He that believes and is not water baptised is saved

[Truther]

You need to come up with new material, And stop trying to shift the Blame. The old blame game. You're the one that thinks salvation saves you don't bring catholics into it. What church do you go to that supports your beliefs? I know you won't answer because the answer to that question would expose the truthOf where you're really coming from.

All I am doing is trying to get you guys to look back to the original and adhere to it. Modernism is a nightmare for most people. It is like an addiction that you can’t break.

 

[brightfame52]

So, at what point did Cornelius‘s friends and family become saved?

Im not sure, the point is Cornelius was saved before he heard the Gospel from Peter, and he was saved at the opening of Acts 10, so your question is unreasonable, we been through that already, reread all my previous posts.

 

[Fitzpatrick]

37 They said under Peter and the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…


Yes, that commentary sunk Peters boat.

Your interpretation of those verses has been rebuked about 30 times so far. And yet you keep posting it over and over like you're going to convince somebody. not going to happen

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug, maybe you've never heard this "rule of thumb" before:

Where the scripture speaks, we speak. Where the scripture is silent, we remain silent.

The scripture is silent before Romans 10 was written (about 55 A.D.) about confession that Jesus is Lord being required in order to be saved.

Not true, but you won't believe anything that doesn't agree with your false preconception.

So you have no reason whatsoever to assume that that wrong interpretation was believed or taught by the Apostles and other leaders in the church, prior to that. That is mere speculation, not responsible study of the scripture.

Jesus taught that if He is your Lord you will do what He commands. The Apostles taught that He is, and must be accepted as, both Lord and Savior. All of this was taught long before any of the NT Scriptures were written. You think that Abraham Lincoln wasn't against slavery until the first of his biographies was written? What kind of backward thinking is that?

Peter said that God "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, ..." 2 Peter 1:3 but we have no indication that anybody was taught that confession of Jesus as Lord is a requirement for salvation, prior to 55 A.D.

Only because you refuse to see it.

You said, "You think that just because it wasn't written down that no one knew it? You think that just because it wasn't written down that it was not being taught by the Apostles and other leaders of the Church?"

So let's look at what you said there: You're saying the Apostles and other leaders of the church taught something before 55 A.D. about a requirement for salvation (according to you), that they never wrote in a letter, so we have no record of it. It's important, because its a "requirement" for any and all to be saved, but for some reason, they never documented it in a letter to the churches before 55 A.D. Letters to the churches were supposed to include everything necessary for believers to grow and understand their salvation, but somehow this vital "fact" got left out, before 55 A.D.

All of the NT Scripture were written during the first century. During that time, the people who had first hand experience with Jesus and the Apostles were still alive, so they had first hand teaching from them. The letters that became recognized as Scripture were not the primary teaching tool, but were used to bolster and clarify teaching that had already been received by direct oral teaching.

Please list "all" the verses in the New Testament where confession that Jesus is Lord is required for salvation. Its sort of like listing "all" the verses in the New Testament that require water baptism to be saved - there are none.

There are numerous of each.
Baptism:
Mark 16:16
Matt 28:19 - same event as Mark 16:16 just from a different perspective
Acts 2:38
Col 2:11-14
Rom 6:1-7
1 Pet 3:21
John 3:5
Eph 5:26
Acts 22:16
Gal 3:27 and the list goes on.

Confession of Jesus
Rom 10:9-10
Matt 10:32
Luke 12:8
1 John 4:15 and there are more as well.

Acts 2:36-38 says zilch about confession that Jesus is Lord being a requirement for salvation, so why would you even say that it does.

Baptism in the first century and before was as way of demonstrating that you were submitting to a person or ideal; it was not originated by John the Baptizer. Being baptized in Jesus' name was to those Jews submitting to His authority as Lord, Peter having just told them in verse 36 that Jesus was both Lord and Christ/Messiah.

You said, "All of Scripture is equal. That means that if something is said even once, it has the same authority as if it were said a thousand times."

