Axe and two 38's

[Doug Brents]

I never said God was confused.

If Ananias was confused, and he was speaking for God (seeing as how God sent him and had told him what to say), then any confusion on Ananias' part would then transfer to God. But God is never confused, which means that Ananias was not confused.

Those are your words and your accusation. Peter also was speaking for and acting on behalf of God, but he avoided associating with Gentiles, when other Jews came from James, afraid of what they would think, acting hypocritically in Galatians 2:11-14. So going by your faulty reasoning, God actually was the hypocrite, since Peter spoke for and acted on behalf of God?

Peter frequently spoke on God's behalf, but in the case you reference above, he was not acting on God's instruction or behalf. Let's compare apples to apples here, not apples to pomegranates.

No, I'm stating a fact, not making an inference. Were the Jewish scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees Jesus' brothers? At one point, Jesus said that the devil was their father, so were ALL the Jews brothers and sisters. Of course not.

Yes, they were His Jewish brothers. You are inferring (because it is not stated or implied in Scripture) that Paul was already saved. But it is clear that he was still stained with sin when Ananias was addressing him, so he could not possibly have already been saved (unless you believe one can be saved and still be stained with sin).

So Peter, speaking for and acting on behalf of God, made the wrong decision, and hypocritically sinned by avoiding the Gentiles.
But you say Ananias, speaking for God, couldn't possibly be mistaken. Really? When did he become infallible? Does speaking for God make a person infallible? Obviously not.

No, it does not. But when God gave Ananias the words to say, it was not Ananias speaking but God.

Now you're applying New Testament teaching on faith to David. I thought you said he had different requirements in the Old Covenant to show that he had faith to be forgiven of his sin with Bathsheba. What are those Old Covenant requirements?

You made the point that David was already saved, but had sinned and fallen away. You are correct. Under the Law of Moses, there were certain sacrifices David had to make in order to be cleansed of that sin. Those sacrifices are not necessary under the NT. So again, you are trying to compare apples and pomegranates.

You also pointed out that we are discussing how to become initially saved, not how to return after having been saved but falling away. So again, the requirements are completely different.

Let's stick with discussing initial salvation, and not keep trying to muddy the water with irrelevant side shows.

 

[dwight92070]

Nowhere in Acts 9 or Acts 22 did God tell Ananias what to say. That is totally false. The closest you can come to that false statement is Acts 9:6 "but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." This says he was told what he must do, but it doesn't say that God gave Ananias the exact words to speak, which is what you imply. It is also possible that others gave him counsel as well.

As one of the original 12 apostles, Peter was always acting on God's behalf, and you have no idea whether he was given instructions to go to Antioch or not, so don't pretend that you do. Just like you have no idea as to whether Ananias was given precise words to speak or not.

Jesus made it very plain that their father was the devil. To say that he claimed them as His brothers is foolish. Show me the verse where He did that. He did acknowledge that they were descended from Abraham, but never that they were his brothers.

Again, God never gave Ananias the specific words to say. Show me the verse where it says that.

David made it clear that he made no sacrifices, except repentance and brokenness in his heart.

In this thread, starting with #91 speaking about David, I never said that I was speaking of initial salvation. I knew he was already saved and so did you. Showing that the faith of someone who was already saved, in this case David, didn't require works to show his faith that God forgave him of his sin with Bathsheba, just as initial faith to be saved doesn't require works - is not changing the subject.

In the case of the tax collector, we don't know, that could have been his initial salvation. But you still have not told us what works he performed to show that he was justified by faith. Apparently that has you stumped.

 

[Doug Brents]

Nowhere in Acts 9 or Acts 22 did God tell Ananias what to say. That is totally false. The closest you can come to that false statement is Acts 9:6 "but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." This says he was told what he must do, but it doesn't say that God gave Ananias the exact words to speak, which is what you imply. It is also possible that others gave him counsel as well.

I believe that God did tell Ananias what to say to Saul, even though it is not stated explicitly. God did speak to Ananias and direct him to speak to Saul (Acts 9:10-16), and I believe that in that instruction God gave Ananias the words to say (the same way He told the Apostles that He would put the words in their mouths in Mark 13:11).

As one of the original 12 apostles, Peter was always acting on God's behalf, and you have no idea whether he was given instructions to go to Antioch or not, so don't pretend that you do. Just like you have no idea as to whether Ananias was given precise words to speak or not.

Peter was not acting on God's behalf when he sinned and drew others into sin. Just because he was one of the 12 doesn't mean that he didn't sin, nor that he was ALWAYS acting on God's behalf in everything he did.

In this thread, starting with #91 speaking about David, I never said that I was speaking of initial salvation. I knew he was already saved and so did you. Showing that the faith of someone who was already saved, in this case David, didn't require works to show his faith that God forgave him of his sin with Bathsheba, just as initial faith to be saved doesn't require works - is not changing the subject.

