Paul Saved on the road?

DKH said:

It is my position that Paul didn't think his sins were already forgiven, nor did he think that water baptism had anything to do with the forgiveness of sins. He also knew that receiving the nature of God (spirit) only occurred after his death and the resurrection of the firstfruits. Therefore, the forgiveness of one's sins can only occur after they die. Thus, each individual pays the required penalty for their own sins by dying…Paul, (in Romans 6:23) claims that the wages of sin is death. So, if our sins were forgiven before we die (being carnal and alive) would mean the penalty of death is eliminated! But, we know this is not the case or true. Where, the Christ was the only one who died without having sinned. We also know that the bible does not claim that Paul was baptized in water…


In 1 John 1:9 it is stated: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This is a true statement, but the forgiveness and cleansing doesn't become complete until one's death and the resurrections. Paul, faced this dilemma and made is clear in Romans 7:13-25…Yet, in Romans 8 it seems to contradict this claim, but it really doesn't. Because, being in the flesh we can't please God. Yet, the Christ states that he will send the "helper" from God to strengthen us during our time of trial. This occurrence is somewhat similar to the O.T. practice of the Day of Atonement, where the Israelites were made "right" with God by observing this Holy Day and other rituals. However, theirs sins were not actually forgiven.


Paul makes another bold claim in Romans 7:18: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.

Click to expand...

DKH - Therefore, the forgiveness of one's sins can only occur after they die.

Nova - Was Paul dead in (Acts 22:16)?

The death the scriptures speak about in conversion is a spiritual death (Rom.3:23) (Rom.6:23) (James 1:13-15).

14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

One cannot become a new creature until they first have died (Rom. 6:3-6).



DKH - We also know that the bible does not claim that Paul was baptized in water…

Nova - Are you suggesting that it was another baptism other than water?

Notice he was told to "get up". If it was Holy Spirit baptism it would not matter if Paul was sitting,laying down, standing or walking. Yet he was told to "get up" and do something. The Lord told Paul he "must do" something in (Acts 9). That was referring to salvation.

Paul was not saved on the road unless he was saved while still in his sins. His sins was not cleansed or forgiven until three days later in Damascus. (Acts 9:9) (Acts 22:16)



DKH - being in the flesh we can't please God.

Nova - Ever read (1Thess.4:1-3)?

1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God

Did the Lord ask men to do something they could not ever do?



DKH - Christ states that he will send the "helper" from God to strengthen us during our time of trial.

Nova - (Jn 14/15/16) is the Lord having a discussion with the 12 apostles. This was a "promise" made only to them (not you or I). Many people make the claim they can do what the apostles did in the first century but no one can raise the dead, walk on water, etc.

Men of God are strengthened when they read the word of God and apply it to their lives according to (Eph.3:3,4) (Eph. 5:18) (Mt.7:21).


4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)


Thanks for posting.

sojourner said:

But this isn’t some magical osmosis. Not everyone is in a place to be aware of what is being offered to them. This is a two-way Street, because it IS all about relationship. Spirit offers/we still have to do the work to receive. I perceive that you’re unaware of the nature and manifestation of Apostolic succession. Otherwise you wouldn’t have posted what you posted.

Click to expand...

sojourner - But this isn’t some magical osmosis

Nova - Maybe it isn't real and people have been deceived.



I read the words you are speaking about the "Apostolic succession" but I would rather you give me biblical evidence.

We find the qualifications of an apostle in (Acts 1:22) and (1Jn 1:1-3).

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard



Thanks

sojourner said:

And this right here is the best and most persuasive reason to take anything this man says with the smallest grain of salt.

Click to expand...

So we are not to believe any person who has a Ph.D.

Is that your point?

I would rather you show with biblical scripture where Dave Miller made an error in the lesson. (1Peter 4:11)



Thanks

Nova2216 said:

(Acts 8:18) - 18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

The word of God leaves no doubt about how the Holy Spirit was passed on to others. ...

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that this scripture is not true?

…your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

Nova2216 said:

I read the words you are speaking about the "Apostolic succession" but I would rather you give me biblical evidence

Click to expand...

Of course you would, because you buy into the sola scriptura heresy. You completely dismiss the validity of the other, more ancient aspects of the Tradition of the church.

Nova2216 said:

So we are not to believe any person who has a Ph.D.

Is that your point?

I would rather you show with biblical scripture where Dave Miller made an error in the lesson. (1Peter 4:11)



Thanks

Click to expand...

