Actually your false belief of water baptism as part of salvation is robbing Jesus. Honoring Jesus is the ceremony of water baptism after salvation according to what he's done.It’s not nice to be misrepresenting and robbing Jesus…
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…
…and is…
You are an “and is” thief.
Jesus. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…Actually your false belief of water baptism as part of salvation is robbing Jesus. Honoring Jesus is the ceremony of water baptism after salvation according to what he's done.
Salvation belongs to the Lord is a biblical phrase that expresses the belief that God is the only source and giver of salvation It is found in Psalms 3:8
The problem with your viewpoint is that there are biblical passages that clearly and explicitly declare faith to be the only requirement for salvation.
Therefore if you add something that man does it becomes a salvation of works. Works salvation robs and belittles the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross.
Yes we know you say stuff that's wrong here everyday. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism Ephesians 2:8-9. So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.Jesus. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…
You say he that believes and is not baptized shall be saved.
That is what I call robbing Jesus.
This is not wrong…Yes we know you say stuff that's wrong here everyday. The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism Ephesians 2:8-9. So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation, is a faulty interpretation.
There you go... you're wrong again. After 825 post it's 100% positive that you're wrong. You haven't been right yet. If you can come up with a Defense of your position Let me know. But if you're just going Repeat the same thing over and over, the only conclusion I can come up with is you're trying to be annoying. Either that or you're trying to antagonize people. You definitely not making any kind of argument whatsoever for your position.This is not wrong…
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…
It is wrong to say it is wrong.
Do you think that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” is correct or incorrect?There you go... you're wrong again. After 825 post it's 100% positive that you're wrong. You haven't been right yet. If you can come up with a Defense of your position Let me know. But if you're just going Repeat the same thing over and over, the only conclusion I can come up with is you're trying to be annoying. Either that or you're trying to antagonize people. You definitely not making any kind of argument whatsoever for your position.
This is an example of what I posted. I've posted The answer to your question many times over. So you're just being antagonistic and annoying. The problem is not you arguing with your false teaching it's you can't defend it. You want to talk about other people and what they do. People arguing with fence posts completely off topic.Do you think that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” is correct or incorrect?
Just reading, it makes me think it is impossible to argue with it. Some people will argue with a fence post, even if Jesus built it.
You are completely wrong. You have to follow Jesus through his death, burial and resurrection. Faith alone cannot complete that.This is an example of what I posted. I've posted The answer to your question many times over. So you're just being antagonistic and annoying. The problem is not you arguing with your false teaching it's you can't defend it. You want to talk about other people and what they do. People arguing with fence posts completely off topic.
But in your case if you tried to argue with a fence post I'm pretty sure the fence post would win the argument.
Jesus is the gatekeeper for the Kingdom of God, and the only way to enter is through Him not water baptism.
“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed…but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” 1 Peter 1:18-19 You need to know that before you get Water Baptized.You are completely wrong. You have to follow Jesus through his death, burial and resurrection. Faith alone cannot complete that.
Jesus died, we die, repent.
Jesus was buried, we are buried, water baptism in Jesus name.
Jesus resurrected, we rise to walk a newness of life by receiving the Holy Ghost.
A thought or “decision” in your mind cannot replace this process.
4c. 1 link per post, 1 video per thread and only 2 new threads per day for members.Lesson 3- Page 8
I explain it in video form also.
You are so confused. You have to die. Repentance is death. You have to be buried with Christ. This is water baptism in the name of Jesus. You have to. You can’t skip any of it. You can’t “faith” your way through it. It doesn’t work. If you were a priest in the Old Testament, you would’ve been smoked by God. Think about it. You can’t skip stuff that God has ordained.“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed…but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.” 1 Peter 1:18-19 You need to know that before you get Water Baptized.
All the Apostles, believed that we are redeemed, cleansed, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, you would replace the blood of Christ with the water of a baptistery. You would have us believe that we are regenerated, made alive, cleansed, by water baptism. That's totally false.
Paul tells us Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol of baptism becomes meaningless.
Water Baptism signifies an outward display of an inward conviction.
All right thank you for sharing that it's nothing that I haven't heard many many times before.I will make this as clear as possible.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent,…
The priest kills the animal, Jesus died, we die.
.., and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,…
The priest washed at the brazen laver, Jesus was baptized, we must be baptized in Jesus name.
..,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…
The priest went into the holiest of holies, Jesus passed the veil, we passed the veil when we receive the Holy Ghost.
We become priests.
This is the initiation right into our priesthood
It is not just a personal preference. This is exactly why all hell is broken loose against Acts 2:38. Something sinister is trying to keep everyone out of the priesthood. You can’t believe your way into the priesthood. It doesn’t work that way.
.., and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,…
For means to obtainAll right thank you for sharing that it's nothing that I haven't heard many many times before.
But just to keep this moving what do you think of there being two baptisms? If we can reach some common ground we can go on otherwise we'll just stick with our own opinion.
Two baptisms. One spiritual baptism when we get saved which goes along with all the points that you're making about baptism.
And then after We are saved and Received the baptism of the holy spirit comes the baptism with water which is a ceremony.
This has been mentioned many many times in this thread and replies to your Posts and you've never acknowledged it. Let's try again.
Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn’t this passage say that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does “for” mean?
The writer of The following explanation learned it from the bible. That's where we all learn from. Some of us just interpreted differently than others. You said that you learn from the bible not a commentary. Authors of commentaries learn from the bible. The content of your youTube video you learned from the bible. And it's your interpretation. So let's take a look at why the for is there.
In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of “eis” does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7….But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of “eis” for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples “eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou” where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah….They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (A. T. Robertson, Grammar, p. 592).
One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received
(A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).
I don't think so, But if that's the best you got. And if that's all you got out of my post we're done talking.For means to obtain
One more thing, here’s what you think the verse says, according to your commentary…I don't think so, But if that's the best you got. And if that's all you got out of my post we're done talking.