Results 141 - 160 of 373
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jcsav Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | jcsav, Why make unbiblical statements? | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 143049 | ||
You can be baptized in Jesus name only and yet have not recieved the Holy Spirit. The first step of Acts 2:38 is to repent. Scripture also backs this up. Acts 8:16 "For he had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." And it shows in verse 22 that Simon had not repented. | ||||||
142 | What's in a Name? | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 145698 | ||
Why is it, that you would not want to be "in association with" Jesus Christ by baptizm? Also, if what you say is correct. Then why do Peter (Acts 2:38)say that,repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was for the, "REMISSION OF SIN." ' |
||||||
143 | jcsav, baptism does not save. | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147221 | ||
Their is no where in Scripture where it says you are saved before you are Baptised. Jesus said, whoever believes and is baptised shall be saved. Saved is a deliverance from you sin. It have to be worked out. Repentance before Baptism, Yes. But repentance itself have nothing to do with "remission of sins" That can only mean baptism of water. Heb 9:22, "And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood and without shedding of blood there is no remission." Blood is another word for death. That have to mean the "Watery Grave." Luke 24:47, "and that repentance and remission of sins should be Preached in his name amoung all nations beginning at Jerusalem." That is what Peter did in Acts 2:38. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to obey, than try to find a way around what God have commanded us to do? There was no break in Peters chain of thought. Question your study material, but, don't change what Peter said. |
||||||
144 | jcsav, baptism does not save. | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147367 | ||
"Repent and be immersed on account of remission of sins already enjoyed." But this interpertation is subject to two insuperable objections. 1st To command men to repent and be immersed because their sins were already remitted, is to require them not to be immersed on this account, but to repent because they were already pardoned. There is no possibility of extricating the interpretation from this absurdity. 2d. It contradicts an obvious fact of the case. It makes Peter command the inquirers to be immersed because their sins were already remitted, whereas it is an indisputable fact that their sins were not yet remitted. On the contrary, they were still pierced to the heart with a sense of guilt, and by the question they propounded were seeking how they might obtain the very pardon which this interpretation assumes that they already enjoyed. Certainly no SANE man would assume a position involving such absurdity, and so contradictory to an obvious fact, were he not driven to it by the inexorable demands of a THEORY which could not be otherwise sustained." This information from www.bebaptize.org. To that I say, Amen! |
||||||
145 | Why not just accept what Scripture says? | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147407 | ||
Thank God for someone who knows the relationship with blood and baptism. I believe people just like to try to find a way around what God says. The Jews had a real good saying that the converts quoted as they were baptized. "I WILL DO AND I WILL LISTEN." | ||||||
146 | jcsav, baptism does not save. | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147408 | ||
The answer was to a question put to Peter. Peter answers. Now, why would one say, parts of the answer gave, Is any less imperative than the whole. Please,Explain what you mean. Isn't all of it part of Gods commandment? | ||||||
147 | jcsav, baptism does not save. | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147415 | ||
Repent, resulting in the forgiveness of sins. Have to be incorrect. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood (Matt 26:28). Water and Blood cleanse and Purify. Not repentance. Repentance changes ones views and purpose in order to accept the will of God in your inner self instead of rejecting it. So you can not possibily reject the commandment to be baptised if you have truly repented for it is, the will of God. And If Jesus used the same word/phrase then isn't it reasonable to believe Peter's commandment, by inspiration and sent by Jesus , would mean the exact same thing. And what Bible translation uses such a interperation as the one you have came up with. Are you wiser than they? | ||||||
148 | jcsav, baptism does not save. | Acts 2:38 | jcsav | 147416 | ||
Repent, resulting in the forgiveness of sins. Have to be incorrect. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood (Matt 26:28). Water and Blood cleanse and Purify. Not repentance. Repentance changes ones views and purpose in order to accept the will of God in your inner self instead of rejecting it. So you can not possibily reject the commandment to be baptised if you have truly repented for it is, the will of God. Both conditions must be meet in order to receive the Holy Ghost, in the sense of being born into the kingdom. One without the other is not according to Scripture (the one Baptism). If Jesus used the same word/phrase then isn't it reasonable to believe Peter's commandment, by inspiration and sent by Jesus , would mean the exact same thing. And what Bible translation uses such a interperation as the one you have came up with. Are you wiser than they? | ||||||
149 | jcsav, Was it Paul or Peter? | Acts 5:34 | jcsav | 146362 | ||
