Baptism purpose Sign of the covenant.

[e.r.m.]

On the contrary, the verse makes it quite clear that Baptism doesn't save. It is negated by the exception ie a person who does not have a good conscience and yet is baptized. Such a person is not saved by baptism because the heart and mind are just as closed to Jesus as they were before baptism. [/B

"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,"

"but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God,"


Sorry I've been gone a while. Been dealing with a back injury. Will try to be more in the loop. Won't promise as much as before.
The conscience in 1 Peter 3:21 comes as a result of having been saved. One can look at God with a good conscience because they are cleansed at baptism, akin to
Isaiah 6:5-8
Then I said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." [6] Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. [7] He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven." [8] Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

Faith/belief is always required along with baptism for baptism to be effective. That's an entirely different thing than the scriptures negating baptism. It's all the above, not multiple choice as you are describing. The saved comes at belief AND baptism, repentance AND baptism, as the scriptures describe. You don't have the authority to remove what the scriptures include in salvation, at will.

It is good to know the revisionists got it right.

Who are the revisionists?

There doesn't have to be one. Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Savior. Receiving Him as He is and recognizing the relationship is not a stretch. A person who has water poured over him gets wet but does not have a Lord or Savior. The water can't save a person from his sin. If a person looks at a person with prurient interest where is the water that will keep him from doing that?

Your argument is illogical because confessing "Jesus is Lord" with your mouth is also a requirement for baptism to be effective. You're trying to cherry pick only the salvation scriptures you like. It's very simple - It's NOT multiple choice, it's all the above.

Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:

That is the purpose of Baptism. John did not call people to come and get wet but to come and repent. He didn't baptize the Pharisees because they weren't repentant. Of course if you wish to ignore my testimony then at my baptism all I did was get wet.


Acts 19:3-5
And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John''s baptism." [4] Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." [5] When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

John's baptism was not the same as baptism in Jesus's name. Any argument you make to invalidate the saving efficacy of baptism using John's baptism, is invalid.

 

[e.r.m.]

Thanks for confirming what I have been saying. Baptism is NOT an act of "Saving", but of receiving forgiveness by believing in the atoning Blood of Jesus Christ.
And the submission to the Father's Will.

Submission to the will of the Father is not even mentioned, I'm throwing that out. Let's deal with the text.

A person has salvation through forgiveness of sins, so yes baptism is an act of salvation - in order to get salvation/forgiveness.

 

[sojourner]

The context of all passages in the Scriptures is what expresses the meaning of each and all the various passages/verses seen in the Scriptures.
It is your reasoning/exegesis/interpretation which is including the "traditions of men" rather than the "simple" "Thus saith the Lord GOD".
Jesus said, (John 3:17-21) There are those who will be Condemned and those are the ones Jesus said in (Matt.7:13-14) are on the broad way to destruction.---the "many". The "few" who travel the narrow path via the straight gate are the ones who go "into LIFE".





1) Are you claiming that What GOD said was possible and that HE prophesied would happen was impossible for GOD? Isa.7:14--GOD with YOU.
2)Yes, "human" in order to take our death penalty upon the Cross, BUT DIVINE, also, because just another "human being" could not pay the Guilt penalty because another human would be responsible for his own death penalty.
3)See 1)+2)
4) One only becomes a part of Jesus Christ by taking on HIS character of Righteousness in exchange of the filthy sinful character which has been condemned to death. HIS Life for one's life.

GOD(Jesus) was incarnated into a human body, but never relenquished HIS Divinity. Jesus never used HIS Divinity in any way that would give HIM an advantage which we humans do not possess. HE was tempted in like manner as all humans are----and sinned not.




Yes, according to text? Salvation is an individual issue----we are not saved as a community/group. However, the individuals who are saved do make up a community/group of Believers. Ezek.18: "the soul that sinneth it shall die." ---"Repent" and live. 1John.2:1-2.





Adam was, indeed, an individual. All the human race was propagated from his geneology----All of humanity, also, fell under the curse because of his individual transgression.





