Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[mailmandan]

SOME PEOPLE YOU JUST CAN'T REACH.

 

[mailmandan]

We are saved through the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and it is in baptism that we are united to His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:1-7), and thus we are resurrected with Christ in Baptism when we are united to Him in His resurrection. Your analogy was faulty.

Baptism is not just a symbol. It is the point in time when we actually receive God's salvation.

Absolutely, but it is in baptism when we receive the benefit of Jesus' death and resurrection. Just as those in the OT received the benefit of God's blessing when they did what He commanded them to do.

Yes, and baptism is an act of faith. And it is in that act that the blessing is received.

In baptism is when the old man dies. The old man goes into the water, and we arise out of the water to walk in new life. It is in baptism that our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). It is in baptism that we are united to Jesus' death and resurrection (Rom 6:4, Col 2:12). It is in baptism that we are made pure, holy, and spotless (Gal 3:26-27). It is in baptism that we are clothed with Christ and adopted as God's children (Eph 5:26-27).

And we should take some human's statement over Scripture? I don't think so. Mr. Robertson may be a Greek scholar, but he is absolutely wrong on this. He has allowed his personal preconception to color what he is reading, and so pervert the Scripture.

This paraphrase of the Scripture is meaningless. Again, someone has put their personal bias into Scripture and so perverted what the Word says.

You miss the point. You do not make an appeal to God for a good conscience if you do not pass through baptism. It is IN BAPTISM that this appeal is made, and IN BAPTISM that the response from God of washing us clean occurs. Thus, it is in baptism that we are saved (baptism now saves you), not before baptism.

There is no power in the physical ceremony itself. It is God's power that is poured out during the ceremony that does the cleansing. Just as with Naaman, whose leprosy was cleansed not by the power of the water of Jordan on the seventh dip, but by the power of God because he had fully done what God commanded. And just as the walls of Jericho did not fall because of the power of the shouts and horns and marching feet around the city, but by the power of God because they had fully done what God commanded.

 

[Doug Brents]

LOL, Yes, it is impossible to teach someone like yourself who is so stuck in Satan's deception that he cannot see that the horse he is riding is already dead. I pray that you accept the truth before it is too late.

 

[mailmandan]

LOL, Yes, it is impossible to teach someone like yourself who is so stuck in Satan's deception that he cannot see that the horse he is riding is already dead. I pray that you accept the truth before it is too late.

Oh, the IRONY.

 

[Studyman]

It's clear that Paul received the gospel "through a revelation of Jesus Christ", just as he said in Galatians 1:12. When did he receive this revelation? On the road to Damascus, not 3 days later.

Paul doesn't contradict Acts 9. You are free to ignore these Scriptures, and create your own philosophy if you like, but here is what Jesus told Paul on the road to Damascus.

Acts 9: 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee "what thou must do".

11 And the Lord said unto him (Ananias), Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen "in a vision" a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Neither Paul nor Ananias received these revelations from man, but from the Christ.

Jesus appeared to Him and told him what He had called him to do, to preach to Jews, yes, but primarily to the Gentiles.

That is simply not true, according to what is written. Jesus told Paul to go to the City, which he did, and there he had another vision about a man named "Ananias" who was sent by Jesus to show Paul "what he must do".

I don't know why you would want to re-write what is clearly spelled out in the account.

Jesus doesn't send people to preach the gospel, if they themselves have not received it yet.

Paul learned the Gospel of Christ from the Spirit of Christ which was in the Apostles and Ananias.

If He did, He would be sending a non-believer to preach the gospel.

A blind man cannot preach the gospel, the scales didn't fall off the eyes of Paul until after Ananias put his hands on him.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, "and was baptized".

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul "certain days with the disciples" which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway (After this) he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

How likely is that? It's amazing how you seem to know that Ananias preached the gospel to Paul, yet it says that nowhere.

And yet, in your own Bible, that is what it says.

He called Paul "brother", so we know Paul was already saved.

Where does it say he was "Saved" before he received the Holy Spirit or was baptized. Why are you ignoring what the Scripture actually says?

Jesus said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers? For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." Paul was a brother in Christ before Ananias even came to him.

Didn't Jesus tell Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel? "16 For I "will shew him" how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Of course, Ananias called him "brother".

When did Jesus "Show him"? Not on the road to Damascus. Not until after Ananias laid his hands on him. How many days was he with the Disciples before he was allowed to "preach Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"?

Will you answer this question?

I would stick to what the Bible says and try to do so apart from the religious heresies promoted by the god of this world, Satan.

