How was Paul saved and when ?

[Apollos1]

Jesus authorized HIS baptism for all nations in Matthew 28:18f. This baptism (“in His name”) is commanded in water – Acts 10:47 and that this baptism is for remission of sins – Acts 2:38. It is the one baptism authorized and practiced in the NT. Cf. Acts 8, 8, 19.

When Jesus said that a man must be “born again” in John 3:3-5 He said that it includes WATER and the Spirit. TWO agents are required. Paul concurs in Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5. HS baptism does not meet these two requirements. It takes water and the Spirit for a “new birth” !! The parallel of verse 3 and verse 5 remains undisputed that TWO items are required to be born again.

HS baptism is NEVER said to be FOR the remission of sins in the NT. No one is ever told to baptize another in the HS and HS baptism is NEVER administered as Jesus told His disciples to baptize all nations in Matthew 28.

HS baptism was the result of a promise to the apostles –John 14-16, Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4 and a fulfillment of prophesy – Acts 2:17 – “all flesh” meaning Jew & Gentile. Only –2- examples of HS baptism are found in the NT - in Acts 2 and 10.
Acts 11:15-16 clearly shows that HS baptism was the exception to prove the rule. The second event took Peter back to the first event.

Acts 8 and 19 show us “by the laying on of the apostles hands the HS was given”. Not even the wreckless HS baptism today gang will clamour that “laying on of hands” is equal to HS baptism – less they concede that it is by the hands of men that HS baptism is accomplished. Who but Christ is able to baptize with the HS ?

Water baptism is the means chosen by God through which man appropriates the salvation that God offers man by His grace. Water will accomplish exactly what God chooses for it to do – it will “wash away” your sins! This humble act of submission is ridiculed and hoo-hahed by the self-appointed religious elitists who refuse to see the “significance” in obeying God’s commands. Yet if one looks at how God has accomplished His purposes in the past, such as Naaman, or the blind man of John 9, we can see that water has played a role before in receiving the blessings of Gods through the means God selected.

Of course it was never the efficacy of water. It was the “answer” of a good conscience in obeying what God commanded. The blessing was received WHEN the intended recipient obeyed!! This is the synergistic effect of grace and faith ! No one will be saved by easy "believe-ism".

God chose this simple means (immersion in water) for appropriation of His blessing, but through years of uninformed, biased, and false teaching about “works” and doing the commands of God, coupled with the misapplication of God’s “grace” and emotional rationalization, many are blinded and will not obey the simplest command of God to obtain their salvation. They instead ignore or neglect water baptism all together, choosing for themselves a pretense of HS baptism, because in this they can satisfy their aesthetic sensibilities with something more than just getting “dunked” in the water.

But such “dunking” is the means selected by God and this is revealed by the HS as necessary for one to be “sanctified” in Christ – 1Cor. 6:11, Ephesians 5:26. This sanctification take both WATER and the WORD!! When one complies with the revelation of the HS, to be immersed in water to have their sins “washed away”, salvation is then accomplished “by” the Spirit. For “by” one Spirit we are all baptized into the one body. The Spirit has shown in the word that this is to be WATER baptism! Few are following the directions of the HS in regard to baptism!

(The sad fact is that the uninformed and biased have not realized that HS baptism is not now and never was for the purpose of salvation.)

“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Give Jesus’ statement more than a few moments to soak in !!

 

[JDS]

“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Give Jesus’ statement more than a few moments to soak in !!

Apollos1,did you read my post #79. Baptism is a picture of death, not life.

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:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn -

I would apologize if I thought I had been condescending to you - but I wasn't. Sometimes written words are read in a way that other misunderstand. However, you should apologize to me and the other readers here for being disingenuous in as much as you refuse to answer so many points & questions that were put before you.

Your exit from our discussion came at a time much too convenient... for you I think.

Just in case you want to make the attempt, here is that challaenge in my last post to you...

Apollos1 previously requested:

CHALLENGE: Find ANYWHERE in scripture where the word WATER is used to refer to the amnionic/embryonic fluid of a woman when giving birth.
Do that for me Dawn !!!

The reference to “water breaking” is of English origin, unknown in scripture, and is erroneously applied to John 3 in order to teach error.

Any answers yet? Maybe one will dawn....on you.

Apollos, I do not like to answer posts in bullet points. I address the gist of what you are talking about, and in that sense, I spoke to all of your posts in our conversation. Why should I bullet point a series of points that I believe is wrong in it's inception when I can speak to how the whole concept is in error? Just because I didn't answer your posts in the words you wanted me to answer them in doesn't mean I didn't answer them. And there was no disingenuous-ness involved.

