Saved by Water

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Actually, one must clarify which "sanctification" is being referred to.

I am referring to the practical kind.

I learned that one as "experiential sanctification". And this one is NO relation to getting saved, or the salvation process, if you will.

This kind of sanctification is the spiritual growth for those believers who DO grow up in their salvation. 1 Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

Notice the subjunctive mood "so that...you MAY grow up in your salvation". Not everyone does.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Please examine the verse again. The verse says that it is through Jesus' name that remission of sin is received. (this occurs in water baptism)

No, it is through FAITH in Jesus' name that we are forgiven.

Acts 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

And you actually quote a verse that refutes your claim. Maybe that's progress.

I emphasized the point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
Because Scripture disavows that.

Acts 10-
43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” NOT THROUGH BAPTISM. THROUGH HIS NAME.
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

What is clear in this passage is that Cornelius and household all were SAVED and received the Holy Spirit BEFORE Peter baptized any of them.

In fact, from v.45 and v.47 Peter didn't baptize anyone UNTIL he was convinced that they all were saved and had the Spirit.

Totally wrecks your theology.

Crazy...................now you just want to argue to protect your position.
That does none of us any good.

OK, so you disagree with my conclusion. So what?

Since you disagree, please address the passage that I quoted and prove me wrong then.

I've shown that Cornelius was saved and received the Spirit BEFORE water baptism.

 

[FreeGrace2]

WOW...now what makes KJV antiquated?...all of a sudden.

The language is archaic. Didn't THOU knowest that?

 

[FreeGrace2]

@justbyfaith In answer to request to show that remission of sins is accomplished through water baptism INDEPENDENT of receiving the Holy Ghost...
FreeGrace2 said:
A lot occurs when a person puts their 100% trust in Christ for salvation.

You need to support this assumption with actual Scripture. Please do.

@justbyfaithThe scriptural support was put in place quite awhile before Cornelius.

I suppose you continue to refer to Acts 2:38. Well, Cornelius was saved and received the Spirit BEFORE water baptism.

You need to re-assess your views. They don't line up with Scripture.

What that means is that remission of sins was scripturally proven to be available BEFORE either of the two things you've claimed are the cause for it.

I've already proven that as well, from Acts 10:43. And the remission of sins is by FAITH in Christ, NOT water baptism.

Acts 2:38 was a special circumstance.

If that blows your mind, GOOD...It should. But that is no excuse for disbelieving the scripture which states that John's baptism IN WATER is a function and manifestation of repentance to the accomplishment of remission of sins.

John's baptism had NO effect on remission of sins. Prove it, if you believe that.

Water baptism doesn't provide the fullness of salvation, but it does produce the one piece (remission of sins) because Jesus indeed shed his blood to make the atonement.

The whole key is BELIEF in the work of Jesus on the cross. That's where we get remission of sins.

Acts 10:43. Why don't you believe that verse? It is clear enough.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"What that means is that remission of sins was scripturally proven to be available BEFORE either 100% trust in Jesus

Let's just slow down a bit, ok?

Remission of sins has ALWAYS been available but ONLY through faith in Christ.

Acts 10:43 says so. The "prophets" refers to OT prophets.

Acts 9:20 - At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
v.22 - Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.

So, where do you think Paul proved this FROM? The OT, of course. The ONLY Bible available.

Later, Paul said this:
Gal 1:11,12
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Then, this is Paul's testimony regarding his preaching ministry:
Acts 26:22,23
22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen — 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”

So, we KNOW that Paul taught that remission of sins was on the basis of faith in Christ, and so Paul's understanding of how to receive remission of sins and salvation is through faith in Christ. Nothing else.

OR the receiving of the Holy Ghost were even available."

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Not in the OT. The Holy Spirit was given to very few believers. Mostly prophets and some kings.
David had the Spirit but after his sin of rape and murder, he prayed that the Lord wouldn't remove the Spirit from him.

Those who would pray that today are totally ignorant of Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Acts 10
43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” NO WATER HERE
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Tray again. Your disagreement is with God's word....not me. The quote speaks for itself.

The text sure does speak for itself. And my view is in total alignment with it.

Those who claim water baptism is required for either salvation or receiving the Holy Spirit are ALL WET.

