Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[Doug Brents]

I see, so you have just declared every person in a nursing home (or not) who is physically unable to be baptized as doomed to hell, because they all had a chance when they were younger and healthier, so you and God have just written them off as damaged goods, with no chance of getting saved. That's sounds about right for a deceived legalist.

No. Just because someone is in a nursing home does not make them incapable of being baptized. I have personally been part of baptizing people who were living in nursing homes, constrained to wheelchairs, on their death bed, etc. If their mind is still capable of understanding the Word, then there is a way of fulfilling the Word to result in their salvation. You want to paint me into a corner as if I am some cruel, evil, demanding legalist. Paint away. But know that there is every indication in Scripture that God keeps His word, and that He is the one who said that those who believe in Him and are baptized will be saved, and that it is in baptism that we encounter the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit removes our sins by its power, and then He resurrects us with Christ. Are you clean if you believe that a shower will cleanse you, but you never get in the shower?

 

[Jim]

Not at all-if you disagree, @Jim, don’t attack the messenger. Instead, address and rebut what I’ve posted.


The term Zwinglianism refers to the theological beliefs and practices associated with Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531), a Swiss reformer and contemporary of Martin Luther during the Protestant Reformation. Zwinglianism is most commonly known for its views on the sacraments, particularly the Lord’s Supper, and its emphasis on the primacy of Scripture in worship and church governance. Below is a detailed exploration of what Zwinglianism entails:

1. Core Beliefs of Zwinglianism
A. The Lord's Supper (Eucharist)

Zwingli's Symbolic View:

Zwingli argued that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are purely symbolic representations of Christ’s body and blood. He rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (the bread and wine becoming the literal body and blood of Christ) and also opposed Martin Luther's view of consubstantiation (Christ’s real presence alongside the elements).
Key Scripture: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Zwingli emphasized the word "remembrance" to stress that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial act, not a mystical or sacramental means of grace.

B. Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)
Zwingli emphasized the absolute authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice, rejecting any traditions or doctrines not explicitly rooted in the Bible.

He was an early advocate of biblical preaching and expository teaching, focusing on the direct interpretation of Scripture rather than allegorical readings.

C. Church and State
Zwingli believed in the close relationship between church and state. He argued that civil authorities should enforce biblical morality and support the church's mission. This view made him a key figure in establishing a theocratic governance model in Zurich.
Unlike Luther, Zwingli believed the church had a responsibility to influence and reform societal structures directly.

D. Baptism
Zwingli upheld infant baptism, not as a means of imparting grace but as a covenantal sign of belonging to the Christian community, akin to circumcision in the Old Testament.
He opposed the Anabaptists, who argued for believer's baptism only, leading to significant conflict and even persecution of Anabaptists in Switzerland.

2. Distinctions from Other Reformers
A. Zwingli vs. Luther
The Eucharist Debate:
Zwingli and Luther clashed during the Marburg Colloquy (1529) over the nature of the Lord’s Supper. Luther insisted on Christ’s real presence (“This is my body”), while Zwingli maintained a purely symbolic interpretation.
This disagreement created a significant theological divide within the Reformation movement, contributing to the separation between Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

B. Zwingli vs. Calvin
Sacraments:
John Calvin, who followed Zwingli in many respects, moderated Zwingli’s symbolic view of the sacraments. Calvin argued for a spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, distinct from Zwingli’s memorialist view.
Calvin also expanded on covenant theology in ways that Zwingli had not fully developed.
3. Legacy of Zwinglianism
Reformed Tradition:

Zwingli’s theology laid the groundwork for the broader Reformed tradition, which was later shaped more definitively by Calvin. Many Reformed churches today trace their roots to Zwingli’s emphasis on Scripture, covenant theology, and symbolic sacraments.
Liturgical Simplicity:

Zwingli’s reforms included the removal of icons, statues, and ornate decorations from church buildings, along with the abolition of elaborate liturgical practices. This simplicity influenced many Reformed churches.
Influence on Anabaptist Criticism:

While Zwingli himself did not embrace Anabaptist beliefs, his emphasis on sola Scriptura inspired radical reformers who went further than Zwingli in rejecting infant baptism and advocating for the separation of church and state.
Summary
Zwinglianism represents the early Swiss Reformation's theological and ecclesiastical principles, characterized by its emphasis on the symbolic nature of the sacraments, the authority of Scripture, and the integration of church and state. It contributed significantly to the development of the Reformed tradition and left a lasting impact on Protestant theology and practice, even though it is often overshadowed by Calvinism.

My posts to you is solely Scripture, not Zwingli.

Thanks

J.

All very informative. However, with respect to this discussion, Zwingli was the predominant figure arguing against any connection between water baptism and salvation. He was almost a contemporary of Calvin, both of whom badly distorted biblical soteriology.

 

[Doug Brents]

The true core teaching for salvation is "faith alone". Faith is our part and grace is God's part.

And what is faith? It is not purely mental, as you would have us believe. For faith to be real, there is a required physical action part of it, just as James says in James 2 and the Hebrew writer depicts in Heb 11. If there is no action, then there is not faith, it is dead. And dead faith cannot bring about new life.

Jesus obviously broke the Sabbath many times. If He was keeping it, they wouldn't have condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath day. Since He was Lord of the Sabbath, he was not bound by it. No, it was not a sin for Him to work on the Sabbath, which He claimed to do.

Even the Lord of the Sabbath is still bound to the Law. Not even God is above the Law. Gal 4:4-5 says that Jesus came as a man, born under the Law. Being born under the Law, he was subject to the Law, and any violation of the Law would have made Him a sinner (and thus incapable of saving us). It would absolutely been sin for Him to break the sabbath.

Nor do you have the authority to declare that a believer who is not baptized is not saved, but you say that all the time, when the Bible does not.

Yes, the Bible does say that. I do not say it on my own authority, but I speak what the Bible speaks. A person is not a "believer" until and unless he has done (exhibited faith) what the Scripture says is required to become a believer. In a room full of chairs and tired people, the "believers" (in the chairs) are the ones sitting down. Anyone still standing is not really a "believer".

Sure, the tithe was commanded, just like baptism is commanded, right after you are born again.

You cannot be born again until you have died to sin, and you do not die to sin until you are baptized. Rebirth requires both the Spirit AND water. Without both, Jesus' words are not fulfilled. Baptism does not occur "after you are born again", because Scripture says that it is DURING baptism that salvation occurs.

But Jesus is saying that mercy, justice and faith are "the weightier provisions of the law." They were more important than tithing. Even so they are more important than baptism. Why? Because baptism does not save you, but mercy, justice, and faith is what is necessary for salvation.

Again, that is not what God says in His Word. Faith is our belief in God's Word IN ACTION. If there is no action, then there really isn't any belief, and if there is no belief, then there is no salvation.

Baptism is the first "core" teaching for NEW BELIEVERS, but mercy, justice, and faith are the CORE TEACHING to BECOME A NEW BELIEVER.