No, but any “scholar” who takes this approach to the exegetical process isn’t very credible.

1213 said:

So, are you saying that this scripture is not true?

…your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

Click to expand...

I am pointing out the way the gifts were passed on to others was by the laying on of the Apostles hands.

(Acts 6:6 ; 8:18,19)

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them (Acts 19:6)

sojourner said:

No, but any “scholar” who takes this approach to the exegetical process isn’t very credible.

Click to expand...

Thank You

1213 said:

So, are you saying that this scripture is not true?

…your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

Click to expand...

Both (Acts 8:18,19) and (Luke 11:13) are true.

Each verse could be speaking about two different things.

(Acts 8:18) is referring to the miraculous gifts which only lasted till around the end of the first century (Zech.13:1,2) (1Cor.13:8-10) (Eph.4:11-13).

These miraculous gifts were only passed on to other people by the physical laying on of the12 apostles hands (Acts 6:6 ; 8:18). When the 12 apostles died the gifts also soon ceased.


(Luke 11:13) is referring to the seal of the Holy Spirit one receives at baptism (in water) (Acts 2:36-47) (Acts 22:16). We can read about this in (Eph.1:13) and in each conversion of the book of Acts. This is not referring to miraculous gifts.

Notice those in (Acts 2:37) asked a question.

What shall we do?

The answer was not - believe alone.

The answer was not - You can do nothing.

Instead they were told -

38 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. (Acts 2:38)

In (Acts 2:38) one receives the gift (singular) of the Holy Spirit.

Nova2216 said:

Would that include belief alone?

Click to expand...

I believe it is subject to what a person actually believes. The Muslims say they believe in Jesus but then they refuse to believe what he says in the NT.

e.r.m. said:

That's "by grace alone, through faith alone" lingo. That's not in the Bible.

The command to be baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of sins did not start until long after the thief was dead Acts 2:38-39. Why would you use the thief as an example?

Cornelius and Company had the outpouring of the spirit upon them baptism in water, since that is what it actually says, not the indwelling which comes with baptism.

Click to expand...

I believe Eph 2:8,9 is in the Bible.

Nova2216 said:

For one to have part with God one must have his sins forgiven.

Why?

B/c sin separates men from God (Isa.59:1,2) (Rom.3:23 ; 6:23).

2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.


The Lord could not tell Paul how to be saved b/c of what (2Cor.4:7) teaches.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, ...

This Treasure = The Gospel

Earthen Vessels = Men

God has ordained that men teach men how to be saved (Mark 16:15,16) (2Tim.2:2).

So in (Acts 9) Jesus tells Saul (Paul) where to go but not how to be saved.

In (Acts 9:9) we see that 3 days later Paul meets up with Ananias in (Acts 22:16).

Here is what Ananias tells Paul.

#1. arise
#2. and be baptized
#3. and wash away thy sins


Did Paul come to baptism thinking his sins had "already" been forgiven or did he think he needed to be baptized to be forgiven of his sins?



Thanks

Click to expand...

I believe Paul was already contemporaneously saved because he was Islamic ie he heard God speak and obeyed Him. The question is when did he receive the Holy Spirit because that would distinguish someone from being just Islamic and being a Christian.

I believe Paul would not have had any teaching about what being saved means and he certainly needed that.

I believe that is not true. Jesus preached the Gospel while He was here. I believe that Jesus knew that all He needed to do was set Paul on the right path so there was no need to do more.

Muffled said:

I believe Paul was already contemporaneously saved because he was Islamic ie he heard God speak and obeyed Him. The question is when did he receive the Holy Spirit because that would distinguish someone from being just Islamic and being a Christian.

I believe Paul would not have had any teaching about what being saved means and he certainly needed that.

I believe that is not true. Jesus preached the Gospel while He was here. I believe that Jesus knew that all He needed to do was set Paul on the right path so there was no need to do more.

Click to expand...

Islam did not exist until the 7th century, so Paul wasn't Islamic, unless he was a time traveller.

What do you mean by already contemporaneously saved?

Muffled said:

I believe Eph 2:8,9 is in the Bible.

Click to expand...

* Many people think man is saved by grace "alone". They will then turn right around and say they are saved by faith alone and grace alone.

It cannot be both!!!

I know what alone means.

If I'm in a room alone no one is in the room with me.


They read (Eph.2:8) and think this supports their position.

The Ephesians were saved in (Acts 19:1-6).

Please notice they were baptized twice in water in this text.