Posting a bunch of unrelated sections of the Bible achieves nothing.

Well, actually, posting Acts 10:43-47 just PROVES that water baptism neither saves, nor results in the reception of the Spirit.

So it isn't "unrelated" in any way.

It is, otoh, totally related.

One would have to be delirious to think otherwise. Or maybe just unable to read words very well.

 

[KelbyofGod]

@justbyfaith In answer to request to show that remission of sins is accomplished through water baptism INDEPENDENT of receiving the Holy Ghost...
FreeGrace2 said:
A lot occurs when a person puts their 100% trust in Christ for salvation.

You need to support this assumption with actual Scripture. Please do.

I suppose you continue to refer to Acts 2:38. Well, Cornelius was saved and received the Spirit BEFORE water baptism.

You need to re-assess your views. They don't line up with Scripture.


I've already proven that as well, from Acts 10:43. And the remission of sins is by FAITH in Christ, NOT water baptism.

Acts 2:38 was a special circumstance.


John's baptism had NO effect on remission of sins. Prove it, if you believe that.


The whole key is BELIEF in the work of Jesus on the cross. That's where we get remission of sins.

Acts 10:43. Why don't you believe that verse? It is clear enough.

In both this quote and your next posting after it you failed to repost the one part of what I said that directly addresses why you misunderstand Acts 10:43 and large portions of the Cornelius account and other scriptures. And it was this:

"If you can't acknowledge the purpose of baptism when ONLY baptism was available, it is no wonder that you cannot acknowledge it when God then provides even more astounding details of salvation that you could get distracted by."​

​

And in some ways I don't expect you'll see the importance of that statement.

When I was younger it occurred to me that the lower the level of (the closer to the base or foundation) the misunderstanding is , the harder it will be to show the person their error, and the more things it will corrupt. You disregarded the purpose of water baptism right at the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1-4). Everything built upon that misconception will be likewise corrupted. So there's little hope in trying to show you your error in Acts.

It is similar to a 'joke' that someone once told me which goes like this: "There are only three kinds of people in this world... those who can count... and those who can't."

Again, when the errors grow close to the base, it is increasingly difficult to enlighten the person as to the error.

You are welcome to continue arguing your point. You are welcome to say "Yeah, that's why you and wansvic and justbyfaith don't understand." All I know to do is pray (and other methods of seeking God) for both yourself, myself and all who need more of Jesus.

I will likely not debate the point with you after this posting.

Hey, I guess you can even claim "victory" after this, if you want to.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[FreeGrace2]

In both this quote and your next posting after it you failed to repost the one part of what I said that directly addresses why you misunderstand Acts 10:43 and large portions of the Cornelius account and other scriptures.

It is you who doesn't understand (or wants to) Acts 10:43. But the verse is plenty clear enough. I can't help what you misread.

And it was this:

"If you can't acknowledge the purpose of baptism when ONLY baptism was available, it is no wonder that you cannot acknowledge it when God then provides even more astounding details of salvation that you could get distracted by."​

​

And in some ways I don't expect you'll see the importance of that statement.

And you are right. Because the phrase "when ONLY baptism was available" is a bogus claim. You haven't proven that, and I have refuted that. I quoted what Paul preached, all of which came out of the "Scriptures" which means ONLY the OT. So you are WRONG to think that there was EVER a time "when ONLY baptism was available". That is absurd.

You are welcome to continue arguing your point. You are welcome to say "Yeah, that's why you and wansvic and justbyfaith don't understand."

Actually, I have NO IDEA why you guys don't understand. The Word is clear enough.

I will likely not debate the point with you after this posting.

That's fine. I'm getting tired of repeating myself to 3 of you.

Hey, I guess you can even claim "victory" after this, if you want to.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

There is victory only in the truth. May you see it some day.

 

[justbyfaith]

No. That would be "experiential sanctification", or spiritual growth.

The believer is justified on the basis of being in union with Christ, which is positional sanctification.

All of which I've already explained.

So, positional sanctification is "justification"; and should be described using that word in holy scripture. No need to confuse things by using two words to describe the same thing.

When the word "sanctification" is used therefore, it is referring to that which is practical in nature.

