Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

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".
I'll say it again, I'm not part of, nor have I adopted a religious sect or a religious philosophy. So you admit you came out of mainstream Christianity, but are you willing to say what "group" you are a part of, or are you ashamed to admit it? I never left mainstream Christianity, but I did leave traditional churches and opted for a homechurch. If you're associated with any of the organizations that I mentioned, I would definitely say you're in a cult, or at least a cultic group.

YOU are the one who FIRST accused me of adopting a religious sect and adopting a religious philosophy. So isn't that hypocritical, since you don't know anything about me or my background as a Christian?
 
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.

But sometimes He does commission people first and then train them later.
I just read Galatians 1:17. It does not say that Jesus revealed ANYTHING to Paul during his time in Arabia or his 3 years in Damascus. So why do you say that He did?? You're making an assumption that is not confirmed in Galatians. You're so hell-bent on showing that Paul wasn't saved until he was baptized, that now you're making up things in the Bible that are not there.
 
Yes, that was a good article and did you read the notes on the bottom? They were good too and I agreed with most of them. I'm not convinced that baptism washes away our sins symbolically. I know of no scripture that tells us that. Only the blood of Jesus washes away our sins, and that's literal, not symbolic - although it is figurative language, yet our sins are literally removed from us. Doug thinks I have impure motives if I'm simply trying to prove him wrong. But doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16 say that Scripture is profitable for correction? Yes, I do want to prove him wrong, not for a spiritual notch on my belt, but to defend the truth of scripture, and to warn any who might think about following that false teaching.
 
If you want to silence someone on this forum, just ask them where they attend church or what group they are a part of. It's not my goal to silence anyone, but that does seem to be a sensitive question.
 
I just read Galatians 1:17. It does not say that Jesus revealed ANYTHING to Paul during his time in Arabia or his 3 years in Damascus. So why do you say that He did?? You're making an assumption that is not confirmed in Galatians.
Read the full context of what Gal 1 says. Paul is giving a testimony of how he received training in the Gospel. He says in Gal 1:12 that he did not receive it from man but directly from God. Then he tells us that when God revealed who Jesus really was, he didn't go to man (to be taught by them) but went away into seclusion in Arabia (for some undisclosed time) and then back to Damascus (for the remainder of the three years he spent in that area) before going back to Jerusalem. It was during this time that he received the revelation of the Gospel. As he says, at first all that was revealed to him was the identity of Jesus. It was later, after his conversion, that the fullness of Jesus' fulfillment of the Gospel was revealed to him.
You're so hell-bent on showing that Paul wasn't saved until he was baptized, that now you're making up things in the Bible that are not there.
I am not "hell-bent" at all. I am Heaven-bent. And the Scriptures show clearly (for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear) that Saul was not saved until three days after his Road experience.
 
If you want to silence someone on this forum, just ask them where they attend church or what group they are a part of. It's not my goal to silence anyone, but that does seem to be a sensitive question.
That is mostly, at least from my experience, that when one states he is from some certain background or tradition others assume that he believes everything that tradition believes. That is not always true. And it can become a hole that one has to "dig himself out of" because of the assumptions of others.
 
Doug thinks I have impure motives if I'm simply trying to prove him wrong. But doesn't 2 Timothy 3:16 say that Scripture is profitable for correction? Yes, I do want to prove him wrong, not for a spiritual notch on my belt, but to defend the truth of scripture, and to warn any who might think about following that false teaching.
Dwight, I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am trying to get you to see the truth in Scripture. Yes, the Scriptures are profitable for correction, by you have to be open to learning more about what it says rather than remaining dogmatic in your position when truth is shown to you. I have changed, adjusted, modified, and completely rejected some of the beliefs I once had because of the things I have learned by debating on this forum. But the more that I study salvation (not just baptism) in Scripture the more I come to the conclusion that I am correct in my current understanding.
 
Read the full context of what Gal 1 says. Paul is giving a testimony of how he received training in the Gospel. He says in Gal 1:12 that he did not receive it from man but directly from God. Then he tells us that when God revealed who Jesus really was, he didn't go to man (to be taught by them) but went away into seclusion in Arabia (for some undisclosed time) and then back to Damascus (for the remainder of the three years he spent in that area) before going back to Jerusalem. It was during this time that he received the revelation of the Gospel. As he says, at first all that was revealed to him was the identity of Jesus. It was later, after his conversion, that the fullness of Jesus' fulfillment of the Gospel was revealed to him.

I am not "hell-bent" at all. I am Heaven-bent. And the Scriptures show clearly (for anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear) that Saul was not saved until three days after his Road experience.