1. Johns baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and was in water immersion (Mark 1:4) (Jn 3:23). But Johns baptism was out of date. It was no longer valid.

2. Paul directs them to the baptism in the name of Christ.

Notice what it means to preach Christ.

(Acts 8:5,12)

5. Then Philip ... preached Christ unto them.

12. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Question - How did they know about baptism?


What KIND of BAPTISM were they teaching?


(Acts 8:26-40)

35 Then Philip ...... preached unto him Jesus.

Notice the results of preaching Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot tostand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Notice he went on his way rejoicing after being baptized and not before.


Water baptism is the one baptism (Eph.4:5) is speaking about.

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,


Thanks

Nova2216 said:

Was Paul dead in (Acts 22:16)?

Click to expand...

No, he wasn't. But, this verse doesn't claim that his sins were forgiven. Nor, does it suggest that Paul wouldn't sin again. I believe that sins originate within the inner being or the mind, not exteriorly (Mark 7:20-23). Thus, it's my opinion that the washing is just a metaphor and not related to the inner workings of the mind. Where, the Greek word used in Acts 22:16 and translated "wash away" is Strong's (G628) or apolousai. Which, Strong's Note defines as: to wash fully, i.e. (figuratively) and have remitted (reflexively). It is my belief that it is the guilt of sin, which is washed away, not the sins themselves. In Romans 6:7, it is claimed: For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Nova2216 said:

Are you suggesting that it was another baptism other than water?

Click to expand...

Yes. The baptism of the Spirit (Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 1Cor. 12:13). It is the baptism of the Spirit that "sanctified" or freed from the guilt of sin (Strong's Concordance: G37 and Psalm 32:5) and "justified" or having peace with God (Strong's G1344 and Phil. 4:7). See: 1Cor. 6:11.

Nova2216 said:

Ever read (1Thess.4:1-3)? 1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have. However, are you suggesting that when a person accepts the Christ that they will never sin again? Because (in James 2:10-17), it is stated that even if we obey the whole law yet stumble in one, we are guilty of all…

Nova2216 said:

Did the Lord ask men to do something they could not ever do?

Click to expand...

Yes, review Matt. 19:16-26


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my position on these issues.

DKH said:

No, he wasn't. But, this verse doesn't claim that his sins were forgiven. Nor, does it suggest that Paul wouldn't sin again. I believe that sins originate within the inner being or the mind, not exteriorly (Mark 7:20-23). Thus, it's my opinion that the washing is just a metaphor and not related to the inner workings of the mind. Where, the Greek word used in Acts 22:16 and translated "wash away" is Strong's (G628) or apolousai. Which, Strong's Note defines as: to wash fully, i.e. (figuratively) and have remitted (reflexively). It is my belief that it is the guilt of sin, which is washed away, not the sins themselves. In Romans 6:7, it is claimed: For he who has died has been freed from sin.





Yes. The baptism of the Spirit (Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 1Cor. 12:13). It is the baptism of the Spirit that "sanctified" or freed from the guilt of sin (Strong's Concordance: G37 and Psalm 32:5) and "justified" or having peace with God (Strong's G1344 and Phil. 4:7). See: 1Cor. 6:11.





Yes, I have. However, are you suggesting that when a person accepts the Christ that they will never sin again? Because (in James 2:10-17), it is stated that even if we obey the whole law yet stumble in one, we are guilty of all…





Yes, review Matt. 19:16-26


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my position on these issues.

Click to expand...

*

DKH - In Romans 6:7, it is claimed: For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Nova - Notice if you will OBEDIENCE is required BEFORE one is freed from sin (Rom. 6:16-19).

You claim one is freed from the "GUILT" of sin and not the sin itself.

I do not find that in the verse you posted.

Are you adding to the word of God?


* How is one freed from the sin itself? (Rom.3:23 ; 6:23) (Jas. 1:13,14)



DKH - Yes. The baptism of the Spirit (Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 1Cor. 12:13).

Nova - Since you think the baptism in (Acts 22:16) was a Spirit baptism.

Allow me to ask you a question.

How many baptisms do you practice?

1. Water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism

2. Holy Spirit baptism alone

3. Water baptism alone

The word of God says there is only one baptism for today. (Eph.4:5)



DKH - Yes, I have. However, are you suggesting that when a person accepts the Christ that they will never sin again?