 

[justbyfaith]

Because he was saved and received the Spirit BEFORE he was water baptized.

If you had actually read ch 10 and 11, you would have realized that.

Regarding v.2 above, attempting to correct someone who is in error doesn't mean they lack charity.

Titus 1:13 - This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith.
That is my hope.
Your views are NOT sound in the faith. And you have been shown the truth.

However, you were being rude when you went into sleep mode; and love is not rude (1 Corinthians 13:5 (RSV)).

Cornelius, again, was part of a transition from Jew to Gentile in the church and I have already explained how that makes him an exception to the rule. So, your argument falls apart.

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Cornelius refutes all of your notions.

Cornelius was saved and received the Spirit BEFORE ever being water baptized. That's how so.

Cornelius was an exception to the rule; the rule being found in Acts 2:38-39.

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Well, how about that!!??

You are now admitting that early Acts was "transitional". I made that point way back.

I pointed out early on that early Acts was transitional, but you weren't buying it.

Since you believe it is, why are you still holding on so tightly to Acts 2:38 then? Things were obviously different during the transitional period.

I think that you must be thinking of someone else.

 

[justbyfaith]

Are your views like wansics? Or different? Maybe I'm getting you 2 mixed up.


What do you mean by "IT went like this"? What, exactly, "went like this"?

Above, you have baptism before receiving the Spirit. That's NOT what occurred with Cornelius, or what Paul taught the Galatian believers.

Do you believe that water baptism is required for soul salvation? I need to clear up who believes what.

Thanks.

My views are similar to @Wansvic's but not exactly the same. I believe that baptism has the power to save but that salvation may be possible apart from it; but I think that @Wansvic takes the hard line and says that one can only be saved by being baptized in Jesus' Name.

Cornelius was an exception to the rule; the rule being found in Acts 2:38-39; in which case repentance, belief, and baptism come before receiving the Holy Ghost.

 

[SophieT]

If you will recall the thread is about the topic of water baptism as foreshadowed by the flood in 1 Peter 3:20-21. The topic of water baptism has nothing to do with the 10 commandments or the law. Water baptism is a New Testament mandate.

“...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 doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

right

which is why you titled it SAVED BY WATER

you try staying afloat in hundreds of feet of water during a violent storm for 40 days and nights without food, sleep or anything to cling to and then come back (you won't. you will drown but whatever, it's your spin) and then come back and tell us all how water saved you

the ark saved Noah and his family. the water, drowned everyone and everything else that was not on the ark

you really have absolutely no clue whatsoever

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
I am in DENIAL

What a low down dishonest move that was. Leaving out the REST of the sentence. But of course you were too dishonest to include the REST of the sentence. I am in total DENIAL of your views. That's what.

Yes, you are basically in DENIAL of the truth (because my views are the truth; whether you want to believe that or not).

I thought it was funny.

 

[SophieT]

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

didn't save and does not save now

if you are depending on water to wash away your sins, you are still IN them

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Actually, one must clarify which "sanctification" is being referred to.

I learned that one as "experiential sanctification". And this one is NO relation to getting saved, or the salvation process, if you will.

This kind of sanctification is the spiritual growth for those believers who DO grow up in their salvation. 1 Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

Notice the subjunctive mood "so that...you MAY grow up in your salvation". Not everyone does.

I learned that the practical kind of sanctification is being saved from the power of sin.

Justification being saved from the penalty of sin.

Glorification being saved from the presence of sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

FreeGrace2 said:
Actually, one must clarify which "sanctification" is being referred to.

I learned that one as "experiential sanctification". And this one is NO relation to getting saved, or the salvation process, if you will.

This kind of sanctification is the spiritual growth for those believers who DO grow up in their salvation. 1 Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

Notice the subjunctive mood "so that...you MAY grow up in your salvation". Not everyone does.

I would also point out what it says in Matthew 13:41-42 and Matthew 7:23....that workers / doers of iniquity will be cast away into the furnace of fire.

That would indicate that sanctification is a requirement for being ultimately justified.

 

[justbyfaith]

Since you disagree, please address the passage that I quoted and prove me wrong then.

The passage has been addressed now, twice by me...