That is your choice. However, the scriptures give this fact, 1Pet.1:18-19, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

The wages of SIN is death. Sin is a transgression of the Law. Life is the reward for a life lived in Obedience to GOD and HIS stated/written Laws.
NO Sinner(death)---No sin. The Righteous have chosen in LOVE for GOD and neighbor NOT to SIN.





Isa.45:22-25; Rom.14:11-14; Phil.2:9-11 are all true and in context--ALL/every person shall bow the knee. This is the "great White Throne scene". The Judging of the Sheep and the goats. (Rev. 20:11-12)
As Isa.45:24 states, "all that are incensed against HIM will be ashamed".
Rom.14 all will be judged on their own "account".
Phil.2 when one allows the instructions given by GOD to do their work in one's life---it will be to GOD'S Pleasure.
At that scene, there is no Repenting---only acknowledging that GOD was Right. Those whose names were not found in the lamb's book of life were destroyed.(the second death)





Sojourner, what is "up to us" is whether one will choose to obey the stated principles laid out in the "Law and the prophets"; OR refuse to adhere to HIM as GOD in disobedience to HIS WILL. That is clear Scripture. That is what the Bible reveals.





From the very beginning, death was the penalty for Disobedience. There has been no equivocation on GOD'S part. The only reason one will experience the second death is because they, of their own free will, have choosen to live contrary to the prescribed way GOD set forth for the harmony of all involved.
Again, no sinner---no sin to propagate death.[/quote]
You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. the difference between you and I seems to be that, according to me, you're still on the safe side of the truth when it comes to being a Xtian and holding these beliefs. According to you, however, I'm condemned to an eternity of suffering for holding "wrong" beliefs.

So be it.

But you're gonna devastated at the Eternal Banquet, when you turn to your neighbor to ask for the peas, and find me sitting there smiling at you...

 

[e.r.m.]

In first century Judaism, the mikveh had a central place in cleansing. Acts 2:38 immersion in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins, now that he was made Lord and Christ, fit into their beliefs. Peter did the unheard of and gave this same baptism to the gentiles in Acts 10 (although it was actually Jesus who did via his vision to Peter). If someone had come along and told the Jews or the gentiles after Peter gave them "this" baptism, to accept Jesus as their personal savior, he/she would be speaking a foreign language. What sounds 'simple' to modern day gentile christians might gave been sacriledge to early first century christians. Greek dualustic philosophy which alludes to the idea that one cannot physically participate in their salvation did not appear until later in christianity. Today's teachings would not make sense to them.

 

[sincerly]

The wages of SIN is death. Sin is a transgression of the Law. Life is the reward for a life lived in Obedience to GOD and HIS stated/written Laws.
NO Sinner(death)---No sin. The Righteous have chosen in LOVE for GOD and neighbor NOT to SIN.

Isa.45:22-25; Rom.14:11-14; Phil.2:9-11 are all true and in context--ALL/every person shall bow the knee. This is the "great White Throne scene". The Judging of the Sheep and the goats. (Rev. 20:11-12)
As Isa.45:24 states, "all that are incensed against HIM will be ashamed".
Rom.14 all will be judged on their own "account".
Phil.2 when one allows the instructions given by GOD to do their work in one's life---it will be to GOD'S Pleasure.
At that scene, there is no Repenting---only acknowledging that GOD was Right. Those whose names were not found in the lamb's book of life were destroyed.(the second death)

Sojourner, what is "up to us" is whether one will choose to obey the stated principles laid out in the "Law and the prophets"; OR refuse to adhere to HIM as GOD in disobedience to HIS WILL. That is clear Scripture. That is what the Bible reveals.

From the very beginning, death was the penalty for Disobedience. There has been no equivocation on GOD'S part. The only reason one will experience the second death is because they, of their own free will, have choosen to live contrary to the prescribed way GOD set forth for the harmony of all involved.
Again, no sinner---no sin to propagate death.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. the difference between you and I seems to be that, according to me, you're still on the safe side of the truth when it comes to being a Xtian and holding these beliefs. According to you, however, I'm condemned to an eternity of suffering for holding "wrong" beliefs.

