Jesus Said "It Is Finished"

[rrobs]

That is the specific "work" that I don't see the scriptures requiring to be saved ...I like talking about anything in the scriptures.

This is the "by grace alone, through faith alone" paradigm teaching, and not "scriptures". "Scripture" never refers to baptism a work. "Scripture" never refers to works as just "anything you do".
This emerges "only" from the by grace alone, through faith alone paradigm. That's why we need to follow only the scriptures, because the by grace alone, through faith alone paradigm chronically says different things than what is written in the scriptures. We will be judged by God's word John 11:48-50, not by what that paradigm says. The scriptures "alone" paint a different picture and give their own message.
Scriptures
Mark 16:16
Acts 2:38-39
Romans 6:4-7
Acts 22:16
1 Peter 3:20-21

do explicitly state baptism as a part of getting saved/forgiven.

This is not at its core an issue of baptism, but one of following God's word.

With the exception of 1 Peter 3:20-21, there is no mention of water in any of the verses you quoted. They just talk about baptism. The question is, baptism in what?

Matt 3:11,

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
​

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
​

Acts 16:16 says that baptism washes away sins. Do you really think physical water can do that? If that were true there would have been no need for Jesus' ministry. John the Baptist's water baptism would have been sufficient to take away the sins of the people.

​

 

[e.r.m.]

First I see no refutation that baptism being a work is not a scriptural teaching.

With the exception of 1 Peter 3:20-21, there is no mention of water in any of the verses you quoted. They just talk about baptism. The question is, baptism in what?

Matt 3:11,

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
​

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
​

Acts 16:16 says that baptism washes away sins. (I think you meant 22:16)

​

Acts 10:47-48 (as has already been stated) establishes that baptism in Jesus's name is in water.
Matthew 16:16 is a parallel to Matthew 28:19. Matthew 16:16 and Acts 2:38-39 therefore are in water.

Romans 6:5 there is a likeness to Jesus's death with baptism in water in Jesus's name. There is no likeness to Jesus's death with baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16, as in Matthew 28:19, you cannot command baptism with the Holy Spirit, as this is something Jesus did himself, it's not something we do.
Plus

Acts 9:18 immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, [19] and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.

This is not how baptism with the Holy Spirit is described. This is how baptism in water in Jesus's name is described.

Do you really think physical water can do that? If that were true there would have been no need for Jesus' ministry. John the Baptist's water baptism would have been sufficient to take away the sins of the people.

1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism doth now also save you "through" the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately God does "the saving", the question is our part, at which point God does the saving. The "scriptures" cite belief/baptism as our part.
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

At its core, it's not an issue of baptism, but that of following God's word.

 

[Nova2216]

I'm sorry your healing didn't go well. I would like to offer some suggestions. I hope you take it in the spirit in which I give it. I really do care. I understand physical healing can be a difficult thing when someone is in pain or otherwise ailing. But God is bigger that any disease or ailment. There is hope

The thing that really stuck out in your post was, "I knew it was not going to work..."
It reminds me of the record where a father brought his possessed son to Jesus for healing.

Mark 9:23-24,

23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things [are] possible to him that believeth.
24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
​

All things are possible with believing. There are several other verses that say just that. The father was humble and said exactly how he must have felt. He clearly wanted to believe but he knew deep down that he harbored some doubt so he asked Jesus to help him with that. Of course Jesus was more than willing to help and ended up curing the man's son.

I'm afraid your idea on your healing is in direct opposition to God's word. I don't mean to criticize or condemn. That would not help anything. I just mean to point out some things in God's word regarding healing.

1Pet 2:24,

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
​

God declares you to be healed by the stripes Jesus bore on the cross. I perfectly understand that your doctor may have said something different. I also understand the difficulty of believing God healed someone when an x-ray shows otherwise.

I had melanoma on my head. It was getting worse rather quickly. I had terrible looking lesions on my head which I saw every time I looked in the mirror. One day it suddenly came to me to say, "Well, am I going to believe my own two eyes or God?" That moment I decided I would ignore my own two eyes and believe God. I remembered a minister tell me, "God's word is true even if it never comes to pass." I decided that I was going to go with that instead of the doctors. I confessed I was healed and that was that. I didn't care how things looked to my eyes, I was going with God and ignore what I (and the doctors) thought about my disease. The very next day, a little piece of the scabby stuff flaked off. That continued for about a week at which point the skin that was once melanoma infected was as smooth as a baby's behind.

