doth also now save us.

It is clear to me that it was Peter's belief that baptism in water was very important if not essential (Acts 10:47-48).

If you feel the need to be Baptized with Water, go ahead. No one objects.
However you should know, the Church that performs such Water Baptism, is YOU agreeing WITH "THAT" Churches Doctrine, and further "MAKES" you a member of that Church and and IN AGREEMENT with ALL of IT'S Doctrine.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

If you want to believe that Jesus picked up bread and said it was His body - and it really, really was His actual/literal body, and He did not mean it symbolically. Good luck with that!

But now I can no longer have an adult conversation with you.

We Christians believe that God spoke and the entire universe leapt into existence.
Turning a piece of bread into His flesh is a relatively small miracle by comparison.

YOUR lack of faith is pathetic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It doesn't get ANY clearer than THIS
Mt 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Rom 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Jn 1:31 This shows that the REASON Baptism with water was used was because Christ's purpose of His ministry was to appear to Israel
And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

Nothing that Christ commanded or directed during His earthly ministry pertains to any Gentile living today.

You're a Gentile and Gentiles have ONLY one apostle, Paul. Christ was an apostle that was sent ONLY to Israel. If you ever get an urge to know TRUTH FOR TODAY, the ONLY place you'll find it is in Paul's 7 post-Acts Epistles. Nowhere in the other 59 books will you find any group of people that will be able to spend eternity in the Heaven of Heavens.

Christ didn't promise me or you anything, during His earthly ministry. He promised us every possible blessing in the Highest Heaven, Eph 1:3, through the pen of the Sent One Christ selected, the Apostle Paul, the ONLY choice of Jesus Christ to be our ONLY teacher, preacher, and minister, during this present ALL-GENTILE 2000 year period.

WRONG.

I won’t go into ALL of the perversion of your statement that “NOTHING” Jesus taught pertains to Gentiles – but your understanding of Baptism is WAY off.

Baptism REPLACES circumcision as the
- Circumcision was the way a male child was brought it the Covenant with God.
- Baptism is the way a person is brought into the NEW Covenant.

- Paul stated that Jesus was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God (Rom. 15:8).
- Paul ALSO refers to the “circumcision of the heart” and the “circumcision of Christ” (Romans 2:29, Col. 2:12-17) to describe the reality of circumcision being a spiritually inward act, not merely an outward sign. This circumcision is accomplished at BAPTISM.

- Circumcision was ONLY for the male child.
- In Christ, there is NO male or female – neither is there Jew or Gentile or slave or free because we’re ALL ONE in Christ.

Don’t just quote Scripture – LEARN what it means . . .

 

[Jun2u]

- Circumcision was the way a male child was brought it the Covenant with God.
- Baptism is the way a person is brought into the NEW Covenant.

Circumcision and baptism are outward signs. Both were used to signify people can enter into the family of God.

Circumcision and baptism are rituals man performs and is in contrast with Ephesians 2:9.

This is one doctrine I can agree with. How it amazes me that somehow false churches and its’ members have some verses interpreted correctly.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY

 

[Jun2u]

I don't know if you were all attempting to address my posts here; but I think you failed to notice that my pov is that a person can be saved apart from baptism.

You did NOT reply to post #162.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Circumcision and baptism are outward signs. Both were used to signify people can enter into the family of God.

Circumcision and baptism are rituals man performs and is in contrast with Ephesians 2:9.

This is one doctrine I can agree with. How it amazes me that somehow false churches and its’ members have some verses interpreted correctly.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY

Circumcision and Baptism were both rituals that were MANDATED by God.
The problem with circumcision of the flesh is that to most, it was merely an obligation of the law and nothing more.

Baptism regenerates the soul because, as Paul states - it is circumcision of the heart.

 

[Jun2u]

Turning a piece of bread into His flesh is a relatively small miracle by comparison.

This is where the understanding of “literal” and “spiritual” understanding comes in.

I don’t believe Jesus meant to eat of His body literally. That would be Cannibalism and therefore He is teaching that we can murder.

What I believe Jesus is teaching us here is that we are to partake/eat of Him because He is the BREAD that came down from heaven. In other words, we don’t eat of Him literally rather by what He brings and that was the true Gospel!

To God Be The Glory