Baptism as a public declaration and "spirit of Jezebel"

[Prestor John]

Did you watch the video? That is not the definition of a tithe.

All offerings, including tithes, are to be considered sacrifices given with a cheerful heart.

 

[e.r.m.]

All offerings, including tithes, are to be considered sacrifices given with a cheerful heart.

That is true, and sure we give offerings, but who gives tithes these days, from a Biblical perspective? I don't know if Jews do, so they may. We can't say tithes are what we want them to mean, tithes are what the Old Testament says they are.

 

[Prestor John]

That is true, and sure we give offerings, but who gives tithes these days, from a Biblical perspective? I don't know if Jews do, so they may. We can't say tithes are what we want them to mean, tithes are what the Old Testament says they are.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives tithes today.

 

[e.r.m.]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives tithes today.

Do they have geneologically confirmed Levites in their organization and literally give a tenth of their crops (not currency) to these Levites?

 

[Prestor John]

Do they have geneologically confirmed Levites in their organization and literally give a tenth of their crops (not currency) to these Levites?

I have an interesting answer to this question, but first I need to ask why you consider these factors important considering that the Law of Tithing was practiced before the Law of Moses and also after the Resurrection of Christ?

 

[Muffled]

First, Rom 10:10 says confessing Jesus only as Lord, it does not say confess Him as Savior. That is nowhere in the Bible. That part is just something people try to smuggle in with confessing Jesus as Lord, also in Colosssians 2:6, doesn't say savior.

Secondly Romans 10:9-10 was written by someone who had believed and confessed the "Lord" Jesus Acts 22:8, 10 and still found himself with his sins three days later Acts 22:16, for which he was prescribed baptism calling on Jesus's name to get them washed away. So no, confessing Jesus as Lord is not baptism, but together with baptism, that's what is called for.

Third, it doesn't have to be done by clergy.

So if you are "saved" as the verse says by confessing Jesus as Lord does not that make Him Savior?

Doesn't Matthew say his name will be Jesus because He will save His people?

I believe smuggle is a false view. The verse attains to it even though it is not directly stated. Any attempt to detach it appears to be a smuggling out to me.

I believe that is a non-sequitur. Confessing is not baptism but it is why one gets baptized, otherwise one is just getting wet. If you preface your baptism with a belief that Jesus was a good man you would like to follow then the baptism is meaningless.

 

[e.r.m.]

I have an interesting answer to this question, but first I need to ask why you consider these factors important considering that the Law of Tithing was practiced before the Law of Moses and also after the Resurrection of Christ?

I believe my original reasoning was that people use the passage in Malachi to transfer the practice of Old Testament tithing to Sunday offering. Those are apples and oranges.
I hope that answers your question, so you can also answer.

 

[e.r.m.]

So if you are "saved" as the verse says by confessing Jesus as Lord does not that make Him Savior?

Doesn't Matthew say his name will be Jesus because He will save His people?

I believe smuggle is a false view. The verse attains to it even though it is not directly stated. Any attempt to detach it appears to be a smuggling out to me.

I believe that is a non-sequitur. Confessing is not baptism but it is why one gets baptized, otherwise one is just getting wet. If you preface your baptism with a belief that Jesus was a good man you would like to follow then the baptism is meaningless.

The idea is that it is not our place to accomodate a verse into one's belief system. You're saying one can make a logical deduction and say this verse can mean accepting Him as Lord AND savior, in order to be saved. Instead of trying to fit a passage into one's pre-existing belief system, we ought to be seeking the original intent of said passage.

And again, when Saul confessed the Lord Jesus with his mouth Acts 22:8, 10, he did not confess Jesus as his savior, nor was he saved at that moment as he was still in need to have his sins washed away three days later Acts 22:16. Why would he prescribe something for other people in Romans 10 that did not happen with himself?

 

[Muffled]

The idea is that it is not our place to accomodate a verse into one's belief system. You're saying one can make a logical deduction and say this verse can mean accepting Him as Lord AND savior, in order to be saved. Instead of trying to fit a passage into one's pre-existing belief system, we ought to be seeking the original intent of said passage.

And again, when Saul confessed the Lord Jesus with his mouth Acts 22:8, 10, he did not confess Jesus as his savior, nor was he saved at that moment as he was still in need to have his sins washed away three days later Acts 22:16. Why would he prescribe something for other people in Romans 10 that did not happen with himself?

I believe when Saul asked: "what shall I do Lord" that He confessed Jesus as Lord. I also believe that Jesus by saying what He should do acknowledged Saul as repentant. The water doesn't wash away sins. And it didn't save him. What the baptism did do was to testify that his sins were forgiven and that he was saved.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe when Saul asked: "what shall I do Lord" that He confessed Jesus as Lord. I also believe that Jesus by saying what He should do acknowledged Saul as repentant.