So what about the fourth commandment - the Sabbath day? Does it still have the same authority as when God gave it? No, we are no longer under the law and therefore we do not need to keep the Sabbath day.

Agreed. The NT supersedes the OT, and all the OT commandments are no longer applicable to us today. But they do give us insight into how God deals with His people. But we are not talking about OT principles or commandments. Confession of Jesus and baptism into Him are NT commandments and are not nullified by the transition from OT to NT.

Romans 9:31-32 "however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works."

So we can't be saved by works, which would include water baptism, verbal confession, good works of any kind, whether they be in the law or not.

We cannot be saved by works of the Law. But we must do what God says leads to receiving salvation. Why is it so hard for you to admit to what Rom 10:9-10 says? It clearly says that confession of Jesus as Lord with the mouth (which is clearly a physical action) RESULTS IN salvation. It does not FLOW OUT FROM having received salvation, it RESULT IN receiving salvation. And James 2:24 says clearly that we are saved by action, not by faith alone (because faith without taking action is dead). These statements are Scripture. I am not adding to what God said. I am simply trying to get you to see what He says.

But you ignore Romans4:9-10 "Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, 'Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness'. How then was it credited? While he was circumcised or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised."

To whom was that originally addressed? To the Jews, sometimes called "the circumcision", who believed that just because they had been circumcised they were more righteous than those who had not been circumcised. He is making the point that Abraham had been declared righteous even before he, their original forefather, was circumcised. Abraham was declared righteous because he obeyed God's voice in faith, trusting that God would do what He said He would do. Abraham had this faith long before he was circumcised, and before he offered Isaac on the alter.

We could also say correctly: 'Is this blessing (salvation) then on (those who confess Jesus as Lord) or (are baptized in water)? For we say, 'Faith is credited to us as righteousness. How then was it credited? When we confessed Jesus as Lord or when we were baptized in water? No, not after confessing Jesus as Lord and not after we were baptized. But we did those things as signs of the faith we had before we confessed Jesus as Lord and before we were baptized in water. So Abraham is the father of all who believe without being baptized in water and without confessing Jesus as Lord.

We certainly could, but that would cause a contradiction in Scripture. Because Acts 2:38 says that we must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins, and Rom 10:9-10 says that our confession of Jesus as Lord with the mouth results in receiving salvation. If it weren't for these (and other) passages that contradict your interpretation, I would happily join you in the "easy believism" camp. But they do, so I can't.

Abraham had faith without being circumcised, without traveling to a distant land, without offering Isaac as an offering. He was a believer in God first - then God gave him righteousness - then he obeyed God and did the things He told him to.

To whom is Jesus the author of salvation according to Heb 5:9? What is the opposite of belief in John 3:36? Abraham was counted as righteous because of his faith, and his faith included his obedient action from the moment he heard God's voice to leave Ur.

Finally you agree with me that in Rom. 10:9-10, Paul is speaking to people who have already been saved. But no, he is not referring back to before they were saved, just as in James 2:23, James is not referring back to Abraham's faith, when he first believed in Genesis 12. James 2:23 refers to Abraham's faith in Genesis 15, much later than when he first believed.

I have always agreed with you that Paul is speaking to people who have already been saved. But he is not talking about them confessing now, after they have been saved. He clearly says that confession of Jesus as Lord RESULTS IN, not flows out from, receiving salvation. This is looking back to when they were unsaved, and those to whom they preach who are also unsaved, as evidenced by the following verses where he talks about the unsaved who have not yet been saved because they have not confessed because they have not heard because a preacher has not yet come to them.

So we too, as believers, some of us for decades, confess Jesus as our Lord continually, and we continually believe in our heart that God raised Him from the dead, which is our continual assurance that our sins have been forgiven. We don't do these things in order to get saved. We do them because we are saved.

Yes, we continually do them because we have been saved. But we must first do them in order to be saved, because confession of Jesus RESULTS IN salvation. Jesus will not claim those who do not claim Him. Us claiming Him is the cause of Him claiming us.