Why are you then completely ignoring and refusing to show others what actually happened to Paul on the road to Damascus? What is your agenda to cause you to misrepresent the actual events that led up to Paul's conversion?

Obviously, you are mistaken. I don't know what you consider "this world's religious system" - probably any who disagree with you.

No, not those who disagree with me. But this world's religious sects and businesses that twist Paul's words, as you have clearly done here, to promote their own adopted religious philosophy.

 

[Doug Brents]

It's clear that Paul received the gospel "through a revelation of Jesus Christ", just as he said in Galatians 1:12. When did he receive this revelation? On the road to Damascus, not 3 days later.

No Dwight. He received the revelation from Jesus during the three years he spent in Damascus and Arabia (Gal 1:17). He did not receive it all on the Road, nor did he receive it all during the three days he spent fasting. It was a three year learning, just as the rest of the Apostles received.

Jesus appeared to Him and told him what He had called him to do, to preach to Jews, yes, but primarily to the Gentiles. Jesus doesn't send people to preach the gospel, if they themselves have not received it yet. If He did, He would be sending a non-believer to preach the gospel.

But sometimes He does commission people first and then train them later.

 

[dwight92070]

Yes, we do have to wait for water baptism to be saved. That is when Scripture says the Holy Spirit removes our sin and unites us to Jesus' death and resurrection. You want to put salvation before God does, but He is the one in charge of who receives salvation and when they receive it, not you. He is the one who says that it takes both the Spirit and water to enter the kingdom of God. He is the one who says that water baptism now saved you. He is the one who says that it is in baptism that we die to sin, have sin cut from us, are united to Jesus' resurrection, are washed clean of spot or blemish, and are made part of God's family.

And the vow is part of what brings us to salvation, but it is not the point at which God says we receive salvation. It is in baptism that we receive salvation, not in making a vow.

Very good. Now, when does Scripture say they actually received salvation? "...In baptism..." (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12, Acts 22:16, etc.). Salvation is not received in "belief" alone.

I have over 125 verses that say otherwise - and I'm just getting started. On the other hand, you have a few verses that you falsely assume that, but as was pointed out by someone on this forum, you keep beating a dead horse.

 

[dwight92070]

Paul doesn't contradict Acts 9. You are free to ignore these Scriptures, and create your own philosophy if you like, but here is what Jesus told Paul on the road to Damascus.

Acts 9: 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee "what thou must do".

Yes, Ananias told him "Brother Saul,Receive you sight." He was filled with the Holy Spirit and he was baptized. He also told him that "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. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard."

So tell me, where is the gospel message in what Ananias spoke to Him? It's NOT there, because Jesus had already given him the gospel on the road.
We just now read that Paul not only saw Jesus, but he "heard an utterance from (Jesus') mouth". What did Jesus say to him when he was still on the road, and when He appeared to him?

We have Jesus' words to Saul in Acts 26:12-18. It is not only his commission, but also the gospel message. For some reason, you guys alway leave this passage out.

11 And the Lord said unto him (Ananias), Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12 And hath seen "in a vision" a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Neither Paul nor Ananias received these revelations from man, but from the Christ.



That is simply not true, according to what is written. Jesus told Paul to go to the City, which he did, and there he had another vision about a man named "Ananias" who was sent by Jesus to show Paul "what he must do".

Except for the gospel message, Yes, Ananias gave him information, but not the gospel, because he had already heard that from Jesus Himself. And of course he received that gospel and when Ananias first came to him, he called him "Brother Saul". Ananias knew that Saul was already a brother in the Lord, and so he called him that.

I don't know why you would want to re-write what is clearly spelled out in the account.



Paul learned the Gospel of Christ from the Spirit of Christ which was in the Apostles and Ananias.

Wrong, he learned the gospel from Jesus Himself, as we see in Acts 26, and he believed in Jesus right on that road.

Paul said it himself in Galatians 1:11-12 "For I would have you know brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. FOR I NEITHER RECEIVED IT FROM MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT I RECEIVED IT THROUGH A REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST."

Sorry, you are mistaken. Paul did not learn the gospel through the Spirit of Christ which was in the apostles and Ananias. He got it DIRECTLY FROM JESUS ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS . I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WANT TO REWRITE WHAT PAUL CLEARLY SPELLED OUT.
NOR DID HE RECEIVE IT DURING THREE YEARS IN ARABIA. Galatians 1:17 says he went away to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus. THEN THREE YEARS AFTER THAT, HE WENT TO JERUSALEM. He did not spend three years in Arabia. Sure, it's feasible that the Lord was speaking to him, in Arabia, but he wasn't there for three years - and he already knew the gospel.