I'm not sure how that Pentecostal ministered to you, but had he really been tuned in to God, he probably would have known about your unbelief and set about to change it into belief by teaching all the places in the scriptures that talk about health and healing. The scriptures say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, the scriptures.

I know that it can be hard to ignore one's symptoms that obviously show a big problem. But God is bigger than that and He will help with any doubt you have regarding your healing. He votes for you to be healed. The devil votes for you to be sick. You break the tie.

Of course, at some point we do stop believing and that is when we go to sleep. Regardless of what happens in the here an now, we are guaranteed a brand new body just like the one Jesus had after his resurrection (Phil 3:21). That will occur when he returns and at that point we will have no doubt, sickness, disease, etc. That will happen independently of our belief. Jesus is coming back and will change our bodies whether we believe it or not. It is a promise God made, and He will be absolutely faithful in performing it. That's our hope.

Do not let the devil condemn you by telling you your faith is inadequate. If you feel that way, just ask God to help your unbelief. As much as possible keep your mind on the things of God and off your own self. It's not easy, but God is in the business of making the difficult into easy.

If there is anything at all I can do for you, please let me know. You are a wonderful child of God and you deserve the best. Remember, you and God form a majority that can overrule any of the fiery darts the devil may throw your way. Just think of the witness of God's power will be when He heals you. It'll be fantastic.

God bless.

How much faith did Lazarus have?

He was dead. (Jn 11:39)

If someone was not healed the faith of the one doing the healing was called into question not the one needing the healing.

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

 

[rrobs]

How much faith did Lazarus have?

He was dead. (Jn 11:39)

If someone was not healed the faith of the one doing the healing was called into question not the one needing the healing.

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

First of all, in no way did mean to call your faith into question. God knows your heart and I don't, so I will not judge another man's servant. I tried to convey the thought that I understood the difficulty of believing the seemingly impossible. I would never blame anyone for their faith or lack thereof, including myself.

You have an excellent point about Lazarus. Yes he was dead and could hardly believe for anything, let alone healing. However, there are a few cases in the scriptures where a family member did the believing for their loved one. The story of Lazarus is one of them.

John 11:21-22 & 40,

21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give [it] thee.
...
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?​

Minor point perhaps, but it may hold some relevance to the subject.

Sometimes I look at the Christian life as a life of denial of so-called reality. I deny my inability to get out of bed because of a high fever. Obviously I'm sweating and soaked the sheets. I look like death warmed over. I see the thermometer at 101.8 degrees. I can't stop coughing or sneezing. It hurts just to breath. But with all of that, I declare that I am healed and there is nothing wrong with me, that I have Christ in me and I am more than a conqueror. I seldom admit to sickness even though it's obviously there. I try my best to confess God's word and not what I think I see with my eyes or feel with my body. They will pass away, but God's word lives forever.

But someday that so-called reality will overwhelm my ability to believe. That is when I will die. But what is death? The Bible say death for a born again believer is sleep. Now, I've gone to sleep tens of thousands in my lifetime. Of course, I wake up the next morning just as many times. I had no consciousness of what transpired while I was asleep. I wasn't in pain nor did I experience any sorrow. Other than looking at a clock, I have no idea if I was asleep for 5 minutes or 10 hours, nor do I care.

Death will be the same way. I will go to sleep. I will have no consciousness of time, feeling, thoughts, etc. The only difference is that when I do wake up, Jesus will be my alarm clock and he will be standing there with a big grin on his face and tell me to try on the new body he has prepared for me, No wonder Paul said he'd rather have that than continue living in this life! I'm ready.

1Thess 4:13-18,

13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.​

What a comfort it is!

God bless

 

[rrobs]

It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority,

Seriously? No scriptural evidence for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

Rom 4:6,

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,​

Rom 3:27,

Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.​

Rom 11:6,

And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Grace and works are not partners. They are diametrically opposed to each other. We don't need a little grace and a little work to be saved. That's Christianity 101.