And, just for the record, I didn't say anywhere that water baptism referred to the breaking of water. I didn't mention breaking water at all. This is what I said.

John 3:1 ¶ There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
John 3:5 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 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

(The blue demonstrates physical birth, the red demonstrates spiritual birth.)

You are talking about baptism, I am talking about being born again (which is what this passage is about.)

(I am pretty sure that women (and maybe even men) observed that a rush of water always came before physical birth. It was not something new that was discovered in (whatever date you quoted in a previous post). People in the Bible were not stupid. That phenomenon was just not given a name till the date you quoted.)

 

[DLC]

Hi to all , and there is ONLY one Gospel , how was Paul saved , by the preaching of Jesus and the 12 or by Grace ?

#1 , When did Paul receive the Holy Spirit ?

#2, In verse 6 ?

#3 , Maybe in verse 17 ?

#4 , And know one calls Jesus LORD , EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit !

what say you ?

Paul was saved just as everyone else is saved. Eph 2:8-9.

 

[Apollos1]

Dawn said - Apollos, I do not like to answer posts in bullet points.

My experience in religious discussions is that those with weak points and weak arguments rarely do address topics point-for-point.

Dawn said - I address the gist of what you are talking about, and in that sense, I spoke to all of your posts in our conversation.

You “spoke” to them?? You think you did? Really???

-Where did you “speak to” the parallel that I say exists in John 3 between verse 3 and verse 5 ???
-Do you “speak to” my comments about how the CONTEXT of John 3:5 was in response to Nicodemas’ question – “…when he is OLD ???”
-Did you “speak to” my point from Ephesians 5:26 somewhere that I missed??
What is this verse talking about Dawn?
-I corrected you on Ephesians 2, that this passage spoke about man’s spiritual STATE, not man’s ability to RESPOND to God. Where did you “speak to” that point??
-Did you remark about my comment on your comment about how baptism was a “concept” that the Jews weren’t familiar with??

So really?? Did you?? You see… I DON’T THINK YOU DID ! Shall I list some other points as well??

This above illustrates WHY you must answer “bullets” – otherwise you end up taking several in the head - so to speak !!

Dawn said - Just because I didn't answer your posts in the words you wanted me to answer them in doesn't mean I didn't answer them.

Looking at the list above I just can’t agree with you..

Dawn said - And, just for the record, I didn't say anywhere that water baptism referred to the breaking of water.

Never said you did – just for the record…

Dawn said - I didn't mention breaking water at all.

C’mon… You said “water” in John 3 refers to a physical birth. You made the inference so own up to it… although you were unable to prove your point from the context of the passage.

Dawn said - You are talking about baptism, I am talking about being born again (which is what this passage is about.)

In John 3 Jesus said being born anew requires TWO things:
water (baptism) AND Spirit.
Paul agrees in Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5.
You on the other hand have no context or collaboration for your statement – as I do.

Dawn – it there any correlation between these –3- verses to YOU?

Dawn remarked - (I am pretty sure that women (and maybe even men) observed that a rush of water always came before physical birth. It was not something new that was discovered in (whatever date you quoted in a previous post). People in the Bible were not stupid. That phenomenon was just not given a name till the date you quoted.)

You are making MY point. With all you said there, you can’t find even ONE Biblical reference where “water” refers to a physical birth, yet you want to jam that thought into John 3 against the context, and while making Jesus Himself speak foolishly. Four thousand years of Bible history, Hebrew and Greek, and you can’t find even one reference to this!

 

[Apollos1]

JDS said - Apollos1,did you read my post #79. Baptism is a picture of death, not life.

Hi JDS –

Yes, I read it and, with all due respect, I disagree with almost all of it.

The LIKENESS that Paul presents to us in Romans 6 is NOT just a “picture” of death. Paul tells us here that our baptism (in water) is a likeness of a death, a burial, and a resurrection…
<<<<*>>>>

Baptism is represented by Paul as a likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus – Romans 6:3-5. There is no other thing that is so represented.

Not faith.

Not repentance.

Not confession.

Only (water) baptism.

In (water) baptism, the old man of sin within us is buried, just as Christ was buried, and is transformed and resurrected by God as a new creature. It is then, and not until then, that we are "free from sin." Only then are we fit to be called "servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:17-18).

This text, Romans 6:3-5, presents a serious problem for those who teach that salvation precedes baptism (water OR HS). These people have Paul “burying” people that are ALIVE. Down here in my neck of the woods, that is a bit backward – we usually bury the DEAD folk!! But this is not the problem I will address for this thread – we just want to examine and see that the baptism that

Paul describes here must be WATER BAPTISM and cannot be Holy Spirit baptism. And of course Paul is speaking of WATER baptism in this passage.

