Saved by Water
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
SophieT said:
how could a sane person imagine that a sinful human being can dunk someone in water and think they have just washed away the sins of that person
Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
There are 2 things that Paul was told to do:
1. be baptized
2. call on His name.
Which one do you think the "wash your sins away" goes with? You wrongly think #1 because of how wet your theory is, but it is #2. Noting the word "and" that separates "be baptized" from "wash your sins away, calling on His name".
Since you don't wash your own sins away, the action of being water baptized doesn't either.
However, when people put their faith in Christ, believe in Him, or call on His name, they are SAVED and their sins are washed away.
The phrase "call on His name" means to believe in Him for salvation. That's when one's sins are "washed away".
Those who MISREAD Scripture are easily led into FALSE DOCTRINE.
how could a sane person imagine that a sinful human being can dunk someone in water and think they have just washed away the sins of that person
Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
There are 2 things that Paul was told to do:
1. be baptized
2. call on His name.
Which one do you think the "wash your sins away" goes with? You wrongly think #1 because of how wet your theory is, but it is #2. Noting the word "and" that separates "be baptized" from "wash your sins away, calling on His name".
Since you don't wash your own sins away, the action of being water baptized doesn't either.
However, when people put their faith in Christ, believe in Him, or call on His name, they are SAVED and their sins are washed away.
The phrase "call on His name" means to believe in Him for salvation. That's when one's sins are "washed away".
Those who MISREAD Scripture are easily led into FALSE DOCTRINE.
And I just explained how to read Acts 22:16. I proved that you are reading that verse WRONGLY.
Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
There are 2 things that Paul was told to do:
1. be baptized
2. call on His name.
Which one do you think the "wash your sins away" goes with? You wrongly think #1 because of how wet your theory is, but it is #2. Noting the word "and" that separates "be baptized" from "wash your sins away, calling on His name".
Since you don't wash your own sins away, the action of being water baptized doesn't either.
However, when people put their faith in Christ, believe in Him, or call on His name, they are SAVED and their sins are washed away.
The phrase "call on His name" means to believe in Him for salvation. That's when one's sins are "washed away".
It is inherent in the SECOND PART of the verse. It goes with "calling on His name", which is the WAY to be saved.
No, you are just demonstrating that you can't read straight.
Paul was told to do 2 things. They are separated with the conjunction "and". On the first side is "be baptized".
On the other side is "washing away your sins, calling on His name". All that goes together.
Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that.
Your problem is your bias towards water. And misreading not only Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21.
The result is being led into false doctrine.
Acts 22:16 - And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
There are 2 things that Paul was told to do:
1. be baptized
2. call on His name.
Which one do you think the "wash your sins away" goes with? You wrongly think #1 because of how wet your theory is, but it is #2. Noting the word "and" that separates "be baptized" from "wash your sins away, calling on His name".
Since you don't wash your own sins away, the action of being water baptized doesn't either.
However, when people put their faith in Christ, believe in Him, or call on His name, they are SAVED and their sins are washed away.
The phrase "call on His name" means to believe in Him for salvation. That's when one's sins are "washed away".
It is inherent in the SECOND PART of the verse. It goes with "calling on His name", which is the WAY to be saved.
No, you are just demonstrating that you can't read straight.
Paul was told to do 2 things. They are separated with the conjunction "and". On the first side is "be baptized".
On the other side is "washing away your sins, calling on His name". All that goes together.
Anyone with a basic understanding of English knows that.
Your problem is your bias towards water. And misreading not only Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21.
The result is being led into false doctrine.
FreeGrace2 said:
You have misread 1 Pet 3:21 and Acts 22:16. And it has led you down the path of false doctrine.
Hold on a sec. You believe very strongly that you are saved by being water baptized. So simply believing that Jesus Christ is real and He died for you, BUT BUT BUT you are trusting in an action that got you all wet isn't what is called "saving faith".
Why? I was water baptized AS A SAVED believer. What shall I worry about?
Explain it. I don't know it.
You have misread 1 Pet 3:21 and Acts 22:16. And it has led you down the path of false doctrine.