Gal 2:16,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.​

Not a word about any part we play in being justified by Jesus Christ. It's by his faith, not ours that we are saved. We only confess Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead and we are saved. Even then our confessing and believing only puts us "unto" salvation. Our actual salvation was effected 2,000 years ago when we were crucified, raised, and ascended with Jesus.

Eph 2:8-9,

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
​

Must we be forced, against our will, to be baptized to be saved? That must be the case since verse 8 specifically eliminates our own self from being involved.

2Tim 1:9,

Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
​

No room for any kind of work, baptism, circumcision, communion, or anything else in these verses. And they are all pretty simple statements, about an 8th grade reading level. They say what they mean and meas what they say. If we have other ideas about how we are saved, we should change them to agree with God's word.

 

[e.r.m.]

Seriously? No scriptural evidence for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

Rom 4:6,

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,​

Rom 3:27,

Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.​

Rom 11:6,

And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.​

Grace and works are not partners. They are diametrically opposed to each other. We don't need a little grace and a little work to be saved. That's Christianity 101.

Gal 2:16,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.​

Not a word about any part we play in being justified by Jesus Christ. It's by his faith, not ours that we are saved. We only confess Jesus is Lord and believe God raised him from the dead and we are saved. Even then our confessing and believing only puts us "unto" salvation. Our actual salvation was effected 2,000 years ago when we were crucified, raised, and ascended with Jesus.

Eph 2:8-9,

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
​

Must we be forced, against our will, to be baptized to be saved? That must be the case since verse 8 specifically eliminates our own self from being involved.

2Tim 1:9,

Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
​

No room for any kind of work, baptism, circumcision, communion, or anything else in these verses. And they are all pretty simple statements, about an 8th grade reading level. They say what they mean and meas what they say. If we have other ideas about how we are saved, we should change them to agree with God's word.

I said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

You said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority,

and replaced that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

with...
for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

I didn't say
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, who argues completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

I said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

It's a pretty obvious switcharoo in order to argue and provide scriptures on a different point, instead of on the one that cannot be defended, because the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, does in fact, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, say that baptism is not involved in being saved.

I don't know if you thought this switch wouldn't be noticed, but it was glaring.

There is scriptural evidence for grace, apart from works, in salvation. There is no scriptural evidence that baptism is not involved in being saved. It is unequivocally that paradigm's property and creation.

 

[Nova2216]

* Rob - Grace and works are not partners. They are diametrically opposed to each other.



* Nova - My friend you are wrong on this matter.

Grace teaches men how to be saved.

Grace teaches men how to live a holy lifestyle.

Men reacts to those instructions of the Lord by doing what the Lord commands.

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; (Titus 2:11,12)


Though the grace of God appears to all men, all men will not be saved.

WHY?

B/c only those who obey the Lord will be saved (Heb.5:9) (1Peter 1:22,23)

What does that say about faith only?


(Rom. 4) is a lesson on how to live by faith not how to become a child of God.



Lets look at Paul's conversion.

The grace of the Lord instructed Paul to -

go to Damascus
go to the street called Straight
go to Judas's house
Speak to Ananias and he will tell you what you must do. (be forgiven of sins)

Three days later Paul meets with Ananias. (Acts 9:9) (Acts 22:16)

Arise
Be Baptized
Wash Away Your Sins
Calling on the Lord


Grace instructs men how to be saved according to (Titus 2:11,12) (Acts 2:36-47) (Acts 22:16).

Men reacts to the grace of God with a faith which works according to the Lord commands. (Jn. 14:15,21) (Jn.15:10,14) (Heb.11) (1Jn 2:3-6) (Jn 6:28,29).


Belief is a work (Jn 6:28,29)


Thanks

 

[Nova2216]

Questions for Rob -

1. When were your sins forgiven by the blood of Jesus?

2. Do you believe and teach men should teach the same thing and have the same judgment? (1Cor.1:10) (Phil.3:16-19)



Two men teaching opposing doctrines may both be wrong but they cannot both be right.

 

[rrobs]

I said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

You said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority,

and replaced that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

with...
for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

I didn't say
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, who argues completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, for grace, apart from any work on our part, in salvation?

I said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

It's a pretty obvious switcharoo in order to argue and provide scriptures on a different point, instead of on the one that cannot be defended, because the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, does in fact, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, say that baptism is not involved in being saved.