So be it.

But you're gonna devastated at the Eternal Banquet, when you turn to your neighbor to ask for the peas, and find me sitting there smiling at you...

Sojourner, "according to you" your posts have negated the principles which I have shown by the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, how do you conclude that it is your belief that """you're still on the safe side of the truth when it comes to being a Xtian and holding these beliefs.""". Is that some more "sarcasm"?
You cannot claim/"according to you" a judging on my part concerning your "banquet status".
The Commission to "GO and teach" wasn't with a mind to exclude any. I will not be able to attend without "Abiding" in the same rules which apply to ALL PERSONS.

Therefore, will you please pass the peas?

 

[sincerly]

In first century Judaism, the mikveh had a central place in cleansing. Acts 2:38 immersion in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins, now that he was made Lord and Christ, fit into their beliefs. Peter did the unheard of and gave this same baptism to the gentiles in Acts 10 (although it was actually Jesus who did via his vision to Peter). If someone had come along and told the Jews or the gentiles after Peter gave them "this" baptism, to accept Jesus as their personal savior, he/she would be speaking a foreign language. What sounds 'simple' to modern day gentile christians might gave been sacriledge to early first century christians. Greek dualustic philosophy which alludes to the idea that one cannot physically participate in their salvation did not appear until later in christianity. Today's teachings would not make sense to them.

E R.M., """In first century Judaism,...""" the Jewish people "Rejected" Jesus as their Messiah; and most do still today. Only a few even remotely "fit... Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins,...into their beliefs". However, there are many(Jews) who, as did Cornelius the Roman Centurion, choose to devoutly worship the true GOD.(As is stated in the Scriptures).

Today's teachings by most "Faiths" have vastly strayed from the "Truths" which Jesus taught from those Which were given and written by GOD from Sinai.

The Baptism of that family and friends came after the LORD had already shown HIS Salvation of them by the anointing with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:44-48)

 

[e.r.m.]

I

E R.M., """In first century Judaism,...""" the Jewish people "Rejected" Jesus as their Messiah; and most do still today. Only a few even remotely "fit... Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins,...into their beliefs". However, there are many(Jews) who, as did Cornelius the Roman Centurion, choose to devoutly worship the true GOD.(As is stated in the Scriptures).

Today's teachings by most "Faiths" have vastly strayed from the "Truths" which Jesus taught from those Which were given and written by GOD from Sinai.

The Baptism of that family and friends came after the LORD had already shown HIS Salvation of them by the anointing with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:44-48)

In first century Judaism about 3000 accepted the message and were baptized in Yeshua's name for forgiveness of sins. That's more than a few.

Agreed with the whole Sinai thing. But the new covenant is pretty different too. I would say most faiths have strayed from first century christianity too.

There is nothing 'in the text' that suggests Cornelius and company were saved before being baptized in water. It would be consistent of Peter to give the gentiles the same baptism as in Acts 2:38.

 

[sojourner]

"according to you" your posts have negated the principles which I have shown by the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, how do you conclude that it is your belief that """you're still on the safe side of the truth when it comes to being a Xtian and holding these beliefs.""". Is that some more "sarcasm"?

No. It simply means that you and I have different perspectives of truth.

You cannot claim/"according to you" a judging on my part concerning your "banquet status".

Judging from what you've posted, I'm not invited, because I don't "follow the law." That's the only basis on which I have to go and on which I have based my judgment. Unless you want to retract or amend your earlier statements...

The Commission to "GO and teach" wasn't with a mind to exclude any.

Then where, in your mind, does the exclusion occur when you adhere to biblical passages such as: "The path is narrow," and "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom?"

 

[sincerly]

No. It simply means that you and I have different perspectives of truth.

Judging from what you've posted, I'm not invited, because I don't "follow the law." That's the only basis on which I have to go and on which I have based my judgment. Unless you want to retract or amend your earlier statements...

