Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[Jim]

I'm going through the book of Romans and counting the number of times that faith for salvation is specifically mentioned or obviously alluded to. I'm up to Romans 10:9. There are 53 such references so far, and not one of them mentions baptism. This is what we mean when we say that ONLY FAITH saves. Not faith plus this or faith plus that.
I will keep going through the New Testament. At this rate, I expect to find literally hundreds of verses, clearly showing us that even though water baptism is essential after one is saved, it has NOTHING to do with BEING SAVED.
If anyone is interested, I can give you a copy of all the verses when I finish.

You must have skipped Romans 6.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

 

[Doug Brents]

Sorry no you have not

You affirmed the indwelling is receiving the Spirit - yes or no

That phrase sometimes refers to the indwelling, and sometimes not.

The text stated they did not receive the Spirit - yes or no

Were the men in Acts 8 part of the Church? Were they saved?

there is then no logical way for you to claim they were indwelt given the statement they had not received the Spirit

explain how one can be indwelt and not have received the Spirit given your affirmation

This has already been explained. The phrase "received the Spirit" in Acts 8 refers to the miraculous empowerment which bystanders there could see and experience. The men who had not "received the Spirit" were part of the Church; they were saved. And all the saved have the indwelling of the Spirit. It is impossible to be saved and not have the Spirit indwelling you in the NT Church.

beyond that you beg the question and assume your doctrine of salvation upon water baptism

You keep using this phrase "beg the question". What question am I begging? What does that phrase mean to you? Why do you keep using this phrase that appears to bring nothing to this conversation?

yet the gentiles were to hear words by which they would be saved

thus were saved through faith as the bible often proclaims

Yes, they heard the words by which they would be saved (the Gospel and the command of how to respond to it), and were saved when they exhibited their faith in the Jesus and the Gospel message they heard when they were baptized. They had not yet exhibited faith when the Spirit fell on them in power, thus they were not yet saved when the Spirit fell on them. They were saved when they were baptized into Christ just as the Scriptures tell us they would be (1 Pet 3:21, Col 2:11-14, Rom 6:1-7, Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16).

 

[TomL]

That phrase sometimes refers to the indwelling, and sometimes not.

So if it is stated someone has not received the Spirit then they cannot have been indwelt

Hello

Your affirmation refutes your theology

 

[Doug Brents]

So if it is stated someone has not received the Spirit then they cannot have been indwelt

Hello

Your affirmation refutes your theology

Wrong. The phrase in this case is referring to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. They were in Christ (saved), and EVERYONE who is saved, who is in Christ, has the indwelling of the Spirit; you cannot be saved and not have Him indwelling your heart. These men had clearly been saved, so they clearly had the indwelling of the Spirit. This is indisputable, but I am sure you will try.

 

[dwight92070]

You must have skipped Romans 6.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Actually not at all. I skipped nothing.
Romans 6:3 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (water? - NO) Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? There's no mention of water here.

That's the new birth right there, which always is accompanied with faith. Paul states the same truth in
Romans 6:6 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;"
Again, being born again by faith.

Romans 6:7 "for he who had died is freed from sin." Which is the new creation given by faith.
Romans 6:8 "Now if we have died with Christ (by faith), we believe that we shall also live with Him." This is salvation.
Romans 6:18 " ... and having been freed from sin (by faith), you became slaves of righteousness". The new birth.
Romans 6:22 "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." Salvation by faith.
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." The gift of eternal life is received by faith.

So, no, I did not skip Romans 6. However verses 4 and 5 do refer to water baptism as "the likeness of His death" and "the likeness of His resurrection", so it itself is not salvation, but only a picture of salvation.

So, I stand corrected. Out of 53 verses/passages that speak of salvation by faith, only 1 mentions water baptism - but even that one reference of baptism does not say that water baptism is the new birth. Rather it says that water baptism is "the likeness" of the new birth.

So how about you? You skipped all the other 52 verses/passages. I notice you made NO mention of ALL those verses. If you're sincere and honest, you will search for those in Romans, like I did, and you will find them. Or I can give you the list, either way.

