John 1:12 But as many as received him...

[bird]

QUOTEThe problem here is that John doesn't equate receiving Jesus in this verse with already being saved or being children of God, but with being given the right to become children of God. Receiving Jesus, believing in his name, put them on the path, it did not seal the deal. Once they do become children of God, then all those differences apply.QUOTE
It would be interesting to know when you consider that they do have the deal sealed and become children of God. To me, the power to become sons of God is equivalent to the Holy Spirit, which is given to them already at the point that they are born from above. The Holy Spirit gives them the ability to believe and that is the same Holy Spirit that gives them the cry to their Father, God. To me, this statement that they have the power to become sons of God (John 1:12) doesn't mean that at some future time they will become sons but means that the power (the Holy Spirit) has enabled them to become what they are right then. The scripture says that they believe on his name and that means that they are saved. Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Certainly, a person who believes on Christ unto salvation is then on a path, but their actions on the path are empowered by God's gift of grace and they do not do anything in their own strength to make them more worthy of salvation. A person who is truly saved will by nature of who they have become begin walking God's path. I suppose some might consider that persons become saved once they die in the body and go on to a heavenly existence, but that does not seem right to me. Jesus was called God's son as soon as the Holy Spirit descended upon him while he was still walking around in the flesh on earth: "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my belovedSon, in whom I am well pleased." (Mat 3:17)

John 1:12-13 says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal 4:6)
For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.(Romans 8:15)

Thanks for discussing the Bible and I will chat with you again if you like when I return to the computer this evening.

 

[e.r.m.]

Bird,
Are you aware you can use the reply button at the bottom of the post you're replying to? This will automatically separate the post from your reply?

To me, the power to become sons of God is equivalent to the Holy Spirit, which is given to them already at the point that they are born from above.

I believe the Holy Spirit is given to them at that point, but not equivalent to it.

The Holy Spirit gives them the ability to believe and that is the same Holy Spirit that gives them the cry to their Father, God.

Agreed.

To me, this statement that they have the power to become sons of God (John 1:12) doesn't mean that at some future time they will become sons but means that the power (the Holy Spirit) has enabled them to become what they are right then.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it means to you, or me or anyone. It only matters what it meant to John when he wrote it, because that's what the Holy Spirit communicated to him. John wrote what he meant, He gave them the right/power/authority TO BECOME children of God.
Adding to this or altering in any way, because of one's personal preference, is wrong.

The scripture says that they believe on his name and that means that they are saved. Mark 16:16 says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The scripture says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. We can discuss why, where baptism is not included in the second part of the verse doesn't change this at all, later on. But for now the verse you quoted says both are involved in getting saved, not just belief.

 

[bird]

Bird,
Are you aware you can use the reply button at the bottom of the post you're replying to? This will automatically separate the post from your reply?

I believe the Holy Spirit is given to them at that point, but not equivalent to it.

Agreed.

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it means to you, or me or anyone. It only matters what it meant to John when he wrote it, because that's what the Holy Spirit communicated to him. John wrote what he meant, He gave them the right/power/authority TO BECOME children of God.
Adding to this or altering in any way, because of one's personal preference, is wrong.

The scripture says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. We can discuss why, where baptism is not included in the second part of the verse doesn't change this at all, later on. But for now the verse you quoted says both are involved in getting saved, not just belief.

Hi, thanks for discussing. Of course it matters only what God intended when he used the word 'power'. To me it seems to say that the Holy Spirit is the power to become a child of God. It is God's empowerment from above. Your take is what it seems to you. Of course we are both looking to line up with the real intent. The question I was hoping you would actually address is exactly when you consider a person actually becomes a child of God if not at the moment of being born from above. Can you address this? As regards baptism, I see this as occurring at the moment of belief. Baptism simply means to be washed of ones sins (in other words to have one's sins forgiven).

 

[psychoslice]

Thank you.
I don't think "seeing beyond" is a good descriptor, but rather "overlooking" or "ignoring".

With all due respect, to describe the words as "mere" is presumptuous. People often say that when they don't understand the words or just don't like them.
Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. [13] Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

The words themselves are powerful. One can't see "more" than the words if he/she doesn't yet understand the words. It's like trying to understand algebra without first understanding arithmetic.

