ECT Moment of Salvation Compared to Water Baptism

[Right Divider]

If you understood Jesus you would know the value of the new birth and why you are without it.

Confusion reigns with you.

 

[Cross Reference]

Confusion reigns with you.

Then answer questions asked of you. Because you don't only beggars the question, can you even answer them. I say you can't. The truth is not in you. If it was you you could remove all doubt about what brand of religion has their ring in your nose?

 

[Right Divider]

Then answer questions asked of you. Because you don't only beggars the question, can you even answer them. I say you can't. The truth is not in you. If it was you you could remove all doubt about what brand of religion has their ring in your nose?

Your "Christian insults" are cute.

I already explained what born again actually means, but you're either too dense or indoctrinated to understand.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your "Christian insults" are cute.

I already explained what born again actually means, but you're either too dense or indoctrinated to understand.

Yeah, I know. You also explained the great comission. Got anything else yu believe you can non-explain? Try non-explaining what being born again entails. Go for it. I won't non-laugh. Promise.

 

[Right Divider]

Yeah, I know. You also explained the great comission. Got anything else yu believe you can non-explain? Try non-explaining what being born again entails. Go for it. I won't non-laugh. Promise.

So you still don't understand who was given the so-called "great commission" and you can't spell it either?

I already explained that the LORD Jesus Christ is the only one currently born again based on the scriptural explanation by the LORD in John 3.

Start a new thread, instead of derailing this one.

 

[Cross Reference]

So you still don't understand who was given the so-called "great commission" and you can't spell it either?

I already explained that the LORD Jesus Christ is the only one currently born again based on the scriptural explanation by the LORD in John 3.

Start a new thread, instead of derailing this one.

Jesus was NEVER born again. And why start another thread to wind up as this one when you don't know how to draw a spiritual straight line. Who knows what you are meaning to say when you demonstrate you don't know either?

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus was NEVER born again. And why start another thread to wind up as this one when you don't know how to draw a spiritual straight line. Who knows what you are meaning to say when you demonstrate you don't know either?

Before His resurrection, Jesus was not like the attribute mentioned in John 3:8

John 3:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. ​

After His resurrection, He was.

Luke 24:36-38 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:36) ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. (24:37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (24:38) And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? ​

 

[Cross Reference]

Before His resurrection, Jesus was not like the attribute mentioned in John 3:8

John 3:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:8) The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. ​

After His resurrection, He was.

Luke 24:36-38 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:36) ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you. (24:37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (24:38) And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? ​

Phoowee. Where did you get your understanding, Ken Copeland?? Jesus was NEVER born again from the grave, period. Like I said, if you were born again you might better understand and certainly not speak until you do.

 

[Right Divider]

Phoowee. Where did you get your understanding, Ken Copeland??

No, KC is more your type.

Jesus was NEVER born again from the grave, period. Like I said, if you were born again you might better understand and certainly not speak until you do.

You just keep blowing your own horn and not even attempting to discuss the scripture that I used. This is typical of a know-nothing blowhard.

 

[turbosixx]

Only 120 tarried for the baptism of Acts 2.

I would suggest to you only the 12 were baptized with the Holy Spirit. If we look at the pronoun-antecedent within the context, it's all about the apostles.

Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

When we come to the upper room, yes there were 120 there but the noun is still about the apostles and here they are even named.
1:13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

So they choose Matthias and the last verse in chapter 1 again gives the noun apostles.
1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The first verse of chapter 2 appears to be another day so who knows if the 120 are still there but we do know the apostles are there.
2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.

When they receive the Holy Spirit, we only have the pronoun but it points back to the apostles.
2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.

If we continue to look at the context, to my knowledge there is zero evidence supporting anyone else was baptized with the Holy Spirit other than the apostles.

We know without a doubt that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and it would be a very poor assumption to say anyone else was. I personally do not base my understanding of truth on assumptions and I definitely would not suggest persuading others of things based on assumptions.

 

[Cross Reference]

I would suggest to you only the 12 were baptized with the Holy Spirit. If we look at the pronoun-antecedent within the context, it's all about the apostles.

Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

1:4 And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

When we come to the upper room, yes there were 120 there but the noun is still about the apostles and here they are even named.
1:13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

You said they were named? Mary was one of those named as were the "brothers" of Jesus made mention of. Why would you suppose they weren't baptized as well? I would assume you are also saying that the 380 who didn't tarry really didn't miss out on much worth mentioning?

When they receive the Holy Spirit, we only have the pronoun but it points back to the apostles.
2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.

If we continue to look at the context, to my knowledge there is zero evidence supporting anyone else was baptized with the Holy Spirit other than the apostles.