Now you're making up even more stuff up. Even before he went to Arabia, he already had been given the revelation of the gospel. "But when God who... called me through His grace (on the road to Damascus), was pleased to reveal His Son in me (this is salvation - Jesus in me, and this also was on the road to Damascus) I went away to Arabia ..." Acts 26:16-18 has the gospel message in it and he received that on the road to Damascus. How do I know? Verse 16 Jesus tells Him, "But get up and stand on your feet ..." Why did Jesus tell him that? Because he had fallen to the ground, when the light appeared. Acts 9:4 So this means that he was still on the road when Jesus spoke the words in Acts 26:16-18, which includes the gospel message. He needed no man to instruct him in the gospel - Jesus Himself did that. Sure it's possible that Jesus showed Him more things concerning how to walk as a believer, and it's possible that Jesus showed him those things in Arabia, but that's only speculation. The Bible doesn't specifically say that or even imply that. Much more was revealed to Him than just Jesus' identity - on the road.

On the contrary, Jesus didn't wait three days to give him salvation. Jesus saw His faith when Paul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" This was the same question that the Jews asked Peter on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" just before they were born again. Paul too, was saved instantly.

By the way, hell-bent was a figure of speech.
 
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.

No, the Church of God, AKA, the Body of Christ, is made up of Faithful believers who have, as Paul teaches, "Yielded themselves" servants to obey God, and their members (actions, walk, thoughts) as instruments of righteousness unto God. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Caleb, Shadrack, Zacharias, Cornelious, Paul and James are just a few of the members of the Church of God.

This world's religious system is made up of religious sects and philosophies that cause men who adopt them to "Transgress God's commandments". These Philosophies include, OSAS, "TULIP", manmade high days, rejection of God's Judgments and Statutes, images of God in the likeness of long haired, handsome men, etc. They are too many to list here.

The 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 and not supported anywhere in Scriptures.

And the teaching that Paul was OSAS the moment he called Jesus Lord, Lord, is also foolishness.

Nevertheless, it is the mission of some to convince others of this very thing. It seemed prudent to point them out in case someone else might also question the difference between what you preach, and what the Scriptures actually say when they all are considered.

Having done that, and seen your response, there is no longer any need to continue.

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.

I have been reading your posts for almost a year now. I disagree with your popular religious philosophy concerning OSAS, and your attempt to use Paul's conversion to promote your adopted philosophy concerning Salvation.

Perhaps you don't realize that you are still promoting the religious philosophies of this world you said you left. It took many years to identify lingering doctrines taught to me since my youth. I can imagine it was difficult for Paul as well in the beginning. I would say impossible without the Spirit of Truth passed onto him by Ananias, because Paul was obedient to the heavenly vision and let the men lead him there in obedience to the sayings of the Christ.

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 have adopted the teaching of the Church of God, having joined along with Caleb, David, Rehab, Meshak, Cornelious, Peter and other members of the Church of God. Like Paul, we "Press Towards the High calling of God, which was in Christ Jesus", we "Yield ourselves" servants to obey God, and have become servants of God's Righteousness, as Paul teaches, and we strive to "Live by" the Words of God, not this world's religions.

We trust the Holy scriptures " for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".

We strive to be "Doers" of the Christ's Sayings, not just hearers only, as this world's religious system who call Jesus Lord, Lord, but do not what HE says, do. This means living by Every Word of God, as Jesus did, in faith that God knows what HE is talking about.

In this world's religious system, it is widely taught that God created Laws impossible to follow, lied to men by telling them they could follow them, and that they were for their own wellbeing, then slaughtered them by the thousands when thy rejected His Judgments, Commandments and Statutes. So Jesus had to come and save us from God's Laws. I have long since proven this popular teaching, a falsehood.

As prophesied, "they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD. They say still unto them that despise me, The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you.

OSAS in just one of many deceptions they promote, as well as the insidious lie that Jesus has already "Fulfilled" all that HE was Prophesied to do.

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.

What religious sect of this world, that comes in Christ's Name, doesn't urge men to read the Bible and ponder on it? Can you name even ONE? The Pharisees read the Holy Scriptures on God's Holy Sabbath for centuries. What was the difference between Zacharias and the Pharisees? Why did Zacharias know the Messiah, before HE was even born, but the Pharisees didn't know HIM even when HE did miracles in front of their face.

I'm glad you read the bible, but if you hear an instruction from Jesus, and don't "Do them", what makes you any different than a JW, or a Morman or a Pharisee?

I have read your posts for a long time. I thought, by the contents of your post, that you were a Baptist, even a Calvinist. This is based on the contents of your posts.