Hold on a sec. You believe very strongly that you are saved by being water baptized. So simply believing that Jesus Christ is real and He died for you, BUT BUT BUT you are trusting in an action that got you all wet isn't what is called "saving faith".
Why? I was water baptized AS A SAVED believer. What shall I worry about?
Explain it. I don't know it.
-
1
- Show all
Helpful note:
The term "baptism" does not necessarily imply water baptism.
Luke
3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
There are probably some who will teach that we need to burn each other with physical fire in order to be saved. All these things are associated with dark paganism. i.e., Ritualistic salvation and rites of passage.
Would anyone be foolish enough to follow this pathway to Hell? We allow people to teach this stuff right here on CC. God have mercy on us. Many seekers come to CC with trusting minds and hearts, and then we allow that this stuff be fed to them right in our own forums. Woe unto us. We should start discussing an automatic ban on anyone teaching "salvation by rites and rituals."
The term "baptism" does not necessarily imply water baptism.
Luke
3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
There are probably some who will teach that we need to burn each other with physical fire in order to be saved. All these things are associated with dark paganism. i.e., Ritualistic salvation and rites of passage.
Would anyone be foolish enough to follow this pathway to Hell? We allow people to teach this stuff right here on CC. God have mercy on us. Many seekers come to CC with trusting minds and hearts, and then we allow that this stuff be fed to them right in our own forums. Woe unto us. We should start discussing an automatic ban on anyone teaching "salvation by rites and rituals."
FreeGrace2 said:
I don't think you have any idea what this means. In fact, Jesus is God the Son, separate from God the Father, and His human body is the Incarnation.
When separate Persons have the EXACT SAME characteristics and attributes, they are both GOD. Not 2 God's. But you just can't seem to wrap your head around it.
Probably because of all that confusion swirling through your head.
You know, claiming "they are two Persons" and then "they are the same Person".
With that kind of reasoning, there's no limit to the amount of false doctrine you are susceptible to succumb to.
I don't think you have any idea what this means. In fact, Jesus is God the Son, separate from God the Father, and His human body is the Incarnation.
When separate Persons have the EXACT SAME characteristics and attributes, they are both GOD. Not 2 God's. But you just can't seem to wrap your head around it.
Probably because of all that confusion swirling through your head.
You know, claiming "they are two Persons" and then "they are the same Person".
With that kind of reasoning, there's no limit to the amount of false doctrine you are susceptible to succumb to.
Has it not been said that the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible?
The same logic can be used when we consider that we have one God in three Persons.
How is He one God if He is three Persons? Is God not a Person, who identifies Himself as "I" (for example, Malachi 3:6)?
Can you answer me that?
And if you use Isaiah 55:10-11 to explain your viewpoint, I will just say that the same passage can be used to explain mine.
The same logic can be used when we consider that we have one God in three Persons.
How is He one God if He is three Persons? Is God not a Person, who identifies Himself as "I" (for example, Malachi 3:6)?
Can you answer me that?
And if you use Isaiah 55:10-11 to explain your viewpoint, I will just say that the same passage can be used to explain mine.
I'll try to break this down by topic. Please forgive that it means I'll be pulling out one piece before answering the other. Sorry for the length.
You are correct that the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit is a 'Person' and therefore he has a name, not just a title/descriptor. (If someone claims to have him, they ought to learn his name. )
Holy "Ghost" and Holy "Spirit" is the same original word just translated as one or the other by the KJV translator. Technically, the "holy" is most often not even capitalized (for those who think capitalization is important one way or the other.)
I usually use "Holy Ghost" when talking about the permanent indwelling of the Spirit of God that was and still is poured out (since/after Jesus departed to the Father) that is also referred to as being baptized with the Holy Ghost in the KJV (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5) ...which indwelling/outpouring began occurring on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
I believe a person shouldn't be claiming to be born again UNLESS they have received the Holy Spirit and definitely not before. (Born of water perhaps, but not born of the Spirit)
A person is born of the Spirit when they receive the Holy Spirit (are baptized in the Holy Spirit).