As you have stated several times, faith without works is dead. There is no faith without action, without demonstration of trust. So there were actions that David took in order to be saved in the first place. And those actions of trust and dependence on God continued through his whole life, even though he stumbled (into sin) many times.

In the case of the tax collector, we don't know, that could have been his initial salvation. But you still have not told us what works he performed to show that he was justified by faith. Apparently that has you stumped.

No, I have not addressed the tax collector, and I am not going to. I am not stumped by him, but as we are discussing initial salvation neither he nor David are applicable.

 

[dwight92070]

I believe that God did tell Ananias what to say to Saul, even though it is not stated explicitly. God did speak to Ananias and direct him to speak to Saul (Acts 9:10-16), and I believe that in that instruction God gave Ananias the words to say (the same way He told the Apostles that He would put the words in their mouths in Mark 13:11).

Of course you believe that, but the Bible doesn't say that. You also believe that baptism is required for salvation, but the Bible doesn't say that either.

Peter was not acting on God's behalf when he sinned and drew others into sin. Just because he was one of the 12 doesn't mean that he didn't sin, nor that he was ALWAYS acting on God's behalf in everything he did.

So Peter didn't always act on God's behalf in everything he did, but Ananias did? Yeah, right.

As you have stated several times, faith without works is dead. There is no faith without action, without demonstration of trust. So there were actions that David took in order to be saved in the first place. And those actions of trust and dependence on God continued through his whole life, even though he stumbled (into sin) many times.

You weren't there so you cannot say that David took actions in order to be saved. But we do know that he took no actions other than repentance for his sins against Uriah and Bathsheba. He even said, "You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it: You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." There were no works displaying his faith that God would forgive him.

No, I have not addressed the tax collector, and I am not going to. I am not stumped by him, but as we are discussing initial salvation neither he nor David are applicable.

Once again, you cannot say that the tax collector was not saved in that verse, but you imply that he wasn't. But how could that be, since Jesus said that he was justified? Either way, whether he was saved or not, he had no accompanying works displaying his faith that God would forgive him, just as Abraham had no accompanying works when he believed God, telling him that his seed or descendants would be as innumerable as the stars. Yet God "reckoned it to him as righteousness." And we know that Abraham was already saved at that point. So your doctrine is shot down again.

 

[Doug Brents]

Of course you believe that, but the Bible doesn't say that. You also believe that baptism is required for salvation, but the Bible doesn't say that either.

Yes, it does.
Acts 2:38
Mark 16:16
John 3:5
1 Pet 3:21
Eph 5:26-27
Gal 3:26-27
Rom 6:1-7
Col 2:11-14
All of these verses state that baptism is the point at which we receive salvation, when our sins are forgiven/washed away, when we are adopted into God's family, when we are clothed with Jesus, when we die to sin, etc. (all of those are synonymous with salvation). Some of them also state that without baptism there is no salvation. The fact that you don't want to see it doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says.

So Peter didn't always act on God's behalf in everything he did, but Ananias did? Yeah, right.

I didn't say Ananias always acted on God's behalf either. I said in this case, when he was sent to speak to Saul, Ananias was speaking for God.

You weren't there so you cannot say that David took actions in order to be saved. But we do know that he took no actions other than repentance for his sins against Uriah and Bathsheba. He even said, "You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it: You are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise." There were no works displaying his faith that God would forgive him.

Again, David was already saved when he sinned with Bathsheba. So he has no place in a discussion of what it takes to be saved in the first place.

Once again, you cannot say that the tax collector was not saved in that verse, but you imply that he wasn't.

No, I imply that he was already saved before he came to offer prayer in the Temple.

 

[dwight92070]

Yes, it does.
Acts 2:38
Mark 16:16
John 3:5
1 Pet 3:21
Eph 5:26-27
Gal 3:26-27
Rom 6:1-7
Col 2:11-14
All of these verses state that baptism is the point at which we receive salvation, when our sins are forgiven/washed away, when we are adopted into God's family, when we are clothed with Jesus, when we die to sin, etc. (all of those are synonymous with salvation). Some of them also state that without baptism there is no salvation. The fact that you don't want to see it doesn't change the fact of what Scripture says.

Yeah right, those verses say that - in your imagination. Just go ahead and forget about the other 205+ verses that also don't require baptism for salvation.

I didn't say Ananias always acted on God's behalf either. I said in this case, when he was sent to speak to Saul, Ananias was speaking for God.

Again, David was already saved when he sinned with Bathsheba. So he has no place in a discussion of what it takes to be saved in the first place.

No, I imply that he was already saved before he came to offer prayer in the Temple.

In this case? I see, so it was impossible for Ananias to speak any words except exactly the words that God gave him. He was the dummy and God was the ventriloquist. And I thought you weren't a Calvinist. There was no greeting, no discussion, no joy expressed in words about Saul being saved? You will go to any extreme in order to get this meeting between Ananias and Saul to look just the way you want it to, even though you can't make the Bible say what you want. If Ananias dared to speak one word other than what God told him, like "God bless you Saul", would he cease to be acting on God's behalf? Apparently you think so.

