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.
This post is for any who want clarification as to the relationship between baptism and the blood of Jesus.
In John the baptist's time, the sins were remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and placed squarely on the back of Jesus, WAITING for Jesus to take them to the cross and atone for them with his blood.
In times since John the baptist, the sins are remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and are covered by the blood of Jesus BECAUSE Jesus atoned for them with his blood on the cross.
Both BEFORE Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) and AFTER Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc) water baptism is the mechanism for the removal (remission) part of this process. It doesn't accomplish the atonement part. Only the blood of Jesus accomplishes the atonement part.
Jesus completed HIS part of the process. Now he waits for all (who are willing) to RECEIVE the remission part. Baptism (for the remission of sins) is something you RECEIVE, not do. And it was established as such by God, not man. (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
In John the baptist's time, the sins were remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and placed squarely on the back of Jesus, WAITING for Jesus to take them to the cross and atone for them with his blood.
In times since John the baptist, the sins are remitted (removed, washed away, forgiven) from the perpetrator.. and are covered by the blood of Jesus BECAUSE Jesus atoned for them with his blood on the cross.
Both BEFORE Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) and AFTER Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross with his blood (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc) water baptism is the mechanism for the removal (remission) part of this process. It doesn't accomplish the atonement part. Only the blood of Jesus accomplishes the atonement part.
Jesus completed HIS part of the process. Now he waits for all (who are willing) to RECEIVE the remission part. Baptism (for the remission of sins) is something you RECEIVE, not do. And it was established as such by God, not man. (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, etc)
Love in Jesus,
Kelby
Even as clearly as that was stated, there are still at least two things not accurately stated. One was that of "placed squarely on the back" which is a figure of speech but I'm guessing you'll all understand the meaning. If someone catches the other one, I'll give them acknowledgement and clarification will be made. Again, most people are going to make an assumption which conveys correct understanding despite the inaccuracies.
FreeGrace2 said:
Your reliance on Acts 2:38 is a huge mistake. That verse isn't for you. It was only for that crowd plus the Gentiles who saw Jesus' miracles, His fulfilling of prophecy, and then took part in His crucifixion.
I'm tiring of your extreme stubbornness.
The experience of Cornelius totally refutes your notions.
Your reliance on Acts 2:38 is a huge mistake. That verse isn't for you. It was only for that crowd plus the Gentiles who saw Jesus' miracles, His fulfilling of prophecy, and then took part in His crucifixion.
I'm tiring of your extreme stubbornness.
The experience of Cornelius totally refutes your notions.
FreeGrace2 said:
This is called positional sanctification.
Wrong. It is positional sanctification that is related to justification.
Apparently you didn't really read my post completely or carefully.
This is called positional sanctification.
Wrong. It is positional sanctification that is related to justification.
Apparently you didn't really read my post completely or carefully.
-
1
- Show all
FreeGrace2 said:
I have refuted your flawed and misunderstanding of both Acts 2:38 and 39.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.
I have refuted your flawed and misunderstanding of both Acts 2:38 and 39.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.
FreeGrace2 said:
I already have, several times. That verse was given to THAT specific crowd, who had seen the miracles of Jesus, seen prophecy fulfilled, and yet partipated in His crucifixion. They needed to do what Peter said.
So that verse was for them only.
I am in DENIAL of your presumptions, assumptions and speculations.
Cornelius refutes all of your notions. You should read Acts 10 and 11 and see where your notions align with his experience.
I already have, several times. That verse was given to THAT specific crowd, who had seen the miracles of Jesus, seen prophecy fulfilled, and yet partipated in His crucifixion. They needed to do what Peter said.
So that verse was for them only.
I am in DENIAL of your presumptions, assumptions and speculations.
Cornelius refutes all of your notions. You should read Acts 10 and 11 and see where your notions align with his experience.
Well, how about that!!??
You are now admitting that early Acts was "transitional". I made that point way back. But the clear point is that the experience of Cornelius doesn't align with what Peter told the crowd in Acts 2:38. Not even close.
Well, I guess that's the easy way out when vainly trying to defend false doctrine.
The experience of Cornelius aligns EXACTLY with what Paul told the Galatian believers in Gal 3:2 and 5.
Belief precedes receiving the Holy Spirit.
The EXCEPTION (your word) is Acts 2:38.
You are now admitting that early Acts was "transitional". I made that point way back. But the clear point is that the experience of Cornelius doesn't align with what Peter told the crowd in Acts 2:38. Not even close.
Well, I guess that's the easy way out when vainly trying to defend false doctrine.
The experience of Cornelius aligns EXACTLY with what Paul told the Galatian believers in Gal 3:2 and 5.
Belief precedes receiving the Holy Spirit.
The EXCEPTION (your word) is Acts 2:38.
FreeGrace2 said:
I have refuted your flawed and misunderstanding of both Acts 2:38 and 39.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.
I have refuted your flawed and misunderstanding of both Acts 2:38 and 39.
zzzzzzzzzzzz.
1Co 8:1, Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
1Co 8:2, And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3, But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
How does Cornelius refute my view totally?
1Co 8:2, And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
1Co 8:3, But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
How does Cornelius refute my view totally?
I will leave it up to @KelbyofGod to do so; since it is his contention.