A blind man cannot preach the gospel, the scales didn't fall off the eyes of Paul until after Ananias put his hands on him.

Of course a blind man can preach the gospel. Yes, he will have some limitations, but it's not impossible.

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, "and was baptized".

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul "certain days with the disciples" which were at Damascus.

20 And straightway (After this) he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.



And yet, in your own Bible, that is what it says.



Where does it say he was "Saved" before he received the Holy Spirit or was baptized. Why are you ignoring what the Scripture actually says?

I already told you. Ananias called him "Brother Saul". You seem to make light of that, but that's not a small thing. Remember, Saul was an evil man, who persecuted believers, approving of them being killed and you think Ananias would just naturally call him his brother? There's no way. He knew that Paul was already born again.

Didn't Jesus tell Ananias that Paul was a chosen vessel? "16 For I "will shew him" how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. Of course, Ananias called him "brother".

When did Jesus "Show him"? Not on the road to Damascus.

False, here's where you ignore Acts 26. In that passage, Jesus told him he would "rescue him from the Jews and the Gentiles". So Paul knew he was going to suffer, because Jesus told him that on the road to Damascus.

Not until after Ananias laid his hands on him. How many days was he with the Disciples before he was allowed to "preach Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"?

Will you answer this question?

He was there for several days. So what, he had already received the gospel from Jesus Himself, so these men did NOT teach it to him. Remember, Paul said that NO man taught him the gospel.

Why are you then completely ignoring and refusing to show others what actually happened to Paul on the road to Damascus? What is your agenda to cause you to misrepresent the actual events that led up to Paul's conversion?

You are misrepresenting those events, not me. I have ignored nothing. You, for some reason, ignore Paul's account in Acts 26. Probably because it proves you wrong.

 

[Doug Brents]

I have over 125 verses that say otherwise - and I'm just getting started. On the other hand, you have a few verses that you falsely assume that, but as was pointed out by someone on this forum, you keep beating a dead horse.

You have over 125 verses that mention only faith, and you can keep going but you are wasting your time. Because ALL Scripture must be true and correct all at the same time. For all of Scripture to be true and correct all at the same time, ALL of the conditions God set for reception of His gift of salvation must be equally as valid. This means that repentance (Acts 3:19), confession of Jesus (Rom 10:9-10), and baptism (Acts 2:38) are all equally as necessary, because all of them "LEAD TO" or "RESULT IN" salvation being received.

My horse is alive and well. It is his own horse that is dead but he (and you) continue to beat it.

 

[dwight92070]

SOME PEOPLE YOU JUST CAN'T REACH.

I think false doctrine hardens their hearts.

 

[dwight92070]

Let's see, I'm wasting my time looking up scriptures? That shows you have little regard for Scriptures that don't seem to fit into your preconceived understanding of salvation. Your go-to verses ARE true - you just misinterpret them, because their message is the same as all the verses I'm looking up.

By the way, another proof that Saul (Paul) was saved on the Damascus road is Acts 22:10. Paul had just encountered Jesus on the road. He asks, "Who are You, Lord?" Jesus answers, "I am Jesus of Nazarene, whom you are persecuting." Look at Paul's response in verse 10. "WHAT SHALL I DO, LORD?"
Did you catch that? After asking Jesus who He was, Jesus tells him. THEN Paul, knowing he's talking with Jesus, says; "What shall I do, LORD?" Talk about confessing Jesus as Lord!! Only a saved person would sincerely ask that. Not only that, but THEN he wants to put his faith in action - works follow faith. "What shall I do, LORD?"
There's no doubt that Paul was saved right then and there when the Lord appeared to him.

 

[Doug Brents]

Let's see, I'm wasting my time looking up scriptures?

It is your motive for looking up Scripture that is suspect. You seem to think that because you find 125 (or more) Scripture passages that only mention belief/faith as required to receive salvation that it negates the passages that mention other things that are required also. But you are wasting your time, because while those passages do indeed only mention faith, faith that leads to receiving salvation includes the actions that God says lead to receiving salvation. Just as Mark only mentions that the charge against Jesus said, "The King of the Jews" (belief/faith), John says that the charge said, "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (repent, confess, and be baptized are part of faith).

That shows you have little regard for Scriptures that don't seem to fit into your preconceived understanding of salvation.

I have only the greatest regard for all the Scriptures. What I question is your motive in your research.
Are you just trying to "show me up"? If so, then your motive is impure. (Please note that I am not saying your motive is impure, I am just asking you to search your heart and discover your true motive in your search. I do the same daily, and must reign myself in from leaning toward impure motives.)