Paul describes baptism as a "burial" and likens it to the death and burial of Christ. Yet all the HS baptism stumpers fail to illustrate HOW HS baptism is “like” unto the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that Paul clearly, plainly, and succinctly states that baptism IS in Romans 6. Why is that? Well, we know why that is – only WATER baptism can be “likened” unto a death, burial, and resurrection – HS baptism cannot !

Do not miss another important point Paul makes here. Paul tells us that this (water) baptism is OUR death, burial, and resurrection. WE die to sin/put off the old sinful man – WE are buried (in water) like as Christ was buried, and then WE are resurrected (like Christ was resurrected) to walk in a new life! Paul is describing WATER baptism in Romans chapter 6 – not any other baptism !!! The purpose of HS baptism was never to do this !!! If fact, HS baptism was never for the remission of sins, and no one was ever told to baptize anyone with the HS - this was never commanded or authorized !

Jesus ONLY could promise and deliver HS baptism. John in the wilderness was the first to tell us this in Mark 1:8. It was JESUS that would baptize in the HS !! (cf. Matt. 3:11, Lk. 3:16) But who was to receive HS baptism? We see in John 14:26 and then John 16:13 that Jesus promised HS baptism ONLY to the Apostles.

Jesus further buttresses this promise in Luke 24:49 - (cf. Acts 1:5-8) when the Apostles (no one else) were told to wait in Jerusalem for the HS and then received the HS in Acts 2.

How is it then that people today want to break the promise of Jesus to the Apostles and usurp His authority by offering HS to any and all they think should have it? Have they no shame ?! The one and only baptism authorized for the church today is WATER baptism.

Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation made possible by the death of Jesus Christ and offered to man by the grace of God.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn said - Apollos, I do not like to answer posts in bullet points.

My experience in religious discussions is that those with weak points and weak arguments rarely do address topics point-for-point.

Dawn said - I address the gist of what you are talking about, and in that sense, I spoke to all of your posts in our conversation.

You &#8220;spoke&#8221; to them?? You think you did? Really???

-Where did you &#8220;speak to&#8221; the parallel that I say exists in John 3 between verse 3 and verse 5 ???
-Do you &#8220;speak to&#8221; my comments about how the CONTEXT of John 3:5 was in response to Nicodemas&#8217; question &#8211; &#8220;&#8230;when he is OLD ???&#8221;
-Did you &#8220;speak to&#8221; my point from Ephesians 5:26 somewhere that I missed??
What is this verse talking about Dawn?
-I corrected you on Ephesians 2, that this passage spoke about man&#8217;s spiritual STATE, not man&#8217;s ability to RESPOND to God. Where did you &#8220;speak to&#8221; that point??
-Did you remark about my comment on your comment about how baptism was a &#8220;concept&#8221; that the Jews weren&#8217;t familiar with??

So really?? Did you?? You see&#8230; I DON&#8217;T THINK YOU DID ! Shall I list some other points as well??

This above illustrates WHY you must answer &#8220;bullets&#8221; &#8211; otherwise you end up taking several in the head - so to speak !!

Dawn said - Just because I didn't answer your posts in the words you wanted me to answer them in doesn't mean I didn't answer them.

Looking at the list above I just can&#8217;t agree with you..

Dawn said - And, just for the record, I didn't say anywhere that water baptism referred to the breaking of water.

Never said you did &#8211; just for the record&#8230;

Dawn said - I didn't mention breaking water at all.

C&#8217;mon&#8230; You said &#8220;water&#8221; in John 3 refers to a physical birth. You made the inference so own up to it&#8230; although you were unable to prove your point from the context of the passage.

Dawn said - You are talking about baptism, I am talking about being born again (which is what this passage is about.)

In John 3 Jesus said being born anew requires TWO things:
water (baptism) AND Spirit.
Paul agrees in Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5.
You on the other hand have no context or collaboration for your statement &#8211; as I do.

Dawn &#8211; it there any correlation between these &#8211;3- verses to YOU?

Dawn remarked - (I am pretty sure that women (and maybe even men) observed that a rush of water always came before physical birth. It was not something new that was discovered in (whatever date you quoted in a previous post). People in the Bible were not stupid. That phenomenon was just not given a name till the date you quoted.)

You are making MY point. With all you said there, you can&#8217;t find even ONE Biblical reference where &#8220;water&#8221; refers to a physical birth, yet you want to jam that thought into John 3 against the context, and while making Jesus Himself speak foolishly. Four thousand years of Bible history, Hebrew and Greek, and you can&#8217;t find even one reference to this!