Wrong! Baptism is required to become a new believer. It is the point at which one dies to sin, is clothed with Christ, is resurrected with Christ, and joins the family of God.

Jesus admitted that He broke the Sabbath: "For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath." "BUT HE ANSWERED THEM, "MY FATHER IS WORKING UNTIL NOW (YES, ON THE SABBATH), AND I MYSELF AM WORKING."

That is not Jesus admitting that He broke the sabbath. Jesus understood the true meaning of God's command to honor the sabbath. The Pharisees did not understand it, and had formulated their own rules around God's command (and these Jesus broke), but their rules were not God's commands, nor were they honoring of the intent of God's command.

Not only did He Himself break the Sabbath, but He commanded the sick man by the pool of Bethesda to GET UP, PICK UP HIS PALLET AND WALK ON THE SABBATH DAY. John 5:16-17

Again, that did not violate the sabbath. There is no provision in the Law that a man was forbidden to carry his pallet or to walk on the sabbath.

Even the Jews knew it was a violation of the Sabbath to carry a pallet, but Jesus TOLD HIM TO CARRY IT JUST TO IRK THE JEWS, AND TO GET THEM TO SEE THAT HE WAS IN FACT, LORD OF THE SABBATH.

NO, that did not break the sabbath. It broke the Pharisees' rules around the sabbath, but it did not break God's Law.

 

[Doug Brents]

That's amazing how you know what all prisons will or will not allow. How about China? or Russia? or North Korea? or Iran? Syria? Venezuela? In fact, I doubt that you know what all prisons even here in America will or will not allow.

Yet again, looking for exceptions, or exceptional situations, is not how we determine God's will. Did the criminal do the crime (sin) for which he is imprisoned? Then he deserves to be there, just as you and I deserve to be condemned for the sins we have committed. Did they have the opportunity before their incarceration to learn of Jesus? Then they have no excuse now for having done the crime that got them incarcerated, just as you and I have no excuse.

Do you really think that a prison in a communist country would allow a prisoner to get baptized? I thought you were smarter than that. But, according to you, if they won't let a prisoner get baptized, then that prisoner is lost forever.

The aborigines in the deep jungles of Brazil have never even heard of Jesus. Will they be saved? NO! Can they use that as an excuse before God at Judgement? NO! Because God says that they should have known about God and given Him His rightful place in their lives (been without sin), and yet they did sin and so are condemned. Making these kinds of excuses for people is not going to cut it with God. Yes, He has mercy, but His mercy has requirements. As Jesus told the Apostles, if you don't forgive others, then God won't forgive you. If you don't repent, then you cannot be forgiven. If you don't confess Jesus before men, then Jesus won't confess you before the Father. If you are not baptized, then you are not washed clean of sin, and you are not saved.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug "Don't give me the, "they never had a chance" routine."

I'm not the one giving out the "they never had a chance" routine. You are. You say that if they don't get baptized, they'll never have a chance to be saved.
I say "they have a chance until they die" (to put their faith in Jesus), whether they are baptized or not.

Yes, they have a chance to "put their faith in Jesus". But as has already been established, faith is not passive. It is not just a mental exercise. Faith REQUIRES action, or it is not really faith. And the actions it requires are the actions that God has said lead to/result in receiving salvation.

 

[Doug Brents]

Relax @Jim.

"BAPTISM"
Spirit Baptism Saves Us, Not Water Baptism!

WRONG!!

There is only one baptism in the NT Church (Eph 4:5-6), and that baptism is the point at which we are saved (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14, Acts 22:16), and requires water (1 Pet 3:21, Acts 8:36). The Spirit is also present, and is the active force during water baptism, but the baptism during which we are saved is water baptism.

 

[Doug Brents]

“I 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:” – Matthew 3:11

And He did so, on Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit came down UPON them and gave them miraculous empowerment. They already had the Spirit indwelling them (Acts 20:22).

 

[dwight92070]

No. Just because someone is in a nursing home does not make them incapable of being baptized. I have personally been part of baptizing people who were living in nursing homes, constrained to wheelchairs, on their death bed, etc. If their mind is still capable of understanding the Word, then there is a way of fulfilling the Word to result in their salvation. You want to paint me into a corner as if I am some cruel, evil, demanding legalist. Paint away. But know that there is every indication in Scripture that God keeps His word, and that He is the one who said that those who believe in Him and are baptized will be saved, and that it is in baptism that we encounter the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit removes our sins by its power, and then He resurrects us with Christ. Are you clean if you believe that a shower will cleanse you, but you never get in the shower?

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Our cleansing comes only through a spiritual application of the blood of Christ, not through any physical work. If anyone thinks that a physical work will will save them, that is a dead work.
I agree that those who believe in Him and are baptized will be saved -notice the scriptural order - believing first, which is synonymous with repentance and forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the indwelling Holy Spirit - Acts 10:43. Second, or later, comes being baptized in water, which is being obedient to Jesus when we have just been saved.
Notice that Mark 16:16 specifically says that the only thing that can keep us from being saved is disbelief. Doug would have us believe that not being baptized will keep us from being saved. But this verse does NOT say that, even though Doug and other legalists falsely insist that it does.
Notice that since repentance, forgiveness of sins, salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit all occur BEFORE baptism, then none of them occur initially during baptism itself. Therefore baptism is a physical sign to God and men of what happened in our hearts previously.

 

[dwight92070]

No. Just because someone is in a nursing home does not make them incapable of being baptized. I have personally been part of baptizing people who were living in nursing homes, constrained to wheelchairs, on their death bed, etc. If their mind is still capable of understanding the Word, then there is a way of fulfilling the Word to result in their salvation. You want to paint me into a corner as if I am some cruel, evil, demanding legalist. Paint away. But know that there is every indication in Scripture that God keeps His word, and that He is the one who said that those who believe in Him and are baptized will be saved, and that it is in baptism that we encounter the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit removes our sins by its power, and then He resurrects us with Christ. Are you clean if you believe that a shower will cleanse you, but you never get in the shower?

Sure, some in nursing homes may be able to get baptized. But many cannot. Many are bedridden and even if you tried to baptize them, you would be risking them getting drowned. Just because some could get baptized, the reality remains that a large number cannot. So what about them? I guess they're just out of luck - again, you say, in essence, it's their own fault for not getting saved and baptized when they were younger.
I'm not painting you into a corner, you are painting yourself into a corner. Your twisted understanding of God is that, He too, is a legalist like you, and that any person in a nursing home who becomes a believer, but is unable to get baptized - well basically they get what they deserve -hell. It's too late now, they should have believed and been baptized when they were younger.

I'm showing you the ridiculousness of your position, but you stubbornly hang on to your false doctrine. The truth is that ALL of those poor souls in a nursing home who become believers, but cannot physically be baptized, will, nonetheless, rest eternally in the loving arms of their Savior Jesus.

Baptism and confession are NOT their Savior, nor are they our Savior - Jesus IS. You have elevated baptism and confession to the level of Jesus, which is idolatry. Jesus saves - NOT baptism and confession. We DO confess Jesus and we DO get baptized, but they do NOT save us. Jesus ALONE saves us by grace alone through faith alone. No added works are required. No added works will save.