I agree partly with
The bible has been interpret literally for too long,

Interpreting is bad. The authors had their own message in mind when they wrote it. It's that message we should be seeking, not our own. Some parts of the Bible are intended as literal.

Acts 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)

There was literally a Roman Emperor Claudius, who was succeeded by Nero.

Other parts are allegorical or metaphorical, like the parables, which are not meant to be taken literally.

Lets face it, we don't know, we don't really know what the bible says, its been changed over many years, and I'm sure you realize that.

 

[e.r.m.]

Lets face it, we don't know, we don't really know what the bible says, its been changed over many years, and I'm sure you realize that.

Dead sea scrolls show that it wasn't.

Are you on a campaign or something? I address one and you pop up with another one.

 

[metis]

My take on this is that "believe" is used in terms of one having a commitment and not just some nice thought. Therefore, no commitment equals no real belief.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hi, thanks for discussing. Of course it matters only what God intended when he used the word 'power'. To me it seems to say that the Holy Spirit is the power to become a child of God. It is God's empowerment from above.

I believe the Holy Spirit plays a part. John 16:8-11. I don't see any scriptural evidence that the Holy is the power and that they can be used interchangeably.

Your take is what it seems to you. Of course we are both looking to line up with the real intent.

Agreed.

The question I was hoping you would actually address is exactly when you consider a person actually becomes a child of God if not at the moment of being born from above. Can you address this? As regards baptism, I see this as occurring at the moment of belief. Baptism simply means to be washed of ones sins (in other words to have one's sins forgiven).

According to Mark 16:16. We are saved with belief and baptism. There are other aspects, but Mark 16:16 doesn't stand alone. Baptism as described in Mark 16:16 is the same as in Matthew 28:19; they are baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:47-48, show that baptism in Jesus's name is in water. Hence, Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, the baptism for salvation, forgiveness of sins, respectively, are water baptisms. Also involved in getting saved are repentance Acts 2:38, and confessing with our lips, Jesus is Lord Romans 10:9-10.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[e.r.m.]

My take on this is that "believe" is used in terms of one having a commitment and not just some nice thought. Therefore, no commitment equals no real belief.

I agree.

 

[bird]

I believe the Holy Spirit plays a part. John 16:8-11. I don't see any scriptural evidence that the Holy is the power and that they can be used interchangeably.

.

Thanks for discussing. I think Acts 1:8 might be a good verse to show that 'power' is equated with the Holy Spirit: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

 

[psychoslice]

Dead sea scrolls show that it wasn't.

Are you on a campaign or something? I address one and you pop up with another one.

No, I'm just sharing what I feel is true, nothing else.

 

[bird]

According to Mark 16:16. We are saved with belief and baptism. There are other aspects, but Mark 16:16 doesn't stand alone. Baptism as described in Mark 16:16 is the same as in Matthew 28:19; they are baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:47-48, show that baptism in Jesus's name is in water. Hence, Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, the baptism for salvation, forgiveness of sins, respectively, are water baptisms. Also involved in getting saved are repentance Acts 2:38, and confessing with our lips, Jesus is Lord Romans 10:9-10.

I enjoyed the other aspects you mention, like repentance and confession, though these are evidence that a person is saved and not something that a person can do in their own strength to be saved, like saying to yourself "I'll just say Jesus is Lord and that will make me saved.", as you probably agree with me about. Concerning baptism in physical water: The Bible is written in parable form (Psalm 78:2) and words in it are not always surface text in terms of meaning. The word 'water', for example, in the Bible, is not really alluding to the need for physical water in places like Acts 10:47-48. The person baptized there was using physical water most likely, but the parable meaning of the word 'water' goes beyond physical water there. Water in the Bible is a parable word for "the word of God". We see this in Ephesians 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,". In Acts 10:47 we read, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" This is pointing out that no one can forbid the word of God, not that no one can forbid physical water. The reason no one can forbid the word of God (who incidentally is also Jesus), is that God has just given the persons the Holy Spirit. For example, the thief on the cross who was saved did not need physical water to save him, nor could physical water wash away his sins. Rather, this thief turned to Jesus and Jesus told him that he would be in paradise with him. In other words, saved without ever having dunked in physical water.

