Can one be saved while they are all alone?

[CNKW3]

I've read it.

But if you are denying that the Philip named in the Acts of the "Apostles" was not an apostle...well, that would be your problem.

The Philip of acts 8 is the evangelist mentioned in acts 6..
In Acts 6:2 the 12 called on the church to choose some men to be servants. One of them was Stephen and another was Philip. Chapter 7 is an account of Stephen preaching and acts 8 is an account of Philip preaching. This was not Philip the apostle.

No...you have made a religion out of the acts without understanding. The acts accomplish nothing. We are saved by hearing and believing, which is by faith.

The book of acts is nothing? It is probably the most important book in the NT. It is the only book which describes how men were saved and how the church started and provides example after example of how they conducted themselves. You can’t know what Paul meant in Ephesians by salvation by grace through faith without studying the acts of the conversion of the Ephesians. Those two MUST harmonize. The Ephesians WERE NOT saved by faith alone. They were baptized in water (twice, because first was wrong) in the name of the lord or “into Christ”. They then were “sealed” with the HS through the laying on of Paul’s hands. There conversion account does NOT describe a people who were saved by “belief” only. That is how important the book of acts is.

As for the Holy Spirit coming upon those who remain in the world, it is unto all truth, that those of whom the Lord God did not at first choose to be His own people, them being last, should be first to know Him is spirit.

dont even know what that means.

 

[ScottA]

The Philip of acts 8 is the evangelist mentioned in acts 6..
In Acts 6:2 the 12 called on the church to choose some men to be servants. One of them was Stephen and another was Philip. Chapter 7 is an account of Stephen preaching and acts 8 is an account of Philip preaching. This was not Philip the apostle.

By that definition he is "one sent"...an apostle.

The book of acts is nothing? It is probably the most important book in the NT. It is the only book which describes how men were saved and how the church started and provides example after example of how they conducted themselves. You can’t know what Paul meant in Ephesians by salvation by grace through faith without studying the acts of the conversion of the Ephesians. Those two MUST harmonize. The Ephesians WERE NOT saved by faith alone. They were baptized in water (twice, because first was wrong) in the name of the lord or “into Christ”. They then were “sealed” with the HS through the laying on of Paul’s hands. There conversion account does NOT describe a people who were saved by “belief” only. That is how important the book of acts is.

Now don't be putting words in my mouth and misquote me. I did not say the "book of acts" was nothing. I said the "acts" alone are "religious" nonsense.

Your understanding of what occurred in Ephesus and the need to be baptized again, is greatly in error. The passage does not refer to the need to be immersed in water baptism, but rather shows the very same difference which John the baptist declared...which is the need to be baptized "with the Holy Spirit":

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matthew 3:11 ...which does not speak of any need of the laying on of hands. Again, this you have assumed by making a religious practice out of the acts themselves.

dont even know what that means.

Of course.

 

[JohnPaul]

I am not sure why someone else's testimony or where or how they were saved should bother you!!

I think that is why there is so much conflict. People telling other people that they do not agree with how someone sees, hears , or believes God.

Abraham was alone. And as has already been pointed out most of them were. Gideon was.

I was alone.

Yes I had heard someone preach..I had attended Sunday school when young.

But I was totally alone when I knelt before the Lord that night...and stood up CHANGED for life.

ByGrace, you just caused a lump in my throat, I was raised in a devout Catholic family, went to Catechism on Sunday did my Communion and Confirmation and am grateful for Catholicism showing me the way to Jesus Christ, I too was alone and every night, I pray for the salvation of my loved ones and that God Take pity on me and deem me worthy for his salvation of me.

 

[CNKW3]

By that definition he is "one sent"...an apostle.

Sure, Barnabas was an even apostle in that sense of the word, acts 14:14 , but he was not one of the twelve promised the power of the HS in John and in acts 1. And he was not Paul.
Philip and Barnabas were NOT apostles in the same sense that the twelve and Paul were. That is a fact.

Now don't be putting words in my mouth and misquote me. I did not say the "book of acts" was nothing. I said the "acts" alone are "religious" nonsense.

What’s the difference? The book of acts describes these acts you say is nonsense, so wouldn’t that make this book nothing? Or full of nonsense?

Your understanding of what occurred in Ephesus and the need to be baptized again, is greatly in error. The passage does not refer to the need to be immersed in water baptism, but rather shows the very same difference which John the baptist declared...which is the need to be baptized "with the Holy Spirit":

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Matthew 3:11 ...which does not speak of any need of the laying on of hands. Again, this you have assumed by making a religious practice out of the acts themselves.
Of course.

