Salvation: The Roman Road or The Jerusalem Road

[bbyrd009]

i do not know, and everything i have said here today is a lie

y'all have a great day ok

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

there were 12 (13) apostles though, and this has a spiritual meaning, this 12, 13; and wadr there are three baptisms i guess, not one? Find the Naive dialectic for your own sake imo

The number of Apostles has nothing to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit being promised by Christ to His Apostles in Acts 1 and only the Apostles in Acts 2 that the Holy Spirit came upon, not all that were in Jerusalem.

Ephesians 4:4-5 "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

If "one baptism" of Eph 4:4 means 3 baptisms, then wadr then one God means 3 gods, one Lord mean 3 christs?

 

[bbyrd009]

The number of Apostles has nothing to do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit being promised by Christ to His Apostles in Acts 1 and only the Apostles in Acts 2 that the Holy Spirit came upon, not all that were in Jerusalem.

ok, go with that then if you like, but i suggest that we have hidden in plain sight other analogues for this 12/13 thing that will argue against your current pov bro. 12 tribes even, 12 foundations (that may not in fact be actual semi-precious/precious literal "stones," but a um diff kinda stone maybe...

If "one baptism" of Eph 4:4 means 3 baptisms, then wadr then one God means 3 gods, one Lord mean 3 christs?

the "one baptism" of ephesians 4 is surely not trying to negate the baptisms of spirit and fire however? So some adjustment away from the literal must needs be made there i guess. I could suggest an understanding that puts all three into the one, but we would have to come to a um more spiritual (less literal) understanding of the def of "water" first i guess. "Water" has a diff meaning to me iow. When you are born you are like 90% water...etc.

Good ta see ya here btw

 

[marks]

How do people come to the conclusion that baptism is not necessary for salvation with soooo much evidence to the contrary.

Because the Bible teaches me that salvation, rebirth, reconciliation to God all comes through faith, and what Jesus did. The obedience required for salvation is the obedience to believe in Jesus.

Much love!

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

ok, go with that then if you like, but i suggest that we have hidden in plain sight other analogues for this 12/13 thing that will argue against your current pov bro. 12 tribes even, 12 foundations (that may not in fact be actual semi-precious/precious literal "stones," but a um diff kinda stone maybe...

I will go with that for again, the context clearly shows only the Apostles were promised baptism with the HS and Acts 2 it was just the Apostles the Holy Spirit fell upon.

the "one baptism" of ephesians 4 is surely not trying to negate the baptisms of spirit and fire however? So some adjustment away from the literal must needs be made there i guess. I could suggest an understanding that puts all three into the one, but we would have to come to a um more spiritual (less literal) understanding of the def of "water" first i guess. "Water" has a diff meaning to me iow. When you are born you are like 90% water...etc.

"One" literally means one....1 = 1.

The NT mentions 5 or 6 baptism but by the time Paul penned Ephesians just one was in effect that being Christ's baptism of the great commission, Matthew 28:19-20.

Good ta see ya here btw

Thank you.

 

[CNKW3]

Because the Bible teaches me that salvation, rebirth, reconciliation to God all comes through faith, and what Jesus did. The obedience required for salvation is the obedience to believe in Jesus.

Much love!

By faith? Yes. By faith alone? No. Show where it’s by “faith alone”. It’s not in there.
Can you be “reborn” and still be in your sins? No. So the “rebirth” happens at the point your sins are forgiven. At what point does the BIBLE teach that a persons sins have been remitted, forgiven, washed away, blotted out? It’s not by “faith” or a mental acceptance of Jesus Christ. Are you honest enough with what the Bible actually says to answer that question?

 

[CNKW3]

Satan's Dialectic: "this is that and that is this and these are the facts and you cant dispute them bc i already interpreted them for you, just perfectly" ok then.

I come to the conclusion that what you are defining as baptism--after a literal reading of something written so as to hide wisdom from the wise--is not what the Bible means by baptism at all, even though i got "baptised" that way at least three times myself, by three different Romans. ok? @CNKW3 how ya been?

bc confession-free? or what?

I’ve been good thanks. And you?
I’m assuming your response on baptism was directed at what I said. So...
I’m not defining baptism as anything. The Bible has already done that. The word means immersion. The context then decides into what element the subjects are immersed. The great commission, we know, is immersion in water. Immersion in water is the only immersion that men can perform. The others are performed by Christ without any human help.

 

[bbyrd009]

I will go with that for again, the context clearly shows only the Apostles were promised baptism with the HS and Acts 2 it was just the Apostles the Holy Spirit fell upon.

literally

ok then, have a good day earnest

 

[bbyrd009]

The great commission, we know, is immersion in water.

"its what you know that just aint so" i think, for this, but i certainly understand ok. You are allowed to read what you like

 

[amadeus]

will the real baptism pls stand up!

Precisely! People argue about how to go about using the water [H20] and what words to speak when you are doing it and whether to only sprinkle or to dunk the whole body of flesh beneath the surface. But there really is something more important:

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:" Luke 3:16

What is it that Jesus is to do to us? This really is total immersion.