We know without a doubt that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit and it would be a very poor assumption to say anyone else was. I personally do not base my understanding of truth on assumptions and I definitely would not suggest persuading others of things based on assumptions.

Assumptions? Why not let the scriptures, as interpreted by the Greek that has stood for as long as being what it says in the scriptures accepted by the masses for 2000 yrs, say what they say? Why seek to make them say something else to cause doubt? Jesus never made it that only the Twelve would be Baptized. Why the need for such reasoning that says they were especially because of this from the mouth of Peter?: . . "And having heard, they were pricked to the heart; they say also to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, `What shall we do, men, brethren? and Peter said unto them, `Reform/repent, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.' Acts 2:37-39 (YLT) Certainly no assuming anything in that, correct?

 

[turbosixx]

You said they were named? Mary was one of those named as were the "brothers" of Jesus made mention of. Why would you suppose they weren't baptized as well? I would assume you are also saying that the 380 who didn't tarry really didn't miss out on much worth mentioning?





Assumptions? Why not let the scriptures, as interpreted by the Greek that has stood for as long as being what it says in the scriptures accepted by the masses for 2000 yrs, say what they say? Why seek to make them say something else to cause doubt? Jesus never made it that only the Twelve would be Baptized. Why the need for such reasoning that says they were especially because of this from the mouth of Peter?: . . "And having heard, they were pricked to the heart; they say also to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, `What shall we do, men, brethren? and Peter said unto them, `Reform/repent, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.' Acts 2:37-39 (YLT) Certainly no assuming anything in that, correct?

I'm sorry you don't agree. You're more than welcome to point out my error. It's simple English rules of grammar. No interpretation needed.

 

[Cross Reference]

I'm sorry you don't agree. You're more than welcome to point out my error. It's simple English rules of grammar. No interpretation needed.

I believe I did point out your error. Why not address from that perspective as in where did I go wrong?

 

[turbosixx]

I want to be sure we’re talking about the same thing. On the day of Pentecost, who are the “they” that were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, the apostles or everyone in the upper room.
Is that right?

Looking at your reply, you do have a lot of questions and comments but I only see one that addresses possible error in my comments.

You said they were named? Mary was one of those named as were the "brothers" of Jesus made mention of.

First, I would like to use English grammar rules to determine who are the “they” in 2:4. If we look at the noun-pronoun agreement, the pronouns used from 1:1 to being baptized with the Holy Spirit in 2:4 are the apostles.
You mentioned those named as well as the apostles. If we look at the verse, the other people mentioned are with "these" and "themselves" which are the apostles.
1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. The “these” are the apostles.

The next time a pronoun is used, again it’s in reference to the apostles because Judas was numbered with them and they needed to replace him.
1:17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

The rest of the chapter is the same, the pronouns are the apostles. Looking at the last verse that is exactly what we see.
1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Chapter 2 up to being baptized with the Holy Spirit is all pronouns. If you believe the pronouns are not the apostles, please point out my error.

Second, it’s clear from the language in chapter 2 that the choosing of Mathias in the upper room was not on the day of Pentecost when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. So when “they” came back together on the day of Pentecost, is it the 120 or the apostles?
2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.
From the noun-pronoun agreement, it has to be the apostles. If it’s not, please point it out.

Third, look at the rest of the events following to see if it supports the idea that the pronouns are about the apostles.
2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses
Remember the apostles were chosen witnesses.
2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
2:43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

 

[Danoh]

I want to be sure we’re talking about the same thing. On the day of Pentecost, who are the “they” that were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, the apostles or everyone in the upper room.
Is that right?

Looking at your reply, you do have a lot of questions and comments but I only see one that addresses possible error in my comments.



First, I would like to use English grammar rules to determine who are the “they” in 2:4. If we look at the noun-pronoun agreement, the pronouns used from 1:1 to being baptized with the Holy Spirit in 2:4 are the apostles.
You mentioned those named as well as the apostles. If we look at the verse, the other people mentioned are with "these" and "themselves" which are the apostles.
1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. The “these” are the apostles.

The next time a pronoun is used, again it’s in reference to the apostles because Judas was numbered with them and they needed to replace him.
1:17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

The rest of the chapter is the same, the pronouns are the apostles. Looking at the last verse that is exactly what we see.
1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Chapter 2 up to being baptized with the Holy Spirit is all pronouns. If you believe the pronouns are not the apostles, please point out my error.