In your cruel, legalistic understanding of salvation, you have created ANOTHER UNPARDONABLE SIN - not getting baptized. When the truth is that the only unpardonable sin is rejecting our TRUE SAVIOR and His teaching.

The thief on the cross should have believed when he was younger and just like all new believers, he should have been baptized. John 4:1-2 tells us that all new believers in Jesus were baptized in Jesus' name. But the thief neither believed nor was he baptized when he was younger. But you, in your twisted "theology" would consign him to hell. But, on his "deathbed", he converted to Jesus and Jesus assured him, that that very day, he would be with Jesus in paradise. The same is true today. As long as there is breath in us and we have the mental capacity to understand the gospel of Jesus, we can be saved. If we are physically able to be baptized, we should be. If not, God is not going to reject us and send us to hell on a technicality. Only a cruel legalist would do that and God is not cruel and He condemns the hypocrisy of legalism, which the Scribes and Pharisees and Judaizers were "experts" in.

My brother-in-law, Nep, recently passed away at the age of 68. Cancer had spread throughout his body. He was in pain. He had rejected Jesus all his life. But on his deathbed, he reconciled his heart with Jesus. His brother Xavier, even led him in a prayer to receive Jesus. In much weeping, he asked each of his 7 siblings (including my wife) to forgive him for rejecting them throughout his life. (He rejected his family and had nothing to do with them, but lived a totally separate life.) One by one, each sibling embraced him, forgave him, and also weeping - loved him. Water baptism was totally out of the question.

Then, in a few days, he was gone. That morning when he died, I still did not have 100% assurance that he was saved before he died. Then the Lord put a verse on my heart. Matthew 10:40:

"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

I began to weep, realizing that Nep had RECEIVED ALL of his siblings AND their spouses and children on his deathbed. He asked for prayer and
ALL of us prayed with him and for him. He knew that most of us were Christians (which I believe is largely why he rejected us), but he RECEIVED ALL OF US, HUGGED ALL OF US, AND WEPT WITH US AND EVEN REQUESTED OUR PRAYERS. He even wanted to SING some songs that their family sang together at their church, when they were kids (which he had NEVER wanted to do before). He wanted to sing one song in particular, which was about leaving this world and going to heaven. It's a Spanish song, which I had never heard before.

On the authority of Jesus' words ALONE, I KNOW that Nep is with Jesus NOW. Yet he was NOT baptized.

 

[Neil Spargo]

Paul was saved through God’s grace, which conquered sin and death. He encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, leading to his conversion and calling to follow Jesus. His testimony indicates that he was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus. But there are different opinions.

Was it when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus or three days later on the street called Straight? I think on the road to Damascus. But.....

When And Where Was Paul Saved?

Many quickly say, "That is an easy question. Everyone knows he was saved in Acts 9." Let me ask you another question. Was it when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus or three days later on the street called Straight? Before you answer that question, you need to examine Paul's own testimony in the Bible. (Acts 22)

Several years ago as a young preacher, I preached a message on Seven Reasons Why Paul Was Saved On The Road To Damascus. Today I cannot even remember the seven reasons. The reason I preached that message was because I had heard someone else preach a similar message. From my thinking and understanding of the scripture at the time, I thought it was a good solid message that would help others. But since that time, I have studied the scripture and in so doing, I came across Paul's testimony in Acts 22 where he told about Ananias coming to him and what he said in verses 13-16: "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Take a careful look at verse 16. Ananias, who had been sent by the Lord to Paul, (Acts 9:10-12) told Paul (Acts 22:16) to "wash away his sins by calling on the name of the Lord." This verse reveals that Paul's sins had not yet been washed away. Therefore, by his own testimony, Paul was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus three days after encountering Jesus on the Damascus' road.

If we would be honest we must too admit most of what we preach and practice is due to tradition. Col. 2:8 warns not to be spoiled or captured by tradition. You may say, "But I have many reasons to believe he was saved on the road to Damascus. Let us look at some of them.

First reason: Paul called Jesus, Lord in Acts 9:5-6 and Rom. 10:13 states that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "Lord" can be used as a respectful title. The same Greek word "kurios" was translated "Sir" in John 4:11,19 as the Woman at the well gave Jesus a title of respect. Also Paul called Jesus "kurios" (Greek). Many use Rom. 10:13 as a basis of salvation without understanding what it means "to call Jesus Lord." I Cor. 12:3b states, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." This means that the Holy Ghost must work His work of reproval (Holy Ghost conviction, John 16:8-11) which brings a person to the end of himself thus working repentance so the individual worked on can repent. At this point "Lord" is no more a title of respect, or just a word, but a commitment to Jesus as his Lord (Master; controller). This did not happen to Paul on the Damascus road.

Second reason: When Ananias came to Paul, he called him "brother" (Acts 9:17), because he was saved. Paul in the synagogue in Antioch addressed those present as "brethren" and they were not saved. (Acts 13:26) The same thing occurred in Acts 22:1 where he gives his testimony to a multitude of Jews and they were not saved for they rejected him when he mentioned going unto the Gentiles in Acts 22:21-23. Again he called the Sanhedrin "brethren" in Acts 23:1 and they were not saved. His use of "brethren" was in the sense of them as well as himself being a descendant of Abraham. Ananias could have called Paul "brother" for this same reason or he could have done so knowing the Lord was going to save him because of what He had already told him in Acts 9:15-16. But by Paul's own testimony in Acts 22, Ananias called Paul "brother" in verse 13 before his sins had been washed away (verse 16).

Third reason: He had to be saved before he was baptized. I agree. Paul fills us in on what Ananias said in Acts 22 while Acts 9:18 leaves out the details. Paul was saved before he was baptized and his baptism did not wash away his sins.

The Word of God destroys a lot of tradition. I have no problem (now that this Scripture has been opened to me) with when and where Paul was saved. It was on the street called Straight three days after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. You may ask, "What was he doing those three days?" Just what our Lord describes in Luke 14:25-33--counting the cost.

Paul tells us of this in Phil. 3:4-8. For three days after he came face to face with the reality of who Jesus was, he had to count the cost. He knew what he had inflicted upon the followers of Christ. Some he had killed. Some he had put in prison. He was a great persecutor of the followers of Christ. As he sat there in Damascus on the street called Straight, he had to decide whether he was willing to suffer as a follower of Christ. Was he willing to go to prison? For three days he counted the cost and came to the conclusion that Christ was worth more than all his Jewish pedigree. Let me say, the only way he came to that conclusion was by the work of the Holy Spirit. And just at the right time God had His human instrument, Ananias, come with a message from Him. (The human instrument has to cross every person's path that will be saved. This is God's way. (Acts 8:31; Rom. 10:13-15; I Cor. 3:5)

The cost must be counted. In John 6, Jesus placed demands upon a large multitude and they were not willing to pay the price. They walked off and we never find a place where they were saved. (John 6:53, 60, 66) Also the rich young ruler was not willing to sell his goods and give to the poor. (Mark 10:21-22) He rejected the Lord Jesus, because he was not willing to pay the price. But Paul was willing and he got saved. What about you? Are you willing to count the cost and forsake all that Jesus may be your Lord and Saviour? Notice I said Lord and Saviour, not Saviour and Lord. He must be your Lord before he will be your Saviour!