So when David speaks about "the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works", is he speaking of initial salvation or of a man who has already been saved? Paul quoted him in Romans 4:6-8, so the truth Paul is explaining is valid for both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Either way, no works were required by God. Your doctrine is crumbling fast.

 

[Doug Brents]

Yeah right, those verses say that - in your imagination. Just go ahead and forget about the other 205+ verses that also don't require baptism for salvation.

What part of Scripture cancels out another part? How do we know what part of Scripture can be ignored? Does it take 200 verses with no evidence to cancel out the verses that do give evidence? Or is it only 150 verses? Or should it be 500? How do we know when enough is enough?

Is not all of Scripture holy? Is not all of Scripture perfect, and a single work of God through multiple human hands? Is not every word within it valid and relevant?

Your argument that there are 205+ verses that say only "belief" (pistis = faith) is required to be saved is spurious. First off, lack of mention of something does not negate the mention of it elsewhere. One good example of this is the four references to the charge against Jesus that was placed over His head. Each of the four is different, from the basic "King of the Jews", to "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" written in three languages. Does Mark's leaving out Jesus' name negate John's inclusion of it? Does Matthew's leaving out that there were three languages negate Luke's inclusion of this fact? NO!!!! And neither does only mentioning faith in those 205+ verses negate the necessity of baptism in the verses that include it.
Further, faith encompasses all the actions that are mentioned elsewhere, like repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism.

In this case? I see, so it was impossible for Ananias to speak any words except exactly the words that God gave him. He was the dummy and God was the ventriloquist. And I thought you weren't a Calvinist. There was no greeting, no discussion, no joy expressed in words about Saul being saved? You will go to any extreme in order to get this meeting between Ananias and Saul to look just the way you want it to, even though you can't make the Bible say what you want. If Ananias dared to speak one word other than what God told him, like "God bless you Saul", would he cease to be acting on God's behalf? Apparently you think so.

The words that Ananias spoke that are recorded in Scripture are God's words. Any words he may have spoken (ie: greetings, joy at Saul's conversion, etc.) that are not recorded in Scripture are irrelevant, because they are not recorded in Scripture. It is the words that God gave to Luke to write in Acts that are important and are God's voice through Ananias.

Either way, no works were required by God. Your doctrine is crumbling fast.

So it doesn't matter what the truth is, or what I say in answer to your question, I am wrong because I disagree with the almighty dwight, and so whatever I say is wrong? At least now I know how to classify your arguments.

 

[dwight92070]

What part of Scripture cancels out another part? How do we know what part of Scripture can be ignored? Does it take 200 verses with no evidence to cancel out the verses that do give evidence? Or is it only 150 verses? Or should it be 500? How do we know when enough is enough?

Is not all of Scripture holy? Is not all of Scripture perfect, and a single work of God through multiple human hands? Is not every word within it valid and relevant?

Your argument that there are 205+ verses that say only "belief" (pistis = faith) is required to be saved is spurious. First off, lack of mention of something does not negate the mention of it elsewhere. One good example of this is the four references to the charge against Jesus that was placed over His head. Each of the four is different, from the basic "King of the Jews", to "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" written in three languages. Does Mark's leaving out Jesus' name negate John's inclusion of it? Does Matthew's leaving out that there were three languages negate Luke's inclusion of this fact? NO!!!! And neither does only mentioning faith in those 205+ verses negate the necessity of baptism in the verses that include it.

None of those 8 passages prove what you say they do. John 3 and Ephesians 5 don't even mention baptism. You misinterpret the others, so really there are 213 plus 8 verses that do not show that baptism is required for salvation. The truth is that there are 0 verses that say that baptism is required for salvation.

Further, faith encompasses all the actions that are mentioned elsewhere, like repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism.

That's not true for Abraham in Romans 4:5 or David in Romans 4:6-8. And Paul is mentioning these two in the New Testament, showing that it's still not true today. That's not true for Paul when he wrote Ephesians 2:8-10 or when he wrote Titus 3:5.

The words that Ananias spoke that are recorded in Scripture are God's words. Any words he may have spoken (ie: greetings, joy at Saul's conversion, etc.) that are not recorded in Scripture are irrelevant, because they are not recorded in Scripture. It is the words that God gave to Luke to write in Acts that are important and are God's voice through Ananias.

Again nowhere is it recorded what specific words God told Ananias to speak to Saul. So to say that his words were God's words is merely wishful thinking. Jesus said: "but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." We know that He also spoke the words found in Acts 26:14-18 - to Saul. However there's no record that God commanded Ananias to say specific words to Saul. That's your eisegesis. I'll use your own statement: "Any words that God may have spoken to Ananias, that are not recorded in Scripture are irrelevant, because they are not recorded in Scripture. It is the words that God gave to Luke to write in Acts that are important and are God's voice" to Ananias.