You are right, of course. I realized my mistake, after I had posted. I meant, Peter and the apostles. jcsav | ||||||
150 | How can you say Simon wasn't saved? | Acts 8:13 | jcsav | 142846 | ||
Sorry, yes I meant Simon. And where did you think he recieved his power from. Yes he lost his power but it was not because he recieved the Holy Ghost. It was because the Gospel was preached. And what he says in Verse 24 do not mean his heart had changed when he said it. Spirits must be judged by the Spirit of God not by the hearing of the hear. Again I opoligize for saying Simeon and not Simon. | ||||||
151 | Where did the eunuch rec the Holy Ghost? | Acts 8:39 | jcsav | 147149 | ||
The point I was making is that at the time he was water baptised, he had not, at that point in time, received the Holy Ghost. I personally believe that at some point, he did (I do not believe the Lord would have taken such measures without completing it). But, that is not in Scripture. | ||||||
152 | Where did the eunuch rec the Holy Ghost? | Acts 8:39 | jcsav | 147222 | ||
Surprised at you Searcher. I though that according to your belief that every believer that is baptised, or not. Have also received the Holy Ghost (Spirit). What is wrong? don't you think the eunuch was a believer? | ||||||
153 | Where did the eunuch rec the Holy Ghost? | Acts 8:39 | jcsav | 147365 | ||
Searcher, that is what I have been trying to get you to see in some of the past treads. That a believer can believe and even be baptised. And yet not have received the Holy Ghost. Wasn't that you who ask me about the 3,ooo believers? If not I apoligize. As for as the Greek go. Lets say I believe You. Lets delete "For the remission of sin" from Acts 2:38. It would still read "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." It still would be a commandment from God. And where did you find the Greek meaning of "eis" , "Because of" do not appear in the KJV Dr. Hackett (Baptist, so you do not think I am Bias) expressed himself still more satificatorily: eis aphesin hamartion, in order to the forgiveness of sins, (Matt. 26:28 Luke iii:3,) we connect, naturally, with the both the preceding verbs. This clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptised. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part of it to the exclusion of the other. Information from www.bebaptized.org. |
||||||
154 | Where did the eunuch rec the Holy Ghost? | Acts 8:39 | jcsav | 147403 | ||
If that argument is true. Then Peter tells them in Acts 2:38 to repent. Even though they had already repented (by your interpertation). Though Scripture tells us that they was pricked in their hearts (which is not the same as repentance). My words: Guilt, still within them (knowing there was more to be done), they asked Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter answer would have been "nothing". You are already SAVED. eis is used as you stated "at" 20 times. But, show me where it is used, Its meaning being "Because of". It is not there, just as I have stated. | ||||||
155 | Where did the eunuch rec the Holy Ghost? | Acts 8:39 | jcsav | 147412 | ||
There is a difference from translation and meaning. Now, I understand where you are coming from. It is not possible for one to repent and then refuse to follow one of God's commandments. Remember Peter preaching had pricked their hearts. But there is no reason to believe that they had repented at that time and that they had already been remitted of their sins based upon their repentance or the preaching that they heard. As I say again, then there would be no reason for Peter then to tell them to repent. Preaching can lead to repentance. But hearing Preaching do not mean one has repented. Nineveh showed their repentance through their actions that followed (they began to obey God.) If Jonah believed hearing preaching was the only thing need for salvation. Then he would not have waited to see what God would do to them. | ||||||
156 | jcsav, What to you mean? | Acts 9:3 | jcsav | 143103 | ||
Searcher, The point that I was making is that God works though His Agents. He sent Ananias to Paul not only to heal him but to Baptize him. My reply was to the statement that the only Agent need was Jesus. As far as I know, Jesus have never baptized anyone with Water. |
||||||
157 | jcsav, What to you mean? | Acts 9:3 | jcsav | 143210 | ||
Searcher, I do not see your point. John 4:2 reads,"Thought JESUS HIMSELF DID NOT BAPTIZE, but HIS DISCIPLES." Were you reinforcing what I had said, by pointing out this Scripture. Or is there something I missed? | ||||||
158 | jcsav, What to you mean? | Acts 9:3 | jcsav | 143216 | ||
The Scripture said that Jesus did not Baptize anyone with water. What more do you want. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost (Spirit). Do you have another view on what "water" is? | ||||||
159 | jcsav, What to you mean? | Acts 9:3 | jcsav | 143218 | ||
If you have a problem with my "as far as I know" then I will say Boldly and with confidence that he did not. If I speak too boldly someone always call me arrogant. But that was my mistake, God knows. | ||||||
160 | jcsav, What to you mean? | Acts 9:3 | jcsav | 143220 | ||
Acts 2 is talking about both. The Water baptism and the Spirit Baptism. This is what Jesus meant about being born of the Water and the Spirit. Why would God make the rules different for Cornelius, than he would us. Note; Cornelius was filled with the Holy Ghost, spoke in tongues. Then Peter ask the other Jews that was with him, Act 10:47-48,"Can anyone forbid or refuse WATER for BAPTIZING these people. And he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...." (Amplified) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [19] >> |