When and where was Paul saved? He was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus three days after his Damascus road experience. You do not have to take my word but you need to believe God's Word!!!



THE PERSUADER - February-March, 1996

 

[Doug Brents]

"how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Our cleansing comes only through a spiritual application of the blood of Christ, not through any physical work. If anyone thinks that a physical work will will save them, that is a dead work.

Our physical works don't "save" us (they have not nearly the quality, valuable, saving power of the Blood of Christ), but if we do not do them then we do not receive the effect of His blood poured over us. Just as the water of Jordan did not cleanse Naaman's leprosy, but if he had not dipped 7 times he would not have been cleansed by the power of God. Just as having more bottles did not make the widow's oil pour longer, but if she had not gotten the bottles she did gather the power of God would not have made the oil flow as long as it did. Just as making a cake for the prophet did not cause the other widow's flour and oil to last through the famine, but if she had not made the cake for him she would not have lived to the end of the famine. Just as marching around the city of Jericho did not cause the walls to fall down, but if they had not marched around the city the power of God would not have knocked the walls down. If we do not do what He says we have to do to receive His blessing, then we do not receive His blessing.

I agree that those who believe in Him and are baptized will be saved -notice the scriptural order - believing first, which is synonymous with repentance and forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the indwelling Holy Spirit - Acts 10:43.

Believing is not synonymous with repentance and forgiveness of sins and salvation and the indwelling of the Spirit.
Believing is synonymous with faith, and the faith that brings salvation requires repentance, confession of Jesus as Lord and baptism, and the result is forgiveness, salvation, and the indwelling of the Spirit.

Second, or later, comes being baptized in water, which is being obedient to Jesus when we have just been saved.

You cannot be saved unless you have first been born again. And being born again occurs DURING water baptism. You keep trying to say that the old, dead, sinful man can be in a saved relationship with God, but it cannot. Only the born again is in a saved relationship with God, and being born again happens during water baptism, for it is during water baptism that we die to sin, have our sins cut from us, are united to Christ's death and resurrection, and are clothed with Christ and adopted as God's children.

Notice that Mark 16:16 specifically says that the only thing that can keep us from being saved is disbelief. Doug would have us believe that not being baptized will keep us from being saved.

Mark 16:16 does not say anything about what keeps us from being saved. We are condemned because of sin. And the one who does not believe will not do the things that God requires to be freed from his bondage to sin. Mark 16:16 says that the only way to be saved is to believe and be baptized. In other words, you have to open the door and walk through it to enter the room. If you don't open the door, then you cannot possibly walk through it, so you are still outside the room. Salvation is in the room. If you open the door (believe) but don't walk through it (be baptized) you are still outside the room and still not saved.

 

[dwight92070]

Paul was saved through God’s grace, which conquered sin and death. He encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus, leading to his conversion and calling to follow Jesus. His testimony indicates that he was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus. But there are different opinions.

Was it when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus or three days later on the street called Straight? I think on the road to Damascus. But.....

When And Where Was Paul Saved?

Many quickly say, "That is an easy question. Everyone knows he was saved in Acts 9." Let me ask you another question. Was it when he met Jesus on the road to Damascus or three days later on the street called Straight? Before you answer that question, you need to examine Paul's own testimony in the Bible. (Acts 22)

Several years ago as a young preacher, I preached a message on Seven Reasons Why Paul Was Saved On The Road To Damascus. Today I cannot even remember the seven reasons. The reason I preached that message was because I had heard someone else preach a similar message. From my thinking and understanding of the scripture at the time, I thought it was a good solid message that would help others. But since that time, I have studied the scripture and in so doing, I came across Paul's testimony in Acts 22 where he told about Ananias coming to him and what he said in verses 13-16: "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Take a careful look at verse 16. Ananias, who had been sent by the Lord to Paul, (Acts 9:10-12) told Paul (Acts 22:16) to "wash away his sins by calling on the name of the Lord." This verse reveals that Paul's sins had not yet been washed away. Therefore, by his own testimony, Paul was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus three days after encountering Jesus on the Damascus' road.

If we would be honest we must too admit most of what we preach and practice is due to tradition. Col. 2:8 warns not to be spoiled or captured by tradition. You may say, "But I have many reasons to believe he was saved on the road to Damascus. Let us look at some of them.

First reason: Paul called Jesus, Lord in Acts 9:5-6 and Rom. 10:13 states that "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "Lord" can be used as a respectful title. The same Greek word "kurios" was translated "Sir" in John 4:11,19 as the Woman at the well gave Jesus a title of respect. Also Paul called Jesus "kurios" (Greek). Many use Rom. 10:13 as a basis of salvation without understanding what it means "to call Jesus Lord." I Cor. 12:3b states, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." This means that the Holy Ghost must work His work of reproval (Holy Ghost conviction, John 16:8-11) which brings a person to the end of himself thus working repentance so the individual worked on can repent. At this point "Lord" is no more a title of respect, or just a word, but a commitment to Jesus as his Lord (Master; controller). This did not happen to Paul on the Damascus road.

Second reason: When Ananias came to Paul, he called him "brother" (Acts 9:17), because he was saved. Paul in the synagogue in Antioch addressed those present as "brethren" and they were not saved. (Acts 13:26) The same thing occurred in Acts 22:1 where he gives his testimony to a multitude of Jews and they were not saved for they rejected him when he mentioned going unto the Gentiles in Acts 22:21-23. Again he called the Sanhedrin "brethren" in Acts 23:1 and they were not saved. His use of "brethren" was in the sense of them as well as himself being a descendant of Abraham. Ananias could have called Paul "brother" for this same reason or he could have done so knowing the Lord was going to save him because of what He had already told him in Acts 9:15-16. But by Paul's own testimony in Acts 22, Ananias called Paul "brother" in verse 13 before his sins had been washed away (verse 16).

Third reason: He had to be saved before he was baptized. I agree. Paul fills us in on what Ananias said in Acts 22 while Acts 9:18 leaves out the details. Paul was saved before he was baptized and his baptism did not wash away his sins.

The Word of God destroys a lot of tradition. I have no problem (now that this Scripture has been opened to me) with when and where Paul was saved. It was on the street called Straight three days after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. You may ask, "What was he doing those three days?" Just what our Lord describes in Luke 14:25-33--counting the cost.

