How To Understand : Acts 2:38

[keepitsimple144]

I think I'm going to need you to offer how you understand these passages as it relates to the statement which you quoted from me.

-CryptoLutheran

You said it is not a formula, or procedure but it's safe to say that there's a pattern by which many were approved.

They were cut off because they ·did not believe [were unfaithful], and you were approved only because you believe [stand by faith]. Rom 11:20
This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Follow the pattern of those who by faith inherit what was promised. Heb 6:12

 

[ViaCrucis]

You said it is not a formula, or procedure but it's safe to say that there's a pattern by which many were approved.

They were cut off because they ·did not believe [were unfaithful], and you were approved only because you believe [stand by faith]. Rom 11:20
This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 1 John 5:4

Follow the pattern of those who by faith inherit what was promised. Heb 6:12

There is a concept, it is largely popular in Reformed circles but is used by other Protestant groups, called the Ordo Salutis, or "Order of Salvation".

If you had to describe an order of salvation, what would it look like?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I already said that to you earlier =)



That is sufficient and necessary for salvation today.

Would you answer my question now?

Remember I said I'd have a follow up? This is the follow up:

Do you believe children who die in abortions, miscarriages, or who die before they are old enough to hear and understand 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 can't be saved?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[keepitsimple144]

There is a concept, it is largely popular in Reformed circles but is used by other Protestant groups, called the Ordo Salutis, or "Order of Salvation".

If you had to describe an order of salvation, what would it look like?

solus christus sola gratia sola fide soli deo gloria.

 

[ViaCrucis]

solus christus sola gratia sola fide soli deo gloria.

Mentioning the Five Solas doesn't answer my question.

According to you, what is the order of salvation?

-CryptoLUtheran

 

[Guojing]

Remember I said I'd have a follow up? This is the follow up:

Do you believe children who die in abortions, miscarriages, or who die before they are old enough to hear and understand 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 can't be saved?

-CryptoLutheran

I believe they will be saved, if that is what you are really asking, since they have not reached the age of accountability.

Still not enough for you to answer mine?

 

[keepitsimple144]

Mentioning the Five Solas doesn't answer my question.

According to you, what is the order of salvation?

God unites us in the Son [God made you alive with Christ Col 2:12-13] and the Son unites us in the Father. [Eph 2:18-20]

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31 Through Him you believe [have faith] in God, who raised Him from the dead; 1 Peter 1:21

To God alone, who delivered us, through the Messiah, Jesus our Lord (1 John 5:1)— be glory, majesty, power and authority before all time, now and forever. Amen. Jude 1:25

 

[ViaCrucis]

God unites us in the Son [God made you alive with Christ Col 2:12-13] and the Son unites us in the Father. [Eph 2:18-20]

How does God do this?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe they will be saved, if that is what you are really asking, since they have not reached the age of accountability.

Still not enough for you to answer mine?

So it is necessary to believe 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to be saved, but those children will be saved anyway?

Do you know what necessary means?

It sounds to me like you need to answer your own question before I answer it for you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dan Perez]

So it is necessary to believe 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to be saved, but those children will be saved anyway?

Do you know what necessary means?

It sounds to me like you need to answer your own question before I answer it for you.

-CryptoLutheran

Rom 9:11 reads , FOR ( the children , was added in the text ) not yet having been born , NEITHER having practised anything good OR bad , in order that the purpose of God according tom ELECTION might remain , NOT // a DISJUNCAIVE NEGATIVE , NEVR EVER BY WORKS , but from the ONE CALLING .

Many will say that this verse is pointing to Israel ?

But Eph 1:4 says that we the BODY OF CHRIST was CHOSEN / ELECTED , BEFORE // PRO the foundation of the world !!

dan p

 

[Guojing]

So it is necessary to believe 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to be saved, but those children will be saved anyway?

Do you know what necessary means?

It sounds to me like you need to answer your own question before I answer it for you.

-CryptoLutheran

You painted this hypothetical scenario:

Do you believe children who die in abortions, miscarriages, or who die before they are old enough to hear and understand 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 can't be saved?

How can one even believe 1 Cor 15:1-4, before they are even old enough to hear and understand 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?

You want to wriggle out of a contradiction in your doctrine, by using another contradictory scenario.

You could simply just say "I don't want to answer your question", and we can move on. I will respect you more for that reply, rather than what you are doing here.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You painted this hypothetical scenario:



How can one even believe 1 Cor 15:1-4, before they are even old enough to hear and understand 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?

That's not my problem. You just said it was necessary, then you came up with an example of how someone can be saved anyway. All I've done is demonstrate that you hold onto the idea that something is necessary for salvation, and yet not absolutely necessary.

You want to wriggle out of a contradiction in your doctrine, by using another contradictory scenario.

I've nothing to wriggle out of. I've merely demonstrated that you hold onto the idea that something is necessary for salvation, and not absolutely necessary.

You could simply just say "I don't want to answer your question", and we can move on. I will respect you more for that reply, rather than what you are doing here.

I've answered your question. That was the whole point of my questions to you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

That's not my problem. You just said it was necessary, then you came up with an example of how someone can be saved anyway. All I've done is demonstrate that you hold onto the idea that something is necessary for salvation, and yet not absolutely necessary.

-CryptoLutheran

That hypothetical example was provided by you, not me.

I don't deal with contradictory scenarios, you appear to be perfectly fine with contradictions.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That hypothetical example was provided by you, not me.

I don't deal with contradictory scenarios, you appear to be perfectly fine with contradictions.