Of course it does. What is “baptism in the name of the lord”? Its water baptism. It is what was commanded on Pentecost. It is better described and what was commanded by Peter with Cornelius.
Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Baptism, “in the name of the lord” IS WATER BAPTISM.
And it was only AFTER they were baptized in the name of the lord that Paul imparted to them the HS. That is clear and plain teaching from acts 19. You are creating things that doesn’t exist in the text.

 

[CNKW3]

THANK YOU MARK... @CNKW3 He just didn't have the honestly or guts to say so openly ...but tried to 'come in through the window' and not the door.

I was slow on the uptake. Glad you are here.

So, people who are not baptised are not saved.. Got it!

I want to deal with this idea about me asking a question “coming through the window”, as if it is something dishonest.
Did Christ ever do that? Let’s look...
Matthew 21:24-27 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Explain to me WHY this is Jesus NOT coming through the window. He asked a question, in which, the answer to that question would highlight their false doctrine. That is all I have done. I am asking a question that you cannot answer from the scriptures because if you do you will know that you hold to a false teaching. I have asked many questions like that and that is the reason I do not get answers because people know what the answer will reveal. That is not dishonest. That is an effective way to study the Bible. I am only taking a page out of the manual of Christ.

 

[ScottA]

Sure, Barnabas was an even apostle in that sense of the word, acts 14:14 , but he was not one of the twelve promised the power of the HS in John and in acts 1. And he was not Paul.
Philip and Barnabas were NOT apostles in the same sense that the twelve and Paul were. That is a fact.

If you draw the line wherever it suits you, or even where it is commonly drawn, then it is simply a matter of what you believe to be true. That assumes both the definition of an apostle and also the requirements of salvation. You are just adding more variables and nothing positive.

But there is no there there.

What’s the difference? The book of acts describes these acts you say is nonsense, so wouldn’t that make this book nothing? Or full of nonsense?

No...the acts are a witness to things that happened according to the Holy Spirit under the direction of Christ Jesus. But the acts themselves are not the point, any more than the things sanctified that themselves are just things. Matthew 23:17 Thus, the difference...is everything. The difference, is that you are giving honor to the objects used to convey the message instead of understanding what the message is...which is very akin to idol worship.

If we were talking about being born again, what you are doing is akin to returning to your mother's womb. What I am telling you is that water and men laying men's hands on...is not the power of God. God is the power of God, and God is spirit.

Of course it does. What is “baptism in the name of the lord”? Its water baptism. It is what was commanded on Pentecost. It is better described and what was commanded by Peter with Cornelius.
Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Baptism, “in the name of the lord” IS WATER BAPTISM.
And it was only AFTER they were baptized in the name of the lord that Paul imparted to them the HS. That is clear and plain teaching from acts 19. You are creating things that doesn’t exist in the text.

No...you have missed the message completely. Baptism in the name of the Lord has never been any different than that spoke of by John the baptist, which is with "the Holy Spirit and with fire."

When it is written, "in the name of the Lord", it does not mean by how His baptism is demonstrated, it means by what Power...which is the power of God...which is spirit.

 

[CNKW3]

If you draw the line wherever it suits you, or even where it is commonly drawn, then it is simply a matter of what you believe to be true. That assumes both the definition of an apostle and also the requirements of salvation. You are just adding more variables and nothing positive.

But there is no there there.
No...the acts are a witness to things that happened according to the Holy Spirit under the direction of Christ Jesus. But the acts themselves are not the point, any more than the things sanctified that themselves are just things. Matthew 23:17 Thus, the difference...is everything. The difference, is that you are giving honor to the objects used to convey the message instead of understanding what the message is...which is very akin to idol worship.

If we were talking about being born again, what you are doing is akin to returning to your mother's womb. What I am telling you is that water and men laying men's hands on...is not the power of God. God is the power of God, and God is spirit.
No...you have missed the message completely. Baptism in the name of the Lord has never been any different than that spoke of by John the baptist, which is with "the Holy Spirit and with fire."

When it is written, "in the name of the Lord", it does not mean by how His baptism is demonstrated, it means by what Power...which is the power of God...which is spirit.

You just made every bit of this post up. This is 100% your opinion. You don’t like the facts so you explain it away by your own reasoning. That is what all of “Christendom” does.
For instance...
John NEVER baptized “in the name of the lord”. His baptism was looking forward to a coming messiah which is what Paul explains in acts 19. You wouldn’t know because you don’t care for the book of acts.

So the acts are things which happened according to the HS? This is what you said? Correct?
Then show me in the Acts directed by the HS where ANYBODY was saved all by themselves. If it was directed by the HS then it should be in there if it is a faithful Biblical doctrine.