Paul tells us of this in Phil. 3:4-8. For three days after he came face to face with the reality of who Jesus was, he had to count the cost. He knew what he had inflicted upon the followers of Christ. Some he had killed. Some he had put in prison. He was a great persecutor of the followers of Christ. As he sat there in Damascus on the street called Straight, he had to decide whether he was willing to suffer as a follower of Christ. Was he willing to go to prison? For three days he counted the cost and came to the conclusion that Christ was worth more than all his Jewish pedigree. Let me say, the only way he came to that conclusion was by the work of the Holy Spirit. And just at the right time God had His human instrument, Ananias, come with a message from Him. (The human instrument has to cross every person's path that will be saved. This is God's way. (Acts 8:31; Rom. 10:13-15; I Cor. 3:5)

The cost must be counted. In John 6, Jesus placed demands upon a large multitude and they were not willing to pay the price. They walked off and we never find a place where they were saved. (John 6:53, 60, 66) Also the rich young ruler was not willing to sell his goods and give to the poor. (Mark 10:21-22) He rejected the Lord Jesus, because he was not willing to pay the price. But Paul was willing and he got saved. What about you? Are you willing to count the cost and forsake all that Jesus may be your Lord and Saviour? Notice I said Lord and Saviour, not Saviour and Lord. He must be your Lord before he will be your Saviour!

When and where was Paul saved? He was saved on the street called Straight in Damascus three days after his Damascus road experience. You do not have to take my word but you need to believe God's Word!!!



THE PERSUADER - February-March, 1996

That's not necessarily true. First off, is it possible that Paul could have sinned during the 3 days that he was in Damascus?

Remember he had been a violent, angry man and evil thoughts of murdering Christians had filled his brain. In Acts 26: 9-11, he said, "I thought to myself that I had to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus of Nazareth ... and I punished them (the saints) often in all the synagogues, and I tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities. "

Yes, he was miraculously confronted by Jesus and I believe he was instantly saved and forgiven. But even after a miraculous conversion, do you think that his brain permanently erased all evil thoughts that he was accustomed to - possibly for years? Remember, he even said that he struggled with sin AFTER he became a believer - Romans 7:14-17 " ... For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate ..."

Not only that but Ananias, knowing Paul's violent reputation, could have assumed that he still had sins in his mind that he needed to deal with.

Also, don't forget Paul's testimony before Agrippa in Acts 26:14-18. Many Christians seem to ignore this testimony, but it is very enlightening. It clearly tells us that Jesus gave him his commission ON THE ROAD to Damascus, telling him that he was to proclaim, among other things, that the Gentiles could receive forgiveness of their sins -verse 18. Does anyone think that Jesus would tell Paul that he could proclaim forgiveness of sins, WHEN HIS OWN SINS HAD NOT YET BEEN FORGIVEN? That's highly unlikely.

Finally, Ananias is not saying that baptism would wash away his sins, because only the blood of Jesus can do that, and that is NOT a physical experience - it is a spiritual experience. Rather, Ananias is saying that "calling on His name" is the channel through which his sins would be forgiven - implying repentance and faith.

 

[Doug Brents]

Sure, some in nursing homes may be able to get baptized. But many cannot. Many are bedridden and even if you tried to baptize them, you would be risking them getting drowned. Just because some could get baptized, the reality remains that a large number cannot. So what about them? I guess they're just out of luck - again, you say, in essence, it's their own fault for not getting saved and baptized when they were younger.
I'm not painting you into a corner, you are painting yourself into a corner. Your twisted understanding of God is that, He too, is a legalist like you, and that any person in a nursing home who becomes a believer, but is unable to get baptized - well basically they get what they deserve -hell. It's too late now, they should have believed and been baptized when they were younger.

Dwight, again you are focused on the exceptions. Yes, there are many who won't be saved. Many will never hear the name Jesus, let alone believe in Him. Many will choose not to believe in Him and live a life of sin. Many will believe in Him but put off choosing to obey Him. Some of these will die young in accidents. Some of them will die old and never decide to obey Him. Some of them will seek to obey Him but it will be too late to do anything about it. But a few will make the choice to obey before it is too late. God wants us to love Him because He first loved us. He doesn't want our leftovers. He is jealous, and He wants our first and best. If we gamble that we can live a full, long life of sin and debauchery and then at the last minute call on Him to save us, most of the time that gamble will be lost. Salvation is not an insurance policy, it is a relationship with the one who made us, loves us, and gave His life to rescue us.

I'm showing you the ridiculousness of your position, but you stubbornly hang on to your false doctrine. The truth is that ALL of those poor souls in a nursing home who become believers, but cannot physically be baptized, will, nonetheless, rest eternally in the loving arms of their Savior Jesus.

It may be that you are right, but that is not what we find in Scripture, and I can only teach what God wrote in His Scripture. I can't teach long-shots, or maybes, or possibilities. When I teach a person about Christ, I have to teach what God wrote in His Word, and that is that salvation should be entered into NOW, TODAY, not next week, not next month, and certainly not in 50 years.

Baptism and confession are NOT their Savior, nor are they our Savior - Jesus IS. You have elevated baptism and confession to the level of Jesus, which is idolatry.

No, confession and baptism are not idols. They are not even close to who and what Jesus is. What you are saying is like saying that Naaman had to believe that Jordan was equal to the God who made it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The water is just water, and the words are just words, but it is the command of God that makes the doing of those actions result in His blessing.

Jesus saves - NOT baptism and confession. We DO confess Jesus and we DO get baptized, but they do NOT save us. Jesus ALONE saves us by grace alone through faith alone. No added works are required. No added works will save.

Where is the ONLY place in all of Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" or "faith only" occurs? It is in James 2:24. Look it up. What does it say? It says that we are justified (declared righteous before God) by our actions and NOT BY FAITH ONLY! By our actions working with our faith.

In your cruel, legalistic understanding of salvation, you have created ANOTHER UNPARDONABLE SIN - not getting baptized. When the truth is that the only unpardonable sin is rejecting our TRUE SAVIOR and His teaching.

Wrong again. As Scripture says, we are already condemned by our sin (so we are outside the room), and salvation resides with God (inside the room). If we want to receive salvation, then we must become "in Christ" (we must enter the room). The only way to become "in Christ" (enter the room) is to believe in the Gospel (open the door) and be baptized (walk through it). If we don't enter the room we remain lost in sin.

The thief on the cross should have believed when he was younger and just like all new believers, he should have been baptized.

Yes, he should have been a Godly person during his youth. But he was granted a very, very rare (unique in all of history) to be crucified beside the Creator of the universe. And when he expressed his in faith to the Creator of the universe (while still being subject to the Old Covenant), the Creator had mercy on him and promised him paradise. If you want to teach that we should hang out and wait on the Creator to be crucified again so we can call out to Him in faith while we hang next to Him be my guest. But I don't recommend that.

John 4:1-2 tells us that all new believers in Jesus were baptized in Jesus' name. But the thief neither believed nor was he baptized when he was younger. But you, in your twisted "theology" would consign him to hell.

No, John 4:1-2 does not say that "all new believers in Jesus were baptized in Jesus' name". It says that Jesus' disciples were baptizing more new disciples in Jesus' name than John's disciples were baptizing.