In Paul's conversion, you seem hell-bent on erasing Paul's obedience to the Instruction given. Without obedience, there is NO "Holy Spirit" given. Without the Holy Spirit there is no understanding of Scriptures, or of the Gospel of Christ. This is the very reason why there are hundreds of different religious sects and philosophies. And why Jesus said to "come out of them". I don't think HE means stop going to the manmade shrines of worship but keep living by their religious philosophies.

This "anti-obedient" theme has been promoted by the "other voice" in the garden since the serpent, who also professed to know God, convinced Eve to eat that which God forbid her to eat, convincing her that she was OSAS in that she shall surely not die for living by the doctrines and traditions of another voice than Gods.

This is as detailed, honest and thorough explanation why I replied to your post.

So you don't have to place words in my mouth, you don't have to call me a cult, you can simply say that you disagree with my understanding of Scripture. And we can move on.
 
That is mostly, at least from my experience, that when one states he is from some certain background or tradition others assume that he believes everything that tradition believes. That is not always true. And it can become a hole that one has to "dig himself out of" because of the assumptions of others.
Usually those sects have a particular set of doctrines that the majority of other Christians reject. So if one identifies with that sect, it's a pretty good bet that they accept that particular set of doctrines. In fact, in most sects, some of which are cults, if you don't agree with everything they teach, you will be asked to leave. If you don't want to "dig yourself out of a hole", you won't join the sect to begin with.
 
One of the most obvious marks of a cult is when they say: All of the other churches are false, part of this world's religious system, but our church is the ONLY church that has the truth. When they say that, you know you're dealing with a cult.
 
One of the most obvious marks of a cult is when they say: All of the other churches are false, part of this world's religious system, but our church is the ONLY church that has the truth. When they say that, you know you're dealing with a cult.

And yet that is exactly what Jesus and Paul promoted, that there is only one church, one faith, one Lord and one Father.

That’s why the Pharisees believed Jesus was a cult, because He didn’t adopt their religious philosophy.

Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
 
Now you're making up even more stuff up. Even before he went to Arabia, he already had been given the revelation of the gospel. "But when God who... called me through His grace (on the road to Damascus), was pleased to reveal His Son in me (this is salvation - Jesus in me, and this also was on the road to Damascus)
No, the revealing of Jesus in Paul was not salvation. Paul was still in sin three days later. You cannot be saved and still in sin at the same time; the two are the complete antithesis of each other. If Paul were saved on the Road, then he would have had no sin to wash away three days later. And if he had sin to wash away three days later, then he could not have been saved on the Road. Now, which one does Scripture tell us is true? He had sin that still needed to be washed away three days later. So HE WAS NOT SAVED ON THE ROAD!!
I went away to Arabia ..." Acts 26:16-18 has the gospel message in it and he received that on the road to Damascus. How do I know? Verse 16 Jesus tells Him, "But get up and stand on your feet ..." Why did Jesus tell him that? Because he had fallen to the ground, when the light appeared. Acts 9:4 So this means that he was still on the road when Jesus spoke the words in Acts 26:16-18, which includes the gospel message.
You are trying to force his salvation into the experience on the Road, but Acts 22:16 does not agree with your preconceived conclusion. He was still in sin three days after Jesus told him that he had been commissioned to preach the Gospel. But when had he been commissioned? He was commissioned from his mother's womb (Gal 1:15-16). He was already commissioned by God as a minister of the Gospel when he stood over the murder of Stephen. He was already commissioned by God as a minister of the Gospel when he persecuted the Church. And he was sinning in doing these things. It does not require that a person be saved to be commissioned by God to preach the Gospel.
He needed no man to instruct him in the gospel - Jesus Himself did that. Sure it's possible that Jesus showed Him more things concerning how to walk as a believer, and it's possible that Jesus showed him those things in Arabia, but that's only speculation. The Bible doesn't specifically say that or even imply that. Much more was revealed to Him than just Jesus' identity - on the road.
Yes, I am speculating some, but as Peter said in Acts 1, one of the requirements of being an Apostle was that the man needed to have walked with Jesus from His baptism to His ascension. I believe that is what Paul lived through with Jesus during those three years in Arabia and Damascus. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I am not wrong about when Paul was saved. He was saved when his sins were washed away in water baptism.
On the contrary, Jesus didn't wait three days to give him salvation. Jesus saw His faith when Paul asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" This was the same question that the Jews asked Peter on the day of Pentecost, "Brethren, what shall we do?" just before they were born again. Paul too, was saved instantly.
Neither the Jews nor Paul were saved "instantly" when they asked that question. If they were, then the old Baptist response to that question, "There is nothing you need to do; Jesus did it all on the cross" would have been the response of both Peter and Ananias. But that was not their response in either case. Both of them responded with the same instruction, "be baptized".
 