 

[CNKW3]

Do Bible examples matter? Does anybody care to engage in this study?
If they do....then what authority do they hold? Are they binding on Christians today?
Does anybody care about this?

 

[CNKW3]

What did THEY do when the church was first established?

I’m sorry but I think I missed your post.
All one needs to do is study the book of Acts..
In acts 2, after the first gospel sermon, believers were told to repent and be baptized for remission of sins. They were then added to the church.
Acts 8 we find Samaritans believing and being baptized
Acts 8 we also find the Eunuch believing and being baptized.
Acts 9 we find Saul believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized to wash away sins.
Acts 10. We find Cornelius believing and being baptized.
Acts 16 Lydia heard, believed, and was baptized. She then said...if you have found me faithful
Acts 16. The jailor heard the word, repented, was baptized and THEN the text calls him a believer
Acts 18. The corinthians heard, believed and were baptized
Acts 19. The Ephesians received Paul’s word and were baptized a second time to get it right.
NONE of these accounts have people all by themselves being saved.
Salvation, in the NT, ALWAYS included another person present to assist in being immersed in water. This is how the church began but for some reason we, today, think the entire message and action has changed to teach and do whatever you want, whatever is convenient.

 

[ScottA]

You just made every bit of this post up. This is 100% your opinion. You don’t like the facts so you explain it away by your own reasoning. That is what all of “Christendom” does.
For instance...
John NEVER baptized “in the name of the lord”. His baptism was looking forward to a coming messiah which is what Paul explains in acts 19. You wouldn’t know because you don’t care for the book of acts.

So the acts are things which happened according to the HS? This is what you said? Correct?
Then show me in the Acts directed by the HS where ANYBODY was saved all by themselves. If it was directed by the HS then it should be in there if it is a faithful Biblical doctrine.

First off, you were the one who brought up baptism "in the name of the lord." So, yes, I commented on it, and clarified the error of you thinking it was something different than what John the baptist said. It is not. Are we clear on that?

As for showing you something you apparently do not have the faith to see to the end, No, I am not going to. I did tell you that it happened to me. And I have showed you where it was foretold. But you not having the faith to believe in things coming about that were foretold without having a biblical example...that's all on you.

 

[CNKW3]

First off, you were the one who brought up baptism "in the name of the lord." So, yes, I commented on it, and clarified the error of you thinking it was something different than what John the baptist said. It is not. Are we clear on that?

We are not clear. John the Baptist DID NOT teach “baptism in the name of the lord”. Johns baptism was a different baptism then what Jesus commanded in the great commission.

As for showing you something you apparently do not have the faith to see to the end, No, I am not going to. I did tell you that it happened to me. And I have showed you where it was foretold. But you not having the faith to believe in things coming about that were foretold without having a biblical example...that's all on you.

The OT NEVER foretold of people being saved all by themselves through the operation of the Spirit. Read acts 3:21-26. I know you don’t much care for acts but it will help you understand what the prophets of old were looking for. They were looking for a savior. Someone who would remove their sins. Ac 3:26
Christ does not remove sins through direct operation of the Spirit. Feel free to show all of those examples if this is what you believe.
They were not looking for the HS. They were looking for a savior.

 

[amadeus]

I have heard from many people that they were “saved” while they were all alone. They woke up in their bed, got on their knees and prayed to God. They then knew they were saved.
I’ve heard of people riding in their car or on their motorcycle and had an experience, prayed to God, and they knew right then they were saved. There was nobody present.

If this is the case, and we can be saved in this fashion, then why didn’t the HS see fit to give us just ONE example of a person, who was all by themselves, had some experience, prayed to God, asked for forgiveness, and then the Bible pronounced them saved.

So, I am asking for this....
For ANYBODY to show me where ANYONE was ever “saved” in the fashion many people say they were today. All by themselves with no participation from any other human being.
If you cannot show me one Biblical example of this experience then why does anybody think they can be saved in a way that the HS saw fit to leave absent. Are we able to make up our own way of salvation or must we do what what they did when the church was first established?

"So then do you check everyone's testimony against scripture to decide whether it is true or not?
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

Let me relate to you the testimony of a route driver on a rural Oklahoma highway who while praying was told to close his eyes, take his hands off the steering wheel and to raise them in worship. He received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and while continuing with eyes closed and hands raised off the steering wheel the truck was maneuvered correctly for more than 20 miles to his next delivery point. Oh but I guess you would call him a liar because you cannot find a similar incident in scripture.

You must know how the scripture describes faith, right?

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

Now you testified to your lack of faith so would we be wrong to conclude that you have none or that you do not know God at all?