But, on his "deathbed", he converted to Jesus and Jesus assured him, that that very day, he would be with Jesus in paradise. The same is true today. As long as there is breath in us and we have the mental capacity to understand the gospel of Jesus, we can be saved. If we are physically able to be baptized, we should be. If not, God is not going to reject us and send us to hell on a technicality. Only a cruel legalist would do that and God is not cruel and He condemns the hypocrisy of legalism, which the Scribes and Pharisees and Judaizers were "experts" in.

You could be right, but because God does not tell us any of that, I cannot preach it. Because God tells us that we are saved when we are baptized in water in the name of Jesus that is the only thing I can teach. If you want to teach possibilities, go ahead; I will teach sure things.

My brother-in-law, Nep, recently passed away at the age of 68. Cancer had spread throughout his body. He was in pain.

I am very sorry for your loss. I lost my first wife to cancer back in 2011, and I saw the pain she was in. I am very sorry for your brother's pain.

He had rejected Jesus all his life. But on his deathbed, he reconciled his heart with Jesus. His brother Xavier, even led him in a prayer to receive Jesus. In much weeping, he asked each of his 7 siblings (including my wife) to forgive him for rejecting them throughout his life. (He rejected his family and had nothing to do with them, but lived a totally separate life.) One by one, each sibling embraced him, forgave him, and also weeping - loved him. Water baptism was totally out of the question.

I am very glad that he was reconciled to his family, and I wish I could believe, for his sake and for yours, that you are correct. But I can't tell you that I believe he was reconciled to God. He may have "opened the door", but he didn't "walk through it", and Scripture doesn't give any hope for those who are not inside the room.

Then, in a few days, he was gone. That morning when he died, I still did not have 100% assurance that he was saved before he died. Then the Lord put a verse on my heart. Matthew 10:40:

"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."

I began to weep, realizing that Nep had RECEIVED ALL of his siblings AND their spouses and children on his deathbed. He asked for prayer and
ALL of us prayed with him and for him. He knew that most of us were Christians (which I believe is largely why he rejected us), but he RECEIVED ALL OF US, HUGGED ALL OF US, AND WEPT WITH US AND EVEN REQUESTED OUR PRAYERS. He even wanted to SING some songs that their family sang together at their church, when they were kids (which he had NEVER wanted to do before). He wanted to sing one song in particular, which was about leaving this world and going to heaven. It's a Spanish song, which I had never heard before.

On the authority of Jesus' words ALONE, I KNOW that Nep is with Jesus NOW. Yet he was NOT baptized.

What does it mean to "receive" a minister? Read the context of Matt 10. Jesus is talking about not only opening the door and walking through it, but living in relationship with Him. Leaving worldly relations in order to gain Heavenly relations. Leaving worldly wealth in order to gain Heavenly wealth. Giving aid to others as if we were giving it to Him.

Also, don't forget Paul's testimony before Agrippa in Acts 26:14-18. Many Christians seem to ignore this testimony, but it is very enlightening. It clearly tells us that Jesus gave him his commission ON THE ROAD to Damascus, telling him that he was to proclaim, among other things, that the Gentiles could receive forgiveness of their sins -verse 18. Does anyone think that Jesus would tell Paul that he could proclaim forgiveness of sins, WHEN HIS OWN SINS HAD NOT YET BEEN FORGIVEN? That's highly unlikely.

Dwight, please refrain from twisting Scripture to make your false points. The version of Paul's conversion story in Acts 26 is neither detailed or exhaustive. The versions given in Acts 9 and 22 are far more detailed, and they both tell us that Paul was told that he would preach Jesus by Ananias three days after he was on the Road. He was not told this by Jesus directly while he was on the Road. So while Paul doesn't explain the details of timing to King Agrippa, the details remain the same as what we read in Acts 9 and 22.

 

[dwight92070]

It's too bad that Doug willfully rejects what Peter said in Acts 10:43:

"Of Him all the prophets bear witness, that through his name EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

So yes, anyone who believes in Jesus will receive forgiveness of sins. So maybe synonymous was the wrong word but forgiveness of sins is inevitably received by those who believe in Him. The thief on the cross experienced this instantly when he believed in Jesus, even though he NEVER EVEN ASKED JESUS TO FORGIVE HIS SINS. Jesus knew his heart was repentant and reaching out to Him in faith.

 

[dwight92070]

Dwight, again you are focused on the exceptions. Yes, there are many who won't be saved. Many will never hear the name Jesus, let alone believe in Him. Many will choose not to believe in Him and live a life of sin. Many will believe in Him but put off choosing to obey Him. Some of these will die young in accidents. Some of them will die old and never decide to obey Him. Some of them will seek to obey Him but it will be too late to do anything about it. But a few will make the choice to obey before it is too late. God wants us to love Him because He first loved us. He doesn't want our leftovers. He is jealous, and He wants our first and best. If we gamble that we can live a full, long life of sin and debauchery and then at the last minute call on Him to save us, most of the time that gamble will be lost. Salvation is not an insurance policy, it is a relationship with the one who made us, loves us, and gave His life to rescue us.

It may be that you are right, but that is not what we find in Scripture, and I can only teach what God wrote in His Scripture. I can't teach long-shots, or maybes, or possibilities. When I teach a person about Christ, I have to teach what God wrote in His Word, and that is that salvation should be entered into NOW, TODAY, not next week, not next month, and certainly not in 50 years.

No, confession and baptism are not idols. They are not even close to who and what Jesus is. What you are saying is like saying that Naaman had to believe that Jordan was equal to the God who made it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The water is just water, and the words are just words, but it is the command of God that makes the doing of those actions result in His blessing.

Where is the ONLY place in all of Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" or "faith only" occurs? It is in James 2:24. Look it up. What does it say? It says that we are justified (declared righteous before God) by our actions and NOT BY FAITH ONLY! By our actions working with our faith.

Wrong again. As Scripture says, we are already condemned by our sin (so we are outside the room), and salvation resides with God (inside the room). If we want to receive salvation, then we must become "in Christ" (we must enter the room). The only way to become "in Christ" (enter the room) is to believe in the Gospel (open the door) and be baptized (walk through it). If we don't enter the room we remain lost in sin.

Yes, he should have been a Godly person during his youth. But he was granted a very, very rare (unique in all of history) to be crucified beside the Creator of the universe. And when he expressed his in faith to the Creator of the universe (while still being subject to the Old Covenant), the Creator had mercy on him and promised him paradise. If you want to teach that we should hang out and wait on the Creator to be crucified again so we can call out to Him in faith while we hang next to Him be my guest. But I don't recommend that.

No, John 4:1-2 does not say that "all new believers in Jesus were baptized in Jesus' name". It says that Jesus' disciples were baptizing more new disciples in Jesus' name than John's disciples were baptizing.

You could be right, but because God does not tell us any of that, I cannot preach it. Because God tells us that we are saved when we are baptized in water in the name of Jesus that is the only thing I can teach. If you want to teach possibilities, go ahead; I will teach sure things.

I am very sorry for your loss. I lost my first wife to cancer back in 2011, and I saw the pain she was in. I am very sorry for your brother's pain.

