Law was an impossible system to keep

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

(oh ya? be sure in your own mind )

What's often in your own mind is not in the bible.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2: 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Being persuaded in your own mind doesn't mean you're

[shazeep]

ok, how then was the thief saved, if he was never baptized?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, how then was the thief saved, if he was never baptized?

How can you get baptized into the death, burial and resurrection of someone who was not even dead yet?

In fact, no one was told to preach remission of sins in his name Luke 24:47, which is baptism in Jesus' name according to Acts 2:38, until PAST the time of 40 days following Christ's resurrection when they were to wait in Jerusalem for the comforter before they were to BEGIN preaching. let alone three days before he ever resurrected.

[shazeep]

sounds good, but Jesus got baptized. How bout this guy

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

got a pat answer for him too?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

sounds good, but Jesus got baptized. How bout this guy

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

got a pat answer for him too?

Anyone before the day of Pentecost who were baptized were not baptized into the death of Jesus. The day of Atonement was a demarcation point, and that occurred after the resurrection of Jesus. Anyone before that period was NOT under the new covenant, because atonement, for those who know the concept of biblical atonement, ratifies the covenant.

That's why John the baptist's disciples in Acts 19 had to be baptized again in Jesus' name. They're NOT the same baptism.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

How on earth you think people can be inducted into a covenant before the testator of the covenant dies is beyond me.

It would do good for you to study these passages a bit further.

[mfblume]

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

got a pat answer for him too?

Let me deal with this particularly.

This verse from Romans chapter 2 is NOT referring to someone not baptized in the name of Jesus during the era of the new covenant church, and being saved without such a covenantal requirement. It is talking about people who think they, as Jews, are better than Gentiles in the current new covenant church simply because they know law and gentile believers don't. And Paul corrected them by contrasting someone like a Jewish believer who tells people to obey law and yet doesn't obey it himself or herself, with someone who doesn't even know law but by conscience does things law also demands. That's nothing to do with people being saved who are baptized. (Context is a nasty thing to many, though.)

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It would do good for you to study these passages a bit further.

ok thanks, i'll take that under advisement
there is no Ephesians 19, not sure where you meant.

And Paul corrected them by contrasting someone like a Jewish believer who tells people to obey law and yet doesn't obey it himself or herself, with someone who doesn't even know law but by conscience does things law also demands.

ya, i was confident that it had to be a Jew, and could not describe anyone else, i mean after all, then we might have to find application for it among ourselves right. So, he can only be a Jew, almost surely probably.

That's nothing to do with people being saved who are baptized. (Context is a nasty thing to many, though.)mmmkay, you sound awful sure...i guess if that second guy must be a Jew, then you must be right, huh.

works for me, but i gotta tell ya i know where this ends, which is since you "know," everyone who disagrees with you is lost, and this does not represent Christ, ok? Basically what we have been arguing for the last year. And, incidentally, why you have no ground to stand on, because the Bible will tell you that anyone who says they know in this manner does not yet know as they ought to know, and this is why you keep getting basted in discussion, this illusion of certainty, when only one thing is certain, that being death. If i started bloviating about all the things i was certain about in the Bible you could do the same to me.

so for anyone contemplating climbing into the grave with you i would say be sure in your own mind. Iow you better know.

and please don't take that too personally, it is the human condition, and you are strictly a proxy for the Universal Dominion pov here. You are sure in your own mind, and after all you can quote where It says be sure in your own mind, so you must be right. In fact, you cannot be wrong; you must be perfect. Your whole doctrine hangs on this.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok thanks, i'll take that under advisement
there is no Ephesians 19, not sure where you meant.

Acts 19, typo now corrected.

And Paul corrected them by contrasting someone like a Jewish believer who tells people to obey law and yet doesn't obey it himself or herself, with someone who doesn't even know law but by conscience does things law also demands.

ya, i was confident that it had to be a Jew, and could not describe anyone else, i mean after all, then we might have to find application for it among ourselves right. So, he can only be a Jew, almost surely probably.

Context is a Jew, and the principle can apply to anyone, if they fit within the context of how the principle was used in Romans 2.

That's nothing to do with people being saved who are baptized. (Context is a nasty thing to many, though.)mmmkay, you sound awful sure...i guess if that second guy must be a Jew, then you must be right, huh.

Why don't you actually deal with the context verse by verse to see?

works for me, but i gotta tell ya i know where this ends, which is since you "know," everyone who disagrees with you is lost,

Lie. You always say this no matter how many times I deny it and then prove I deny it, by saying anyone who looks to the cross for righteousness is not judged by me and I leave it up to God.

this does not represent Christ, ok? Basically what we have been arguing for the last year. And, incidentally, why you have no ground to stand on, because the Bible will tell you that anyone who says they know in this manner does not yet know as they ought to know, and this is why you keep getting basted in discussion, this illusion of certainty, when only one thing is certain, that being death. If i started bloviating about all the things i was certain about in the Bible you could do the same to me.

You took that out of context like most passages you use. And I already showed the context of that passage about "knowing". But when I talk context you skirt and dodge and generalize everything away as though parroting the generalizations enough makes them true.

so for anyone contemplating climbing into the grave with you i would say be sure in your own mind. Iow you better know.

and please don't take that too personally, it is the human condition, and you are strictly a proxy for the Universal Dominion pov here. You are sure in your own mind, and after all you can quote where It says be sure in your own mind, so you must be right. In fact, you cannot be wrong; you must be perfect. Your whole doctrine hangs on this.

Wrong. Despite my many attempts to show you what I actually believe you refuse to accept what you initially and failingly considered to be my belief. So, no use explaining anything any more, unless you can TRY context and verse by verse hermeneutic. But you won't even try that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why don't you actually deal with the context verse by verse to see?

Because he can't. If he was to do that, he would tangle himself up to the point of either agreeing with you, or "gasp" not being able to post a rebuttal?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree with what John Gill said:

... or it may be ...

Have you never heard of this view?

In other words, Gill didn't know what it meant.