 

[amadeus]

The Prophets of old were not “saved” when called to be a prophet. They were already saved before that, they were in a covenant relationship with God as a part of the nation of Israel.

Was even the unnamed prophet saved prior to coming out of Judah to prophesy to Jeroboam the first king of the northern 10 tribes as per I Kings 13? He was killed by a lion on his way home because of his disobedience to God... yet his prophecy to the king was fulfilled about 350 years later as per II Kings 23:17

 

[amadeus]

...at what moment are we saved? Can you answer that please?

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt 10:22
So the answer would be when we have endured to the end... when we are able to truthfully say what Paul said:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:" II Tim 47

 

[Acolyte]

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

@CNKW3 it does say we can receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. And betchabygollywow, I will be baptised. It may be backwards to you, but I'm lefthanded, so backwards is normal for me.

 

[CNKW3]

"So then do you check everyone's testimony against scripture to decide whether it is true or not?
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29

I never saw Jesus but I believe. There is plenty of credible evidence to support it.

Let me relate to you the testimony of a route driver on a rural Oklahoma highway who while praying was told to close his eyes, take his hands off the steering wheel and to raise them in worship. He received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and while continuing with eyes closed and hands raised off the steering wheel the truck was maneuvered correctly for more than 20 miles to his next delivery point. Oh but I guess you would call him a liar because you cannot find a similar incident in scripture.

now why would I believe a story like that? It is unverifiable. Anybody can make any claim like that they want. You want to compare believing in that garbage compared to believing in Christ? You can’t be serious. All these kinds of things do is help support the narrative that many have about Christians....that they are a bunch of loons.

You must know how the scripture describes faith, right?

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1

Now you testified to your lack of faith so would we be wrong to conclude that you have none or that you do not know God at all?

Where have I testified to my lack of faith? You know where faith comes from right?
Rom 10:17. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Where did the word of faith EVER give TESTIMONY to people being saved ALL BY THEMSELVES? Show me that and then we’ll talk about lack of faith.
So, no I can’t have faith in these stories some of you are telling me....they aren’t rooted in the word of God. They stem from mans false doctrine. I.E. the sinners prayer.

 

[faithfulness]

The precedence is the prophets of old, and according to the promise of God to pour out His spirit upon all flesh during theses times foretold by Joel, promised by Christ, and confirmed by Peter. The Spirit came upon His chosen and still does.

Hi. I have wondered if "all" meant "all" or only 'believers' (His chosen) as you state. Thanks.

 

[CNKW3]

Was even the unnamed prophet saved prior to coming out of Judah to prophesy to Jeroboam the first king of the northern 10 tribes as per I Kings 13? He was killed by a lion on his way home because of his disobedience to God... yet his prophecy to the king was fulfilled about 350 years later as per II Kings 23:17

This story is teaching us the importance of obedience. Let’s make application to today.
Today the Lord commands and promises....
He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.

Man teaches......
he that believes, is saved, and then maybe later you can be baptized if you feel like it..
Now, who do you think will be eaten by the Lion?

The prophet was saved and then through disobedience he was lost. That is also what this story is teaching us.
I bet you believe in once saved always saved; another completely horrible false doctrine that is destroying Christianity. The idea that all one has to do is raise hands and pray for forgiveness and at that point they are a child of God and on there way to heaven regardless of the life they live. Charles Stanley said “a child of God can completely walk away from the faith and not lose their salvation”. What a horrible and idiotic doctrine taught by the baptist church and many, many others.

 

[CNKW3]

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." Matt 10:22
So the answer would be when we have endured to the end... when we able to truthfully say what Paul said:

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:" II Tim 47

Amen. But you first have to become a child of God and you don’t get there all by yourself..

 

[CNKW3]

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

@CNKW3 it does say we can receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. And betchabygollywow, I will be baptised. It may be backwards to you, but I'm lefthanded, so backwards is normal for me.

acts 10 does NOT say we will ALL receive the HS before baptism. The only reason Cornelius was baptized in the HS was to convince the Jews that were there that God will accept gentiles just as well as Jews. It took three miracles to get Cornelius and his household saved.
Are you saying we receive the same treatment today? What did the angel ACTUALLY tell Cornelius he needed to be saved?....
The HS? No. He was told to send for Peter so that he might hear WORDS by which he would be saved. Here was Cornelius probably laying in his bed praying and did God save him right there?...
NO, he told him to send for a preacher who would preach and ultimately baptize him in the name of the lord. Many of you think you are better then Cornelius. You can just lay there and pray and God will save you when he didn’t even save Cornelius. Now who’s the arrogant one?
Thanks for bringing Cornelius up. He actually helps prove my point.