willby do you deny when one Believe with his heart right at that moment they are saved?
when The kjv posted shalt Be saved it means literal shall Be saved.
If you keep this verse in context it shows shalt means after we Believe with all our heart we are saved Then on the spot.
wilby said:
Phillip taught the Ethiopian about Jesus--the Ethiopian confessed with all his heart the Jesus is God--ONLY then would Phillip baptized him in Jesus name. ONLY after confessing---BELIEVING without action means nothing and this applies to many things in life.
First, notice where the emphasis lays: BELIEVING. Because there is no "magic" in baptism. It does not remove sin, His blood does. Yeah, Phillip wanted to make SURE there was faith
before he baptised this man.
However, you stated much earlier in this thread, that because "baptism removes the curse" that you had your kids baptised as infants, to make sure teh curse was removed from them.
Well, what does this verse say about that?
Salvation is not found in baptism. It is found at teh cross.
Faith: Just a few things.
1. Wilby, does scripture show this man mikveh'd (got baptized)?
... but this man hath done nothing amiss.
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.' Luke 23:40-43
He called and believed on the name of the Lord and was saved.
However,
2. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5
Scripture is clear baptism is requisite and one is not without the other (faith and baptism).
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.' Matthew 3:13-15
What does this mean?
1. There is no evidence the first man was baptized, just faith.
but...
2. Jesus Himself said,
'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' John 3:5
3. Jesus Himself was mikveh'd (baptized) to fulfill all righteousness.
Therefore, it is clear one is not mutually exclusive of the other as you are emphasizing here. Your emphasis is exclusively baptism. However, such is piecemeal to scripture. WHOLE scripture is what we are for because,
'For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.' - Isaiah 33:22
Thus, scripture is clear, be baptized in faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. The two go hand in hand.
God bless.
First--regarding the word 'shall' which means:
1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
Does not mean you are saved by just believing there is more to do.
Second--regarding the thief on the cross:
It is imperative that everyone understands we are dealing with two difference dispensation/ages. The thief was saved under the O.T. rules of which repentance when applied correctly forgiveness was granted--providing that person has to date followed all the ordinances of his day. Such as circumcision and the day of atonement under the law.
The O.T. ended at the resurrection of Christ and the N.T. begins.
After the cross the rules changed for salvation and baptism in His name and receiving the Holy Ghost is imperative.
No more circumcision of flesh, no more day of atonement etc.
mikveh is NOT baptism
cont
You also make some statement about “Unitarians who interpret scripture better”. My understanding of baptism is consistent with scripture, AND it is consistent with the writings of the early church, AND it is consistent with the unanimous teachings of the church until the Reformation, AND it is consistent with what most Christians still hold true today. Are we all wrong and your interpretation correct?
Are you aware that from 100ad-2008 It been a practice to hold back baptism until The new convert fully understood what he was being taught?
Compare information found in "History of the Christian Church," Vol. II, pp. 256-57, by Philip Schaff]:
"During the period of 100-311 A.D. it became the practice to place converts on a probationary period of teaching for approximately two years before baptism to make certain that their conversion was genuine"
From what I read you have the same view on baptism as me sugerman? So we are in agreement.
Yes I do know churches today that practice similar things and will not baptize a believer until they have fully repented... these same people will also withhold the Lord's table until after complete repentance and water baptism is completed. They have made themselves judges.
Sorry for picking on Unitarians but you know I am a triunity/trinity believer and from my perspective to understand water baptism correctly (which you do) is unusual for Unitarians and hence my point? Maybe I have too many eggs in one basket. The person I was addressing in my post I assumed was a trinity person and just wanted him to get out of the single definition for salvation at the expenss of unitarians. Sorry.
Once again, the ordinary plan for our salvation is by God’s grace through faith and baptism. It is a both/and not an either or.
Jesus under went a baptism so if anyone missed it but believed shall be saved eternally.
You have not understood what I wrote.
Obedience is helpful; to help us believe and to receive the manifestation of our salvation here on earth. I was not contradicting myself - you did not understand me or I did not express myself well.
Again you have Unitarian thinking. Salvation is not just eternal life.
Can you name me one power of G-d evangelist that believes that without water baptism one can not be saved? For this disobedience has a penalty of death? No!
There is a reason you can't and why the others who do haven't done much. Of course you will reject the work of those effective evangelists yet the L-rd confirms them with power and signs and wonders. Yes you will reject them on scriptures that you will use out of context but my advice here is be careful not to associate signs and wonders performed in Jesus Name with the work of the enemy even if their doctrine is different.
but you see,
The theif on the cross WAS Baptized!
The theif was just baptized THE HARD WAY...
you see:
The theif died with Christ....
The theif was buried with Christ...
and
The theif was raised again by Christ's power too walk in newness of life, with Jesus in Heaven...
Romans 6:3-5
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
As for recieving the Holy Spirit?
The theif could not recieve it for the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out for another 50 or so more days.
Prowler
And why do you quote Mk 16:16 to support your position when it actually opposes it? “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” What part of AND is unclear? The verse does not say “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized.”
And the second part … “but whoever does not believe will be condemned” means simply that – you are condemned if you do not believe. You cannot infer, without “adding to scripture”, and defying principles of logic, that this verse means you are saved by believing - it only says you are condemned by not believing. It would contradict the very sentence that precedes it!!!!
Cont …
An intelligent person will at least admit and see that this verse can be interpreted both ways.
I clearly see how you interpret it by adding definitions to words and therefore changing whom that verse is condemning.
Reading the same scriptures as you I believe the bible teaches a person can be healed without the anointing of oil from the elders and I also believe that a person is saved when he believes on Christ alone.
I'm sorry its so simple and that I sound so liberal. You are free to take up any extra weights you desire.
… cont
Then you go on to say for salvation we need “faith in Christ onto salvation and co-operation with the Holy Spirit on earth to receive the promise [manifestation on earth].” Amen brother!!!! But what does it mean to cooperate with the Holy Spirit? Be careful how you respond because this is beginning to sound a little less like Sola-Fide and a little more like Faith/Works.
I am not in contradiction.
I am in agreement with Paul and James.
If you have not worked out that obedience to the Holy Spirit is
profitable for a Christian here on earth... I can't help you... sorry... just keep wishing for stuff, maybe demons and healing will leave by asking them politely...
There is an order to the Gospel.
1) I am saved by faith in Christ alone!
2) Now offer yourself which is your reasonable service! Go and be baptized... not to be saved but because you are eternally saved (spiritually) walk with the L-rd so His Kingdom may come on earth as it is in heaven...
this is the message!
First, notice where the emphasis lays: BELIEVING. Because there is no "magic" in baptism. It does not remove sin, His blood does.
Oh I like that comment!
Does not mean you are saved by just believing there is more to do.
Healing falls under salvation.
Can one be healed by looking alone?
Num 21:9 KJV And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Yes why? Because it was a shadow of Christ.