Right now, I'm up to 67 verses/passages, with 2 Cor.3:16 "but whenever a person turns (by faith) to the Lord, the veil is taken away." A new creation has taken place.

 

[Doug Brents]

Actually not at all. I skipped nothing.
Romans 6:3 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (water? - NO) Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? There's no mention of water here.

Sorry Dwight, but there is water there. There is only one baptism in the NT Church, as we have already discussed, and that one baptism absolutely requires water per 1 Pet 3:21 and Acts 8:36-38. Baptism is associated with the reception of salvation, and that baptism requires man (the teacher) to do it (Matt 28:19), and requires man (the student) to submit to it (Acts 2:38).

That's the new birth right there, which always is accompanied with faith. Paul states the same truth in
Romans 6:6 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;"
Again, being born again by faith.

Born again by faith THROUGH BAPTISM. It is in baptism that we die to sin through the actions of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:7 "for he who had died is freed from sin." Which is the new creation given by faith.
Romans 6:8 "Now if we have died with Christ (by faith), we believe that we shall also live with Him." This is salvation.
Romans 6:18 " ... and having been freed from sin (by faith), you became slaves of righteousness". The new birth.
Romans 6:22 "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." Salvation by faith.
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." The gift of eternal life is received by faith.

So, no, I did not skip Romans 6. However verses 4 and 5 do refer to water baptism as "the likeness of His death" and "the likeness of His resurrection", so it itself is not salvation, but only a picture of salvation.

It is IN water baptism that we die to sin (in likeness of Jesus' death) and are resurrected with Christ (in likeness of His resurrection). It is not just a depiction of, but a participation in His death and resurrection.

So how about you? You skipped all the other 52 verses/passages. I notice you made NO mention of ALL those verses. If you're sincere and honest, you will search for those in Romans, like I did, and you will find them. Or I can give you the list, either way.

Right now, I'm up to 67 verses/passages, with 2 Cor.3:16 "but whenever a person turns (by faith) to the Lord, the veil is taken away." A new creation has taken place.

Keep going. There are several more coming up.
Gal 3:26-27
Eph 5:26-27
1 Pet 3:21

 

[dwight92070]

Sorry Dwight, but there is water there. There is only one baptism in the NT Church, as we have already discussed, and that one baptism absolutely requires water per 1 Pet 3:21 and Acts 8:36-38. Baptism is associated with the reception of salvation, and that baptism requires man (the teacher) to do it (Matt 28:19), and requires man (the student) to submit to it (Acts 2:38).

Born again by faith THROUGH BAPTISM. It is in baptism that we die to sin through the actions of the Holy Spirit.

It is IN water baptism that we die to sin (in likeness of Jesus' death) and are resurrected with Christ (in likeness of His resurrection). It is not just a depiction of, but a participation in His death and resurrection.

Keep going. There are several more coming up.
Gal 3:26-27
Eph 5:26-27
1 Pet 3:21

All your "interpretations" above are misinterpretations. Have patience -I'll get to all of them. I know, I know, you have your pet verses, which don't say what you wish they did. We've discussed all of those "til the cows came home". How about discussing the 66 verses regarding salvation that are not your pet verses, that don't mention water baptism? And there's more to come. Why would you ignore those?
I have already proven that there are at least 10 times more verses about salvation that do not mention water baptism, than those that do. If you want a list, let me know.

 

[Doug Brents]

All your "interpretations" above are misinterpretations. Have patience -I'll get to all of them. I know, I know, you have your pet verses, which don't say what you wish they did. We've discussed all of those "til the cows came home". How about discussing the 66 verses regarding salvation that are not your pet verses, that don't mention water baptism? And there's more to come. Why would you ignore those?
I have already proven that there are at least 10 times more verses about salvation that do not mention water baptism, than those that do. If you want a list, let me know.

All of Scripture is equally true. That means that even if there were 100,000 verses that speak of salvation that don't mention water baptism, it there is even one verse that links the two then the two are linked irrevocably as if every single one of the verses mentioned both. It does not matter even a single bit that those 66 passages you have found don't link salvation and baptism. The passages that do are clear and unequivocal, stating that baptism in water is the point in time at which we die to sin (Rom 6:1-7), our sin is cut from us (Col 2:11-14), we are washed clean of every spot and blemish (Eph 2:26-27), we are clothed with Christ (Gal 3:26-27), we are resurrected with Christ (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14), we are saved (1 Pet 3:21).

