Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
Jason also has no answer for Acts 22:16. He doesn't know if Paul was saved before, or after those words were told to him. |
I simply admitted I cannot know for certain the moment of Paul's salvation.
Let me turn the question around on you-was Paul saved before the words of
Acts 22:16 were spoken or not?
If you want my best educated guess, I would say BEFORE, and base that on the reception of the Spirit which (like the case of Cornelius) seemed to take place prior to baptism, as per
Acts 9:17-18.
And if that is the correct conclusion (and according to the order given in
Acts 9 it seems to be) then the account of Cornelius' household receiving the baptism of the Spirit prior to water baptism wasn't just "an exception" as you asserted earlier in this thread.
Furthermore then, considering both
Acts 9:17-18 and 10:44-48 (to say nothing of
Romans 4:10) you have to explain how your view of baptismal regeneration (the idea that we do not receive forgiveness from sin until we are baptized) is consistent with people receiving the Holy Ghost while still in sin (an unclean vessel).
And then if you say that sins are forgiven in water baptism, as David Bernard does in his book "The New Birth" then the burden of proof is on you to explain how such a person can be lost because the don't speak in tongues.
As Bernard writes on page 115 "Repentance and water baptism together COMPLETE the full work of forgiveness. At baptism God washes away sin by removing the eternal record and PENALTY of sin."
Or refute the UPCI manual when it states under the subheading "Repentance" "Pardon and forgiveness of sins is obtained by genuine repentance.
Of course I expect you to say that neither Bernard, nor the UPC manual are the authorities, and of course I agree. My point is that you (and all OPs) have a real problem on your hands with the simple question "at what point are sins forgiven?"
We know through this discussion that you absolutely don't believe they are forgiven at repentance (which causes one to wonder why the angels of heaven rejoice when someone repents (
Luke 15:7,10), when such a person is still lost as two boys kissing.
If you say water baptism (as Bernard does), then how can someone's sin be forgiven and they still go to hell? Isn't hell the punishment for unrepentant sinners who have rejected Christ's atonement for their sin?
If they are forgiven and bear no guilt, how can they still go to hell b/c they haven't spoken in tongues?
If you thus say a person's sins are forgiven when they receive the Holy Ghost (and by this you mean not to separate if from speaking in tongues), then why do you stress the washing away for sins in
Acts 22:16 and
Acts 2:38? And what of
Mark 16:16 which would contradict this view?
And in regard to these things, since Paul himself wrote Romans and strongly and plainly advocated for justification on the basis of faith, how do you explain his writings which seems to strongly contradict what you are saying about salvation by including water baptism, with the correct words, and spirit baptism, that doesn't count without the sign of speaking in tongues (and also redefining Paul's words about tongues in
1 Corinthians 12:28)?
Romans 3:22-26 NLT
We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet God freely and graciously declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he declares sinners to be right in his sight when they believe in Jesus.
Romans 4:5, 9-11, 22-25 NLT
But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners. Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles? Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised! Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous--even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. And because of Abraham's faith, God counted him as righteous. And when God counted him as righteous, it wasn't just for Abraham's benefit. It was recorded for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.
Romans 5:1-2 NLT
Therefore, since we have been made right in God's sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us. Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God's glory.
So I'm curious how if a man is justified by faith and at peace with God, how he could still be subject to the damnation of hell? Which is exactly what you are doing by condemning the whole list of people I mentioned earlier, and all trinitarians, and every person in church history who has not been baptized with the name of Jesus spoken over them, and spoken in tongues. And I know you despise when I mention church history, and I sympathize with you. If I started a thread that could only trace my doctrine back to 1908, I'd try to avoid references to church history also.
Beyond all these things, while you try to pin me down on
Acts 22:16, also be reminded that I have posted several scriptures, from the mouth of Jesus himself, about belief that not one of you 3 steppers bothered to respond to. Ya'll jump all over
John 3:5 and completely ignore the 100 or so other quotes from Jesus all equating belief with salvation.
Also in regards to the book of Acts can you explain why the 3,000 were added to the church in v.41 with no indication that they spoke in tongues, or why Peter didn't mention Jesus name baptism in his
Acts 3 sermon, and again why the 5,000 of
Acts 4:4 didn't speak in tongues (and apparently weren't immediately baptized, yet were counted amongst the believers? Are these "emotional" questions?
Can you explain to me why, if people all over the world were getting saved and speaking in tongues, why Paul didn't mention this at the Jerusalem Council in
Acts 15, when He had ministered amongst the Gentiles for years? Why did Peter have to use the events of
Acts 10, (which happened YEARS before the Jerusalem Council), to end the dispute, if it was common place for Gentile believers (or Jewish believer) to speak in tongues?
Can you answer why water baptism and speaking in tongues are not included amongst the various tests of genuine saving faith listed all throughout the book of 1 John?
So I'll be awaiting you answers, Esaias (and any other 3 stepper who wants to chime in).
Are these too "emotional arguments"? Can your theology stand up to such questions, or must they be ignored?
Threaded Mode
