And thus, you entirely avoided my question. Mark 16:16 is the parallel to Matthew 28:19. Baptism in the name of the Jesus is in water Acts 10:47-48. like it or not, "who believe and are baptized will be saved" is there. You did not answer why Jesus put baptism there in the first place. What's...
"Clearly" is a subjective 'eye of the beholder' term. Explicitly written is the only unavoidable inescapable standard. There is no such evidence against baptism's place in getting saved in the Bible.
Mark 16:16 Answer then, why did Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved...
As you even said This is a symbol of baptism, baptism is not the symbol of anything. Baptism is being symbolized, baptism is not symbolizing. To change what it actually says to say that baptism is now symbolizing something is "conditioning" at best and "dishonesty" at worst. I'll give you the...
You can't escape that 1 Peter 3:21 also says that baptism now also saves you.
In order to remember this, it would first have to be stated -in the Bible. What do you mean, "remember"?
This is probably the single greatest apostasy from the "by grace alone, through faith alone" movement. A bunch...
John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God---
To those who received him and believed in his name God gave them the right/power/authority (in the greek) to become children of God. Got enabled them, not forced them, or...
First placing your faith in Him as your Savior, is lingo invented by a certain belief system. It's true in a broad sense, but not as a formula on how to get saved.
Why didn't it happen with Saul? He placed his faith in Jesus after speaking directly with him. Why did he still need his sins washed...
Why do so many use this same argument? After a gazillion times, don't the rebuttals get around?
But ok.
It doesn't matter that part B did not say if you're not baptized there condemned.
why did Jesus put baptism smack in the middle of a getting saved discussion in the first place if it's not...
It wouldn't matter if He had been baptized by John. Baptism in Jesus name didn't start until after the thief was dead Acts 2:38-39. Acts 19:1-5 these who had been baptized by John were baptized in Jesus's name. Jesus saved the thief face to face, before baptism in His name was commanded.
That's "by grace alone, through faith alone" lingo. That's not in the Bible.
The command to be baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of sins did not start until long after the thief was dead Acts 2:38-39. Why would you use the thief as an example?
Cornelius and Company had the outpouring...
Agreed, because there is no salvation by grace alone in the Bible. That is never stated.
John 4:34 “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.
This is what was finished, Jesus's work.
It sounds like when you're referring to
It is finished, you're...
I respect your thoughts.
They who would view pluralism as completely consistent with Biblical theology would be wrong. This is not ike we're deciding preferences such as whether broccoli tastes good or broccoli tastes bad. That's up to each individual, there is no standard or absolute on that...