It seems from your further response to my query about when a person becomes a child of God, that we would be on the same page about it being the moment that they believe in verity except for the baptism issue perhaps. Or perhaps there is some other time which the word 'power' necessitates in your mind. Are you saying that a person could believe in the Lord in verity on Tuesday but not become a child of God until he gets dunked in physical water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost on a later day, for example Sunday following. He would only be a child of God after Sunday, not on Tuesday when he came to believe on the Lord? Could you address this?
Thanks for discussing the Bible, as always.

 

[e.r.m.]

Bird,

I enjoyed the other aspects you mention, like repentance and confession, though these are evidence that a person is saved and not something that a person can do in their own strength to be saved, like saying to yourself "I'll just say Jesus is Lord and that will make me saved.", as you probably agree with me about.

From your previous posts, I get the idea of how you think, I am familiar with your school of thought that regeneration comes from the Holy Spirit first followed by everything else, and it may seem to you like I'm turning everything on its head. But one of us is upside down and the other one is right side up, or we're both wrong. Regarding just saying Jesus is Lord, it says confess, not say. One confesses with his lips that Jesus is his master. I studied this deeply looking at the greek and came to the conclusion that it is a verbal surrender to Jesus that he will call the shots from now on, and that the confession is made to Jesus, even though others may be around to hear it.

That according to Romans 10:9-10 does lead to salvation.

Concerning baptism in physical water: The Bible is written in parable form (Psalm 78:2) and words in it are not always surface text in terms of meaning. The word 'water', for example, in the Bible, is not really alluding to the need for physical water in places like Acts 10:47-48. The person baptized there was using physical water most likely, but the parable meaning of the word 'water' goes beyond physical water there. Water in the Bible is a parable word for "the word of God". We see this in Ephesians 5:26: "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,". In Acts 10:47 we read, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" This is pointing out that no one can forbid the word of God, not that no one can forbid physical water. The reason no one can forbid the word of God (who incidentally is also Jesus), is that God has just given the persons the Holy Spirit.

I agree, it can be used allegorically, but that doesn't mean we get to choose arbitrarily where we want it to apply allegorically. Jehovah Witnesses try to use the same technique with Acts 1:11, saying that we will "see" Jesus return means we will "see" him with our mind's eye or something, but not literally, though the verse says "in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

The Bible gives indicators where it is used literally or in some other way like in Acts 1:11. Acts 10:47-48 shows that he is talking about physical water
“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized in water... So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Peter cannot order that they be baptized into the word allegorically, and even if it was remotely possible, the parallels of people being baptized with water are only with with physical water.

Acts 8:36, 39 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [39] When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
In fact, they even use the same expression, Acts 10:47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized
It never says the crowd was baptized into the word.

For example, the thief on the cross who was saved did not need physical water to save him, nor could physical water wash away his sins. Rather, this thief turned to Jesus and Jesus told him that he would be in paradise with him. In other words, saved without ever having dunked in physical water.

For that matter, neither were the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, the paralytic whose friends put him through the roof, and Zacchaeus baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins. I do wish people would "try" to think of how we might respond to that, or that we might already have answer for that, or that since this is the oldest argument, that this might also be the oldest debunked argument. No disrespect intended and in the most gentlest way, I have a hard time understanding why people don't look at the thief on the cross and baptism more deeply other than using him as a casual reference.

The first time baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit was ever commanded was in Matthew 28:19, after the thief died. The thief would not be expected to follow this command that was given only after he was dead.
In the meantime, Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins directly Luke 5:24, overriding the necessary animal sacrifices that were required at the time, an authority he apparently used with the thief.

It seems from your further response to my query about when a person becomes a child of God, that we would be on the same page about it being the moment that they believe in verity except for the baptism issue perhaps. Or perhaps there is some other time which the word 'power' necessitates in your mind.

The greek doesn't say "power", it says "right/authority/power". It's a word that could be used in any of these, or all of these ways. They were given the priviledge and ability to choose and to act to become children of God. The Father enabled them, he did not force them, and now they could choose to move forward with the decision to become children of God. This is a right and a priviledge, because those who do not give Jesus their belief are not given this right and ability.

Are you saying that a person could believe in the Lord in verity on Tuesday but not become a child of God until he gets dunked in physical water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost on a later day, for example Sunday following. He would only be a child of God after Sunday, not on Tuesday when he came to believe on the Lord? Could you address this?