Your go-to verses ARE true - you just misinterpret them, because their message is the same as all the verses I'm looking up.

Yes, their message is the same as the verses you are looking up, because faith requires action; the actions that Scripture says are required to receive the gift of salvation from God.

By the way, another proof that Saul (Paul) was saved on the Damascus road is Acts 22:10. Paul had just encountered Jesus on the road. He asks, "Who are You, Lord?" Jesus answers, "I am Jesus of Nazarene, whom you are persecuting." Look at Paul's response in verse 10. "WHAT SHALL I DO, LORD?"
Did you catch that? After asking Jesus who He was, Jesus tells him. THEN Paul, knowing he's talking with Jesus, says; "What shall I do, LORD?" Talk about confessing Jesus as Lord!! Only a saved person would sincerely ask that. Not only that, but THEN he wants to put his faith in action - works follow faith. "What shall I do, LORD?"
There's no doubt that Paul was saved right then and there when the Lord appeared to him.

So he was saved from sin, yet he was still wallowing and stained with sin? Not possible. You cannot have salvation from sin while you are still covered in sin. Saul's sins were not washed away until he was baptized three days later (Acts 22:16). You have to get this straight in your head, Dwight, because there is no possible way for Saul to have been saved on the Road and still had sin on him three days later. It does not matter that he called Jesus "Lord" while on the Road. Just calling Jesus Lord is not an indication of his already being saved. Anyone can call Him Lord, but it takes faith (alive and effective) to bring salvation from God to man, and that requires repentance, confession of Jesus as Lord, AND baptism.

 

[mailmandan]

Let's see, I'm wasting my time looking up scriptures? That shows you have little regard for Scriptures that don't seem to fit into your preconceived understanding of salvation. Your go-to verses ARE true - you just misinterpret them, because their message is the same as all the verses I'm looking up.

By the way, another proof that Saul (Paul) was saved on the Damascus road is Acts 22:10. Paul had just encountered Jesus on the road. He asks, "Who are You, Lord?" Jesus answers, "I am Jesus of Nazarene, whom you are persecuting." Look at Paul's response in verse 10. "WHAT SHALL I DO, LORD?"
Did you catch that? After asking Jesus who He was, Jesus tells him. THEN Paul, knowing he's talking with Jesus, says; "What shall I do, LORD?" Talk about confessing Jesus as Lord!! Only a saved person would sincerely ask that. Not only that, but THEN he wants to put his faith in action - works follow faith. "What shall I do, LORD?"
There's no doubt that Paul was saved right then and there when the Lord appeared to him.

Excellent article on Acts 22:16

https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

 

[Doug Brents]

Excellent article on Acts 22:16

https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

From the article you cited:
Since the verse associates baptism and the washing away of sins (although the verb “wash away” is actually connected to “calling on the name of the Lord,” not to “be baptized”), one must ask if baptism literally or figuratively washes sin away. If baptism literally washes sins away, then this verse would advance the cause of baptismal regeneration. However, the Bible indicates that the blood of Jesus Christ really takes sin away: “Jesus Christ . . . loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Revelation 1:5). Surely one cannot assert that the blood figuratively takes away sin, while baptism literally takes it away!
Yes, it is the Blood that literally washes away sin, and baptism figuratively washes away sin. But here is the issue he does not address: BAPTISM STILL IS THE POINT AT WHICH SIN IS WASHED AWAY!

One who at the moment of faith has had his sins literally removed by the blood of the Christ who died and rose again later represents, testifies, and symbolizes his salvation by baptism.
Baptism is the moment of faith in which sin is literally removed by the blood of Christ. It does not occur BEFORE baptism, because Acts 6:3-4 says that we are baptized INTO His death, and because it is in baptism that we enter into His death it is also in baptism that we are united to His resurrection.

 

[Studyman]

Let's see, I'm wasting my time looking up scriptures? That shows you have little regard for Scriptures that don't seem to fit into your preconceived understanding of salvation. Your go-to verses ARE true - you just misinterpret them, because their message is the same as all the verses I'm looking up.

I have not adopted the religious sect, and their philosophies you have adopted and are now promoting through their interpretation of Paul's conversion. As a result, I don't agree with your preaching regarding it. Lots of men call Jesus Lord, Lord, but that doesn't mean they are "once saved always saved" as soon as they call HIM "Lord", as you claim happened with Paul on the road to Damascus. I know this because the Jesus "of the bible", tells me, and I believe Him.