So it doesn't matter what the truth is, or what I say in answer to your question, I am wrong because I disagree with the almighty dwight, and so whatever I say is wrong? At least now I know how to classify your arguments.

No, you are wrong because you disagree with Almighty God and Jesus our Lord.

 

[Jaime]

ALL of scripture is to be taken cummulatively. If not we need a category for “alpha verses” vs “filler verses”. If one verse mentions A is required and another verse mentions B is required, why isn’t the reasonable thing to say AND B are required? There is no such guideline as it mentions A X times and B only Y times. That would be a totally ludicrous way to interpret the Bible.

 

[dwight92070]

ALL of scripture is to be taken cummulatively. If not we need a category for “alpha verses” vs “filler verses”. If one verse mentions A is required and another verse mentions B is required, why isn’t the reasonable thing to say AND B are required? There is no such guideline as it mentions A X times and B only Y times. That would be a totally ludicrous way to interpret the Bible.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the 8 verses/passages that Doug quotes all the time do not require what he says they do. As I said, 2 of them don't even mention baptism, so tell me how they could require baptism, when the verses don't even mention it. The other 6 are misinterpretations to get the verses to say what you guys want them to say. So there are literally NO verses in the Bible that require baptism in order to be saved. Even if there were, and there aren't, they would contradict the rest of scripture. Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:4-8; Romans 3:28; 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:5; Luke 7:48, 50; John 10:9; Acts 16:31; Romans 9:30-32; 1Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 4:4; Acts 15:7; Acts 15:8-9; Acts 15:11; Acts 26:18; Acts 28:24; Hebrews 9:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 6:11; if you believe that Romans 10:9-10 refers to initial salvation, there is no mention of baptism, to list just a few.

 

[Doug Brents]

None of those 8 passages prove what you say they do. John 3 and Ephesians 5 don't even mention baptism. You misinterpret the others, so really there are 213 plus 8 verses that do not show that baptism is required for salvation. The truth is that there are 0 verses that say that baptism is required for salvation.

I am not going to continue to argue with you. You have been shown how these verses do indeed say that baptism is required.

That's not true for Abraham in Romans 4:5 or David in Romans 4:6-8. And Paul is mentioning these two in the New Testament, showing that it's still not true today. That's not true for Paul when he wrote Ephesians 2:8-10 or when he wrote Titus 3:5.

Again, what part of Scripture cancels out another part? How do we know what part of Scripture can be ignored? Does it take 200 verses with no evidence to cancel out the verses that do give evidence? Or is it only 150 verses? Or should it be 500? How do we know when enough is enough?

Is not all of Scripture holy? Is not all of Scripture perfect, and a single work of God through multiple human hands? Is not every word within it valid and relevant?

Your argument that there are 205+ verses that say only "belief" (pistis = faith) is required to be saved is spurious. First off, lack of mention of something does not negate the mention of it elsewhere. One good example of this is the four references to the charge against Jesus that was placed over His head. Each of the four is different, from the basic "King of the Jews", to "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" written in three languages. Does Mark's leaving out Jesus' name negate John's inclusion of it? Does Matthew's leaving out that there were three languages negate Luke's inclusion of this fact? NO!!!! And neither does only mentioning faith in those 205+ verses negate the necessity of baptism in the verses that include it.

Again nowhere is it recorded what specific words God told Ananias to speak to Saul. So to say that his words were God's words is merely wishful thinking. Jesus said: "but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do." We know that He also spoke the words found in Acts 26:14-18 - to Saul. However there's no record that God commanded Ananias to say specific words to Saul. That's your eisegesis. I'll use your own statement: "Any words that God may have spoken to Ananias, that are not recorded in Scripture are irrelevant, because they are not recorded in Scripture. It is the words that God gave to Luke to write in Acts that are important and are God's voice" to Ananias.

In the OT, many times it says that God told different people to speak specific words. I believe that is what God told to Ananias, even though Luke does not record it that way. God did come to Ananias and told him to go to speak to Saul (that cannot be denied). And Ananias came to Saul and told him what God instructed him to say. That means that it was God speaking through Ananias. If God did not inspire Ananias' words, then God would not have had Luke write those words in God's inspired Word.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the 8 verses/passages that Doug quotes all the time do not require what he says they do. As I said, 2 of them don't even mention baptism,

They do mention being washed in water to be made holy, pure, without blemish, and remove sin.

so tell me how they could require baptism, when the verses don't even mention it. The other 6 are misinterpretations to get the verses to say what you guys want them to say. So there are literally NO verses in the Bible that require baptism in order to be saved. Even if there were, and there aren't, they would contradict the rest of scripture. Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:4-8; Romans 3:28; 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:5; Luke 7:48, 50; John 10:9; Acts 16:31; Romans 9:30-32; 1Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 4:4; Acts 15:7; Acts 15:8-9; Acts 15:11; Acts 26:18; Acts 28:24; Hebrews 9:14; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; 1 Corinthians 6:11; if you believe that Romans 10:9-10 refers to initial salvation, there is no mention of baptism, to list just a few.

