How do we sort out different intepretations, and seeming contradictions?

[kcnalp]

Point of clarification: Were you baptized in Jesus' name, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

"Name" is singular, Jesus. That's why they baptized in Jesus' Name in Acts. No other way!

Acts 2:38
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tom 1]

• Paul talks about being "saved by grace through faith" and "not a result of works" in Ephesians 2:8-10. Protestants take this to be a statement of sola fide, justification by faith alone.

• James says "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). And yes I know how Protestants usually explicate this in light of Paul -- but why do we prioritize Paul over James? How is that decision made?

To me these just seem like the same thing, expressed from different perspectives. Paul was deeply versed in the scriptures and personally devoted to the application of the law and traditions for most of his early life. He clearly delighted in the freedom he found in Christ (e.g. Romans 7 and many other passages), but he also clearly expected this to result in something, e.g. Romans 6:17 'you became obedient from the heart to that doctrine that was given to you', and Romans 12:2. There are many more examples of how Paul saw action as an outcome of faith, because that is how he was - once he 'got' Jesus he immediately began to act in accordance with his newly reordered faith. It's clear also that he saw those who claimed to be Christians but didn't live accordingly as outside of the church - 1 Cor 5:11 (cf James 4:4). James, on the other hand, in his letter, is focused more on the outcomes of faith than the reasons for it. Faith without deeds is dead, the same message Paul gives but delivered differently, by a different person, with a different personality, life experience, writing to a different audience and for different reasons etc.

 

[Concord1968]

"Name" is singular, Jesus. That's why they baptized in Jesus' Name in Acts. No other way!

So you're a Onenes Pentacostal?

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

……….with formal bible study training(doesn't necessarily have to be formal though).

 

[kcnalp]

So you're a Onenes Pentacostal?

No, I simply believe the Apostles were right.

Acts 19:5
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[kcnalp]

I thought my last post put it pretty clear.

Why did you use Lev? We are NOW under a new and better covenant. I would have referred people to the book of Hebrews. The blood of bulls and goats don't cut it.



Yes, that is fact, however your missing ANOTHER FACT to this puzzle. The thief and Christ (because face it folks, Jesus wasnt dead yet for there to be a new covenant) they were under the OLD TESTAMENT LAWS.

How are you not getting this? I don't know how much more I can break that down for you.

Since you pulled Leviticus in the other posting, you should know that the high priest was able to have the sins of the nation forgiven. Thats right! He was able to go to God for the nation and be forgiven, all of them, by the high priest doing what he was suppose to do yearly.

So, with that in mind, who do you think Jesus was that he couldn't just forgive the thief, under the old covenant, and save him?

I like how you avoid virtually ALL of the scripture I gave several times. Since you are not going to answer them, and repeatedly ask the same things over and over regardless that they get answered, I believe we can be done now. Maybe next time when you are willing to have the dialog actually progress further than your first question, then we can have a go at it again.

Take care, with love, best regards!

I think my question is much more important than all of yours.

"Do you reject Jesus' Blood atonement for our sins?"

1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

It's all about the Blood, not water baptism.

 

[Tutorman]

It's about Baptism too, both repentance and Baptism are necessary. Just because St. Paul did not baptize does not mean baptism is unnecessary. Unfortunately many evangelicals really do not follow Scripture properly and do their own thing and so minimize one important aspect of overall Salvation

 

[kcnalp]

It has been clearly shown that someone can be saved and not baptized! I was saved for months before I was baptized.

 

[Acts2:38]

It has been clearly shown that someone can be saved and not baptized! I was saved for months before I was baptized.

Huh. A clear and shinning example of 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

So, your saying you "put on Christ" before baptism which is contrary to Galatians 3:26-27.

Your saying that Mark 16:16 is false.

Your saying that you can get the Holy Spirit without baptism Acts 2:38

Your saying that you can receive remission of sins without baptism Acts 2:38

Your saying Paul is full of lies when he spoke of Romans 6:1-5

Your saying Peter is full of lies when he spoke of 1 Peter 3:20-21

Your saying you can go against the authority given to Christ when he stated Matthew 28:19-20

Your saying Paul washed away his sins BEFORE being baptized when Ananias came to him Acts 22:16 (notice being baptized is before washing away sins)

Your saying that you can enter the kingdom without being baptized John 3:3 and 5

Right, you keep believing that in the face of ALL scripture telling you otherwise. I have answered your questions, of which you keep repeating and repeating for some reason or another (probably because you have no excuse for the questions and scripture I gave you).
If you wish to keep believing that, your choice. Though, you have been brought the message and refused it. So, when the time comes, there will be no excuses left.