Then where, in your mind, does the exclusion occur when you adhere to biblical passages such as: "The path is narrow," and "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom?"

What it means is as you have been espousing---exegeting along "scholars"/"church leaders" biases(plus your own).
"My Posts" have been based upon the "Copied" Scriptures. ALL the "inviting" was done in the Scriptures. "You were invited".
However, since you choose not to "follow the Law", be disrespectable to the HOST and excuse yourself, you will not be forced to attend.

It isn't the HOST'S fault that you refused the invitation. The HOST gave the conditions of the "banquet". It is regretable that you dislike those conditions.

One just can not expect to attend a stately affair dressed inappropriately---now , can he??

 

[sojourner]

ALL the "inviting" was done in the Scriptures. "You were invited".
However, since you choose not to "follow the Law", be disrespectable to the HOST and excuse yourself, you will not be forced to attend.

It isn't the HOST'S fault that you refused the invitation. The HOST gave the conditions of the "banquet". It is regretable that you dislike those conditions.

Too bad that all of the excluding is being done by you, and none of the invitation...

 

[sincerly]

Too bad that all of the excluding is being done by you, and none of the invitation...

Sojourner, you made this statement: ""
Originally Posted by sojourner
No. It simply means that you and I have different perspectives of truth.

Judging from what you've posted, I'm not invited, because I don't "follow the law." That's the only basis on which I have to go and on which I have based my judgment. Unless you want to retract or amend your earlier statements...

Then where, in your mind, does the exclusion occur when you adhere to biblical passages such as: "The path is narrow," and "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom?"

Sojourner, Both of those Biblical passages were stated by Jesus---NOT me. Jesus said to uphold/keep the Law, if one loved HIM. Therefore, the witness provided by the scriptures attest to who's Truth is being followed.----that which God says is HIS Laws, or that which one exegetes which is contrary to that which GOD has said?.

BTW, GOD'S invitation is open to all until one's death or Jesus comes. The conditions----including the "IF's"---are still valid.

 

[sojourner]

that which God says is HIS Laws, or that which one exegetes which is contrary to that which GOD has said?.

One can only really be sure what God says through exegesis.

BTW, GOD'S invitation is open to all until one's death or Jesus comes.

Hmm. I was under the impression that the Shepherd searched for the lost sheep until it was found -- not until dinnertime, or until nightfall -- until it was found.
And I thought the woman searched for her lost coin until she found it, not until payday rolled around.

Jesus said to uphold/keep the Law, if one loved HIM.

Do you keep them? All 613 of them?

 

[sincerly]

One can only really be sure what God says through exegesis.

Hmm. I was under the impression that the Shepherd searched for the lost sheep until it was found -- not until dinnertime, or until nightfall -- until it was found.
And I thought the woman searched for her lost coin until she found it, not until payday rolled around.

Do you keep them? All 613 of them?

Sojourner, Interpretation of what? Do you actually believe that GOD gave HIS Messages to persons who could NOT express The PRINCIPLES in GOD'S Messages to the people so that they would understand those Messages??

Yes, there were three parables dealing with "lost things"; However, the parables dealing with the banquets and the invitations sent out was dealing with a different principle.

Sojourner, 613 is what Maimonides(born 1135 A.D.) calculated there to be of laws.
None of the laws pertaining the the Sanctuary service that was "for the time then present" apply. (Heb.9:9-10). Jesus Christ is my High Priest now.
Yes, there are those laws which were given then which are still applicable. The Crucufuxion didn't change their status.(We have discussed several---Sabbath; Diet; Sexual issues.) But, that's another subject.

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, Interpretation of what? Do you actually believe that GOD gave HIS Messages to persons who could NOT express The PRINCIPLES in GOD'S Messages to the people so that they would understand those Messages??

I believe that the original messages have come to us through temporal, cultural, linguistic, literary, historical, and translational filters that serve to undermine our understanding. Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.

Yes, there were three parables dealing with "lost things"; However, the parables dealing with the banquets and the invitations sent out was dealing with a different principle.