Your adopted religious philosophy that Paul knew the Gospel of Christ, without obedience to the heavenly vision to go to Damascus, without the Holy Spirit, without the "3 days" in Damascus, without Spiritual sight, is foolishness. Nevertheless, it is your mission to convince others of the very thing.

And finally, although I know your religion will not allow you to acknowledge this, the Gospel of Christ is not from man. Paul said it is found in the Law and Prophets inspired by GOD. He believed all things written in it, according to him, after his conversion, not before.

Rom. 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, (Within the Gospel of Christ) The just shall live by faith. (Hab. 2:4) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

So for me, the instruction from Jesus to go to Damascus and wait for Ananias to come to him, was an important part of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" that Paul was not disobedient to.

You want to convince as many as possible that this part of the story was irrelevant, ("So what" you said,) not necessary, and to be ignored. I disagree with the implications of your adopted religious philosophy.

 

[Jim]

Excellent article on Acts 22:16

https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2015/03/acts-2216-baptism-essential-for.html

What makes you think that is an excellent article on Acts 22:16? Could it be that you agree with the author's position on baptism?

 

[dwight92070]

I have not adopted the religious sect, and their philosophies you have adopted and are now promoting through their interpretation of Paul's conversion. As a result, I don't agree with your preaching regarding it. Lots of men call Jesus Lord, Lord, but that doesn't mean they are "once saved always saved" as soon as they call HIM "Lord", as you claim happened with Paul on the road to Damascus. I know this because the Jesus "of the bible", tells me, and I believe Him.

Your adopted religious philosophy that Paul knew the Gospel of Christ, without obedience to the heavenly vision to go to Damascus, without the Holy Spirit, without the "3 days" in Damascus, without Spiritual sight, is foolishness. Nevertheless, it is your mission to convince others of the very thing.

And finally, although I know your religion will not allow you to acknowledge this, the Gospel of Christ is not from man. Paul said it is found in the Law and Prophets inspired by GOD. He believed all things written in it, according to him, after his conversion, not before.

Rom. 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, (Within the Gospel of Christ) The just shall live by faith. (Hab. 2:4) 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

So for me, the instruction from Jesus to go to Damascus and wait for Ananias to come to him, was an important part of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" that Paul was not disobedient to.

You want to convince as many as possible that this part of the story was irrelevant, ("So what" you said,) not necessary, and to be ignored. I disagree with the implications of your adopted religious philosophy.

 

[dwight92070]

The following are quotes from Studyman:

"I have not adopted the religious sect, and their philosophies you have adopted and are now promoting through their interpretation of Paul's conversion."
"I disagree with the implications of your adopted religious philosophy."

Has anyone noticed that when you are accused of "adopting a religious sect" or "adopting a religious philosophy" or following "this world's religions", etc. - it's actually the one accusing you who is part of a religious sect, or in some cases, a cult?

 

[Studyman]

The following are quotes from Studyman:

"I have not adopted the religious sect, and their philosophies you have adopted and are now promoting through their interpretation of Paul's conversion."
"I disagree with the implications of your adopted religious philosophy."

Has anyone noticed that when you are accused of "adopting a religious sect" or "adopting a religious philosophy" or following "this world's religions", etc. - it's actually the one accusing you who is part of a religious sect, or in some cases, a cult?

You are not a Catholic, or a Mormon, or a JW. Therefore, you haven't adopted their religious sect as your own, nor have you adopted their religious philosophies to promote to others. Isn't it hypocritical to imply that I'm part of a cult, because I don't adopt your religious sect, or promote their religious philosophies that you promote?

This is why I "came out of" mainstream christianty, as Jesus instructed. "Be ye therefore not like unto them".

 

[dwight92070]

Sect - A dissenting or schismatic religious body. Schismatic describes some "religious" bodies that formally divide or separate from a church or religious body. The Church of Christ falls into this category - so does Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons and even the Seventh Day Adventists. Some may even think the Catholic Church is part of this category.

The truth is, Studyman, I have NOT adopted a religious philosophy, nor have I adopted a religious sect. Just because I disagree with you on Paul's salvation, this does not mean I have adopted a religious sect or a religious philosophy.
But I strongly suspect that you have done both of those. Please prove me wrong. What church are you part of? What religious philosophy have you adopted from your religious sect?

I regularly attend a homechurch and have for 23 years now. Our leader is a man who has taught the Bible, I would guess, for over 30 years. He did not break away from some mainline church, but felt led to start a homechurch. He continually urges us to read our Bibles daily and to meditate on the word of God, which I am committed to doing. We believe that love is the mark of a true Christian and I must admit that sometimes I fall short of that mark, but I strive to love and to be pleasing to the Lord.