It doesn't matter that there is no mention of baptism in any of the verses you list here. As Jaime stated, "If one verse mentions A is required and another verse mentions B is required, why isn’t the reasonable thing to say A AND B are required?"
Belief/faith is certainly required (all the verses you list).
Repentance is also required (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38, 2 Cor 7:10).
Confession of Jesus as Lord is also required (Rom 10:9-10, Matt 10:32).
Baptism is also required (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:1-7, etc.).

 

[dwight92070]

I am not going to continue to argue with you. You have been shown how these verses do indeed say that baptism is required.

Dwight -No one, including you, have been able to show anyone that. You can't because it's not there.


Again, what part of Scripture cancels out another part? How do we know what part of Scripture can be ignored? Does it take 200 verses with no evidence to cancel out the verses that do give evidence? Or is it only 150 verses? Or should it be 500? How do we know when enough is enough?

Dwight - Pure nonsense. All Bible verses agree with all others. You're the one trying to say that some verses don't agree with others.

Is not all of Scripture holy? Is not all of Scripture perfect, and a single work of God through multiple human hands? Is not every word within it valid and relevant?

Dwight - What, is this a sermon?

Your argument that there are 205+ verses that say only "belief" (pistis = faith) is required to be saved is spurious.

Dwight - What I said is that there's no mention of baptism in those verses, but salvation is mentioned. If baptism was required to be saved, then every one of those verses should have said so.

First off, lack of mention of something does not negate the mention of it elsewhere. One good example of this is the four references to the charge against Jesus that was placed over His head. Each of the four is different, from the basic "King of the Jews", to "JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" written in three languages. Does Mark's leaving out Jesus' name negate John's inclusion of it? Does Matthew's leaving out that there were three languages negate Luke's inclusion of this fact? NO!!!! And neither does only mentioning faith in those 205+ verses negate the necessity of baptism in the verses that include it.

Dwight - You're stuck on making a point that doesn't even apply. How many times are you going to repeat that same irrelevant point?

In the OT, many times it says that God told different people to speak specific words.

Dwight - Again, totally irrelevant, because God didn't do that here.

I believe that is what God told to Ananias, even though Luke does not record it that way.

Dwight - You can believe that the moon is made out of green cheese if you want. But by your own words, Luke does not record God giving Ananias specific words to speak to Saul.

God did come to Ananias and told him to go to speak to Saul (that cannot be denied).

Dwight - That much is implied. No one is denying that

And Ananias came to Saul and told him what God instructed him to say.

Dwight - General instructions are also implied. But specific words are not recorded. So going by your own words, anything not recorded in the Scripture is irrelevant.

That means that it was God speaking through Ananias.

Dwight - No it doesn't. We have no record that Ananias was a prophet.

If God did not inspire Ananias' words, then God would not have had Luke write those words in God's inspired Word.

Dwight - God did not have Luke write specific words that He wanted Ananias to speak to Saul. Why do keep saying or implying that he did? Get over it. It didn't happen.

They do mention being washed in water to be made holy, pure, without blemish, and remove sin.

Dwight - That's an insult to Jesus and heretical. Water never made anyone holy, pure, without blemish, and never removed sin.

It doesn't matter that there is no mention of baptism in any of the verses you list here.

Dwight - It matters greatly what every verse in the Bible says. No wonder you're preaching a different gospel.

As Jaime stated, "If one verse mentions A is required and another verse mentions B is required, why isn’t the reasonable thing to say A AND B are required?"

Dwight - You and Jaime both are trying to resurrect a dead horse. You can't seem to get this irrelevant argument out of your heads.

Belief/faith is certainly required (all the verses you list).
Repentance is also required (Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38, 2 Cor 7:10).

Dwight - Of course, before being born again.

Confession of Jesus as Lord is also required (Rom 10:9-10, Matt 10:32).
Baptism is also required (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:1-7, etc.).

Dwight - Yes, after being born again.

 

[Doug Brents]

No one, including you, have been able to show anyone that. You can't because it's not there.

The fact that you refuse to see the Truth, doesn't make it not Truth.

Pure nonsense. All Bible verses agree with all others. You're the one trying to say that some verses don't agree with others.

I am saying that all verses DO agree, but they do not all say all of what happened or is required.
I have shown you the truth about the charge against Jesus several times, but you have yet to accept its truth. Just because something is not said in each place that the thing is mentioned doesn't mean that it is not there, or that it is not relevant.

What I said is that there's no mention of baptism in those verses, but salvation is mentioned. If baptism was required to be saved, then every one of those verses should have said so.

That is not a valid argument. Does Scripture have to give every title of God every time He is mentioned? No. We just have to say "God", and we can include in our understanding of Him everything that is said about Him everywhere else in Scripture. The same goes for salvation. God doesn't need to say everything about what is required to be saved every place salvation is mentioned.