I agree.

The water doesn't wash away sins. And it didn't save him.

Then why weren't his sins washed away by this point Acts 22:16? Why was he prescribed baptism calling on Jesus's name expressly to have his sins washed away?

What the baptism did do was to testify that his sins were forgiven and that he was saved.

To who? Ananias. Ananias was the one who conveyed this instruction, he didn't need that testimony. Others first learned of his conversion through spending time with disciples and his preaching, not his baptism Acts 9:19-21. Oh yes, and there's that pesky problem that being baptized to testify that one's sins were forgiven and that one is saved, is never once written in the Bible. In no possible way therefore, can that be the Biblical purpose for baptism in Jesus name. That's just a made-up false teaching. Come on now, Muffled!

 

[e.r.m.]

So if you are "saved" as the verse says by confessing Jesus as Lord does not that make Him Savior?

That's part of it. You know that the confession in and of itself is not enough Matthew 7:21

And it makes him savior after confessing him as Lord, you don't confess him "as" Savior first, in order to make him savior. That's not even part of the discussion.

Doesn't Matthew say his name will be Jesus because He will save His people?

Yes, and that what Jesus has done. But before Jesus was born the angel didn't go into a lot of detail.

I believe smuggle is a false view. The verse attains to it even though it is not directly stated. Any attempt to detach it appears to be a smuggling out to me.

It is smuggling "in". The evangelical teaching is not confessing Jesus as Lord toward being saved, but confessing him as Lord and confessing him as Savior toward being saved, as if confessing him as Savior is a precursor and component to getting saved, not just an outcome of confessing him as Lord. And again, Saul DID NOT confess Jesus as Savior, but only as Lord, and he spoke of it as such Romans 10:9-10. If Saul confessed Jesus as his savior in order to be saved, then he wouldn't still be in his sins three days later. It's just evangelicalism "straining" to make certain passages fit into its theology. The passages don't fit certain parts of evangelical theology for a reason.

I believe that is a non-sequitur. Confessing is not baptism but it is why one gets baptized, otherwise one is just getting wet.

The "why" is stated in Acts 22:16 and Romans 6:4-7. As in Acts 22:16 confession and baptism work together.

If you preface your baptism with a belief that Jesus was a good man you would like to follow then the baptism is meaningless.

Of course.

 

[Desert Snake]

First, Rom 10:10 says confessing Jesus only as Lord, it does not say confess Him as Savior. That is nowhere in the Bible. That part is just something people try to smuggle in with confessing Jesus as Lord, also in Colosssians 2:6, doesn't say savior.

Secondly Romans 10:9-10 was written by someone who had believed and confessed the "Lord" Jesus Acts 22:8, 10 and still found himself with his sins three days later Acts 22:16, for which he was prescribed baptism calling on Jesus's name to get them washed away. So no, confessing Jesus as Lord is not baptism, but together with baptism, that's what is called for.

Third, it doesn't have to be done by clergy.

Great, so what does 'confess him as Lord' mean?

 

[e.r.m.]

Great, so what does 'confess him as Lord' mean?

Surrendering verbally, as well as inwardly, to Jesus being one's master henceforth, unto salvation.

Also in
Colossians 2:6 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,

Here Paul doesn't make reference to this being involved in getting saved, he just quickly refers to them having receivied Jesus as Lord. Receiving Jesus as Savior was never part of their vocabulary.

 

[Desert Snake]

Surrendering verbally, as well as inwardly, to Jesus being one's master henceforth, unto salvation. This teaching was put forth by God ultimately, through Paul, without confessing Jesus as one's savior. Confessing Jesus as one's Lord, unto salvation. That is how it was originally presented.

Isn't that semantics? If the baptism is in Jesus's name, there doesn't seem to be much difference in meaning.

 

[e.r.m.]

Isn't that semantics? If the baptism is in Jesus's name, there doesn't seem to be much difference in meaning.

If I understand you correctly, and if not let me know, If we compare similar wording back then to the catchphrases today, people can and have tried to make a case that their belief system existed back then. One example is
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

Sounds very similar to receive him as savior

The difference is the mindset. Different words mean different beliefs. Being that receiving Jesus as a direct means of being saved started with John Calvin, then the absence of such talk in Biblical times means a different belief system. According to what's "written" in the Bible, the first century Christians believed broadly that believing in Jesus and surrendering to Him as one's Lord ultimately led to being saved. When one got down to the details, it also involved repentance & being baptized in His name Acts 2:38, 3:19, 22:16. That's all that the "written" scripture actually supports. The written scripture, Romans 10:9-10 in particular, doesn't support or mention "confessing Him as Savior", nor the resulting getting saved method known as "accepting Jesus as one's personal savior", sinner's prayer, altar call, placing one's hand on the tv screen, etc., because the textual foundation was never laid down. Filling in perceived gaps in the "written" text here and there like
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and as savior and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

John 1:12 But as many as received Him as savior, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

to make a bridge to one's belief system is insidiously deceptive.