Nova - I am not suggesting that (1Thess. 4:1-3) teaches one NEVER SINS once they become a child of God. This text includes (Acts 8:13-24) and (1Jn 1:6-9). These text teaches men of the 2nd law of pardon in which the Christian caught up in sin can be once again be made right with God.



DKH - Yes, review Matt. 19:16-26

Nova - I asked you if the Lord asked people to do things they could not do?

You answered - YES.


You posted (Mt.19:16-19). This text is not an example of what you claim.

This text exposes the heart of the man. He loved his riches more than doing the will of God.The man could have sold all he had but refused. It was a matter of the man choosing a spiritual life or a life with riches. Jesus made him decide which he wanted.



Thanks for posting.

Nova2216 said:

You claim one is freed from the "GUILT" of sin and not the sin itself. I do not find that in the verse you posted. Are you adding to the word of God?

Click to expand...

No, I am not adding to the words of the bible, but in Jeremiah 8:8 (NKJV-used through-out) it is recorded that some of the scribes were writing falsely. We also are warned of the same thing in the N.T. (Acts 17:11, 20:28-30 and 2Cor. 11:12-15). So, I am not a supporter of sola scriptura…But, as far as, Romans 6:7 is concerned: I wasn't claiming that this verse is referring to being freed from the guilt of sin. The bible reference I used was 1Cor. 6:11 and the Greek word is Hagiazo (G37) or sanctified. Ironically, the Greek word translated as washed in 1Cor. 6:11 is the same word used in Acts 22:16. And, is found nowhere else in the N.T.

Nova2216 said:

How is one freed from the sin itself? (Rom.3:23; 6:23) (Jas. 1:13-14)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but reviewing the above verses, the only one (I feel) that could relate to being freed from sin is Romans 6:23, which states that the wages of sin is death…This is my main point of our debate.

Nova2216 said:

How many baptisms do you practice?

Click to expand...

I am not a member of any religious group or organization. So, I don't practice or attend baptisms. Yet, I believe the bible supports only one baptism and that is spiritual baptism.

Nova2216 said:

I am not suggesting that (1Thess. 4:1-3) teaches one NEVER SINS once they become a child of God. This text includes (Acts 8:13-24) and (1Jn 1:6-9). These text teaches men of the 2nd law of pardon in which the Christian caught up in sin can be once again be made right with God.

Click to expand...

I am not a supporter of the doctrine: the second law of pardon.

Nova2216 said:

I asked you if the Lord asked people to do things they could not do?

Click to expand...

It is my position (related to Matt. 19:16-26) that the Lord asked the young man to sell what he had and give it to the poor and to come, follow him (verse 21). Then (in verse 22), the young man left and went away, being sorrowful. Why? Because, he had great possessions and couldn't part with them to be perfect and follow the Christ. Thus, this (too me) would seem to satisfy the requirements of the question asked. This event also seems to be a very important one, because it was repeated in Mark 10:17-28 and Luke 18:18-28.


Note: Even though I have used bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

sojourner said:

Of course you would, because you buy into the sola scriptura heresy. You completely dismiss the validity of the other, more ancient aspects of the Tradition of the church.

Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting tangent issue. People like myself of protestant background can't simply trust the church. First of all, understanding the church seems like an enormous undertaking. Its supposed to take years. Secondly, your church fathers write extensively volumes upon volumes. Its one thing to read them as literature but another thing entirely to try to study them. Then of course you have tomes of other information and commentary. Its too much.

Brickjectivity said:

You bring up an interesting tangent issue. People like myself of protestant background can't simply trust the church. First of all, understanding the church seems like an enormous undertaking. Its supposed to take years. Secondly, your church fathers write extensively volumes upon volumes. Its one thing to read them as literature but another thing entirely to try to study them. Then of course you have tomes of other information and commentary. Its too much.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm liberal Protestant too. You're right. It is a lot of study. But this is one circumstance where the Protestant tradition hasn't done the church any favors. We have effectively cut off most of the Tradition of the church, choosing to concentrate solely on that part we call "the Bible." There's so much more that could be taught through classes, conversation, worship elements, sermons, etc, that we Protestants never get to hear unless we go to seminary.

e.r.m. said:

Islam did not exist until the 7th century, so Paul wasn't Islamic, unless he was a time traveller.

What do you mean by already contemporaneously saved?

Click to expand...

I believe Adam and Abraham were Islamic. You are speaking of Mohammad as an adherent of Islam.

I mean that as long as he was hearing and obeying he was saved. A Christian is eternally saved because our salvation does not depend on us but depends on Jesus.