I am very glad that he was reconciled to his family, and I wish I could believe, for his sake and for yours, that you are correct. But I can't tell you that I believe he was reconciled to God. He may have "opened the door", but he didn't "walk through it", and Scripture doesn't give any hope for those who are not inside the room.

What does it mean to "receive" a minister? Read the context of Matt 10. Jesus is talking about not only opening the door and walking through it, but living in relationship with Him. Leaving worldly relations in order to gain Heavenly relations. Leaving worldly wealth in order to gain Heavenly wealth. Giving aid to others as if we were giving it to Him.

Dwight, please refrain from twisting Scripture to make your false points. The version of Paul's conversion story in Acts 26 is neither detailed or exhaustive. The versions given in Acts 9 and 22 are far more detailed, and they both tell us that Paul was told that he would preach Jesus by Ananias three days after he was on the Road. He was not told this by Jesus directly while he was on the Road. So while Paul doesn't explain the details of timing to King Agrippa, the details remain the same as what we read in Acts 9 and 22.

Once again, your Savior, baptism, twists your understanding of all other scripture. Yes, Ananias DID confirm Paul's commission that he received on the road to Damascus. But the Acts 26:12-18 passage gives far more details, specifically about his commission and that passage DOES NOT say that he waited three days, until Ananias came, to receive that commission. In fact, in the Acts 26 passage, JESUS HIMSELF IS ACTUALLY DOING THE TALKING, GIVING PAUL HIS COMMISSION. That is NOT true in the other two passages - ONLY Ananias is mentioning Paul's commission, not Jesus.

You are the one twisting scripture. It's obvious that you WISH that Ananias was the only one giving Paul his commission, but that is false. Jesus actually came HIMSELF and appeared to Paul - of course His appearance was so glorious that it blinded Paul. On the other hand, Ananias did not get the privilege of an actual appearance of Christ Himself - rather he saw Him only in a vision.

Do you get it? Paul (Saul) was highly favored over Ananias because Jesus actually appeared in His glory to Paul. Not so with Ananias. If that was not true then Ananias too, would have been blinded by Jesus - but he wasn't. Acts 9:10

Ananias speaking to Saul in Acts 22:14: "The God of our Fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth."

 

[Doug Brents]

It's too bad that Doug willfully rejects what Peter said in Acts 10:43:

"Of Him all the prophets bear witness, that through his name EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM RECEIVES FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

So yes, anyone who believes in Jesus will receive forgiveness of sins. So maybe synonymous was the wrong word but forgiveness of sins is inevitably received by those who believe in Him. The thief on the cross experienced this instantly when he believed in Jesus, even though he NEVER EVEN ASKED JESUS TO FORGIVE HIS SINS. Jesus knew his heart was repentant and reaching out to Him in faith.

And we are back to what it means to believe. Yes, all who believe receive forgiveness of sins, but belief is NOT just a mental exercise you can do while sitting alone on a seat reading the Scripture or listening to a sermon online. Belief (this mental exercise you believe in) is not real (and thus does not save) if it does not also have the actions that God said also lead to receiving forgiveness/salvation.

Once again, your Savior, baptism, twists your understanding of all other scripture. Yes, Ananias DID confirm Paul's commission that he received on the road to Damascus.

No, Ananias did not CONFIRM anything. Ananias delivered God's commission to Paul. All God told Paul on the Road was to go into town and someone would come tell him what he must do (Acts 9:5, Acts 22:10). Paul was not commissioned on the Road and he was not saved on the Road.

But the Acts 26:12-18 passage gives far more details, specifically about his commission and that passage DOES NOT say that he waited three days, until Ananias came, to receive that commission. In fact, in the Acts 26 passage, JESUS HIMSELF IS ACTUALLY DOING THE TALKING, GIVING PAUL HIS COMMISSION. That is NOT true in the other two passages - ONLY Ananias is mentioning Paul's commission, not Jesus.

If a private delivers a command in a general's name, who is giving the command? If an employee delivers a command in the CEO's name, who is giving the command? If a disciple delivers a command in God's name, who is giving the command? Ananias did NOTHING of his own accord. He was speaking as God directed him to speak, so whether it is Ananias' voice or Jesus, it is Jesus giving the command and commission. And it was clearly given the first time by Ananias three days after the Road experience.

You are the one twisting scripture. It's obvious that you WISH that Ananias was the only one giving Paul his commission, but that is false. Jesus actually came HIMSELF and appeared to Paul - of course His appearance was so glorious that it blinded Paul. On the other hand, Ananias did not get the privilege of an actual appearance of Christ Himself - rather he saw Him only in a vision.

Ananias was not blinded by God's appearing to him (Acts 9:10), just as Moses was not blinded by God's appearing to him (Exo 3:1-10, Exo 33:20-23), and many others have seen God's glory and not been blinded. God blinded Paul for a purpose.

 

[dwight92070]

What does "believes" mean? Your definition contradicts both the English and the Greek dictionary. The English dictionary says: "To accept as true, genuine, or real." The Greek dictionary says: "to believe, or entrust" (4100 in the Strong's concordance)

So " ... everyone who (accepts Him as true, genuine, or real) receives forgiveness of sins." English dictionary
Or " ... everyone who (entrusts themselves to Him and believes Him) receives forgiveness of sins." Greek dictionary

Your so-called definition is either totally made up by yourself or you gleaned it from other deceived cultists like yourself who idolize baptism and confession.

 

[MTMattie]

What does "believes" mean? Your definition contradicts both the English and the Greek dictionary. The English dictionary says: "To accept as true, genuine, or real." The Greek dictionary says: "to believe, or entrust" (4100 in the Strong's concordance)

So " ... everyone who (accepts Him as true, genuine, or real) receives forgiveness of sins." English dictionary
Or " ... everyone who (entrusts themselves to Him and believes Him) receives forgiveness of sins." Greek dictionary

Your so-called definition is either totally made up by yourself or you gleaned it from other deceived cultists like yourself who idolize baptism and confession.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Doug Brents]

What does "believes" mean? Your definition contradicts both the English and the Greek dictionary. The English dictionary says: "To accept as true, genuine, or real." The Greek dictionary says: "to believe, or entrust" (4100 in the Strong's concordance)

So " ... everyone who (accepts Him as true, genuine, or real) receives forgiveness of sins." English dictionary
Or " ... everyone who (entrusts themselves to Him and believes Him) receives forgiveness of sins." Greek dictionary

Your so-called definition is either totally made up by yourself or you gleaned it from other deceived cultists like yourself who idolize baptism and confession.

In modern usage, yes, that is the definition. In modern usage "belief" is "intellectual assent. I get told that stating that "belief" is not "intellectual assent" is a strawman argument, but that is exactly what you are claiming "belief" is. But that is not the Biblical usage of the word.