 

[Fitzpatrick]

All I am doing is trying to get you guys to look back to the original and adhere to it. Modernism is a nightmare for most people. It is like an addiction that you can’t break.

Same thing with this one you're repeating the same stuff over and over. You should start telling us what name we should be baptized in... what was that name again Yeshua?

 

[dwight92070]

This proves my point exactly. Those that hold to baptismal regeneration say that you're not saved and you're not reading the bible right If you don't believe like they believe.

Only they can comprehend God's word and only they can be saved. Then if you don't fall into line the degrading, mocking and ridiculing starts in earnest.

You're exactly right. They are the true Bible scholars. We are deceived and have fallen into Satan's trap. I've been mocked and told that I am in direct rebellion against God and the latest - I am stupid.
Their "religion" centers around works - water baptism and verbal confession. True religion centers around Jesus.

Even if you (or we) were baptized in water, which I was 54 years ago, that's not good enough for them. If you don't believe that you got saved when you were baptized, which I don't - I was saved 2 weeks earlier - then you were deceived - and you are lost today. If you didn't confess Jesus as your Lord, which I don't remember doing at the time of my being born again - you are still lost today -even though I have confessed that Jesus is my Lord probably hundreds of times since then.

Have you noticed that the Church of Christ people don't seem to care much about whether you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead? Romans 10:9

As long as you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and get baptized in water, you're good to go - i.e. as long as you do the physical works part of it, what you believe in your heart isn't really that important to them.

 

[Julie]

You're exactly right. They are the true Bible scholars. We are deceived and have fallen into Satan's trap. I've been mocked and told that I am in direct rebellion against God and the latest - I am stupid.
Their "religion" centers around works - water baptism and verbal confession. True religion centers around Jesus.

Even if you (or we) were baptized in water, which I was 54 years ago, that's not good enough for them. If you don't believe that you got saved when you were baptized, which I don't - I was saved 2 weeks earlier - then you were deceived - and you are lost today. If you didn't confess Jesus as your Lord, which I don't remember doing at the time of my being born again - you are still lost today -even though I have confessed that Jesus is my Lord probably hundreds of times since then.

Have you noticed that the Church of Christ people don't seem to care much about whether you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead? Romans 10:9

As long as you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and get baptized in water, you're good to go - i.e. as long as you do the physical works part of it, what you believe in your heart isn't really that important to them.

That's the truth of the matter, It's hard to believe I'm sure 647 posts in this thread we're still discussing it.

There are legitimate reasons that people that accept Jesus as lord "Confess with their mouth" and are unable to do baptized. There's medical reasons, Logistical reasons. The timing... as in a deathbed confession. What country you're in. The middle east is a dangerous place to become a christian and want to have a baptism ceremony. What if you're flying in a commercial airliner in the person sitting next to you shares the gospel and you confess Jesus with your mouth. It would be interesting to see the work around for that one.

What if you're being executed for a capital offense and they have a strap down to the table and you confess Jesus with your mouth as lord and savior? What do you do ask him to stop the execution so you can get baptized. Makes me think of the thief on the cross.

The thing is what the hell do you want to make a stand on. You take two scriptures out of the book of acts and misinterpret them to mean salvation saves you and argue about it for weeks.

Here's something to think about.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/managing-your-emotions.1832/post-93100

 

[Eunice Harper]

Alrighty then, I've been assigned to moderate this thread. I take my job very seriously. So just remember.

 

[dwight92070]

There are numerous of each.
Baptism:
Mark 16:16 - Nothing here says that baptism is required for salvation. You read that into this verse to agree with your false doctrine.
Matt 28:19 - same event as Mark 16:16 just from a different perspective - Ditto
Acts 2:38 -Ditto
Col 2:11-14 - Ditto
Rom 6:1-7 - Ditto
1 Pet 3:21 -Ditto
John 3:5 - New birth is required, not baptism
Eph 5:26 -Not even talking about baptism - its the word that washes, not baptism
Acts 22:16 - Its calling on His name that washes away your sin, not baptism - nothing about required baptism here before you can be saved.
Gal 3:27 and the list goes on. -No mention of water baptism here. This is the Holy Spirit baptizing us into the body of Christ.