You're stuck on making a point that doesn't even apply. How many times are you going to repeat that same irrelevant point?

As many times as it takes for you to realize that it is not irrelevant, but that it makes a huge difference in how Scripture is to be understood. When I am talking to you, do I need to say your name in every comment? No, you understand who I am talking to because we are both adults. But children say the name of the person they are talking to in almost every sentence they say. But we are not children. We don't need to have every detail of every topic given every time it is mentioned, because we are able to infer, reference, and connect other conversations into a whole within our minds.

Again, totally irrelevant, because God didn't do that here.

We don't know that He didn't. But we do know that He send Ananias to talk to Saul (as He did the prophets in the OT many times), and we are told that God gave Ananias some general guidelines of what He was to say, and we know that salvation is received through the washing of water (John 3:5, Eph 5:26-27), baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21), and that baptism was taught from the very earliest days of the Church (Acts 8:36).

You can believe that the moon is made out of green cheese if you want. But by your own words, Luke does not record God giving Ananias specific words to speak to Saul.

Does that matter? No. Because God sent Ananias, and instructed Luke to record some parts of what he told Saul. The fact that God recorded these words of Ananias indicates God's endorsement of those words.

No it doesn't. We have no record that Ananias was a prophet.

It doesn't matter whether he was a prophet or not. He was a messenger for God in this instance. And his words, given to him by God, are recorded in Scripture as having come from God.

That's an insult to Jesus and heretical. Water never made anyone holy, pure, without blemish, and never removed sin.

So you are saying that Eph 5:26-27 are not Scripture? Hmm.

Yes, after being born again.

Those things LEAD TO/RESULT IN receiving salvation/being born again. They do not come AFTER receiving salvation/being born again.

 

[dwight92070]

The fact that you refuse to see the Truth, doesn't make it not Truth.

No I refuse heresy.

I am saying that all verses DO agree, but they do not all say all of what happened or is required.
I have shown you the truth about the charge against Jesus several times, but you have yet to accept its truth. Just because something is not said in each place that the thing is mentioned doesn't mean that it is not there, or that it is not relevant.

What charge against Jesus? You are the one committing sin against Jesus by saying that water can make one holy, pure, without blemish, and can remove sin. That's approaches blasphemy. Jesus came for the sole purpose of removing our sin, but He did it with His own blood, not by baptism in water. But you said:

"They (the 8 verses that you referred to) do mention being washed in water to be made holy, pure, without blemish, and remove sin." #111

Biblical salvation is spiritual, not natural. Being cleansed by His blood is spiritual, not natural. We are not literally washed in His literal blood. Water baptism is natural. We cannot receive spiritual salvation in a ceremony using natural water. The Catholics believe in holy water and that the elements of the bread and the wine are holy. Utter nonsense. Your understanding of baptism is approaches that belief - it's very liturgical. You think that spiritual salvation is obtained through a ceremony using natural water.

That is not a valid argument. Does Scripture have to give every title of God every time He is mentioned? No. We just have to say "God", and we can include in our understanding of Him everything that is said about Him everywhere else in Scripture. The same goes for salvation. God doesn't need to say everything about what is required to be saved every place salvation is mentioned.

Since there are no verses that require baptism for salvation, it is your argument that is invalid.

As many times as it takes for you to realize that it is not irrelevant, but that it makes a huge difference in how Scripture is to be understood. When I am talking to you, do I need to say your name in every comment? No, you understand who I am talking to because we are both adults. But children say the name of the person they are talking to in almost every sentence they say. But we are not children. We don't need to have every detail of every topic given every time it is mentioned, because we are able to infer, reference, and connect other conversations into a whole within our minds.

Again, no verse requires baptism for salvation.

We don't know that He didn't. But we do know that He send Ananias to talk to Saul (as He did the prophets in the OT many times), and we are told that God gave Ananias some general guidelines of what He was to say, and we know that salvation is received through the washing of water (John 3:5, Eph 5:26-27), baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21), and that baptism was taught from the very earliest days of the Church (Acts 8:36).

Once again, you are approaching blasphemy. "we know that salvation is received through the washing of water"? Total misinterpretation of those verses. Spiritual salvation is not received through a ceremony using natural water. It is the blood of Jesus that is applied spiritually that gives us spiritual salvation. And that happens BEFORE the ceremony using natural water.

Does that matter? No. Because God sent Ananias, and instructed Luke to record some parts of what he told Saul. The fact that God recorded these words of Ananias indicates God's endorsement of those words.

God recorded some of Peter's words when he denied even knowing Jesus. Was that God's endorsement of Peter's words?

It doesn't matter whether he was a prophet or not. He was a messenger for God in this instance. And his words, given to him by God, are recorded in Scripture as having come from God.

You said that God was speaking through him. That's what prophets did.

So you are saying that Eph 5:26-27 are not Scripture? Hmm.