 

[CNKW3]

"its what you know that just aint so" i think, for this, but i certainly understand ok. You are allowed to read what you like

And WHY is it not so?

 

[bbyrd009]

Precisely! People argue about how to go about using the water [H20] and what words to speak when you are doing it and whether to only sprinkle or to dunk the whole body of flesh beneath the surface. But there really is something more important:

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:" Luke 3:16

What is it that Jesus is to do to us? This really is total immersion.

i think the um spiritual def of "water" v dry land with Javan in the middle is even clarified in Scripture? Clear as um Mud anyway lol?

 

[bbyrd009]

And WHY is it not so?

well, i think its more about the "knowing," which can...keep us from seeing any better truth on a matter? Iow if you have a def of Water, and water is water, has to be literal water, bc after all the whole world knows what water is right, then how will you, we, comprehend the spiritual def of water? Dry land? Javan? These are meant to be analogies, dont you think? Or anyway might likely be? Possibly be?

 

[amadeus]

i think the um spiritual def of "water" v dry land with Javan in the middle is even clarified in Scripture? Clear as um Mud anyway lol?

People often, I believe, argue over the literal things as they presently understand them. Likely on both sides of the discussion/argument there is incomplete or erroneous understanding, but few are often are really willing to admit this. This is probably their biggest mistake... not that they miss or misunderstand things... but that they refuse even admit partial error on their own part. God is looking closely at the heart, rather that the black and white doctrine we have come up with... For this reason we should all of us be very slow to insist that "perfect" understanding as men is not the same as "perfect" understanding with God. But when many hear this it is so muddy that they cannot see through it. What is the difference between transparent and opaque?

 

[bbyrd009]

People often, I believe, argue over the literal things as they presently understand them. Likely on both sides of the discussion/argument there is incomplete or erroneous understanding, but few are often are really willing to admit this. This is probably their biggest mistake... not that they miss or misunderstand things... but that they refuse even partial error on there own part. God is looking closely at the heart, rather that the black and white doctrine we have come up with... For this reason we should all of us be very slow to insist that "perfect" understanding as men is not the same as "perfect" understanding with God. But when many hear this it is so muddy that they cannot see through it. What is the difference between transparent and opaque?

indeed,
The amazing name Javan: meaning and etymology

 

[amadeus]

indeed,
The amazing name Javan: meaning and etymology

I like that "mud man" or even a "playful reference to Adam". Considering that something in between pure clean water [liquid H2O] and the dry land which each of us is without the Life which Jesus brought. Hmmm? More food for thought and prayer.

 

[bbyrd009]

Considering that something in between pure clean water [liquid H2O] and the dry land which each of us is without the Life which Jesus brought.

there toward the end, i could use a comma or something for clarification if you would, ty

 

[amadeus]

Considering that something in between pure clean water [liquid H2O] and the dry land which each of us is without the Life which Jesus brought.

there toward the end, i could use a comma or something for clarification if you would, ty

Sorry for the grammar.

What Jesus brought was Life or a "river of living waters" [see John 10:10 & 7:38]. What man is without that Life is the "parched place" which is Zion. Mud, or a mud man, or Javan, would lie between those two, the Water of Life and the parched place. This would be mud or the lukewarmness lying in between, not a "good" place to be at all.

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev 3:16

 

[CNKW3]

People often, I believe, argue over the literal things as they presently understand them. Likely on both sides of the discussion/argument there is incomplete or erroneous understanding, but few are often are really willing to admit this.

What’s an example of not understanding something literal?
Something like....
....He that believes and is baptized shall be saved? So literally salvation doesn’t come after baptism?
....Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins? So literally remission of sins does not come after baptism?
....Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.? His sins were not literally washed away after baptism?

 

[amadeus]

People often, I believe, argue over the literal things as they presently understand them. Likely on both sides of the discussion/argument there is incomplete or erroneous understanding, but few are often are really willing to admit this. This is probably their biggest mistake... not that they miss or misunderstand things... but that they refuse even admit partial error on their own part. God is looking closely at the heart, rather that the black and white doctrine we have come up with... For this reason we should all of us be very slow to insist that "perfect" understanding as men is not the same as "perfect" understanding with God. But when many hear this it is so muddy that they cannot see through it. What is the difference between transparent and opaque?

What’s an example of not understanding something literal?
Something like....
....He that believes and is baptized shall be saved? So literally salvation doesn’t come after baptism?
....Repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins? So literally remission of sins does not come after baptism?
....Saul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.? His sins were not literally washed away after baptism?

You missed my point which had nothing to any chronological order of essentials if there is such a thing. It was rather the refusal of many people to admit that they themselves might be in error.

I also without a doubt have errors and/or incompleteness in my understandings. The words of Jeremiah still apply to us and will, as I understand it, until and if we have completely overcome the world as Jesus did:

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23