The conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16.

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The analogy is absolutely clear, it is beyond belief that anyone could consider it to be anything else.

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Nicodemus was speaking from the limitations of his carnal mind. Jesus was talking about something altogether different

 

[HeIsHere]

The scribes of the Faith Alone Movement are today's pushers of Gnosticism.

Only those who follow a Calvinistic soteriology.

 

[HeIsHere]

This is pure BS. No one has 100% faith. This is just an artificial metric created to deceive one's mind that they have that special kind of faith that saves. Gnosticism, essentially.

Acknowledged faith in Christ is enough to place a believer into covenant with God. Baptism is one way of acknowledgement God has set forth. Those who might think baptism is required are not expressing a lack of faith in Christ. On the contrary they are placing faith in Christ by doing his words.

Sadly, I rather think you put the Good News and faith in the Truth and Christ Jesus outside of the ability of people ..... much like the gnostic/Calvinists do.

And here, I will explain it to you, 100% faith is the acknowledgement we have nothing to add.

You can add when you can accomplish exactly what Christ Jesus accomplished perfectly and not before.

So far that score has been ..... 0% others - 100% Christ Jesus

How much faith... is not the issue ... it is self-righteousness as per usual.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

And here, I will explain it to you, 100% faith is the acknowledgement we have nothing to add.

And I agree that we can add nothing to justification. However, from that point on until death is not justification.

 

[HeIsHere]

And I agree that we can add nothing to justification. However, from that point on until death is not justification.

Justification does not have an expiry date and it is a completed action on God's part.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Justification does not have an expiry date and it is a completed action on God's part.

That's correct, but everything done in obedience to Christ is not for justification; it is to maintain sanctification and glorify him.

 

[Kroogz]

I will fill in those blanks for you.

Not really saved, because they don't accept faith alone theology.
One will lose salvation, because they don't accept faith alone theology.

Am I right?

People like Mailmandan and others are the modern day scribes, looking down on those who accept baptism and not some undefined occasion of "faith" as the moment for the remission of sins.

Nope. If you have trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.....You are saved. PERIOD. You have eternal life, you will never perish and there is no condemnation.

After this FACT. We can grow in grace and knowledge and live the Christian way of life Or we can live a miserable life of discipline, loss of temporal and eternal blessings, loss of temporal and eternal rewards...A life of SHAME.

Saved as if through fire or saved with well done good and faithful servant. OUR choice.

 

[wattie]

Or maybe Jesus is speaking of the baptism of water for the remission of sins that John the Baptist spoke of in Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3.

Maybe?

The 'for' here..is akin to getting something for something already happened. Like a pill for an illness.

The saving is from Jesus, not the H2O.

John 6:40

 

[greenonions]

It would be highly unlikely that the apostles would not have been baptized in water when their master and Savior was baptized in water and 1 Peter 2:21 says that Jesus left us an example that we should FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS. There is absolutely no evidence for us to suppose the apostles were never baptized in water and much evidence to suggest that they were. (1) Peter preached baptism for the remission of sins Actsc2:38. (2( Jesus their master was baptised in water and Peter said He left us an example that we should follow. (3) 3000 people obeyed Peter’s preaching and were baptized in water. Wouldn’t Peter have been a hypocrite to preach one thing to others, but not practicing it himself? That’s the definition of a hypocrite. And I know SOMEONE would have brought an accusation against Peter for not “practicing what he preached! No, I don’t believe it is reasonable to suggest that the disciples did not follow Jesus in water baptism.

We are just speculating here. Andrew was a disciple of John the Baptist, so was most likely baptised with water. Peter could have been baptized by John too, but that baptism is very different from the baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Paul rebaptized people in Ephesus who only had the baptism of John (Acts 19:4-5). If Peter were to follow Jesus' example, he would only need to follow His baptism by John (your point #2). Jesus contrasted John's baptism in water with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; see also Matt. 3:11). So Peter was baptized twice: (presumably) once in water by Johh, and once by the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. So people would not call Peter a hypocrite if he didn't have a third water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (your point #3).

 

[HeIsHere]

That's correct, but everything done in obedience to Christ is not for justification; it is to maintain sanctification and glorify him.

We are positionally sanctified (set apart) in Christ.

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:10

We then learn to live outwardly what Christ has accomplished for us inwardly, no maintaining involved.
This has no bearing on our status as saved and justified.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

We are positionally sanctified (set apart) in Christ.

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:10

We then learn to live outwardly what Christ has accomplished for us inwardly, no maintaining involved.
This has no bearing on our status as saved and justified.

I would call keeping one's self unspotted from the world maintaining sanctification. The learning process is work

 

[TrustandObey]

The 'for' here..is akin to getting something for something already happened. Like a pill for an illness.

You believe this because your theology forces you to, not the verbiage itself.

The saving is from Jesus, not the H2O.

The "for here" is the same "for" used in:

Matthew 26:27-29 New King James Version (NKJV)Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

You believe Jesus shed His blood for "something that already happened".

Regardless of the command given, it is obedience to the command given by Jesus that saves.

In other words:

John 14:15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

We may debate what commands must be obeyed but not the need to obey them.

 

[wattie]

 

[HeIsHere]

When it comes to topics of salvation, free grace, faith Onorato Diamante is solid. The absolute best.

From the comments..
"What can wash away my sins? NOTHING but the Blood of Jesus."

Amen.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The guy isn't solid at all. He quotes the verse that says remission of sins is through repentance AND baptism, and then says remission is only through repentance. Sloppy exegesis

 

[HeIsHere]

The guy isn't solid at all. He quotes the verse that says remission of sins is through repentance AND baptism, and then says remission is only through repentance. Sloppy exegesis

His exegeses is perfect, by scripture upon scripture, one consistent message about salvation.

"we are not baptized in order
to receive the remission of sins but
rather we are baptized because we have
the remission of sins"

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

His exegeses is perfect, by scripture upon scripture, one consistent message about salvation.

"we are not baptized in order
to receive the remission of sins but
rather we are baptized because we have
the remission of sins"

That's not what the text he showed says. It says repent and be baptized INTO the remission of sins. In other words, A and B take you into C, but he shows that equation and then says only A takes you into C. He's gaslighting and doesn't have the sense to know what he's doing; just repeating what he's been taught

 

[Lamar]

The guy isn't solid at all. He quotes the verse that says remission of sins is through repentance AND baptism, and then says remission is only through repentance. Sloppy exegesis

I noticed that also.

I doubt HeIsHere can see it. The ditch may be to deep.

 

[Lamar]

we are baptized because we have
the remission of sins"

Can you quote this from the Bible?

 

[wattie]

Acts 10.. they received the Holy Spirit before baptism.