So, in other words, you're weighing scripture in favor of limiting God's power to save us. That's nice.

Sojourner, 613 is what Maimonides(born 1135 A.D.) calculated there to be of laws.
None of the laws pertaining the the Sanctuary service that was "for the time then present" apply. (Heb.9:9-10). Jesus Christ is my High Priest now.
Yes, there are those laws which were given then which are still applicable. The Crucufuxion didn't change their status.(We have discussed several---Sabbath; Diet; Sexual issues.) But, that's another subject.

Translation: "I'm going to cherry-pick in order to satisfy my sense of 'tradional Xtian values.'"
How do you decide what is "applicable" and what is not? It's not delineated in the Bible. And, if your decision was reached as a result of personal understanding, in what way can that understanding be applied universally to everyone?

 

[sincerly]

Sojourner, Interpretation of what? Do you actually believe that GOD gave HIS Messages to persons who could NOT express The PRINCIPLES in GOD'S Messages to the people so that they would understand those Messages??

I believe that the original messages have come to us through temporal, cultural, linguistic, literary, historical, and translational filters that serve to undermine our understanding. Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.

I see! The Holy Spirit was not to be trusted with/to express GOD'S messages so that one's native language had to be "filtered" by many man-made excuses to arrive at an understanding acceptable to the human thinking.
And the Exegesis by mankind solidifies that understanding to agree with the contortion which the interpreter twisted the Scriptures to produce. Very convient!

Yes, there were three parables dealing with "lost things"; However, the parables dealing with the banquets and the invitations sent out was dealing with a different principle.

So, in other words, you're weighing scripture in favor of limiting God's power to save us. That's nice.

It isn't my words which you are expressing, but your own. Those parables were given to show all their status in relationship to GOD. Whether in the "lost" group of parables or the invitational ones.
However, It is with your type of """Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.""" which seeks to "minimize" those "filters" which are designed to prevent those contrary to GOD and HIS Laws from entering into the Kingdom to contaminate it.

All who are judged righteous, by GOD'S standards, will be saved. Per Scripture.

Sojourner, 613 is what Maimonides(born 1135 A.D.) calculated there to be of laws.
None of the laws pertaining the the Sanctuary service that was "for the time then present" apply. (Heb.9:9-10). Jesus Christ is my High Priest now.
Yes, there are those laws which were given then which are still applicable. The Crucufuxion didn't change their status.(We have discussed several---Sabbath; Diet; Sexual issues.) But, that's another subject.

Translation: "I'm going to cherry-pick in order to satisfy my sense of 'tradional Xtian values.'"
How do you decide what is "applicable" and what is not? It's not delineated in the Bible. And, if your decision was reached as a result of personal understanding, in what way can that understanding be applied universally to everyone?

"Translation:" is your false "exegesis" of what I have written. It is a projection of your own "sense of 'tradional Xtian values.'".

Jesus said HE came to "fulfill" and not to destroy the Law. He , also, explained to the Disciples those things which "testify of me". Also, at Sinai, GOD gave Commandments, Judgments, laws, statutes, ordinances which were "for the "Stranger that sojourns with you as the homeborn". GOD is not a respecter of persons.

GOD did the Application to ALL who are/were sinners. Man's exegesis which is counter to GOD'S truths isn't valid.
Prov.14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

 

[sojourner]

I see! The Holy Spirit was not to be trusted with/to express GOD'S messages so that one's native language had to be "filtered" by many man-made excuses to arrive at an understanding acceptable to the human thinking.
And the Exegesis by mankind solidifies that understanding to agree with the contortion which the interpreter twisted the Scriptures to produce. Very convient!

No, you don't see. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. It has everything to do with the very human processes of translation, redaction, and interpretation -- all of which work through the filters I mentioned. And, if it weren't for the redactors and the translators, you wouldn't have a bible to read.

It isn't my words which you are expressing, but your own. Those parables were given to show all their status in relationship to GOD. Whether in the "lost" group of parables or the invitational ones.
However, It is with your type of """Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.""" which seeks to "minimize" those "filters" which are designed to prevent those contrary to GOD and HIS Laws from entering into the Kingdom to contaminate it.