 

[dwight92070]

They are NOT clear and unequivocal. If they were, you and I would agree with what they're saying. All of your pet verses are NOT clear and unequivocal. I believe that - apparently you don't. There is NO clear and unequivocal verse that requires baptism in order to be saved, except in your thinking. Nobody is saying that all verses are not equally true. But they definitely are not all equally clear.
So when you have a handful of verses/passages that are not 100% clear and unequivocal, you must defer to the "100,000" places that are clear - OR stubbornly declare that you are right and everybody else who disagrees with you is wrong. You have chosen the latter.
Your point about Romans 6 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Col.2 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Eph.2 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Gal.3 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about 1 Pet.3 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about all of these taking place at the point of water baptism is noted, but I don't agree. None of these verses say that. That's your understanding of them. Not mine and not many other people's understanding of them. So, get over it.

 

[Jim]

Actually not at all. I skipped nothing.
Romans 6:3 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (water? - NO) Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? There's no mention of water here.

It really is amazing that until about 1500, there was no issue about baptism being in water and the forgiveness of sin that occurred in baptism. Then Zwingli came along and preached a disconnection between water baptism and salvation. But even He did not argue against baptism in water. He only argued that baptism in water was in response to being saved, not the occasion of being saved. It took the last couple of centuries for someone to argue that it isn't even water. Probably someone who had an irrational fear of drowning.

John the Baptist baptized in water. Jesus' disciples, obviously with Jesus' approval, obviously baptized in water. There was really no other recognized manner to baptize anyone. The great commission, although unstated, can only be assumed to mean baptizing in water, since it was something that Jesus told his disciples to do. If Jesus told you to baptize someone, how would you do that if not in water? The point is that when one is baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, his sins are forgiven and he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. I would argue, and can support, that is the occasion, since there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5), that being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is also baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Doug Brents]

They are NOT clear and unequivocal. If they were, you and I would agree with what they're saying. All of your pet verses are NOT clear and unequivocal. I believe that - apparently you don't. There is NO clear and unequivocal verse that requires baptism in order to be saved, except in your thinking. Nobody is saying that all verses are not equally true. But they definitely are not all equally clear.

1 Pet 3:21 is perfectly clear and unequivocal, saying that baptism in water (like the Flood, which is a precursor and shadow of baptism) results in salvation. There is nothing unclear about that. It cannot be "Spirit baptism" because that baptism would not require water. It is not figurative, because it says clearly that "baptism now saves you", just as being in the Ark and passing through the Flood saved Noah. That is not ambiguous or unclear in any way. That being so, there is no point in any argument that there are 60 something other passages that speak of salvation but not baptism. They are linked in Scripture, so they are linked in Truth; there can be no separating them.

So when you have a handful of verses/passages that are not 100% clear and unequivocal, you must defer to the "100,000" places that are clear - OR stubbornly declare that you are right and everybody else who disagrees with you is wrong. You have chosen the latter.

Wrong. Those verses are very clear, but Satan has twisted the minds of many people today. He has convinced you, and so many others, that black is white, up is down, and salvation is received through "belief only" just because there are several passages that only mention belief as resulting in salvation. And then he has convinced you to ignore any other passage that says otherwise.

Your point about Romans 6 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Col.2 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Eph.2 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about Gal.3 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about 1 Pet.3 is noted, but I don't agree.
Your point about all of these taking place at the point of water baptism is noted, but I don't agree. None of these verses say that. That's your understanding of them. Not mine and not many other people's understanding of them. So, get over it.

I can't "get over it" when your soul and the souls of everyone to whom you teach or preach hang in the balance. I don't have to convince you, but I believe that if I don't at least try my best, then all those souls hang on my head as well.

