It appears to me that three stepper Apostolics (and I am oneof them) have become professionals at minimizing the all inclusive power of the blood of Jesus as evidenced in this discussion. Acts, without the Gospel is bloodless.
I could very easily say as well that the Gospel, without Acts, is powerless. It takes the gospel, and our response to the gospel, for one to be born again. It is not enough that Christ died if I do not respond in faith to that "Good News". There may be some out there that have disposed of the work of Christ upon the cross, and just try to give a ritual of Pentecost, but I ain't one of them. If I will be a follower of Christ, I will take up my cross, and crucify myself, be buried with HIM in water baptism, and resurrect with HIM by the quickening of the Holy Ghost.
I primarily just want to know the answer to one question...if sins are forgiven at the point of water baptism...how did I and so many others receive the Holy Ghost before being water baptized?
Because the promise of the Spirit is available by the hearing of faith. But it does not negate the necessity of water baptism in Jesus Name.
So you agree that the blood is applied and sins are forgiven at repentance?
If not...when is the blood applied? Do you believe it was at water baptism or do you admit that you don't know?
If you hold that the blood is applied at water baptism...how did I and so many others receive the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism?
When did you receive the Holy Ghost; before or after your water baptism?
I have heard it preached that the Old Testament shows the blood applied from front door to Holies or Holies. If this is the case in our lives as well, then the blood is sprinkled from the time we repent, until the fire falls. But just remember that until the fire falls, God has not accepted the sacrifice.
I have heard it preached that the Old Testament shows the blood applied from front door to Holies or Holies. If this is the case in our lives as well, then the blood is sprinkled from the time we repent, until the fire falls. But just remember that until the fire falls, God has not accepted the sacrifice.
The blood is applied from the brazen altar all the way to the Ark of the Covenant. It takes blood application from the first time a sick sinner kneels to the time he draws his last breath in this life. It is blood application all the way. At any point he by disobedience, no longer walks in the LIGHT, the blood is no longer applied.
The Blood of Jesus was shed when He died. Not when He was buried.
It stands to reason then that the Blood is "applied" when we die to sins at repentance. We are then baptized to separate (and remove us) from our sins, or take away (remove, wash) our sins. Look at the Tabernacle in the wilderness. The altar was where the Blood was spilled (death to sin). The Laver (water) separated sin from the Holy Place. Death, Burial, Resurrection. Repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
It takes all three to complete the work of salvation just as it took death, burial and resurrection to complete the work of Salvation at the Cross.
A repented person lost because he hasn't OBEYED the Scripture? I'm driving down the road doing the posted speed limit. I'm pulled over for driving too fast in a school zone even though the school zone is 5 miles further down the road. Make sense? No. A person sincerely repents of his sins, and God witholds forgiveness until he is baptized? Until he recieves the Holy Ghost? Until he gets full understanding of the Godhead? Until he obeys the "standards"? Salvation isn't a carrot dangled just out of reach. It is a free gift of God for all who will repent of their sins. Baptism is necessary to continue in God, but, it isn't a requirement to begin in God. God will grant salvation to anyone who repents of their sins. If not, John 3:16 is a lie.
So, beat on me awhile... this old horse has been beaten enough.
this is a great post and I find a lot that i can agree with buuuuut....
The Blood of Jesus was shed when He died. Not when He was buried.
It stands to reason then that the Blood is "applied" when we die to sins at repentance. We are then baptized to separate (and remove us) from our sins, or take away (remove, wash) our sins. Look at the Tabernacle in the wilderness. The altar was where the Blood was spilled (death to sin). The Laver (water) separated sin from the Holy Place. Death, Burial, Resurrection. Repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
It takes all three to complete the work of salvation just as it took death, burial and resurrection to complete the work of Salvation at the Cross.
A repented person lost because he hasn't OBEYED the Scripture? I'm driving down the road doing the posted speed limit. I'm pulled over for driving too fast in a school zone even though the school zone is 5 miles further down the road. Make sense? No. A person sincerely repents of his sins, and God witholds forgiveness until he is baptized? Until he recieves the Holy Ghost? Until he gets full understanding of the Godhead? Until he obeys the "standards"? Salvation isn't a carrot dangled just out of reach. It is a free gift of God for all who will repent of their sins. Baptism is necessary to continue in God, but, it isn't a requirement to begin in God. God will grant salvation to anyone who repents of their sins. If not, John 3:16 is a lie.
So, beat on me awhile... this old horse has been beaten enough.
You state that the blood is applied at repentance but sins are separated from the believer at baptism. Where do you see this distinction? Sin isn't a substance to "put away" it's something to be forgiven. The word "remission" in Acts 2:38 is "aphesis" meaning "forgiveness". The Greek syntax speaks of baptism in the passive voice thus relegating the "remission" (forgiveness) of sins to repentance. According to you, when is sin actually "forgiven"? At repentance or baptism? It's theologically inconsistant to argue that one can have the blood applied at repentance without having sin forgiven until water baptism. Once the blood is applied sins are forgiven. If sin can remain, though the blood is applied at repentance, it's powerless.
And no, the horse hasn't been beaten enough. You must explain because it contains some theological issues that must be resolved.
I could very easily say as well that the Gospel, without Acts, is powerless. It takes the gospel, and our response to the gospel, for one to be born again. It is not enough that Christ died if I do not respond in faith to that "Good News". There may be some out there that have disposed of the work of Christ upon the cross, and just try to give a ritual of Pentecost, but I ain't one of them. If I will be a follower of Christ, I will take up my cross, and crucify myself, be buried with HIM in water baptism, and resurrect with HIM by the quickening of the Holy Ghost.
But your "response" is an effect of the grace of God.
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."
Because the promise of the Spirit is available by the hearing of faith. But it does not negate the necessity of water baptism in Jesus Name.
Water baptism in Jesus name is commanded in Scripture, just like righteous living etc. One could say that outside of repentance water baptism is the first step in separation from the world by identifying one with the burial of Jesus Christ. So yes, we agree, water baptism is a necessary part of the full NT experience. But...is it essential for salvation?
Many here have argued that it is at water baptism that the blood is applied and sins are forgiven. But since many get the Holy Ghost prior to water baptism after they repent it's evident that the blood is applied and sins are forgiven at repentance. Water baptism is a command to be obeyed, a step of righteousness, not a requirement for salvation. If it were God's grace would be dependent upon a sacrament offeciated by clergy and not upon his grace and mercy. We're not "Cathostolics", we're Apostolics.
If water baptism is essential for salvation, the blood and repentance is meaningless and salvation is impossible for those unable to be water baptized or those who have lived in centuries bound by non-biblical traditions.
William Tydale, we wouldn't have our Bible without him, was he saved? We've inhereted so much from Christians who were walking in what little light they had though still bound by many traditions. Are we so ungreatful and spiteful that we would thank them for the Bible and then relegate them to Hell in the next breath?
Don't quote KJV to me if they had no salvation, light, or understanding giving them divine guidance. I cannot believe that our translation of the Bible was provided by unsaved men. I cannot believe that John Newton, who wrote Amazing Grace (a song we sing in our churches), never tasted the grace he sang about.
Where do these men stand according to your soteriology?
the bible says
believe for salvation
repent for salvation
be baptized for salvation...
we cant ignor any part can we?
Can you provide biblical reference to water baptism "saving" us? There is implication that the believer will obey...but water baptism doesn't "save" us.
According to 3 Steppers only those alive in the first 3 centuries and those who have lived in the 20th century have been saved. As demonstrated earlier in this thread history regarding anyone believing this truth down through the ages is highly questionable.
Linear Mode