Since you are the one using the word "contradiction", I'll use it for your sake. Why is the contradiction which you believe ok, but the contradiction which I accept not ok?

I believe that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. So God is perfectly able to save anyone, and does. As is the case of unbaptized infants, or children who die in miscarriage or childbirth or abortion. Or of those who believe, but have not yet received Baptism.

A lack of baptism does not deny someone salvation. Nevertheless Scripture presents baptism as an essential part of God's work to save us.

You accuse me of believing in a contradiction because of this.

But you just got done answering my question, saying that believing 1 Coirnthians 15:1-4 is necessary for salvation, and yet God can save people who don't believe 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, i.e. infants.

So either something can be necessary but not absolutely necessary; or either something is necessary and it must always be absolutely necessary.

If it is the former, then neither of us is being contradictory; we simply recognize that God's grace and power to save is big.
If it is the latter, then you are a hypocrite to accuse me of believing in a contradiction while holding onto your own contradictions.

So which is it?

If there is a third possibility, then explain it, articulate it, clearly and unambiguously.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

I believe that baptism is necessary, but not absolutely necessary. So God is perfectly able to save anyone, and does.

Or of those who believe, but have not yet received Baptism.

So to you, baptism is not necessary, since even those who chose not to get baptized but could have, God can still save them

Those that could decide on baptism and chose not to, they might be still saved.

Baptism is thus not necessary, there is no such thing as necessary, but not absolutely necessary. It is either necessary or not.

But you just got done answering my question, saying that believing 1 Coirnthians 15:1-4 is necessary for salvation, and yet God can save people who don't believe 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, i.e. infants.

So either something can be necessary but not absolutely necessary; or either something is necessary and it must always be absolutely necessary.

The difference between our views is that your scenario, infants, those who are aborted etc, could not even believe 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Those in your hypothetical scenario do not even have a choice to believe 1 Cor 15:1-4.

That is why I regard your scenario as contradictory, compared to the one above.

Hope you understand the difference between could but choose not to vs could not.

 

[keepitsimple144]

How does God do this?

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-23

 

[ViaCrucis]

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:19-23

We're going to go in circles if you're not going to answer my question.

How does God unite me to Jesus; how does what Jesus did become mine? How does the objective work of Christ become subjective--how do I, personally, benefit?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So to you, baptism is not necessary, since even those who chose not to get baptized but could have, God can still save them

Those that could decide on baptism and chose not to, they might be still saved.

Baptism is thus not necessary, there is no such thing as necessary, but not absolutely necessary. It is either necessary or not.



The difference between our views is that your scenario, infants, those who are aborted etc, could not even believe 1 Cor 15:1-4.

Those in your hypothetical scenario do not even have a choice to believe 1 Cor 15:1-4.

That is why I regard your scenario as contradictory, compared to the one above.

Hope you understand the difference between could but choose not to vs could not.

Baptism is necessary to salvation because the Word of God requires it. For whatever Jesus has instituted and commanded it is to be done. Because God's binds us to be baptized, IT IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.

Having said that, Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation because the way God instituted it. Certain persons by definition are excluded from being baptized. The unborn. If were baptism were absolutely necessary for salvation, all unborn who die before birth would be excluded from salvation.

But while God binds us to observe being baptized, God does not bind Himself to baptism as he does other redemptive events clearly seen as the way He instituted it.

The necessity of baptism is not absolute but ordinary. The ordinary way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized. All Christians are baptized with no exceptions. This is the normal pattern. Baptism is not optional for the believer, and there is no such thing in the NT as an unbaptized believer.

True faith always results in baptism.

However, outright rejection of baptism in tantamount to rejection of God himself, thus no true faith can really be present. Outright rejection of Christ’s command is willful rejection of the Holy Spirit, since baptism promises the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is rebellion against God and his Word. This is rank unbelief.

We should always publicly teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation except in cases where Baptism is impossible to be administered.

 

[Guojing]

Baptism is necessary to salvation because the Word of God requires it. For whatever Jesus has instituted and commanded it is to be done. Because God's binds us to be baptized, IT IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION.

Having said that, Baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation because the way God instituted it. Certain persons by definition are excluded from being baptized. The unborn. If were baptism were absolutely necessary for salvation, all unborn who die before birth would be excluded from salvation.

But while God binds us to observe being baptized, God does not bind Himself to baptism as he does other redemptive events clearly seen as the way He instituted it.

The necessity of baptism is not absolute but ordinary. The ordinary way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized. All Christians are baptized with no exceptions. This is the normal pattern. Baptism is not optional for the believer, and there is no such thing in the NT as an unbaptized believer.

True faith always results in baptism.

However, outright rejection of baptism in tantamount to rejection of God himself, thus no true faith can really be present. Outright rejection of Christ’s command is willful rejection of the Holy Spirit, since baptism promises the Holy Spirit as a gift. It is rebellion against God and his Word. This is rank unbelief.

We should always publicly teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation except in cases where Baptism is impossible to be administered.

So in my original first scenario, which is

if you meet someone who believes Christ died for his sins and rose on the 3rd day from the dead, aka 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, but he never got around to be water baptized,

would you say he is saved?

You would say a clear No, correct?

He cannot be an infant, nor can he be unborn.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So in my original first scenario, which is



You would say a clear No, correct?

He cannot be an infant, nor can he be unborn.

Was baptism offered but rejected?
As Augustine said, "It is not the absence of baptism that damns, but its despisal.