I've explained to you enough on my point of you only using Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:38 MUST BE OBEYED!
Acts 2:38 is not the whole gospel in its entirety!
FOR IT DOES NOT MENTION BELIEF.
Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I've explained to you enough on my point of you only using Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:38 MUST BE OBEYED!
Acts 2:38 is not the whole gospel in its entirety!
FOR IT DOES NOT MENTION BELIEF.
Thinking is not work?
How do you make a living if you can't think of what you are doing?
Is the brain part of the process of all mankind when they work or not?
The brain needs not function only when it comes to religion?
Are you saying Peter told unbelievers that asked him "what shall we do", to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins?
Or, did Peter assume they believed per "what shall we do"?
Per "what shall we do", did Peter respond saying to the 3000 to say the sinners prayer?
Or, did Peter tell them to confess Jesus?
Or, did Peter tell the "Jesus did it already, so you need to do nothing more"?
Or, did Peter tell the to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins?
Choose wisely.
Or, did Peter tell them to confess Jesus?
Or, did Peter tell the "Jesus did it already, so you need to do nothing more"?
Or, did Peter tell the to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins?
Choose wisely.
I commend you on receiving the Holy Ghost in 1963, but would like to encourage you to be baptized in the precious name of Jesus, as per Cornelius’ household in Acts 10:44-48. Peter didn’t “suggest” water baptism after they all received the Holy Ghost, he COMMANDED it.
From the birth and inauguration of the Church Jesus established until this very day, Jesus’ Death, Burial and Resurrection are essential elements of the Gospel Message, AND the New Covenant Plan of Salvation.
Much of what Jesus said and did was for the benefit of those who witnessed it 2000 years ago, as well as those of us who read about it, today.
Nobody can add to what Jesus did, or the price He paid. However, His Followers did follow His example, and in Footsteps (then and now), in the New Covenant Plan of Salvation process, symbolically ...
We identify, with His Death through Repentance (dying out to sin, self and the world).
We identify with His Burial (a complete entombment) AND take His Name upon us when they are buried with Him in Baptism.
And we identify with His Resurrection when we receive a Spiritual Heart Transplant by the delivering power of the Holy Ghost, to walk in the new life in Christ.
Even if we don’t agree with, or understand, the details, the importance of following precise instructions, and paying attention to details, are throughout the Bible. The Ark wouldn’t have floated if Noah had’t done everything according to God’s plan. And Naaman’s Leprosy wouldn’t have been cured, had he only dipped in the Jordan River 6 times.
This is NOT meant as a rebuke. Instead, it is meant as a caring admonition. Please don’t resist or reject what both Jesus and Peter COMMANDED.
Last edited:
Bob Carabbio
Well-Known Member
Chuckle!! Nope!! R.E. Mc ALister is the false teacher who introduced his "Oneness" perversion into the Pentecostal Revival, and was making inroads into the newly formed Assemblies of God Denomination, until in 1916, the AG AFFIRMED the Trinitarian theology, and Shed the McAlisteites, and their "theology".
Obviously, then, by your standards, I was never a "Christian" at all, and I'll be hell-bound shortly when I run out of time. Quite a few other "Theological paradigms" agree with you.
Oh Well.
Never heard of that guy.
I read Acts 2.
It explicitly says this....
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Are you in full agreement with Peter, partial agreement or no agreement?
Well, half-right, which seems to be a recurring pattern. But yes, just as fire in the Bible (and other places, too) is not always literal fire, so to is water not always indicative of literal water (H2O). As for the second half of this... well, remark... simplicity is not the issue; rather it is your seeing things in an overly simplistic way. Yes, the Bible is not hard to understand, so in that sense, what God says is at least fairly simple. It is not, however, simplistic.
Here too is part of the issue, but really the same issue (simplistic understanding). The presence of the conjunction ('and') does not necessarily indicate one thing on one side of the and and another entirely different thing on the other. In many cases, it's all one thing... in the case of John 3:5, the work of the Spirit in conferring new birth within the person, which is Jesus's entire context in that passage.
Again, two very different things. They're very closely related, but very different. One (Mark 16) is referring to the baptism not of men and literal water, but by the Spirit ~ birth of water and the Spirit. The other (Acts 2:38) is quite the opposite.
Again, simple, yes, but not simplistic.
Grace and peace to you.
Bob Carabbio
Well-Known Member
Since being Baptized in the name of "Jesus Only" has nothing to do with being Born again, and becoming a Christian, then obviously there's a PROBLEM with your Paradigm about it. Surprised you never heard of R.E. McAlister, since it's His false teaching you're parroting. He went on to teach that if you haven't "Spoken in Tongues" you ain't Saved at all, magic baptism not withstanding.