 

[TomL]

Wrong. The phrase in this case is referring to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. They were in Christ (saved), and EVERYONE who is saved, who is in Christ, has the indwelling of the Spirit; you cannot be saved and not have Him indwelling your heart. These men had clearly been saved, so they clearly had the indwelling of the Spirit. This is indisputable, but I am sure you will try.

Sorry

You fail to deal with the logic and just beg the question

You affirm the indwelling is receiving the Spirit

therefore If anyone is indwelt they received the Spirit

you cannot logically deny then that one who has not received the Spirit has not been indwelt

remember had they been indwelt they would have received the Spirit

Your denial is simply not logical

 

[dwight92070]

It really is amazing that until about 1500, there was no issue about baptism being in water and the forgiveness of sin that occurred in baptism. Then Zwingli came along and preached a disconnection between water baptism and salvation. But even He did not argue against baptism in water. He only argued that baptism in water was in response to being saved, not the occasion of being saved. It took the last couple of centuries for someone to argue that it isn't even water. Probably someone who had an irrational fear of drowning.

John the Baptist baptized in water. Jesus' disciples, obviously with Jesus' approval, obviously baptized in water. There was really no other recognized manner to baptize anyone. The great commission, although unstated, can only be assumed to mean baptizing in water, since it was something that Jesus told his disciples to do. If Jesus told you to baptize someone, how would you do that if not in water? The point is that when one is baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, his sins are forgiven and he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. I would argue, and can support, that is the occasion, since there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5), that being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is also baptism in the Holy Spirit.

We don't go by church history to establish doctrine. We go by the Bible. As far as I know, nobody here argues against baptism in water. I certainly don't. Jesus commanded, #1- that disciples be made of all nations and then after that #2 that they be baptized. Nowhere in scripture do we read that that order is reversed - i.e. to be baptized first, in order to actually be a disciple, which is a believer.

Nor do we see scripture that ones sins are forgiven and that he receives the Holy Spirit at the point of water baptism. Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 make it sound like our sins are forgiven at water baptism, but I believe that Peter's first command in Acts 2:38 "Repent" is what brought forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, NOT the water baptism. Likewise, in Acts 22:16, Ananias told Saul to "call on the name of the Lord", which brought about his sins being washed away, NOT the water baptism.

Paul knew that all of the 120 believers on the day of Pentecost had already been baptized in water, when they decided to follow Jesus. John 4:1 But in Acts 1:5, they were told that they would receive a 2nd baptism called being "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Even before their 1st baptism, some of them had been baptized by John the Baptist. So that's 3 different baptisms.

John the Baptist said that Jesus Himself would be the One who would baptize in the Holy Spirit - no man would do it. In fact, did you notice that NONE of the 120 believers who received the baptism with the Holy Spirit on that day, had to be immersed in water in order to receive the "baptism with or of the Holy Spirit."? The Holy Spirit came on them without any water baptism at all. Acts 2:3-4 Also in verse 4, another term is used for this baptism - they were "filled with the Holy Spirit".

Also Jesus referred to His suffering and martyrdom as a baptism and said that even His disciples would be baptized with the baptism of suffering and martyrdom. So that's 4 baptisms. The first was done by John the Baptist, the second was done by Jesus' disciples, the third was done by Jesus Himself and the fourth was suffering and martyrdom which must have been led by the Spirit.

But Paul speaks of a fifth baptism in 1 Cor.12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ... and were made to drink of one Spirit. So the Holy Spirit Himself performs this baptism, putting us into the body of Christ. Paul mentions this same baptism in Romans 6:3 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus ...?" And again, Paul says "For all of you who were baptized into Christ ..." in Gal.3:27.

This baptism must the most important one of all, because by it, the Holy Spirit (no man) sets us into the body of Christ - which is synonymous with being saved or being born again. Therefore, when Paul speaks of one baptism, I believe he is speaking of this baptism.

Even after Pentecost, new believers were baptized in water, as a sign that they had decided, by faith, to follow and serve Jesus and their baptism was a "picture" of their being born again, which happened before they were baptized.