Second, it’s clear from the language in chapter 2 that the choosing of Mathias in the upper room was not on the day of Pentecost when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. So when “they” came back together on the day of Pentecost, is it the 120 or the apostles?
2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.
From the noun-pronoun agreement, it has to be the apostles. If it’s not, please point it out.

Third, look at the rest of the events following to see if it supports the idea that the pronouns are about the apostles.
2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses
Remember the apostles were chosen witnesses.
2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
2:43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

"The rules of grammar" ever have their important role, Nehemia 8:8, 12, but so does studying a thing out in depth, or through the whole of Scripture, Luke 24:27.

Study out, for example, the end of Mark 16, or James 5, or Revelation 7 and Revelation 11, and so on.

Those powers were meant for far more than just the 12.

Nevertheless, Rom. 14:5; in memory of Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Cross Reference]

I want to be sure we’re talking about the same thing. On the day of Pentecost, who are the “they” that were baptized with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, the apostles or everyone in the upper room.
Is that right?

Looking at your reply, you do have a lot of questions and comments but I only see one that addresses possible error in my comments.



First, I would like to use English grammar rules to determine who are the “they” in 2:4. If we look at the noun-pronoun agreement, the pronouns used from 1:1 to being baptized with the Holy Spirit in 2:4 are the apostles.
You mentioned those named as well as the apostles. If we look at the verse, the other people mentioned are with "these" and "themselves" which are the apostles.
1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. The “these” are the apostles.

The next time a pronoun is used, again it’s in reference to the apostles because Judas was numbered with them and they needed to replace him.
1:17 For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.”

The rest of the chapter is the same, the pronouns are the apostles. Looking at the last verse that is exactly what we see.
1:26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Chapter 2 up to being baptized with the Holy Spirit is all pronouns. If you believe the pronouns are not the apostles, please point out my error.

Second, it’s clear from the language in chapter 2 that the choosing of Mathias in the upper room was not on the day of Pentecost when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. So when “they” came back together on the day of Pentecost, is it the 120 or the apostles?
2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place.
From the noun-pronoun agreement, it has to be the apostles. If it’s not, please point it out.

Third, look at the rest of the events following to see if it supports the idea that the pronouns are about the apostles.
2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses
Remember the apostles were chosen witnesses.
2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
2:43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

I am NOT interested in using man's ways and means to discredit what can be clearly understood already written out on the time proven page by 50+ renown Greek scholars inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Understand that the first rule for understanding anything written is to first let it say what it says.. The second would be to check the credentials and motive of anyone trying to disprove what is written by them that they don't have an untoward agenda which leads me to ask why do you want to pick at how many and which disciples spoke in tongues as evidence of receiving the Baptism in the Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost seeing that God is no respecter of persons in such matters pertaining to pure hearts offered Him in obedience to His command??

With that said, I don't see any reason to not believe ALL in attendance in the upper room on that day had a Spiritual flame of fire setting over their heads. What do you hope to accomplish by going against that opinion and especially this by Peter:

"For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” Acts 2:39 (ESV)

 

[meshak]

I would like start off with at what point did Jesus say someone is saved.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The language is simple. If salvation comes after belief Jesus would have said "whoever believes is saved and then should be baptized".

It seems like you believe we can claim to be saved. But above scripture is future tense. It is just beginning of salvation.

We will not be saved unless we endure and be faithful and true to Jesus until the end.

So we will know if we are saved or not when we wake up in the kingdom.

My two cents.

thanks.

 

[Cross Reference]

It seems like you believe we can claim to be saved. But above scripture is future tense. It is just beginning of salvation.

We will not be saved unless we endure and be faithful and true to Jesus until the end.

So we will know if we are saved or not when we wake up in the kingdom.

My two cents.

thanks.

If I said to you that for salvation, as God purposed it in Christ, requires us to abandon our lives at the foot of the cross, i,e., place them there and walk away from them? Would that make sense to you? I believe it would.

 

[Cross Reference]

Thanks. What jumps out to me is this is the 12 apostles who were to be Christ's chosen witnesses.
Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Why not go in the other direction and believe for all disciples in hearing of His voice? Like Mark and Luke and the many which came later we don't as yet know about. Remember there were 500 of them we are told witnessed the ascension.

 

[meshak]

If I said to you that for salvation, as God purposed it in Christ, requires us to abandon our lives at the foot of the cross, i,e., place them there and walk away from them? Would that make sense to you? I believe it would.

We are imperfect, you never know if are doing our best to follow Him by abandoning Him.

I maybe deceiving myself even though I think I am abandoning self for Christ.

We just wait for Jesus' judgement if we abandoned self for Christ.

Self assurance is dangerous thing because that attitude is against humility.