No, it's the scripture that is saying this. But understand, you are probably accustomed to equating believe and saved as almost the same word, so to hear them spoken of as two distinct things, may seem a sacriledge to you. There is always God's part (Grace, love, Jesus, the cross, the blood), and man's response since God won't force us (the privilege and choice to become children of God). Belief is not synonymous with saved, but it is definitely required. Only God/Jesus saves, we don't save ourselves, no matter how much we believe. Belief is our response. God set forth our reponse or rather our responses through Jesus and the apostles that are man's part in being saved (by God) Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized, Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized in Jesus's name, Romans 10:9-10 believe and confess Jesus as our master. Acts 2:44 referred to believers as those whose had accepted the message, repented, and been baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Thanks for discussing the Bible, as always.

You too. I admire your respectful tone.

 

[bird]

Bird,

I studied this deeply looking at the greek and came to the conclusion that it is a verbal surrender to Jesus that he will call the shots from now on, and that the confession is made to Jesus, even though others may be around to hear it.

Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too, though I suppose saying Jesus is Lord also means pretty much realizing that he is the one in charge of all things irregardless and not just from now on, but always has and will be. Still, I get your point that he is the Lord of the individual who has been converted on a direct personal level. Actually, I can get kind of excited about our similarity in that, confession being made to Jesus directly without other impediments.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes, that's pretty much how I see it too, though I suppose saying Jesus is Lord also means pretty much realizing that he is the one in charge of all things irregardless and not just from now on, but always has and will be. Still, I get your point that he is the Lord of the individual who has been converted on a direct personal level. Actually, I can get kind of excited about our similarity in that, confession being made to Jesus directly without other impediments.

Agreed. Cool.

 

[bird]

I agree, it can be used allegorically, but that doesn't mean we get to choose arbitrarily where we want it to apply allegorically.

To you it seems arbitrary. To me not. I have appreciated getting to understand a bit of your thinking, as you have been very communicative, so thanks. I would say that the issue of allegory and parable language is one of the biggest differences we have in Bible approach. I tend to find the Bible absolutely teeming with parable language. I believe this is because the Bible itself is written intentionally in parable language (Psalm 78:2). Mark 4 explains that God teaches his own persons many things by parables, but that those who are unsaved see the Bible as a parable that they do not understand. Surface reading of the Bible has, in my opinion, caused so much misunderstanding as people endeavor to be obedient to a surface text which seems to have so many conditions of physical observances necessary to please God. Some religious groups read these surface instructions, or sometimes just a few of these surface messages, as if they are the whole or intended message. Rather, when Jesus taught his own how to interpret parables, we find that a surface word may be quite different from the actual or intended message. For example, 'good ground' was not really backyard dirt, but those 'who hear the word, receive it and bring forth fruit.' So it is with interpreting all of the Bible.

 

[bird]

The first time baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit was ever commanded was in Matthew 28:19, after the thief died. The thief would not be expected to follow this command that was given only after he was dead.
In the meantime, Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins directly Luke 5:24, overriding the necessary animal sacrifices that were required at the time, an authority he apparently used with the thief.

I think Jesus still has the authority to forgive sins directly without any physical rituals. This means that if a believer shares the gospel with a person that other person can be converted in their heart and be washed in the spiritual sense right then and that this is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But then it seems you know that is what I think. To me, the baptism in physical water seems to be reverting to legalism if it becomes a condition for salvation and even sinful if thought of like that. To me, it seems like it would be saying 'You have been converted to believe on the Lord by his action. Now, to make the deal real do three situps....or recite this mantra...or eat this apple..."

 

[e.r.m.]

To you it seems arbitrary. To me not. I have appreciated getting to understand a bit of your thinking, as you have been very communicative, so thanks. I would say that the issue of allegory and parable language is one of the biggest differences we have in Bible approach. I tend to find the Bible absolutely teeming with parable language. I believe this is because the Bible itself is written intentionally in parable language (Psalm 78:2). Mark 4 explains that God teaches his own persons many things by parables, but that those who are unsaved see the Bible as a parable that they do not understand. Surface reading of the Bible has, in my opinion, caused so much misunderstanding as people endeavor to be obedient to a surface text which seems to have so many conditions of physical observances necessary to please God. Some religious groups read these surface instructions, or sometimes just a few of these surface messages, as if they are the whole or intended message. Rather, when Jesus taught his own how to interpret parables, we find that a surface word may be quite different from the actual or intended message. For example, 'good ground' was not really backyard dirt, but those 'who hear the word, receive it and bring forth fruit.' So it is with interpreting all of the Bible.