 

[TomL]

It really is amazing that until about 1500, there was no issue about baptism being in water and the forgiveness of sin that occurred in baptism. Then Zwingli came along and preached a disconnection between water baptism and salvation. But even He did not argue against baptism in water. He only argued that baptism in water was in response to being saved, not the occasion of being saved. It took the last couple of centuries for someone to argue that it isn't even water. Probably someone who had an irrational fear of drowning.

John the Baptist baptized in water. Jesus' disciples, obviously with Jesus' approval, obviously baptized in water. There was really no other recognized manner to baptize anyone. The great commission, although unstated, can only be assumed to mean baptizing in water, since it was something that Jesus told his disciples to do. If Jesus told you to baptize someone, how would you do that if not in water? The point is that when one is baptized (in water) in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, his sins are forgiven and he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. I would argue, and can support, that is the occasion, since there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5), that being given the gift of the Holy Spirit is also baptism in the Holy Spirit.

With water

Matt 3:11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:8I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 3:16John 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:

 

[dwight92070]

1 Pet 3:21 is perfectly clear and unequivocal, saying that baptism in water (like the Flood, which is a precursor and shadow of baptism) results in salvation. There is nothing unclear about that. It cannot be "Spirit baptism" because that baptism would not require water. It is not figurative, because it says clearly that "baptism now saves you", just as being in the Ark and passing through the Flood saved Noah. That is not ambiguous or unclear in any way. That being so, there is no point in any argument that there are 60 something other passages that speak of salvation but not baptism. They are linked in Scripture, so they are linked in Truth; there can be no separating them.

Wrong. Those verses are very clear, but Satan has twisted the minds of many people today. He has convinced you, and so many others, that black is white, up is down, and salvation is received through "belief only" just because there are several passages that only mention belief as resulting in salvation. And then he has convinced you to ignore any other passage that says otherwise.

I can't "get over it" when your soul and the souls of everyone to whom you teach or preach hang in the balance. I don't have to convince you, but I believe that if I don't at least try my best, then all those souls hang on my head as well.

Because I don't see the same interpretation in those verses that you do, my soul hangs in the balance? I could say the exact same thing to you - but I won't, because I don't believe that is true. I have been baptized and so have almost all here who disagree with you, and yet that's not good enough for you - and you suggest that that isn't going to be good enough for God either - that we may be lost forever, because our interpretation of those verses differs from yours.
Your "God" may send people to hell because they didn't properly understand some verses that were not clear - even though they repented, put their faith in Jesus, had their sins forgiven by the blood of Jesus, received the indwelling Holy Spirit and then later got baptized in water.

My God would not do that - He's not going to say, "Sorry, you didn't believe that all those things happened when you were baptized in water - you thought those things happened before you were baptized in water - I guess I'll have to send you to hell."

Jesus condemned legalism. That is exactly what you are - an extreme legalist. My God desires mercy, not sending people to hell on a technicality. In fact, a legalist is in more danger of hellfire than someone who is not. I hang my hat on the grace, mercy, and love of God through Jesus. You hang yours on your pet doctrine.

 

[Jim]

We don't go by church history to establish doctrine. We go by the Bible. As far as I know, nobody here argues against baptism in water. I certainly don't. Jesus commanded, #1- that disciples be made of all nations and then after that #2 that they be baptized. Nowhere in scripture do we read that that order is reversed - i.e. to be baptized first, in order to actually be a disciple, which is a believer.

That is simply not true. Baptizing and teaching are participials modifying make (disciples). They are not commands; the only command is the verb "make". Baptizing and teaching is the process for how disciples are to be made. As I have noted the grammatical construction is the same as I might use in speaking to my roof repair guy -- "I want you to go up and fix my roof, patching any holes you find in wood and replacing all the shingles. Here as in Jesus' great commission, patching and replacing are participials modifying the verb "fix". Neither are what is done after it is fixed; rather it is the process for how the roof is to be fixed.

More later.

 

[Doug Brents]

Sorry

You fail to deal with the logic and just beg the question

You affirm the indwelling is receiving the Spirit

therefore If anyone is indwelt they received the Spirit

you cannot logically deny then that one who has not received the Spirit has not been indwelt

remember had they been indwelt they would have received the Spirit

Your denial is simply not logical

One final time, "receive the Spirit" in this verse does not relate to the indwelling. It relates only to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. These men had not received an miraculous empowerment of the Spirit, so they had not "received the Spirit". These men had the indwelling of the Spirit because they were IN CHRIST. This is very simple when you acknowledge that "received the Spirit" does not have anything to do with the indwelling of the Spirit in this (and most) case.