Simple as that. Believe whatever you please
LOL! "Can't get enough of you"? I don't even know what that means... So, brushing all silliness aside...
No, I think you should try reading what I said again. Wow. Anyway, no, to be very succinct, Jesus saves, and the ark, while only an inanimate object in Noah's story, represents Jesus, Who "carries us through the flood" and preserves us unto life. We are in Christ, which is ~ albeit in a much larger (even infinitely so) ~ sense shown, or alluded to, by Noah and his family being in the ark.
No, of course not. Read what I have written again.
Agreed, but you are missing the point. Read what I said before again.
LOL! Water destroyed the world. God promised Noah, after the waters had subsided, to never again destroy the earth in that manner, right? The ark carried Noah and his family through the water, which destroyed everything. Wow. God sent water upon the whole earth in His judgment upon the earth.
Could have, yes, but that's quite irrelevant.
It was the vehicle (figuratively speaking, of course) of salvation. And representative of Jesus in Noah's story, Who is God's true Vehicle (again, figuratively speaking, but with a capital 'V') of salvation. Or, put another way, the ark was Noah's deliverer through the flood, representative of Jesus, Who, in an infinitely larger sense, is our true Deliverer.
LOL! How very dispensational. Wow. Let's look again at what Peter actually says:
"...God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water." (1 Peter 3:20) ... "...(God) did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly..." (2 Peter 2:5)
Now, you say that "water destroyed the wicked." I most assuredly, wholeheartedly agree with that; the flood was God's judgment upon the world, the wicked, and points forward to what will happen after the final Judgment, which will occur upon Jesus's return. But to say the water "delivered the righteous from the destruction of the world" is just incredibly wrong.
The ark delivered the righteous through the flood, which was sent upon the world by God in His judgment of the world and thereby caused the destruction of the world. This is exactly what God told Noah He was going to do in Genesis 6:17 ~ "For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die."
And then in the very next verse, Genesis 6:18... it begins with the conjunction 'but,' which indicates a stark contrast to what has just been said. God tells Noah of His vehicle of deliverance... of preserving Noah and his family through the flood: "But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you." In this way, God kept Noah and his family (and the animals, too, of course) ~ alive... He provided the means of delivering them though the flood and thus preserved them and their lives. This is a picture of what God is doing for us, having provided the means of our deliverance in the Person of Jesus Christ.
Absolutely.
No, that would be the ark. And the ark represents... points to... the true Deliverer, Christ Jesus.
No, the ark lifted them out of the thing ~ water, which is representative of all of our trial and tribulation ~ that caused the destruction of the world.
Faith, Titus, is the God-given assurance of of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is Hebrews 11:1. An assurance assures us that something ~ in this case, our salvation ~ is secure, but is not the vehicle of that thing.
We don't worship water, and we don't worship faith. We worship a Person, that Person being the triune God. God saves. By the will of the Father, the work of the Son, and the working of the Spirit. God saves.
Nope. See above.
I'm just, well, sort of bewildered as to how you could get any of this out of what I have said. My goodness.
Hm. Well, this is another conversation. I mean, I agree with you just about the word used, but that's only the surface of the issue that we've been talking about. First I'll say that I have been addressing your simplistic understanding of what this water really is, and to that I'll just point out the encounter that the woman, in John 4, has with Jesus at the well:
"A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, 'Give me a drink.' (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, 'How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and Who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink," you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.' The woman said to him, 'Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.' Jesus said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.'” (John 4:7-14)
Now... Was the water that Jesus was talking about here (in the bolded quotes) mere, um, H2O? Literal water? Surely your answer would be no...
As for what you way here about water immersion (and it also applies to our discussion about water, by the way), let me just throw this out there for you. Though Ezekiel, God says:
"I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses." (Ezekiel 36:24-29, emphasis added)
Yeah, okay, but that's not even remotely what I said. Never would I say such a thing.
LOL!
Grace and peace to you.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Peter taught the water delivered Noah from the world,
1Peter 3:20-21.
Pinseeker, Your interpretation,
1Peter 3:20-21
Which sometime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by The Ark Noah built.
Hahaha,
Now the true translation of1Peter 3:20-21
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism(water immersion) doth also now save us
Nice try again, scripture twister!
I see you just can't leave me alone can you.
Calvinism is not a religion. Calvinism consists of John Calvin's writings/understandings of Biblical Christianity.
LOL! See above.
Right, because it is not. As Peter says:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 3-5)
I have cited other passages (like Paul in Romans 8 and Philippians 1 and Jude ~ and even Jesus Himself in Matthew and John), but they all say essentially the same thing as Peter here. I still have yet to hear anyone ~ anyone ~ offer any alternative understanding.