Confession of Jesus
Rom 10:9-10 speaking the current testimony of people already saved - No requirement for salvation mentioned here
Matt 10:32 - Ditto
Luke 12:8 - Ditto
1 John 4:15 and there are more as well. - and Ditto

You misinterpret every single verse that you cite, which is typical of cults.

 

[Cyrus]

Alrighty then, I've been assigned to moderate this thread. I take my job very seriously. So just remember.


View attachment 731

You don't have to worry about me I'll be good. All those other forums that I've been kicked off have shown me the error of my ways. I'm turning over a new leaf.

 

[Truther]

Im not sure, the point is Cornelius was saved before he heard the Gospel from Peter, and he was saved at the opening of Acts 10, so your question is unreasonable, we been through that already, reread all my previous posts.

The question is very reasonable. If the rest of the family and friends had to receive the Holy Ghost and get baptized via Peters command in the name of the Lord, then what is the difference between Cornelius situation and the friends and family of Cornelius?
Only Cornelius was saved before Peter got there or did he coach the rest of the family and friends to be saved before he got there also?

 

[Truther]

Your interpretation of those verses has been rebuked about 30 times so far. And yet you keep posting it over and over like you're going to convince somebody. not going to happen

Obviously, it’s not going to happen when you’ve spent your entire Christian life debunking Acts 2:38.

 

[Truther]

Same thing with this one you're repeating the same stuff over and over. You should start telling us what name we should be baptized in... what was that name again Yeshua?

No, you should be baptized the way they did it in Acts chapter 2, chapter 8, chapter 10, and chapter 19… In the name of Jesus.

 

[brightfame52]

The question is very reasonable. If the rest of the family and friends had to receive the Holy Ghost and get baptized via Peters command in the name of the Lord, then what is the difference between Cornelius situation and the friends and family of Cornelius?
Only Cornelius was saved before Peter got there or did he coach the rest of the family and friends to be saved before he got there also?

No It's not reasonable. How would you expect me to know something like that ? Think about it, its not reasonable

 

[Darby]

Obviously, it’s not going to happen when you’ve spent your entire Christian life debunking Acts 2:38.

That's like the pot Calling the kettle black.

 

[Fitzpatrick]

No, you should be baptized the way they did it in Acts chapter 2, chapter 8, chapter 10, and chapter 19… In the name of Jesus.

Thank you for your unsolicited advice but I've already been baptized the right way. Not the fable that you adhere to. That false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Oh no I can't go for that.

You know what church does that? International Church of Christ an shoot of the LDS. They are recognised worldwide for its harmful discipling practices and mind control techniques.

 

[dwight92070]

That would be infinitely better than spending your entire Christian life defending your false interpretation of Acts 2:38.

 

[360watt]

Key points:

In NT times, believers were baptized almost straight away after belief on Jesus Christ. So you will find baptism in water in close relation to belief in scripture. The baptism wasn't conditioned on salvation, but almost all were baptized very soon after belief.

Next thing.. is the few verses that have baptism and belief in there alongside...need to be put alongside multitudes of verses without water baptism but are about receiving eternal life.

Lastly.. the work of the Holy Spirit on a whole group of believers as a local church is not the same as an individual. Corporate vs individual work of the HS changes context.

 

[Truther]

That would be infinitely better than spending your entire Christian life defending your false interpretation of Acts 2:38.

I am simply obeying Acts 2:38. It makes Christendom go berserk.

 

[Truther]

Thank you for your unsolicited advice but I've already been baptized the right way. Not the fable that you adhere to. That false doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Oh no I can't go for that.

You know what church does that? International Church of Christ a shoot of the LDS. They are recognised worldwide for its harmful discipling practices and mind control techniques.

The CofC and LDS both baptize in the titles, omitting the name of Jesus.