Last edited:
One of the most obvious marks of a cult is when they say: All of the other churches are false, part of this world's religious system, but our church is the ONLY church that has the truth. When they say that, you know you're dealing with a cult.
When I was a teenager, I had temporarily attended the so called "church of Christ" and they taught me that ONLY "their" church is the "true Church" and they even cited Romans 16:16 in an effort to support their claim because it mentions the specific name, "churches of Christ." Such a silly claim. I guess those who attend a church today that is named the "church of God" could also try to use these verses (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:22; 10:32; 11:22 etc..) in an effort to teach that only their church, "the church of God" is the "true Church" as well because those verses use the specific name, "church of God."

It was a friend who invited me to attend the church of Christ when I was a teenager. His aunt was a very devout and thoroughly indoctrinated member of the church of Christ. I'll never forget several years later running into my friend's aunt at my friend's daughter's birthday party. Since then, I had received Jesus Christ through faith and was now a born-again Christian. Praise God! I shared this good news with his aunt and the only question that she had for me was, "where do you attend church?" When my answer was not "the church of Christ," she bowed her head in sadness as if to imply that I was still lost because I did not say the church of Christ and she simply walked away from me.

After that her husband approached me and I shared the good news with him as well that I had received Jesus Christ through faith and am now a born-again Christian and he had the same question, "where do you attend church," and when I told him and the answer was not the church of Christ, his eyes glazed over followed by a cheesy legalistic grin on his face and he simply walked away from me as well and neither of them would speak with me for the rest of the night. I knew that something was terribly wrong! I could hear them both over in the corner going on and on about "salvation by water baptism" and that ONLY their church, "the church of Christ" is the "true Church."

I quickly came to realize they were both deceived. :oops:
 
When I was a teenager, I had temporarily attended the so called "church of Christ" and they taught me that ONLY "their" church is the "true Church" and they even cited Romans 16:16 in an effort to support their claim because it mentions the specific name, "churches of Christ." Such a silly claim. I guess those who attend a church today that is named the "church of God" could also try to use these verses (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:22; 10:32; 11:22 etc..) in an effort to teach that only their church, "the church of God" is the "true Church" as well because those verses use the specific name, "church of God."

It was a friend who invited me to attend the church of Christ when I was a teenager. His aunt was a very devout and thoroughly indoctrinated member of the church of Christ. I'll never forget several years later running into my friend's aunt at my friend's daughter's birthday party. Since then, I had received Jesus Christ through faith and was now a born-again Christian. Praise God! I shared this good news with his aunt and the only question that she had for me was, "where do you attend church?" When my answer was not "the church of Christ," she bowed her head in sadness as if to imply that I was still lost because I did not say the church of Christ and she simply walked away from me.

After that her husband approached me and I shared the good news with him as well that I had received Jesus Christ through faith and am now a born-again Christian and he had the same question, "where do you attend church," and when I told him and the answer was not the church of Christ, his eyes glazed over followed by a cheesy legalistic grin on his face and he simply walked away from me as well and neither of them would speak with me for the rest of the night. I knew that something was terribly wrong! I could hear them both over in the corner going on and on about "salvation by water baptism" and that ONLY their church, "the church of Christ" is the "true Church."

I quickly came to realize they were both deceived. :oops:
yes they have a "cult " like mentality as they are the only vehicle of salvation and if you are not a member under their authority you cannot be saved. JW's have the same mentality with their membership/authority lording themselves over the membership. In both cases they are the "exclusive " club/church membership one must join for salvation.
 
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!
You got 2 out of 3 right. My sins were washed away by the blood of Christ when I believed on Him/placed my faith in Jesus Christ for salvation prior to receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 26:18; Romans 3:24-28; 5:9; Ephesians 1:7) You have been duped.
 
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?
It was an excellent article because the writer properly interpreted Acts 22:16 in context and also properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture before reaching the correct conclusion on doctrine. (y)
 
You got 2 out of 3 right. My sins were washed away by the blood of Christ when I believed on Him/placed my faith in Jesus Christ for salvation prior to receiving water baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 26:18; Romans 3:24-28; 5:9; Ephesians 1:7) You have been duped.
I'm finding it interesting lately how many people online reject the blood atonement of Jesus as He promised His disciples for the forgiveness of sins. For some reason they find it appalling and reject the necessity of the literal blood of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins.
 
It was an excellent article because the writer properly interpreted Acts 22:16 in context and also properly harmonized Scripture with Scripture before reaching the correct conclusion on doctrine. (y)
In other words, it was an excellent article because you agreed with what the author said. I understand, but I wouldn't accept that as an evaluation of it as an excellent article.
 
Back
Top Bottom