When you can't succeed in persuading me, you instead put words in my mouth, just like you say God put words in Ananias' mouth. Show me the post number and quote me saying that those verses are not scripture. You must be running out of arguments, so now you're going to false accusations.

Those things LEAD TO/RESULT IN receiving salvation/being born again. They do not come AFTER receiving salvation/being born again.

Show me one time in the Scripture where someone confessed Jesus as Lord and was baptized before they repented and believed.
If you can, I'll retract everything that I have said. I think that's a fair challenge. Do you have the courage to accept it?

 

[FreeInChrist]

That is your opinion based on incomplete references to Scripture.
John 3:5 says that rebirth requires both water and the Spirit.

John 3:5 states that Jesus said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This verse emphasizes the necessity of spiritual rebirth for salvation.

John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism.

“Born of water and Spirit” is a single idea, not two separate events. In Scripture, water is often used symbolically for cleansing and the Word of God—not literal baptism (see Ezekiel 36:25–27 where God cleanses with water and gives His Spirit in one act).

Jesus is correcting Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel—so He expects him to recognize this Old Testament imagery, not jump to a Christian baptism that hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Also, just a few verses later (John 3:6), Jesus contrasts flesh vs. Spirit, not water vs. Spirit. That shows “water” is tied to natural birth or cleansing, not a ritual.

If baptism were required here, it would contradict salvation by faith (John 3:16).

Conclusion: “Water” = cleansing/new birth (spiritual), not literal baptism.

Them there is the facts son.

Later

 

[Doug Brents]

John 3:5 states that Jesus said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This verse emphasizes the necessity of spiritual rebirth for salvation.

John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism.

“Born of water and Spirit” is a single idea, not two separate events. In Scripture, water is often used symbolically for cleansing and the Word of God—not literal baptism (see Ezekiel 36:25–27 where God cleanses with water and gives His Spirit in one act).

Jesus is correcting Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel—so He expects him to recognize this Old Testament imagery, not jump to a Christian baptism that hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Also, just a few verses later (John 3:6), Jesus contrasts flesh vs. Spirit, not water vs. Spirit. That shows “water” is tied to natural birth or cleansing, not a ritual.

If baptism were required here, it would contradict salvation by faith (John 3:16).

Conclusion: “Water” = cleansing/new birth (spiritual), not literal baptism.

Them there is the facts son.

I never said that the water and the Spirit were separate events. As Rom 6:1-7 and 1 Pet 3:21 make clear, the actions of the Spirit take place in the water. It is while we are immersed in the water, symbolizing our death and burial with Christ, that the Holy Spirit cuts our sin from us (Col 2:11-14), and resurrects us to new life. The fact that John 3:5 is talking about baptism is mirrored in Gal 3:26-27 and Eph 5:26-27; it is through the washing of water that we are made pure, holy, spotless, and adopted as children of God.

John 3:6 demonstrates that He is talking about RE-birth, not natural birth. Compare and contrast John 3:5 with John 3:3. They are almost identical, and John 3:3 stresses the fact that Jesus is talking about rebirth.

 

[FreeInChrist]

I never said that the water and the Spirit were separate events. As Rom 6:1-7 and 1 Pet 3:21 make clear, the actions of the Spirit take place in the water. It is while we are immersed in the water, symbolizing our death and burial with Christ, that the Holy Spirit cuts our sin from us (Col 2:11-14), and resurrects us to new life. The fact that John 3:5 is talking about baptism is mirrored in Gal 3:26-27 and Eph 5:26-27; it is through the washing of water that we are made pure, holy, spotless, and adopted as children of God.

John 3:6 demonstrates that He is talking about RE-birth, not natural birth. Compare and contrast John 3:5 with John 3:3. They are almost identical, and John 3:3 stresses the fact that Jesus is talking about rebirth.

You’re forcing baptism into a text that never mentions it.
Jesus didn’t say “baptism”.......He said “water and Spirit.” And He rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding (John 3:10), which means this wasn’t some future Christian ritual. It points back to Ezekiel 36:25–27.......God cleansing and giving new life by His Spirit. One work of God, not water + Spirit as two steps.

If John 3:5 is water baptism, then no one could be born again before Acts 2.......including Nicodemus. That makes Jesus’ rebuke nonsense.

And your supporting verses don’t say what you think

Romans 6 → describes union with Christ, not how regeneration happens
1 Peter 3:21 → explicitly says not the water itself
Galatians 3:26 → sons of God through faith, not water
Ephesians 5:26 → washing by the Word, not literal water

Then there’s the one passage that breaks your whole framework:


Acts 10:44–47 — the Holy Spirit falls on them BEFORE they’re baptized.
So either they were born again without water… or your interpretation is off.


Jesus settled it:


“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63).


Baptism is important—but it’s a response to salvation, not the cause of it.