No, in every case where "believe" or "belief" is mentioned in reference to salvation, the word used is the Greek "pistis" which means "faith". And faith is not just a mental acceptance. Faith without action is dead, useless, meaningless, impotent (James 2:20, 22, 24, 26). Belief is not just thinking in your head/heart that the Gospel is true, or that Jesus really is God, or that He died for you so that you could live. All of that is true, but "belief/faith" is not just thinking those things. It is taking action because they are true; taking the actions that God commanded that He said LEAD TO/RESULT IN receiving salvation.

 

[Johann]

In modern usage, yes, that is the definition. In modern usage "belief" is "intellectual assent. I get told that stating that "belief" is not "intellectual assent" is a strawman argument, but that is exactly what you are claiming "belief" is. But that is not the Biblical usage of the word.

No, in every case where "believe" or "belief" is mentioned in reference to salvation, the word used is the Greek "pistis" which means "faith". And faith is not just a mental acceptance. Faith without action is dead, useless, meaningless, impotent (James 2:20, 22, 24, 26). Belief is not just thinking in your head/heart that the Gospel is true, or that Jesus really is God, or that He died for you so that you could live. All of that is true, but "belief/faith" is not just thinking those things. It is taking action because they are true; taking the actions that God commanded that He said LEAD TO/RESULT IN receiving salvation.

Believe (4100) (pisteuo from pistis; pistos; related studies the faith, the obedience of faith) means to consider something to be true and therefore worthy of one’s trust. To accept as true, genuine, or real. To have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something or someone. To consider to be true. To accept the word or evidence of.

Vincent notes that pisteuo "means to persuade, to cause belief, to induce one to do something by persuading, and so runs into the meaning of to obey, properly as the result of persuasion

In secular Greek literature, as well as in the New Testament, pisteuo (pistis, pistos) has a basic meaning of an intellectual assent or a belief that something is true. Michel says that this use arose during the Hellenistic period. During the struggle with skepticism and atheism, it acquired the sense of conviction concerning the existence and activity of the Greek gods. Thayer calls this the intransitive use of the word which conveys the idea of to be sure or be persuaded that something is a fact. This kind of faith does not require any action on the part of the believer but only an intellectual acceptance. As discussed below, James used this type of faith as an example of a dead faith stating that "The devils also believe, and tremble" (Ja 2:19).

The other secular Greek meaning that is the more common use in the New Testament is the transitive or active use which means to "put faith in" or "rely upon" someone or something. Sometimes it has even stronger meaning: "To entrust something to another." In classical usage it denoted conduct that honored a previous agreement, such as the honoring of a truce between opposing armies (Iliad 2.124). The meaning of entrusting something to someone is found in Xenophon (Memorabilia 4.4.17). An example of this use in the New Testament is 2 Timothy 1:12. Paul said

I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day (see note 2 Timothy 1:12) (Comment: Here pisteuo means to trust in or rely upon Christ to save us)

Pisteuo means to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence. To believe in with the implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted. As discussed below Christ is the object of this type of faith that relies on His power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that His revelations or disclosures are true.

NIDNTT writes that in classical Greek literature…

pistis means the trust that a man may place in men or the gods (Hesiod, Works, 372; Soph., OT, 1445), credibility (Soph., OC, 611), credit in business (Dem., 36, 57), guarantee (Aesch., Frag. 394), proof (Democ., 125), or something entrusted (IG 14, 2012 A 23).

Similarly, pisteuo means to trust something or someone (Hdt., 1, 24; Aesch., Pers., 800 ff.). It can refer to and confirm legendary tales (Hdt., 4, 96) and mythical ideas (Plato, Grg., 524a). In the construction pisteuo tini ti it means to entrust something or someone to someone (Xen., Mem., 4, 4, 17).

With reference to people, pisteuo means to obey (Soph., OT, 625). The pass. means to enjoy trust (Xen., Anab., 7, 6, 33).

The adj. pistos means trusting (Theognis, 283), trustworthy (Hom., Il., 2, 124). to piston means dependability or the faithfulness of those bound through an agreement (Aesch., Ag., 651; Xen., Anab., 2, 4, 7).

The verb. pistoo has the meaning of binding someone or oneself to be faithful (Soph., OC, 650). In the pass. it means to be sure, to trust (Hom., Od., 21, 217 f.).

The pistis word-group has a special colouring, where it refers to believing doxa (opinion). In such a case dependability is limited (cf. Plato, Phd., 107b). (Brown, Colin, Editor. New International Dictionary of NT Theology. 1986. Zondervan)

The noun pistis and the verb pisteuo, mean an adherence to, committal to, faith in, reliance upon, trust in a person or an object, to be persuaded of or convinced of something, to place one's confidence in, to trust.



John 8:30-32 Believing On Jesus, And Its Counterfeits
Romans 3:3-4 God Justified, Though Man Believes Not
Pisteuo can also mean to be confident about or to be firmly persuaded as to something, and so Paul writes…

One man has faith (pisteuo) that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. (see note Romans 14:2) (Here the believing conveys the sense of having an opinion, thinking)

As noted above, pisteuo can refer to an "heart belief" (saving faith, genuine belief that leads to salvation, this believing involves not only the consent of the mind, but an act of the heart and will of the subject) or an intellectual belief (mental assent, "head" knowledge, not associated with bringing salvation if it is by itself), both uses demonstrated by Jesus statement in John 11,

John 11:26 Everyone who lives and believes (refers to genuine saving faith) in Me shall never die. Do you believe (intellectually) this?

John 2:23-24+ Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting (pisteuo) Himself to them, for He knew all men,

See comments on Jesus' "belief" in those who had believed in Him.

James 2:19+ You believe (pisteuo) that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe (pisteuo), and shudder.

Comment: In this passage, James explains that not all believing will result in salvation. The believing he is describing in this passage is a mental or intellectual believing that is not associated in a change in one's heart and thus in one's behavior or actions. Belief in the New Testament sense that effects the new birth denotes more than a "demonic" like, intellectual assent to a set of facts or truths. The demons believe but they are clearly not saved. Genuine belief does involve an intellectual assent and consent of one's mind, but also includes an act of one's heart and will. Biblical saving faith is not passive assent but an active staking of one's life on the claims of God. The respected Greek lexicon author W E Vine defines belief as consisting of

(1) a firm conviction which produces full acknowledgment of God's revelation of Truth - (2Th 2:11+ -"in order that they all may be judged who did not believe [pisteuo] the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.")

(2) a personal surrender to the Truth (Jn 1:12+ "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe [pisteuo] in His name") and

(3) a conduct inspired by and consistent with that surrender.

Pisteuo can also refer to a committing of something to someone and so to entrust them. And thus we find pisteuo is translated entrust (entrusted, entrusting) 8 times in the NT. Here are 2 examples of this meaning of pisteuo…

If therefore you have not been faithful (pistos) in the use of unrighteous mammon, who will entrust (pisteuo) the true riches to you? (Luke 16:11+)

Great in every respect (Paul answers his question of what is the advantage of the Jew?). First of all, that they were entrusted (pisteuo) with the oracles of God. (see note Romans 3:2)

1 Thessalonians 2:13 Commentary | Precept Austin

www.preceptaustin.org

J.