Leave the scripture alone, and try to find out what "they" meant with what they wrote.

 

[e.r.m.]

You are being very inconsistent.

If we continue to view this "father" in the Prodigal Son story as "God the Father", then why are you placing such restrictions on the faithful son's inheritance?

Isn't God's Kingdom infinite and eternal? Without beginning or end?

True, the inheritance received by the Prodigal Son was finite, because he did not live according to his father's instruction.

But if the faithful son is to receive "everything" that the Father has, such an inheritance would be infinite and eternal.

That's an assumption. What you stated is a possibility, not absolute and immovable. If this parable was also to teach that a faithful son, even a prodigal repentant son, receives all of God's powers, authority, and their own planet to preside over, (and not just God's forgiveness and generosity) then it would be confirmed somewhere in scripture. Scripture never goes that far.

 

[Muffled]

I agree.

Then why weren't his sins washed away by this point Acts 22:16? Why was he prescribed baptism calling on Jesus's name expressly to have his sins washed away?

To who? Ananias. Ananias was the one who conveyed this instruction, he didn't need that testimony. Others first learned of his conversion through spending time with disciples and his preaching, not his baptism Acts 9:19-21. Oh yes, and there's that pesky problem that being baptized to testify that one's sins were forgiven and that one is saved, is never once written in the Bible. In no possible way therefore, can that be the Biblical purpose for baptism in Jesus name. That's just a made-up false teaching. Come on now, Muffled!

I believe since sins are not washed away as Peter said then it is a derived concept just as baptism as a testimony is a derived concept. The only thing that can wash away sin is the blood of Jesus.

I believe that is true and Paul didn't need to be baptized however believers were commanded by Jesus to do it anyway.

I was saved a long time before I was baptized and perhaps longer before my sins were washed away. I was in repentance long before I was saved. My baptism was a testimony to the church that I was saved. Cleansing from sin came through the movie The Exorcist which caused me to realize guilt and a demon took advantage of that to cause me trouble but my cleansing came by the Holy Spirit in the form of a song: "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus."

I believe your problem is that you just don't understand how this all works.

 

[Muffled]

That's an assumption. What you stated is a possibility, not absolute and immovable. If this parable was also to teach that a faithful son, even a prodigal repentant son, receives all of God's powers, authority, and their own planet to preside over, (and not just God's forgiveness and generosity) then it would be confirmed somewhere in scripture. Scripture never goes that far.

I believe I Cor. 12 tells us that God gives what He wishes to give to those He wishes to give it.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe I Cor. 12 tells us that God gives what He wishes to give to those He wishes to give it.

Ok.

 

[e.r.m.]

I believe since sins are not washed away as Peter said then it is a derived concept just as baptism as a testimony is a derived concept. The only thing that can wash away sin is the blood of Jesus.

Thank you for replying. Do you mean Ananias? At least it's a derived concept by someone in the Bible, whereas baptism as a testimony is not a Biblical derived concept.​

I believe that is true and Paul didn't need to be baptized however believers were commanded by Jesus to do it anyway.

How so? He already confessed the Lord Jesus and believed in him by this point Acts 22:8,10, yet he still needed his sins washed away. How did he not need to get baptized, if Ananias prescribed baptism calling on Jesus name to do just that? Did he not need his sins washed away? And did Jesus just command it without a reason, did he say "Just do it" ? One difference between the belief system you ascribe to and the scriptures is that the scriptures don't just say it's commanded, they say why it's commanded Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4-7, Galatians 3:26-27, etc. There's never a testimony reason for getting baptized mentioned in any of the scriptures. At least having sins washed away is mentioned.

I was saved a long time before I was baptized and perhaps longer before my sins were washed away. I was in repentance long before I was saved. My baptism was a testimony to the church that I was saved. Cleansing from sin came through the movie The Exorcist which caused me to realize guilt and a demon took advantage of that to cause me trouble but my cleansing came by the Holy Spirit in the form of a song: "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus."

With all due respect, this isn't evidence. This is just expressing your belief of what happened.
You stated your belief that you were saved before your sins are washed believe you were saved before your sins were washed away. do you believe a person to save them before their sins are washed away?

I believe your problem is that you just don't understand how this all works.

Is there an operation at work aside from what's written in scripture? Can you explain how this all works through scripture? From what I'm seeing Acts 22:8-16 throws a serious monkey wrench into "just" believe and confess which Romans 10 doesn't say.
What am I not understanding?