I don't know if you thought this switch wouldn't be noticed, but it was glaring.

There is scriptural evidence for grace, apart from works, in salvation. There is no scriptural evidence that baptism is not involved in being saved. It is unequivocally that paradigm's property and creation.

I'm not sure what you mean by me switching, nor am I sure what you say I switched. If anything, I see you switching the conversation from getting saved to switching. If I were your daddy I'd switch you real good behind the shed. Just kidding!

 

[rrobs]

Nova2216 Rob, I hope you are doing well. I am enjoying our bible discussion.

You said speaking in Tongues proved one was saved. What do you think about his scripture? (1Cor.14:22) - 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that BELIEVE NOT:

I am doing well, thank you. I trust all is well with you also. After all, we do have Christ in us, so it'd be hard to have much of a bad day.

Ps 118:24,

This [is] the day [which] the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.​

I'm answering here because there is a low limit of words in the private system. I'm not sure of that, but it seems to be the case.

The context of 1 Cor 14 is operating the manifestations of tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy in a church gathering. The thrust is that when the members of the church are more mature, prophecy fits the bill as far as edifying those present. However, if there are many newer babes in Christ or unbelievers, then it may be more appropriate to use tongues with interpretation of tongues. Tongues with interpretation has the same effect as prophecy. They both edify, build up those that hear the message from God meant specifically for that group. It will always edify. The difference is, as verse 22 says, those who hear the tongues will be more impressed by the foreign language than by prophecy given in English (or whatever native language of those present) alone and tend to believe the supernatural operation of God's spirit within the individual giving the message.

Tongues without interpretation is for one's private prayer life and not meant to be done in a church setting. In other parts of chapter 14 it says that if there is tongues without interpretation in a church setting, the one speaking is edified but nobody else because they have no idea what that person said. It must be interpreted for the whole body to understand what was said and be edified.

Take care and have a great day in the Lord!

 

[e.r.m.]

I'm not sure what you mean by me switching, nor am I sure what you say I switched. If anything, I see you switching the conversation from getting saved to switching. If I were your daddy I'd switch you real good behind the shed. Just kidding!

Lol, you would have to have had me when you were 20.

I'll get back to you on this.

 

[rrobs]

Lol, you would have to have had me when you were 20.

I'll get back to you on this.

I'm glad you understand my humor. Thanks.

 

[sojourner]

In (John 19:30) Jesus said "it is finished".

Some claim this means man need not do anything to be saved, but then they go on to say you must believe.

Why do I need to believe if Jesus done it all on the cross?

(Jn.19:30) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


Please notice that belief is a work according to (Jn. 6:28,29)..

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


Friends, belief is a work. That means all those who teach one must believe to be saved is teaching they must do something in order to be saved.


That is not salvation by grace alone.



Thanks

It simply means the prophecies concerning Jesus had been fulfilled.

 

[e.r.m.]

I'm not sure what you mean by me switching, nor am I sure what you say I switched. If anything, I see you switching the conversation from getting saved to switching.

I don't know how you can not be sure what I said that you switched, as I listed it in such detail. I will summarize.
I started out by saying the by grace alone, through faith paradigm completely by itself and without any scriptural authority, said that baptism is not involved in getting saved. You instead of addressing that statement on baptism, gave an answer about works. I switched it back to baptism, the original topic.
The Bible does not teach that baptism is not involved in Salvation, the by grace alone through faith alone makes that assertion on its own, turning its back on the Bible in doing so.

 

[rrobs]

I don't know how you can not be sure what I said that you switched, as I listed it in such detail. I will summarize.
I started out by saying the by grace alone, through faith paradigm completely by itself and without any scriptural authority, said that baptism is not involved in getting saved. You instead of addressing that statement on baptism, gave an answer about works. I switched it back to baptism, the original topic.
The Bible does not teach that baptism is not involved in Salvation, the by grace alone through faith alone makes that assertion on its own, turning its back on the Bible in doing so.

Now I get it. Thanks for the summary.

I'm pretty sure that in the course of our conversation I've said we, as Christians, absolutely do get baptized, but not in water. Water was the type God used in the OT to point to the true baptism in holy spirit which could only occur after Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the baptism in this age of grace. It's different than John's baptism in water. John even said things were going to change, "I baptize with water, BUT he will baptize you in holy spirit..." Isn't that kind of hard to ignore when searching for the truth about baptism?

