Elder Epley, I don't think Dan is an Apostolic Pentecostal. As far as being on the same wavelength as CJ, I would have to say as far as believing that everything that calls itself Christian is saved; they are both on the same page.
Again EB you mis-characterize, I don't believe all "so called Christians are saved". I do believe that ALL will eventually come to faith in Christ and will be saved, there is a big difference. I believe God will accomplished what He had in mind "before the foundation of the world", you believe He gave man infallible "free will" to go the hell.
Therefore, I can praise Him as our awesome, incomparable, irresistible God. This faith in the greater hope magnifies God, and causes me to have respect for all of His creation, as valuable and precious.
__________________ For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. (Romans 14:11- NASB)
Many OPs don't hold your view BishopH ... stop being intellectually dishonest ... in your attempts to marginalize a position OPs held since the New Issue and Pentecostals have since Azusa... by playing the dreaded Trinnies card.
your part of the OP movement was influenced by the Cambellites, Methodists and Catholics ... from your view on baptismal regeneration to your stance on salvific dress Holiness.
Intellectually Dishonest? My stance on salvific dress holiness? Now you are a mind reader?
First you have no idea where my theological studies have taken me nor where and how I formed my opinions on "full" Bible salvation. As an ardent student of church history, both ancient and modern day, I have drawn conclusions that I feel are supported by scripture and that in part have been practiced throughout history at different times and in various levels of illumination/application.
Secondly, you have no idea where I stand on "salvific dress holiness." The problem may be that I just don't fit in our cookie cutter idea of what a OP is.
Getting back to the original question and away from Dan….
This argument is that on the one hand we look at Acts 2:38 in the KJV but Acts 3:19 using a different translation.
The argument being that in Acts 3:19 “and be converted” isn’t the best translation. While at the same time suggesting that the KJV version of Acts 2:38 is the best translation.
Seems inconsistent to me to say the least.
When looking at both in the same translation (either KJV or some other translation) the picture seems more clear to me anyway.
KJV Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins>>> Repent and be converted that your sins be blotted out.
Contemporary English is a little different. Sure in Acts 3:19 says: turn to God, give up your sins and you will be forgiven. But compare that to Acts 2:38 in the same translation: Turn back to God! Be Baptized in the name of Jesus so that your sins will be forgiven.
You cannot make the argument that Acts 2:38 in the KJV says something, then use Acts 3:19 in a different translation to back up what you say Acts 2:38 means. It is bad form.
If you read the KJV the message is clear and passages are consistent. Baptism is required. If you read both passages in some other translation were the “be converted of Acts 3:19” is translated as “turn”, you find Acts 2:38 translating “repent” to “turn” and baptism remains required.
I cant find a way around baptism.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
ONCE AGAIN... lol -- The exact same words of Acts 2:38 are found in Jesus' words about how blood is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And this clearly does not mean BECAUSE remission of sins already occurred. This has been debated for years. That is why Peter made it a command in Acts 10 and says it is part of salvation in 1 Peter 3.
1Pe 3:21 KJV The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It does not save by physically cleaning with H20. But it DOES SAVE by it being an act of a good conscience.
Acts 3? Often, after an initial precedent has been set in writing, as in Acts 2, the aforementioned details are not written, though they were obviously spoken, as in Acts 3. Recall we are READING a historical account in Acts. If the writer Luke were to write every single word ever preached, after having already established the precedent for salvation clearly in Acts 2, the book of Acts would not have been able to have been completed due to lack of time allowed to write! lol The same principle occurs with Romans' references to salvation. The people already knew how to be saved, so Paul did not have to detail every part in Romans 10. Similarly, in Acts 3's case, the reader is already settled by Acts 2 to know what saves.
Act 2:38 KJV Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
THE GREEK IS IDENTICAL AS IS ENGLISH.
And Mark 16:16, as has already been said, shows JESUS saying baptism COMES BEFORE salvation, not after.
Let us not forget that Dan's former allusion to us proposing baptismal regeneration, as is also erringly mentioned in the writing truthseeker quoted, is NOT what we believe. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that faith is not necessary and that mere water baptism causes one to be regenerated or Spirit filled without faith or even CHOICE, as in the instance of infants!
VERY good words Brother Blume.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Is that a request ?... make sure you've got enough dollar bills ... Champ.
Let's examine your works-based Sacramentalist Baptismal Regenerationist doctrine ... it should take about a whole minute.
Baptism is a work of faith on our part and a work of the Spirit who performs a circumcision without hands when we are buried with Christ in baptism. It's more than symbolic. Repentance and baptism are for the remission of sins. The whole purpose of Christ coming into the world was to save sinners. Baptism saves us....from our sins and the judgement of God. I can expand this further Dan, but your attention span of a whole minute won't allow.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
One will not even bother with baptism if one does not believe. So there is no need to even mention he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be damned.
Lack of necessity of baptism is all due to misunderstanding Romans 6.
Romans 6 teaches baptism is necessary and is also symbolic.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
Ok...let's take a simple, long-used example, and assess the individual's salvation status, given the circumstances...it's elemental, but intuitive...
"Suppose, during an especially blessed service, an individual repents and receives the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Shortly, after service, without benefit of water baptism, that same individual is struck and killed by an automobile."
Ok...let's take a simple, long-used example, and assess the individual's salvation status, given the circumstances...it's elemental, but intuitive...
"Suppose, during an especially blessed service, an individual repents and receives the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Shortly, after service, without benefit of water baptism, that same individual is struck and killed by an automobile."
Salvation status, anyone...anyone???
RevBuddy, while the scenario itself may in fact represent something that could happen, it does a great disservice to the discussion.
The attempt here is to provide an exception that disproves the rule. The Rule however, is not disproven by creating an exception!
What God does in his own council, is no business of ours. Our job is to teach the rule and not get in God’s business.
Simply there is no good answer to your question from a human perspective. I will teach and live that EVERYBODY needs to obey Acts 2:38 without fail.
I will also trust that God is well able to make his own decisions.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Ok...let's take a simple, long-used example, and assess the individual's salvation status, given the circumstances...it's elemental, but intuitive...
"Suppose, during an especially blessed service, an individual repents and receives the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Shortly, after service, without benefit of water baptism, that same individual is struck and killed by an automobile."
Salvation status, anyone...anyone???
Not gonna happen. God is the Author and Finisher of our faith. If he calls someone to salvation he will keep them alive to fulfill its necessary requirements.
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