 

[TomL]

One final time, "receive the Spirit" in this verse does not relate to the indwelling. It relates only to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. These men had not received an miraculous empowerment of the Spirit, so they had not "received the Spirit". These men had the indwelling of the Spirit because they were IN CHRIST. This is very simple when you acknowledge that "received the Spirit" does not have anything to do with the indwelling of the Spirit in this (and most) case.

The Samaritans were water baptized, but the text states they did not receive the Spirit

you are begging the question and failing to deal with the logic

if being indwelt is an example of receiving the Spirit - as you agreed

then if one has not received the Spirit

they cannot have been indwelt

This is basic logic which you continually ignore

 

[Doug Brents]

Because I don't see the same interpretation in those verses that you do, my soul hangs in the balance? I could say the exact same thing to you - but I won't, because I don't believe that is true.

Not because you don't have the same interpretation as I have just because it is my interpretation. But because you deny the truth of what Scripture says, and choose instead to trust in what Satan has most churches teaching.

I have been baptized and so have almost all here who disagree with you, and yet that's not good enough for you - and you suggest that that isn't going to be good enough for God either - that we may be lost forever, because our interpretation of those verses differs from yours.
Your "God" may send people to hell because they didn't properly understand some verses that were not clear - even though they repented, put their faith in Jesus, had their sins forgiven by the blood of Jesus, received the indwelling Holy Spirit and then later got baptized in water.

When you were baptized you were not trusting God for salvation, you were simply going through the motions thinking you had already received what baptism brings. Is that trusting in God? Or is that trying to force God to operate based on your beliefs. Rom 6 makes it very clear that it is in baptism that we die to sin. We cannot be saved unless we have died to sin, thus we cannot be saved before baptism.

My God would not do that - He's not going to say, "Sorry, you didn't believe that all those things happened when you were baptized in water - you thought those things happened before you were baptized in water - I guess I'll have to send you to hell."

The question is not, "did you believe what Doug believes". The question is, "who was in charge of your life?" If God was in charge, then you would read what He says, and do what He wrote. But you have chosen to do what other people have convinced you God wrote. And guess who convinced those other people of what they are teaching? Satan. Satan is not concerned that you believe in God. He is not concerned that you believe in Jesus. He is not concerned that you live a good life. Once you have sinned even one time, you are his for all eternity unless you are truly saved. That is the one thing he doesn't want you to do. And so he does everything he can to convince you that the one step that actually puts you in touch with the blood of Jesus is skipped, or put off, or done improperly. This is what happened to King Saul in 1 Sam 15:17-23. He believed that his way was right, his way was better than God's way.

Jesus condemned legalism. That is exactly what you are - an extreme legalist. My God desires mercy, not sending people to hell on a technicality. In fact, a legalist is in more danger of hellfire than someone who is not. I hang my hat on the grace, mercy, and love of God through Jesus. You hang yours on your pet doctrine.

God desires mercy, to be sure, but even more He demands obedience. Everyone is bound for Hell, except for those who get off on a "technicality": Jesus' blood. We are not condemned on a technicality; we deserve Hell. It is only by the grace of God that we even have a chance of going to Heaven, and that is only given to those who are in Christ. And only those who are baptized into Christ are clothed with Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

you are begging the question

What does this mean?

The Samaritans were water baptized, but the text states they did not receive the Spirit

you are begging the question and failing to deal with the logic

if being indwelt is an example of receiving the Spirit - as you agreed

then if one has not received the Spirit

they cannot have been indwelt

This is basic logic which you continually ignore

Tom, I have responded to this too many times already. Repeating yourself will not change the answer: "receive the Spirit", in this case and in most cases, does not have anything to do with the indwelling of the Spirit. In this case it ONLY refers to the miraculous empowerment of the Spirit. So your "basic logic" does not apply.