I agree, that is a foundational difference on how we think. Jesus did speak in a lot of parables and he even spoke allegorically at times and not explain that is was a parable. Acts 11:28 NIV

One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)

Bird,


From your previous posts, I get the idea of how you think, I am familiar with your school of thought that regeneration comes from the Holy Spirit first followed by everything else, and it may seem to you like I'm turning everything on its head. But one of us is upside down and the other one is right side up, or we're both wrong. Regarding just saying Jesus is Lord, it says confess, not say. One confesses with his lips that Jesus is his master. I studied this deeply looking at the greek and came to the conclusion that it is a verbal surrender to Jesus that he will call the shots from now on, and that the confession is made to Jesus, even though others may be around to hear it.


That according to Romans 10:9-10 does lead to salvation.



I agree, it can be used allegorically, but that doesn't mean we get to choose arbitrarily where we want it to apply allegorically. Jehovah Witnesses try to use the same technique with Acts 1:11, saying that we will "see" Jesus return means we will "see" him with our mind's eye or something, but not literally, though the verse says "in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."


The Bible gives indicators where it is used literally or in some other way like in Acts 1:11. Acts 10:47-48 shows that he is talking about physical water

“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized in water... So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.


Peter cannot order that they be baptized into the word allegorically, and even if it was remotely possible, the parallels of people being baptized with water are only with with physical water.


Acts 8:36, 39 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, , the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.

In fact, they even use the same expression, Acts 10:47 “Surely no one

It never says the crowd was baptized into the word.


For that matter, neither were the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, the paralytic whose friends put him through the roof, and Zacchaeus baptized in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins. I do wish people would "try" to think of how we might respond to that, or that we might already have answer for that, or that since this is the oldest argument, that this might also be the oldest debunked argument. No disrespect intended and in the most gentlest way, I have a hard time understanding why people don't look at the thief on the cross and baptism more deeply other than using him as a casual reference.


The first time baptism in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit was ever commanded was in Matthew 28:19, after the thief died. The thief would not be expected to follow this command that was given only after he was dead.

In the meantime, Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins directly Luke 5:24, overriding the necessary animal sacrifices that were required at the time, an authority he apparently used with the thief.


The greek doesn't say "power", it says "right/authority/power". It's a word that could be used in any of these, or all of these ways. They were given the priviledge and ability to choose and to act to become children of God. The Father enabled them, he did not force them, and now they could choose to move forward with the decision to become children of God. This is a right and a priviledge, because those who do not give Jesus their belief are not given this right and ability.


No, it's the scripture that is saying this. But understand, you are probably accustomed to equating believe and saved as almost the same word, so to hear them spoken of as two distinct things, may seem a sacriledge to you. There is always God's part (Grace, love, Jesus, the cross, the blood), and man's response since God won't force us (the privilege and choice to become children of God). Belief is not synonymous with saved, but it is definitely required. Only God/Jesus saves, we don't save ourselves, no matter how much we believe. Belief is our response. God set forth our reponse or rather our responses through Jesus and the apostles that are man's part in being saved (by God) Mark 16:16 believe and be baptized, Acts 2:38 repent and be baptized in Jesus's name, Romans 10:9-10 believe and confess Jesus as our master. Acts 2:44 referred to believers as those whose had accepted the message, repented, and been baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.


You too. I admire your respectful tone.

To you it seems arbitrary. To me not. I have appreciated getting to understand a bit of your thinking, as you have been very communicative, so thanks. I would say that the issue of allegory and parable language is one of the biggest differences we have in Bible approach. I tend to find the Bible absolutely teeming with parable language. I believe this is because the Bible itself is written intentionally in parable language (Psalm 78:2). Mark 4 explains that God teaches his own persons many things by parables, but that those who are unsaved see the Bible as a parable that they do not understand. Surface reading of the Bible has, in my opinion, caused so much misunderstanding as people endeavor to be obedient to a surface text which seems to have so many conditions of physical observances necessary to please God. Some religious groups read these surface instructions, or sometimes just a few of these surface messages, as if they are the whole or intended message. Rather, when Jesus taught his own how to interpret parables, we find that a surface word may be quite different from the actual or intended message. For example, 'good ground' was not really backyard dirt, but those 'who hear the word, receive it and bring forth fruit.' So it is with interpreting all of the Bible.