If I didn't say all that before, there it is in a summary form. So yes, you are correct. Baptism has EVERYTHING to do with salvation. It IS our salvation.

We got baptized when Jesus got baptized, so we are absolutely baptized. Without that baptism in holy spirit there is no salvation.

God bless brother.

 

[e.r.m.]

Now I get it. Thanks for the summary.

You're welcome. I'm glad that was clearer.

I'm pretty sure that in the course of our conversation I've said we, as Christians, absolutely do get baptized, but not in water. Water was the type God used in the OT to point to the true baptism in holy spirit which could only occur after Jesus' death and resurrection. That's the baptism in this age of grace. It's different than John's baptism in water. John even said things were going to change, "I baptize with water, BUT he will baptize you in holy spirit..." Isn't that kind of hard to ignore when searching for the truth about baptism?

If I didn't say all that before, there it is in a summary form. So yes, you are correct. Baptism has EVERYTHING to do with salvation. It IS our salvation.

We got baptized when Jesus got baptized, so we are absolutely baptized. Without that baptism in holy spirit there is no salvation.

God bless brother.

Yes, you have said that, but when I said
It is "only" the by grace alone through faith alone paradigm, completely by itself, and without any scriptural authority, that says that baptism is not involved in being saved.

you knew the topic of discussion was about baptism in Jesus's name in water, because you responded

No room for any kind of work, baptism, circumcision, communion, or anything else in these verses.

And still, you have been unable to furnish anything Biblical that says this baptism (in Jesus's name in water) Acts 10:47-48 is not involved in getting saved. After mentioning it several times now without a response (you try to veer the conversation toward works, then you try to veer the conversation toward baptism with the Holy Spirit), I'm getting the impression that you don't want to address it. If so, with good reason because you would have to acknowledge that there is no Biblical basis for excluding baptism in Jesus's name in water from being saved.
Until such time that you are willing to address this issue, then it stands that baptism in water in Jesus's name is part of being saved, and there's nothing in the Bible to contradict that.

And, since it appears you have many years in the Bible, it seems incredulous that you would be unaware of the passages that cite baptism in water after baptism with the Holy Spirit happened
Acts 8:36-39, Acts 10:47-48, etc.
This idea that baptism with the Holy Spirit replaced baptism in water is quickly disproved.

Thank you.
God bless as well.

 

[rrobs]

And still, you have been unable to furnish anything Biblical that says this baptism (in Jesus's name in water) Acts 10:47-48 is not involved in getting saved. After mentioning it several times now without a response (you try to veer the conversation toward works, then you try to veer the conversation toward baptism with the Holy Spirit), I'm getting the impression that you don't want to address it. If so, with good reason because you would have to acknowledge that there is no Biblical basis for excluding baptism in Jesus's name in water from being saved.

I see a few places in the scriptures that mention baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't see any of them adding "in water" as you seem want to do. Twice in this post alone.

I did address Acts, but I'll give it another go. The Apostles did not get the entire doctrine of the New Testament on the Day of Pentecost. It took time to learn, understand and put into practice the new doctrine. They had been following a doctrine for some 3,000 years and now it all changed. They couldn't absorb the changes overnight. Acts is a transition book between the OT and the NT.

Acts 21:20,

And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
​

Why can't I steer the conversation towards baptism in holy spirit? That is what the scriptures actually say! You keep steering it towards baptism in water, which the scriptures do not say is appropriate in our age of grace.

 

[Nova2216]

I see a few places in the scriptures that mention baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't see any of them adding "in water" as you seem want to do. Twice in this post alone.

I did address Acts, but I'll give it another go. The Apostles did not get the entire doctrine of the New Testament on the Day of Pentecost. It took time to learn, understand and put into practice the new doctrine. They had been following a doctrine for some 3,000 years and now it all changed. They couldn't absorb the changes overnight. Acts is a transition book between the OT and the NT.

Acts 21:20,

And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
​

Why can't I steer the conversation towards baptism in holy spirit? That is what the scriptures actually say! You keep steering it towards baptism in water, which the scriptures do not say is appropriate in our age of grace.

