SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Such as "The New Covenant is for the Jews", refuted in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs Gentiles to drink from the cup of the New Covenant, indicating their participation in it.
:chuckle:
Such as "The New Covenant is for the Jews", refuted in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs Gentiles to drink from the cup of the New Covenant, indicating their participation in it.
But to answer your question, yes.
Many of us used to believe that, though. It's what many churches teach today; because they mix grace and law and are confused between the two.I dont understand how its missed for one who understands their actions had nothing to with salvation, can then believe their actions can cause it to no longer be in effect.
This says nothing about saving faith; or even justification.Here's the scripture that says the only faith that avails is "faith which WORKETH by love".
Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Because, like a dunce, you assume. We are saved by the faith of the Son of God, but that faith is not His faith in us.You're the one that said the faith that saves us isn't our own faith. I take that to mean that you feel God's faith in us is what saves us.
You're assuming this person was saved before this incident. You're also assuming he lost his salvation, if he was saved prior to this. It's an argument from silence. You really shouldn't make such arguments.Read 1 Corinthians 5. A member of the church fell into terrible sin - fornication with his "father's wife". Paul let's us know this individual was no longer saved, and instructed the church to use their authority to turn this person over to Satan so that Satan could destroy his body. The whole reason was so this PREVIOUSLY SAVED saint could be SAVED AGAIN.
1 Corinthians 5:4-5
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, THAT THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I guess someone should have explained eternal security to Paul.
Speaking of arguments from silence... and assumptions...Such as "The New Covenant is for the Jews", refuted in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul instructs Gentiles to drink from the cup of the New Covenant, indicating their participation in it.
If you believed when you were young but changed your mind when you grew up then you may have believed, but you did not know. And you had no faith. You were a goat among the sheep.If I believed as a young man, then grew bitter and decided I hated God and everything He stood for, would God abduct me against my will, and force me to spend eternity with Him?
But I could choose to refuse Him?
And it wouldn't matter that I had believed as a younger man, correct? I'm free to change my mind and He will let me
Originally Posted by SimpleMan77 View Post
You must take the Bible as a whole, and scripture must be interpreted by scripture.
How do you know it's ok for you to eat pork?
As evidence in Acts 10 Peter did not think this meant what you think it did. Try again.Matt 15:11, yum yum.
This passage does not state that we partaking in the New Covenant. It only tells us to participate in the remembrance of what Christ did for us.
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood;
As evidence in Acts 10 Peter did not think this meant what you think it did. Try again.
You're assuming this person was saved before this incident. You're also assuming he lost his salvation, if he was saved prior to this. It's an argument from silence. You really shouldn't make such arguments.
Another lie repeated ad nauseum.Why did Paul baptize people, and even re-baptize those who were not baptized in Jesus' name?
Another lie repeated ad nauseum.
Please stop lying and learn the truth.
http://theologyonline.com/entry.php?3489-They-were-NOT-quot-rebaptized-quot-in-Acts-19
That's not what the Bible says.The head of the body of Christ assigned each of the Twelve to a tribe of Israel which were scattered among Gentiles. Paul was not given a tribe of Israel, he got what was left.
If the Bible uses that to liken our immersion in the things of Holy Ghost, so be it. But the word in 19:5 only refers to water.
Read what I HIGHLIGHTED... then follow the link to see the simple explanation for this event.Sorry, but the word baptize (baptizo) had a very specific meaning, and it was used how we would use the phrase "submersion under water". It was a common term, not only for baptism, but for bathing and cleaning.
As with most religionists, you cannot hear "baptize" without also hearing "water".The Jews "baptized" their pots and cups. They "baptized" their hands before eating. That didn't mean the Spirit of God touched them. It was water.
Since you didn't follow to the link to the actual, factual explanation, I'll post it here:I'll use the definition in the place of the word, and see if you can make it make sense to you outside of water baptism:
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were submerged under the water in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
If the Bible uses that to liken our immersion in the things of Holy Ghost, so be it. But the word in 19:5 only refers to water.
You simply cannot hear what scripture says; because your prefer your story.That's why it says that afterward Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.
The only person who would not see the identical similarity to Peter's message in Acts 2:38 is someone who is hell-bent on trying to pit Paul against Peter. They approached conversion the exact same way.
Sorry, but the word baptize (baptizo) had a very specific meaning, and it was used how we would use the phrase "submersion under water". It was a common term, not only for baptism, but for bathing and cleaning.
The Jews "baptized" their pots and cups. They "baptized" their hands before eating. That didn't mean the Spirit of God touched them. It was water.
I'll use the definition in the place of the word, and see if you can make it make sense to you outside of water baptism:
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were submerged under the water in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:6
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
If the Bible uses that to liken our immersion in the things of Holy Ghost, so be it. But the word in 19:5 only refers to water.
That's why it says that afterward Paul laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost.
The only person who would not see the identical similarity to Peter's message in Acts 2:38 is someone who is hell-bent on trying to pit Paul against Peter. They approached conversion the exact same way.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Read what I HIGHLIGHTED... then follow the link to see the simple explanation for this event.
Paul did NOT re-baptize anyone.
As with most religionists, you cannot hear "baptize" without also hearing "water".Matt 20:22-23 (AKJV/PCE)(20:22) But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (20:23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
How much water do you find in those two verses? (Hint: none).
Since you didn't follow to the link to the actual, factual explanation, I'll post it here:
Acts 19:4-6 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (19:5) When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (19:6) And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
What Paul told THEM is in YELLOW. The THEY in verse 5 refers to "the people" that heard John. What THEY with Paul did that day comes after the AND in verse 6.
You simply cannot hear what scripture says; because your prefer your story.
That's not what the Bible says.
So what does the Bible say?
It's far better to stick with vague generalities. That way you can just keep moving the target like the shifting sands in the desert.I noticed you didn't give any examples.