You, in your mind, are reading baptism whenever water is mentioned in John 3. Baptism is not mentioned anywhere in that passage. NOT ONE PLACE! Do not harp on how I have ignored you when you do not even acknowledge that you are reading your own biases into scripture. And do not harp on me about ignoring you when you have ignored everything I've said, also. At least I read and responded to what you said. You barely read what I said and didn't respond to it at all. If you did, please show me where you spoke to my parallel in John 3.

And, pray tell, how was I making your point when your point was that Biblical people were too stupid to understand that a rush of water accompanies birth, thus making the "water" in that scripture equal to physical birth?

 

[Apollos1]

Dawn –

You continue to run and hide from the simplest of truths concerning water baptism. It is too bad (for you) that you will not substantively engage in a two-way discourse.
<<<*>>>

Dawn said - You, in your mind, are reading baptism whenever water is mentioned in John 3. Baptism is not mentioned anywhere in that passage.

What I have done is use the context of John 3 (more than once) to show that it requires TWO things to accomplish the new birth that Jesus is talking about. Those TWO things from the context are WATER and SPIRIT.

I used Ephesians 5:26 and Titus 3:5 to collaborate this truth about TWO things being needed in our cleansing and regeneration – WATER and SPIRIT.

I further provided Matthew 28:18ff that shows us Jesus authorized a (water) baptism for ALL NATIONS. When you read about the baptisms in his name (by His authority – ex. As in Acts 2:38) this is the baptism that the Lord authorized! Read this passage – it is NOT optional! This baptism as authorized is in WATER – Acts 10:47-48.

And as illustrated, Mark 16:16 expresses this idea to us in its simplest form.
Belief AND (water) baptism results in salvation. Your idea here conflicts with the scripture!

You on the other hand have offered nothing to bolster your mis-contexted remarks as to John 3 except rank opinion, and are more than happy to have the Lord speaking as if an imbecile.

Dawn argued - And do not harp on me about ignoring you when you have ignored everything I've said, also.

Sorry – this dog ain’t gonna bark.

Dawn insults me - If you did, please show me where you spoke to my parallel in John 3.


You had no parallel – and as such I told you so. Your assumption about the WATER being a physical birth has no basis in the context of John 3 given what Jesus and Nicodemus say. Are you reading the passage? Are you reading what I respond to you with?? I also told you your remarks were out of context – many times.

Yet…………you chose to IGNORE every one of the points I presented to you in my last post, but had the nerve to make this remark? LOL !

Dawn fretted - And, pray tell, how was I making your point when your point was that Biblical people were too stupid to understand that a rush of water accompanies birth, thus making the "water" in that scripture equal to physical birth?

YOU are the one that introduced the word “stupid” in your post #83. I never used the word or inferred such. Now, let me help you out here…
In post #83 Dawn remarked - (I am pretty sure that women (and maybe even men) observed that a rush of water always came before physical birth. It was not something new that was discovered in (whatever date you quoted in a previous post). People in the Bible were not stupid. That phenomenon was just not given a name till the date you quoted.)

I basically agree here. A rush of embryonic fluid must often have preceded physical birth and people probably took notice. BTW – do YOU have even ONE scripture that shows your point here? DO YO HAVE EVEN ONE ???
This wasn’t something new. It must have been observed. So what scripture verifies your point Dawn ????

The Bible covers 4,000 years of history and then some. Can YOU verify that the physical birth and the fluids gushing from the rupture of the placenta was ever referred to as “water” in any form or fashion by all these “not stupid” people?
I didn’t think so.

HOW WOULD SCRIPTURE SAY IT ???

In reference to physical birth, here is what the scriptures say…

Jesus said this - Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist… Jesus says this in Matthew 11:11. The same words are recorded in Luke 7:28.

Paul said this – that Jesus was… “…born of a woman…” – see Galatians 4:4.

Dawn, this is how scripture via the Holy Spirit speaks about physical birth.
Show me what you got Dawn…. Save all the rhetoric !!

In John 3 – Jesus said – “…EXCEPT ONE BE BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT…”

Jesus did NOT say… except one be born of woman and Spirit…

WATER in John 3 refers to BAPTISM- it does not make reference to the physical birth! This is naked opinion based on your prejudice against water baptism and what water baptism is FOR and what water baptism DOES.

Dawn… YOU’VE got nothing !!!

Water baptism is the means selected by God through which man appropriates the salvation offered to man by God’s grace.