No. You insist that there comes a time when it's "too late" to be saved. What I did was to show (via textual proof) that that simply is not the case.

Contaminate the kingdom??? How can a human being, who is one of God's children, who has been reconciled to God through the Incarnation, contaminate that which is, by definition, perfect? This is a human family -- a single, organic whole -- not a gaggle of individuals. We all live together, we all die together. Read Matthew sometime. The whole thrust of Matthew is that the secret to the kingdom is that it contains both good and bad, and it's not up to us to determine which is which (see the parable of the wheat and the tares). Therefore, your entire statement above is moot. You don't get to make that determination -- or really even speculation.

All who are judged righteous, by GOD'S standards, will be saved. Per Scripture.

That's right! God's standards -- not yours, not mine -- God's. The prodigal and the thief were both received, and they had been bad-asp.

"Translation:" is your false "exegesis" of what I have written. It is a projection of your own "sense of 'tradional Xtian values.'".

Jesus said HE came to "fulfill" and not to destroy the Law. He , also, explained to the Disciples those things which "testify of me". Also, at Sinai, GOD gave Commandments, Judgments, laws, statutes, ordinances which were "for the "Stranger that sojourns with you as the homeborn". GOD is not a respecter of persons.

That's very nice, but it didn't answer my question in the least. At Sinai, the commandments given were for the Jews. Some of them -- according to you -- were repealed with Jesus. I'd be interested to know two very simple things: 1) which ones, and 2) how you make that determination.

Prov.14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

M'K....
Romans 3:21-24: But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

So there.

 

[sincerly]

I see! The Holy Spirit was not to be trusted with/to express GOD'S messages so that one's native language had to be "filtered" by many man-made excuses to arrive at an understanding acceptable to the human thinking.
And the Exegesis by mankind solidifies that understanding to agree with the contortion which the interpreter twisted the Scriptures to produce. Very convient!

I see! The Holy Spirit was not to be trusted with/to express GOD'S messages so that one's native language had to be "filtered" by many man-made excuses to arrive at an understanding acceptable to the human thinking.
And the Exegesis by mankind solidifies that understanding to agree with the contortion which the interpreter twisted the Scriptures to produce. Very convient!
No, you don't see. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. It has everything to do with the very human processes of translation, redaction, and interpretation -- all of which work through the filters I mentioned. And, if it weren't for the redactors and the translators, you wouldn't have a bible to read.

Sojourner, the Holy Spirit gave HIS messages to the Prophets in their own languages. There was no need to "translate", "redact" or "interpret" them for the people. and none of that process changed any of the meaning of the Message. Nor does the translation from the Hebrew or Greek require that the Message be changed when given in English.
The KJV does just swell and is very comprehensible with the same meaning as the Hebrew and Greek.

It isn't my words which you are expressing, but your own. Those parables were given to show all their status in relationship to GOD. Whether in the "lost" group of parables or the invitational ones.
However, It is with your type of """Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.""" which seeks to "minimize" those "filters" which are designed to prevent those contrary to GOD and HIS Laws from entering into the Kingdom to contaminate it.

It isn't my words which you are expressing, but your own. Those parables were given to show all their status in relationship to GOD. Whether in the "lost" group of parables or the invitational ones.
However, It is with your type of """Exegesis seeks to minimize those filters.""" which seeks to "minimize" those "filters" which are designed to prevent those contrary to GOD and HIS Laws from entering into the Kingdom to contaminate it.

No. You insist that there comes a time when it's "too late" to be saved. What I did was to show (via textual proof) that that simply is not the case.

Contaminate the kingdom??? How can a human being, who is one of God's children, who has been reconciled to God through the Incarnation, contaminate that which is, by definition, perfect? This is a human family -- a single, organic whole -- not a gaggle of individuals. We all live together, we all die together. Read Matthew sometime. The whole thrust of Matthew is that the secret to the kingdom is that it contains both good and bad, and it's not up to us to determine which is which (see the parable of the wheat and the tares). Therefore, your entire statement above is moot. You don't get to make that determination -- or really even speculation.