I agree that is a foundational difference on how we think.
I agree that Jesus spoke in parables, he even spoke allegorically sometimes when he was not speaking about parables

John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”


But no, the whole Bible is not written that way.

There are limits to that.

Acts 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.)

There actually was a Roman Emperor named Claudius, he was succeeded by Nero.
When Jesus gave instructions to get the mule, it wasn't allegory. I think I've shown sufficient evidence to show the water in Acts 10:47-48 was physical water, and hence also applying to Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, and Acts 2:38.

I messed up the formatting at the beginning, but I don't have time to go back and fix it. Sorry.

 

[e.r.m.]

I think Jesus still has the authority to forgive sins directly without any physical rituals.

Granted, not that I would call baptism a ritual. I think the way some groups do it they turn it into a ritual, and so many are accustomed to think of it that way. But I get your meaning, that Jesus still has the authority to forgive sins directly without water baptism. The issue isn't if Jesus has the authority, but what he decided to do with that authority. In Matthew 18:19 Jesus said he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth, , go make disciples and baptizing them. Mark 16:16 gives the purpose of belief and baptism, for salvation.

This means that if a believer shares the gospel with a person that other person can be converted in their heart and be washed in the spiritual sense right then and that this is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I've never seen a verse that mentions a figurative baptism in any of their names. I have seen one in water though, Acts 10:47-48.

It's understandable that if a person has been conditioned to believe that salvation is obtained at the moment of faith, then anything after would be considered extra. By the same token, I'm sure you can understand that if salvation actually culminates with both belief and baptism, then considering a person saved at just belief is cutting things short. Your group says, "a person is already saved, why add baptism to that?" We believe scriptures say "Good you believe, now what are you waiting for, get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name." History unequivocally shows that things started with belief and baptism for salvation, as there is no mention of faith only salvation any where until the pre-reformation, at which point, baptism was for the first time cut out of the salvation picture.

But then it seems you know that is what I think. To me, the baptism in physical water seems to be reverting to legalism if it becomes a condition for salvation and even sinful if thought of like that. To me, it seems like it would be saying 'You have been converted to believe on the Lord by his action. Now, to make the deal real do three situps....or recite this mantra...or eat this apple..."

If God wanted us to stand on our head and gargle peanut butter, He's God, we're not. (I say that more out of humor, cause my friend used to say that.) Legalism is a sorely misunderstood topic, because the popular definition has overtaken the biblical definition. The biblical definition only makes legalism a reference point to the Mosaic law. If anything is not of the Mosaic law, then is not legalistic, from a scriptural standpoint. Being that belief is not synonymous with conversion; then one does not do the action in order to believe, but believes, and then does the action; after both are present, the person is considered converted. In simpler terms, it makes no sense to say a person gets baptized in order to believe. Believe and saved are not synonymous. But one believes and is baptized, in order to be saved.

When Peter followed Jesus's instruction from Mark 16:16, and told the crowd to repent and be baptized in Jesus's name, the crowd did not object saying it was wrong or legalistic. Scripturally, there is nothing contradictory with a gracious God saving people when they believe and are baptized, particularly, since it's God's idea, Mark 16:16. The only thing that makes people think it is wrong and cringe on the inside, are the commentaries regarding the scripture that they've heard and been conditioned to.

 

[Muffled]

Receive in this passage in an action word. They received Jesus as opposed to not receiving him vs. 11. They simply were open to believing what Jesus had to say.
The phrase "One either receives Him or one does not."
is based on John Calvin's 1527 "receiving salvation" method of getting saved, which is not what is being described in John 1:12.

I believe one does not become a child by simple belief. One can be a disciple that way but not a child.

I see no evidence to support that theory. I don't always agree with Calvin. I believe one receives the Savior in order to be saved. I don't believe salvation is a gift that comes separately from the savior.

 

[Muffled]

He isn't giving over His authority, but granting them an authority. There is a difference?

I believe that is a mistranslation. Mine says "right." I disagree. I believe He grants the ability to be children of God. I don't believe it is a right and it certainly is contigent on a person receiving Him and believing in Hiim. I still do not believe God is granting us an authority. I believe one could say that He authorizes our childhood, again His authority that He does not share or give away.