Rob - The Apostles did not get the entire doctrine of the New Testament on the Day of Pentecost. It took time to learn, understand and put into practice the new doctrine. They had been following a doctrine for some 3,000 years and now it all changed. They couldn't absorb the changes overnight. Acts is a transition book between the OT and the NT.


Nova - You are once again wrong my friend.

Notice what (Mt.10:19,20) and (Jn 14:26) teaches if you will.

19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. ​

The Holy Spirit was speaking through the apostles at the appropriate time.

They did not have to learn it as you claim. Therefore your argument fails.

The fact some people did not yet understand the OT Law was done away or abolished according to (Col. 2:14-17) (Eph. 2:14-17) (2Cor.3) (Rom.10:1-4) in no way means the apostles did not understand it. The apostles were there to teach the people the truth on the matter.(Jn 14:26)


Thanks

 

[rrobs]

Rob - The Apostles did not get the entire doctrine of the New Testament on the Day of Pentecost. It took time to learn, understand and put into practice the new doctrine. They had been following a doctrine for some 3,000 years and now it all changed. They couldn't absorb the changes overnight. Acts is a transition book between the OT and the NT.


Nova - You are once again wrong my friend.

Notice what (Mt.10:19,20) and (Jn 14:26) teaches if you will.

19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. ​

The Holy Spirit was speaking through the apostles at the appropriate time.

They did not have to learn it as you claim. Therefore your argument fails.

The fact some people did not yet understand the OT Law was done away or abolished according to (Col. 2:14-17) (Eph. 2:14-17) (2Cor.3) (Rom.10:1-4) in no way means the apostles did not understand it. The apostles were there to teach the people the truth on the matter.(Jn 14:26)

Thanks

Why did God inspire Peter, Paul, John, etc. to write the NT books if they instantly knew everything in one day?

Why were the Jews, including the Apostle Peter (Gal 2:11) still zealous for the law, including circumcision?

You are taking Matthew 10 and John 14 out of context. It is talking about being brought before the Roman and Jewish authorities. It has nothing to do with the mystery that is the defining characteristic of this age. God didn't even reveal it to Paul for several years after Pentecost, so how could the Apostles know about it that day?

The Apostles did have to learn the new doctrine over a period of time and therefore my claim is in fact quite valid. It's actually what the book itself says.

btw, you said "once again" I am wrong. I think you must prove me wrong one time before proving me wrong "once again." You haven't done either yet.

 

[e.r.m.]

I see a few places in the scriptures that mention baptism in the name of Jesus. I don't see any of them adding "in water" as you seem want to do. Twice in this post alone.

Have you not read?
Acts 10:47-48 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" [48] And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

I did address Acts, but I'll give it another go. The Apostles did not get the entire doctrine of the New Testament on the Day of Pentecost. It took time to learn, understand and put into practice the new doctrine. They had been following a doctrine for some 3,000 years and now it all changed. They couldn't absorb the changes overnight. Acts is a transition book between the OT and the NT.

Acts 21:20,
And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

The jews were in transition, not the book. This does not detract from what Peter said that baptism in Jesus's name (which is in water Acts 10:47-48) is for remission of sins Acts 2:38-39. The Holy Spirit was guiding Peter. Using the tagline "book in transition" instead of scripture, carry's no weight against Acts 2:38-39. It's just something people have gotten used to saying, but it makes no sense. You need scripture to say Acts 2:38-39 is not true. And why would they say that something they said earlier is not true? In fact Peter doubled down on it later on by saying baptism now saves you also through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ~1 Peter 3:21.
There was no "figuring out" later that Acts 2:38-39 was wrong, because no one else later spoke against its content. It still stands that baptism in Jesus's name in water is for the remission of sins. Peter said
Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

All is everybody for the rest of time, within our age of grace.

Why can't I steer the conversation towards baptism in holy spirit? That is what the scriptures actually say! You keep steering it towards baptism in water, which the scriptures do not say is appropriate in our age of grace.

You are welcome to continue avoiding, thereby reinforcing, that there's nothing "written" in the Bible that contradicts baptism in Jesus's name (which is in water Acts 10:47-48) is for remission of sins Acts 2:38-39 for all for the rest of time.