 

[Doug Brents]

You’re forcing baptism into a text that never mentions it.
Jesus didn’t say “baptism”.......He said “water and Spirit.” And He rebuked Nicodemus for not understanding (John 3:10), which means this wasn’t some future Christian ritual. It points back to Ezekiel 36:25–27.......God cleansing and giving new life by His Spirit. One work of God, not water + Spirit as two steps.

Correct, not two steps; one step that includes both water and the Spirit.

If John 3:5 is water baptism, then no one could be born again before Acts 2.......including Nicodemus. That makes Jesus’ rebuke nonsense.

It does not mean that at all. In Acts 2, the Church had just been initiated. Everyone saved before Acts 2 were saved under the OT. But from Acts 2 forward, it is the NT that dictates what is necessary for salvation.

And your supporting verses don’t say what you think

Romans 6 → describes union with Christ, not how regeneration happens

It says that the regeneration happens "in baptism".

1 Peter 3:21 → explicitly says not the water itself

Of course it is not the water itself that cleanses sin. It is the faith that causes obedience to God's command. But as Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:5, without passing through the water, rebirth does not occur.

Galatians 3:26 → sons of God through faith, not water

Through baptism, we are clothed with Christ and adopted as sons and daughters.

Ephesians 5:26 → washing by the Word, not literal water

Washing by water through the Word (Water and Spirit).

Then there’s the one passage that breaks your whole framework:

Acts 10:44–47 — the Holy Spirit falls on them BEFORE they’re baptized.
So either they were born again without water… or your interpretation is off.

The Holy Spirit fell ON them (not into them) in power (not salvation). The Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius in the same way He fell on the Apostles on Pentecost (in tongues and praise). But the Apostles already had the indwelling of the Spirit since John 20:22, and the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius in tongues and praise as well. They were saved when they were baptized shortly after the Spirit fell on them.

Jesus settled it:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63).

Baptism is important—but it’s a response to salvation, not the cause of it.

I have never said baptism is the "cause" of salvation. But it is the point in time at which the Holy Spirit, through the power of the blood of Christ Jesus, cuts our sin from us, unites us with the resurrection of Jesus, adds us to the family of God, and adds us to the Church.

 

[Jaime]

Correct Doug. The Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family only had the purpose to ratify to Peter AND the rest of the Jews that God has a plan for the Gentiles contrary to what they had been mistakenly taught by the Jewish leaders’ traditions of men.

Also as has been adequately stated, the work that occurs in baptism Is BY God. Water is spiritually inert. HE simply prescribed it. I might have done something totally different.

Some will NEVER accept or admit the difference in the indwelling Spirit and the Spirit UPON for witness.

 

[dwight92070]

John 3:5 states that Jesus said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This verse emphasizes the necessity of spiritual rebirth for salvation.

John 3:5 is not talking about water baptism.

“Born of water and Spirit” is a single idea, not two separate events. In Scripture, water is often used symbolically for cleansing and the Word of God—not literal baptism (see Ezekiel 36:25–27 where God cleanses with water and gives His Spirit in one act).

Jesus is correcting Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel—so He expects him to recognize this Old Testament imagery, not jump to a Christian baptism that hadn’t even been instituted yet.

Also, just a few verses later (John 3:6), Jesus contrasts flesh vs. Spirit, not water vs. Spirit. That shows “water” is tied to natural birth or cleansing, not a ritual.

If baptism were required here, it would contradict salvation by faith (John 3:16).

Conclusion: “Water” = cleansing/new birth (spiritual), not literal baptism.

Them there is the facts son.

Later

FreeinChrist, although I agree with your conclusion, I differ a bit on how you got there. If Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, He would have used the word baptism, or baptized since baptism was practiced both by John the Baptist and even Jesus' disciples. John 4:1 However His disciples baptized new believers into Jesus, not into John's baptism. So I differ a bit with you FreeinChrist - baptism was very prevalent at this time, both John's baptism, but also baptism into Jesus, which was a Christian baptism.

Also the context of Jesus' talk with Nicodemus is a reference to childbirth - using the word "born". Jesus Himself initiated that context when He said, "... unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

After Jesus said that, what else would Nicodemus be thinking of but childbirth? And of course he was, because he said, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Is Jesus going to totally change the subject now and speak about baptism? Of course not.
He picks up right where Nicodemus left off with the same topic of childbirth, only now He's contrasting between natural child birth and spiritual birth, and says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So how do we know that when Jesus said "born of water" that He was referring to natural childbirth? Very simple, Jesus clarifies it in his next sentence: "That which is born of the flesh (natural childbirth) is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Then He reiterates it once again: "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' "

This is not the only place where Jesus compares childbirth or natural birth with spiritual birth. Look at Luke 7:28:

"I say to you, among those born of women (natural childbirth) there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God (those who have been spiritually born) is greater than he."

This verse more than confirms the truth found in John 3, which we have already referred to.

Water baptism is not mentioned or even referred to in either passage. Not only that but water baptism is never referred to elsewhere in the Bible as being "born of water".