Sojourner, as I have repeatedly stated, was At death, NO individual can change from a sinner to a repentant believer. Nor can/will a sinner be able to repent as Christ arrives to take the redeemed to heaven. There is those areas when it is "to late" and the "I never knew you, Depart from me." is uttered.
Christ said, no speculation. Rev.21:27, "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

All who are judged righteous, by GOD'S standards, will be saved. Per Scripture.

All who are judged righteous, by GOD'S standards, will be saved. Per Scripture.

That's right! God's standards -- not yours, not mine -- God's. The prodigal and the thief were both received, and they had been bad-asp.

Agreed, but the prodigal "came to his senses"/acknowledged his unworthiness and returned to the Father.
The Thief admitted his deserving the death ahead of him and acknowledged Jesus as LORD and who HE IS/was. and the offer Jesus had to give---Salvation and pardon.

"Translation:" is your false "exegesis" of what I have written. It is a projection of your own "sense of 'tradional Xtian values.'".

Jesus said HE came to "fulfill" and not to destroy the Law. He , also, explained to the Disciples those things which "testify of me". Also, at Sinai, GOD gave Commandments, Judgments, laws, statutes, ordinances which were "for the "Stranger that sojourns with you as the homeborn". GOD is not a respecter of persons.

That's very nice, but it didn't answer my question in the least. At Sinai, the commandments given were for the Jews. Some of them -- according to you -- were repealed with Jesus. I'd be interested to know two very simple things: 1) which ones, and 2) how you make that determination.

Sojourner, ALL that was spoken and written at Sinai were as much for the "Mixed Multitude" as for the relatives of Jacob and the "Stranger" that chose to reside them and have GOD as their GOD.---So said GOD in those verses I posted.
1)ALL those which had to do/related with Jesus as the sacrifice for the ramsom paid for a repentant Sinners death penalty.
2)One doesn't need a scholar to understand the sacrificial/ceremonial system of laws which Jesus came to "fulfill". Those Jesus Christ "fulfilled once and for all time".

Prov.14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."
Prov.14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

M'K....
Romans 3:21-24: But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

So there.

Rom.3:20 says, for by the law(Decalogue) is the knowledge of SIN. vs.31 says, faith doesn't abolish the Law, but establishes it.
However, those verses, also, establish that the one's who are "Justified" are those/"ALL" who Believe in the redemptive Blood of Jesus Christ vs.24-25.
Look at Rom.2:27-29 while you are in the area.

 

[e.r.m.]

Is this still about baptism? Just asking.

 

[sincerly]

Is this still about baptism? Just asking.

Yes, Baptism by itself saves no one. As Jesus said, "Ye must be born again."Therefore, Baptism is representative of that dying to the old man of sin and burying him while arising to the new spirtual "rebirth" of life in Christ Jesus. Having one's stony heart "circumcised" without human hands to be sensitive to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit to surrender and Obedience to the Will of the Father.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes, Baptism by itself saves no one. As Jesus said, "Ye must be born again."Therefore, Baptism is representative of that dying to the old man of sin and burying him while arising to the new spirtual "rebirth" of life in Christ Jesus. Having one's stony heart "circumcised" without human hands to be sensitive to the pleadings of the Holy Spirit to surrender and Obedience to the Will of the Father.

Thank you for the yes answer.

We've been through this already. It takes all the Scriptures on salvation, not biased filtering of just the ones people like. So baptism 'by itself' saves no one, correct. Baptism along with beliefing Christ, repenting, and confessing Jesus as Lord, Does save.
The rest of what you said has no value. John 3:3-5 that you quoted says nothing about representation. Just like making pretend that John 3:5 has anything to do with representation, I cannot take protestant rhetoric seriously. Show me a scripture that directly negates post resurrection baptism's saving quality and then it'll have value. No indirect scripture that protestants are famous for can make your case.