I hope that wont be so, however, I can't keep pleading the case to you when theres others out there needing tending to. You clearly reject plain and simple scripture.

 

[Tutorman]

It has been clearly shown that someone can be saved and not baptized! I was saved for months before I was baptized.

Well at least halfway you were

 

[kcnalp]

Well at least halfway you were

No such thing as being halfway saved.

 

[kcnalp]

Huh. A clear and shinning example of 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

So, your saying you "put on Christ" before baptism which is contrary to Galatians 3:26-27.

Your saying that Mark 16:16 is false.

Your saying that you can get the Holy Spirit without baptism Acts 2:38

Your saying that you can receive remission of sins without baptism Acts 2:38

Your saying Paul is full of lies when he spoke of Romans 6:1-5

Your saying Peter is full of lies when he spoke of 1 Peter 3:20-21

Your saying you can go against the authority given to Christ when he stated Matthew 28:19-20

Your saying Paul washed away his sins BEFORE being baptized when Ananias came to him Acts 22:16 (notice being baptized is before washing away sins)

Your saying that you can enter the kingdom without being baptized John 3:3 and 5

Right, you keep believing that in the face of ALL scripture telling you otherwise. I have answered your questions, of which you keep repeating and repeating for some reason or another (probably because you have no excuse for the questions and scripture I gave you).
If you wish to keep believing that, your choice. Though, you have been brought the message and refused it. So, when the time comes, there will be no excuses left.

I hope that wont be so, however, I can't keep pleading the case to you when theres others out there needing tending to. You clearly reject plain and simple scripture.

Are you really implying that someone who will die in a few minutes can't be saved?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hi. I've never had any formal Bible study training... and that's probably part of the problem. I was raised Southern Baptist, but am now getting myself all twisted in knots after reading Church history and some of the Church Fathers and trying to read Scripture with an open mind...

I do believe that the Bible is supposed to be our ultimate authority, but I'm really getting frustrated at all the places where the right way to understand doctrine doesn't seem clear.

Hopefully, prayerfully, Yahuweh (God Sovereign Creator Father of Yahushua(Jesus) )
has
granted some understanding since the thread started.

Men always contribute confusion to what God made simple.

Thus, "turn to God",

as "if anyone lacks wisdom, let them ask of God Who gives freely and abundantly to all men and without reproach" .....

When God answers, the truth is known.

 

[Acts2:38]

Are you really implying that someone who will die in a few minutes can't be saved?

I'm not implying anything. I am relaying the message from scripture. The scripture given you is not refutable and crystal clear. We have to speak as "the oracles of God".

So, what does scripture say? Its not me implying anything. I read it, I pass it along. Anyone who has any reading comprehension, and has studied scripture, can figure out by scripture, what needs to be done.

 

[kcnalp]

I'm not implying anything. I am relaying the message from scripture. The scripture given you is not refutable and crystal clear. We have to speak as "the oracles of God".

So, what does scripture say? Its not me implying anything. I read it, I pass it along. Anyone who has any reading comprehension, and has studied scripture, can figure out by scripture, what needs to be done.

Amen! Water baptism is not required for salvation.

 

[timothyu]

Funny how baptism went from a cleansing ritual to a cleansing of the spirit to initiation into a church complete with certificate of ownership.

 

[Tutorman]

So scripture is wrong?

 

[Acts2:38]

Amen! Water baptism is not required for salvation.

And how did you come to the conclusion that I said that? See here is the problem, people cannot read the context and know the meaning of what they read. My last post went over your head.

I never agreed to what you said here. You asked:

"Are you really implying that someone who will die in a few minutes can't be saved?"

I basically said:
"I am not implying anything, scripture is. Not my words, but God's. I'm merely passing on what is in the bible."

So how in the world did you come to this conclusion?

 

[kcnalp]

And how did you come to the conclusion that I said that? See here is the problem, people cannot read the context and know the meaning of what they read. My last post went over your head.

I never agreed to what you said here. You asked:

"Are you really implying that someone who will die in a few minutes can't be saved?"

I basically said:
"I am not implying anything, scripture is. Not my words, but God's. I'm merely passing on what is in the bible."

So how in the world did you come to this conclusion?

Ok, so you're saying, if someone is dying and can't be baptized he can't be saved?

 

[kcnalp]

So scripture is wrong?

No, Scripture is right.

Romans 10:9-10
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.