ONCE AGAIN... lol -- The exact same words of Acts 2:38 are found in Jesus' words about how blood is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And this clearly does not mean BECAUSE remission of sins already occurred. This has been debated for years. That is why Peter made it a command in Acts 10 and says it is part of salvation in 1 Peter 3.
1Pe 3:21 KJV 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:
It does not save by physically cleaning with H20. But it DOES SAVE by it being an act of a good conscience.
Acts 3? Often, after an initial precedent has been set in writing, as in Acts 2, the aforementioned details are not written, though they were obviously spoken, as in Acts 3. Recall we are READING a historical account in Acts. If the writer Luke were to write every single word ever preached, after having already established the precedent for salvation clearly in Acts 2, the book of Acts would not have been able to have been completed due to lack of time allowed to write! lol The same principle occurs with Romans' references to salvation. The people already knew how to be saved, so Paul did not have to detail every part in Romans 10. Similarly, in Acts 3's case, the reader is already settled by Acts 2 to know what saves.
Act 2:38 KJV 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.
Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
THE GREEK IS IDENTICAL AS IS ENGLISH.
And Mark 16:16, as has already been said, shows JESUS saying baptism COMES BEFORE salvation, not after.
Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!
Don't mistake my silence on a term as a mere proposal ....
most theologians agree is the the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is evident in the theology of JW's, Mormons and some Oneness Pentecostals.
Simply type "Baptismal Regeneration" in Google ... see the results.
Don't mistake my silence on a term as a mere proposal ....
most theologians agree is the the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is evident in the theology of JW's, Mormons and some Oneness Pentecostals.
Simply type "Baptismal Regeneration" in Google ... see the results.
I know what baptismal regenerationists propose, and it is NOT what Oneness Pentecostals propose. Must I quote the Catechism of the RCC? I already noted, that even your source, Spurgeon, indicated that it is regeneration without faith by water. You really need to represent OP's correctly.
Truthseeker's quotes commented on how many people who believe that baptism is part of salvation readily agree with certain commentators' words about Acts 2:38, while the writer himself disagreed. Same goes with the "most theologians" to which you refer, from our perspective. What saith the scriptures?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
ONCE AGAIN... lol -- The exact same words of Acts 2:38 are found in Jesus' words about how blood is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And this clearly does not mean BECAUSE remission of sins already occurred. This has been debated for years. That is why Peter made it a command in Acts 10 and says it is part of salvation in 1 Peter 3.
1Pe 3:21 KJV 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:
It does not save by physically cleaning with H20. But it DOES SAVE by it being an act of a good conscience.
Acts 3? Often, after an initial precedent has been set in writing, as in Acts 2, the aforementioned details are not written, though they were obviously spoken, as in Acts 3. Recall we are READING a historical account in Acts. If the writer Luke were to write every single word ever preached, after having already established the precedent for salvation clearly in Acts 2, the book of Acts would not have been able to have been completed due to lack of time allowed to write! lol The same principle occurs with Romans' references to salvation. The people already knew how to be saved, so Paul did not have to detail every part in Romans 10. Similarly, in Acts 3's case, the reader is already settled by Acts 2 to know what saves.
Act 2:38 KJV 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.
Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
THE GREEK IS IDENTICAL AS IS ENGLISH.
And Mark 16:16, as has already been said, shows JESUS saying baptism COMES BEFORE salvation, not after.
Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!
ONCE AGAIN... lol -- The exact same words of Acts 2:38 are found in Jesus' words about how blood is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And this clearly does not mean BECAUSE remission of sins already occurred. This has been debated for years. That is why Peter made it a command in Acts 10 and says it is part of salvation in 1 Peter 3.
1Pe 3:21 KJV 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:
It does not save by physically cleaning with H20. But it DOES SAVE by it being an act of a good conscience.
Acts 3? Often, after an initial precedent has been set in writing, as in Acts 2, the aforementioned details are not written, though they were obviously spoken, as in Acts 3. Recall we are READING a historical account in Acts. If the writer Luke were to write every single word ever preached, after having already established the precedent for salvation clearly in Acts 2, the book of Acts would not have been able to have been completed due to lack of time allowed to write! lol The same principle occurs with Romans' references to salvation. The people already knew how to be saved, so Paul did not have to detail every part in Romans 10. Similarly, in Acts 3's case, the reader is already settled by Acts 2 to know what saves.
Act 2:38 KJV 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.
Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
THE GREEK IS IDENTICAL AS IS ENGLISH.
And Mark 16:16, as has already been said, shows JESUS saying baptism COMES BEFORE salvation, not after.
Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!
VERY good words Brother Blume.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Salvation cannot be found in the Gospels beacuse it was not yet revealed. And salvation will not be in the Epistles after Acts because these were letters written to the CHURCH. They were written to the "SAVED", if you will. The letter to Romans was written to the Church at Rome. It was written to those who had believed, repented and converted according to Acts 2:38.
We are saved by grace through faith. But faith without works is dead. We can't be saved by dead faith, nonexistent faith. We are saved by God's grace through faith that has been coupled with obedience to Acts 2:38.
Salvation cannot be found in the Gospels beacuse it was not yet revealed. And salvation will not be in the Epistles after Acts because these were letters written to the CHURCH. They were written to the "SAVED", if you will. .
Come on, Dan. Of course Jesus is our salvation but salvation as you and I know it today was not revealed yet. Jesus Christ, the man, is no longer walking among men and so the way to Jesus as salvation is through Acts 2:38. The theif on the cross joined the Lord in paradise because Salvation as we know it was not available. Different dispensations, different requirements.
Come on, Dan. Of course Jesus is our salvation but salvation as you and I know it today was not revealed yet. Jesus Christ, the man, is no longer walking among men and so the way to Jesus as salvation is through Acts 2:38. The theif on the cross joined the Lord in paradise because Salvation as we know it was not available. Different dispensations, different requirements.
I don't know if I should crack up or cry .... You said it again.
It is quite interesting to me that everyone who does not agree with you DA is "preaching another gospel" yet if someone were to say that to you, you would be indignant. It is also very interesting that you quite often quote trinitarian theologians as your authority sources for formulating your arguments. Why not debate purely on the basis of the word and proper utilization of Greek and Hebrew.
If I were to use Kai as you have suggested previously Mark 16:16 would read He that believeth even baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. This is just one example of many as to the errancy of your arguments.
Hybrid Mode