That is an observable moment because the spirit bears witness (provides evidence). Acts 2:4, Acts 8:17-18, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6
If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is NONE of his. (Romans 8:9) Why would you call someone "saved" before they receive the Holy Spirit?
I definitely see it in the opposite order that you seem to be presenting. I'm not going to be telling someone they are 'saved' if they don't have the Holy Ghost. (except in the less-salvational idea of the word)
I don't use the word "saved" the way you do. I'm guessing you cannot tell who in your church is "saved" and who is not. (Including your pastor.. which means you don't even know if he's of God or not). That makes your usage questionable in its value.
Because that word isn't more useful for me than it is for you, I tend not to worry about labelling people with it.
I can tell you when a person is baptized in Jesus name for remission of sins. I can tell you when they receive the Holy Spirit. I can roughly tell you what constitutes being a disciple. Belief will show in the actions "These signs shall follow them that believe..." etc. I can show what makes a person a child of God (or not). But I just don't feel the need to apply the particular label that you rely on so heavily. I rather encourage and follow the admonitions of Philippians 2:12 and 3:13.
In the book of Acts, God provides thorough accounts of people going through various steps/stages. Acts 8:12-16 clearly designates particular stages and follows the progression without the need to declare "Now you're saved" at any particular point. It clearly designates one point when they "believe" and another point where they "were baptized in the name of Jesus" and says they have "received the word of God" and states that even with all that they yet had NOT received the Holy Ghost. (They DO receive the Holy Ghost in verse 17). Are you going to call them "saved" before verse 17?
I pray you find some value in my answer (even if your first reaction is to scoff). In any case the word will still accomplish what it is sent to accomplish.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
You are correct that the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit is a 'Person' and therefore he has a name, not just a title/descriptor. (If someone claims to have him, they ought to learn his name. )
Holy "Ghost" and Holy "Spirit" is the same original word just translated as one or the other by the KJV translator. Technically, the "holy" is most often not even capitalized (for those who think capitalization is important one way or the other.)
I usually use "Holy Ghost" when talking about the permanent indwelling of the Spirit of God that was and still is poured out (since/after Jesus departed to the Father) that is also referred to as being baptized with the Holy Ghost in the KJV (Matt 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5) ...which indwelling/outpouring began occurring on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
I believe a person shouldn't be claiming to be born again UNLESS they have received the Holy Spirit and definitely not before. (Born of water perhaps, but not born of the Spirit)
A person is born of the Spirit when they receive the Holy Spirit (are baptized in the Holy Spirit).
That is an observable moment because the spirit bears witness (provides evidence). Acts 2:4, Acts 8:17-18, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 19:6
If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is NONE of his. (Romans 8:9) Why would you call someone "saved" before they receive the Holy Spirit?
I definitely see it in the opposite order that you seem to be presenting. I'm not going to be telling someone they are 'saved' if they don't have the Holy Ghost. (except in the less-salvational idea of the word)
I don't use the word "saved" the way you do. I'm guessing you cannot tell who in your church is "saved" and who is not. (Including your pastor.. which means you don't even know if he's of God or not). That makes your usage questionable in its value.
Because that word isn't more useful for me than it is for you, I tend not to worry about labelling people with it.
I can tell you when a person is baptized in Jesus name for remission of sins. I can tell you when they receive the Holy Spirit. I can roughly tell you what constitutes being a disciple. Belief will show in the actions "These signs shall follow them that believe..." etc. I can show what makes a person a child of God (or not). But I just don't feel the need to apply the particular label that you rely on so heavily. I rather encourage and follow the admonitions of Philippians 2:12 and 3:13.
In the book of Acts, God provides thorough accounts of people going through various steps/stages. Acts 8:12-16 clearly designates particular stages and follows the progression without the need to declare "Now you're saved" at any particular point. It clearly designates one point when they "believe" and another point where they "were baptized in the name of Jesus" and says they have "received the word of God" and states that even with all that they yet had NOT received the Holy Ghost. (They DO receive the Holy Ghost in verse 17). Are you going to call them "saved" before verse 17?
I pray you find some value in my answer (even if your first reaction is to scoff). In any case the word will still accomplish what it is sent to accomplish.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
-
2
- Show all