It matters not what John Calvin allowed or disallowed (as if he did either one...).
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Pinseeker proved me correct.
He will never denounce the false religion known as calvinism.
Nope. See above.
They weren't literally (or simplistically) saved by the ark that Noah built. The ark represents what Noah and His family were saved by, and we can look at Hebrews 13 and easily see that, "(b)y faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household." So, Titus, your interpretation of my interpretation... :)... is, well, not quite correct, but... allowable. :)
What it actually says, Titus, is (quoting):
"...when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water." (1 Peter 3:20)
The water is not what saves, but being brought through water, which can only happen if someone (or in the case of Noah and his family, something, which points forward to the true Something, which is actually Someone) does it.
Peter is most assuredly talking about spiritual baptism in this verse. The very same baptism that Jesus was speaking of to Nicodemus in John 3 ("Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God") and the Samarian woman at the well in John 4 ("Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.")
It... doth not. :) Effectual baptism is not performed by men but by the Spirit, as is so evident in the above scriptural passages. And total immersion is not Biblical, either, as irrefutably demonstrated in the previous post, especially Ezekiel 36. But if people want to do it that way, it's... okay. :)
Call me what you will. It bothers me not.
It's you who is prolonging this conversation, Titus. Not me, you. If you want it to stop, then stop. :)
In Bizarro world, I guess... :)
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Um, No!
Here is something everyone can learn from.
When a passage uses clear simple to understand words like saved BY water
Or saved THROUGH water
Or similar too, Ephesians 2:8 Through faith.
And then someone comes along and tells you.
That verse there that says" saved by water" does not really mean what it says.
Here let me tell you what it really is saying.
WARNING: There is a good chance you are dealing with a false teacher.
I suggest we believe what Peter said in 1Peter 3:20-21.
And not in Pinseekers interpretation of it.
Pinseeker cannot be correct.
Peter said water immersion now saves us in verse 21.
If Noah's ark is what Peter meant when he said water saved Noah). Can you even believe someone who would tell Peter he is not saying water but Noah's ark!)
Then the like figure today that saves us must be Noah's Ark , not Immersion.
So according to Pinseeker,
Peter was wrong when he said water saved Noah it was really the Ark.
And also according to Pinseeker,
Peter was wrong when he said immersion now saves us he really meant the like figure is a boat.
I will believe what Peter said. Not you speaking for Peter
Um, yes. :)
LOL!
Ah! Stop right there. See, that's the problem, or at least part of it. It says "saved through water," not "saved by water," Titus. To say "saved by water" is a very different thing than saying "saved through water," which makes me a bit incredulous that I should even have to say. The very phrase "saved through water" strongly implies this being saved is by something or someone else. But it is what it is, I guess. Wow.
Let me offer a little parable (see what I did there?). "The pass sailed through the air to the receiver, and the play resulted in a touchdown." Now, the pass was thrown through the air. But was the pass also thrown by the air? Well no, that's a perfectly ridiculous thought, right?
Again, the problem is readily apparent. It surely does say "saved through water," but not not "saved by water," Titus. The two phrases are not equivalent and in fact very different. Again, to say "saved by water" is a very different thing than saying "saved through water," which, again, makes me a bit incredulous that I should even have to say.
You have been very clear, and proved clearly wrong.
But you even get PinSeeker's understanding of those passages incorrect (not to mention the Biblical passages themselves), so you can't make that statement with any modicum of credibility whatsoever.
As shown above, Peter was not alluding to water immersion at all, but rather the work of the Holy Spirit. And the fact that he referred specifically to Noah backs this up, because Noah... well, was on a boat (ark) and stayed bone dry. My goodness.
I actually agree with this. I never said or suggested any such thing. My goodness.
Stop putting words in my mouth, Titus.
I would never suggest otherwise. But your understanding of what Peter said is, at best, quite faulty.
Grace and peace to you.
Last edited:
Does this float your boat ... umm Ark:
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (KJV) (DRB) (ISV) (SLT) (CPDV) (WBT) (GWT), etc.
Last edited:
I guarantee Pinseeker already knows the KJV teaches BY water.
Yet it does not fit his mis-interpretation so he claims the Bible does not say "by".
Good work, user
Pinseeker uses a lame argument that the word through disproves it is the water itself that saved Noah.
Let's use Pinseekers choice of reasoning then.
In Ephesians 2:8 Paul says we are saved by Grace THROUGH Faith.
Now, if through means it is not water that saved Noah.
Then it can also mean faith does not save because it says through faith.
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
If through water is not water that saves
Then through faith is not faith itself that saves.
Similar threads
