Acts 2:38 Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[Muffled]

Sincerly,
A non-material context is entirely subjective. The only context that counts is when a scripture explicitly says, "No, baptism is not involved in salvation" and then applying such an explicitly written verse to all other baptism verses. There is no context without such verses.
Long story short, you have no context to speak of. Only written verses count, and there are no "written" verses that discount baptism from salvation.

There is no material change in the baptized person other than the person becomes wet. Getting wet does not save a person. Lots of people get wet in oceans, lakes and rivers and baths but they are not being saved as a result. (Except from dirt in the case of a bath) Therefore if nothing material is happenng, the material is symbolic for a spiritaul occurrence.

There are no verses that discount baptism as a means of salvation because it can be. However there is no guarantee that it will be. What Peter guarantees is that a clear conscience will save a person and that baptism can be a means of evoking a clear conscience. In my case baptism simply revealed a clear conscience because prior to the act of being baptised there was no revelation that I had a clear conscience.

 

[e.r.m.]

There is no material change in the baptized person other than the person becomes wet. Getting wet does not save a person. Lots of people get wet in oceans, lakes and rivers and baths but they are not being saved as a result. (Except from dirt in the case of a bath) Therefore if nothing material is happenng, the material is symbolic for a spiritaul occurrence.

There are no verses that discount baptism as a means of salvation because it can be. However there is no guarantee that it will be. What Peter guarantees is that a clear conscience will save a person and that baptism can be a means of evoking a clear conscience. In my case baptism simply revealed a clear conscience because prior to the act of being baptised there was no revelation that I had a clear conscience.

It says baptism is an appeal for/answer of a good conscience to God
- I believe the person has a clear conscience, because the person is now saved.
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Thank you for sharing your opinions on both posts.
But opinions don't hold weight next to the scriptures.

 

[sincerly]

--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Believing in "That" is the means of the being saved.

 

[e.r.m.]

Believing in "That" is the means of the being saved.

The phrase is:
baptism now saves you--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB)

Baptism does save you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This verse also includes baptism through the resurrection in what saves you, not just believing in the resurrection.
We gotta go by what it says.

 

[sincerly]

The phrase is:
baptism now saves you--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (NASB)

Baptism does save you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This verse also includes baptism through the resurrection in what saves you, not just believing in the resurrection.
We gotta go by what it says.

Then why do you still insist that baptism saves?'
Baptism remains just a getting wet without the "through/by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
The Cross would be just a wooden structure in the ground without Jesus Christ having been nailed to it.
Baptism and the Cross are Symbolic to explain what happened to Jesus Christ for the Saving of mankind.

 

[Shiranui117]

Then why do you still insist that baptism saves?'

We've been over this ad nauseum. At this point, I'm just going to tell you to look at my posts #366 and #348, or to just look through this topic and see what e.r.m. and I have already said on this subject. I'm really not sure how you still don't understand our position; either we've done a terrible job of explaining it, or you're just not getting it.

1:Baptism remains just a getting wet without the "through/by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
2:The Cross would be just a wooden structure in the ground without Jesus Christ having been nailed to it.

1: But baptism IS through/by the Resurrection of Christ. Again, see my post #366 and #348. There are dozens more posts I could point you to, but I'm not going to list off half the reply numbers in this thread.

2: But Christ WAS nailed to it. That's the reality. Last time I checked, there's no possibility of us living in a parallel universe where baptism wasn't linked to Jesus' death and Resurrection, or where Christ wasn't nailed to the cross. So these hypotheticals that you present are completely meaningless.

Baptism and the Cross are Symbolic to explain what happened to Jesus Christ for the Saving of mankind.

Icons are far better ways of "explaining" things than baptism and the Cross. Nowhere in the Bible will you see that baptism and the Cross "are symbolic to explain what happened to Jesus Christ for the Saving of mankind." And that is a verifiable fact.

 

[e.r.m.]

Then why do you still insist that baptism saves?'

Because it actually says baptism saves you. "...even baptism doth also now save us..." That is WHAT baptism DOES through the resurrection."

Baptism remains just a getting wet without the "through/by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
The Cross would be just a wooden structure in the ground without Jesus Christ having been nailed to it.

And since it's WITH the resurrection, it doth indeed also now save us.

Baptism and the Cross are Symbolic to explain what happened to Jesus Christ for the Saving of mankind.

Not according to any written scripture.

 

[sincerly]

Because it actually says baptism saves you. "...even baptism doth also now save us..." That is WHAT baptism DOES through the resurrection."
And since it's WITH the resurrection, it doth indeed also now save us.
Not according to any written scripture.

Hi e.r.m., twice you acknowledge that the clarifying "does for baptism" hinge upon the inclusion of "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Therefore, without that qualifying fact, baptism has no meaning of saving a person into the kingdom of GOD or by the Blood of Christ Jesus whose only blood is for the propitiation of Sins.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hi e.r.m., twice you acknowledge that the clarifying "does for baptism" hinge upon the inclusion of "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Therefore, without that qualifying fact, baptism has no meaning of saving a person into the kingdom of GOD or by the Blood of Christ Jesus whose only blood is for the propitiation of Sins.

That verse says nothing about the blood. Those are other verses.
Baptism and the resurrection work together to save us. Both baptism and the resurrection are from Jesus. They work together. The resurrection is the source, baptism is the means. Jesus was resurrected for the entire world, but the entire world has not chosen to be saved.

 

[sincerly]

That verse says nothing about the blood. Those are other verses.
Baptism and the resurrection work together to save us. Both baptism and the resurrection are from Jesus. They work together. The resurrection is the source, baptism is the means. Jesus was resurrected for the entire world, but the entire world has not chosen to be saved.

e.r.m., That verse does say resurrection and in chapter 1:18-22 one sees not only the resurrection, but the Blood which does the saving.
Baptism is only a symbol of that death burial and resurrection. And it is belief in that act of Jesus Christ that one is able to secure the Grace of GOD to appropriate the GRACE OF THE FATHER which is the atoning/Restoration means for SALVATION.

Baptism as a means is just as symbolic of salvation/redemption as was those "bulls and goats" upon the altar. And they were referred to as "Shadows".

True, Jesus said only the "few on the straight and narrow path" will arrive in heaven/be saved.

 

[e.r.m.]

e.r.m., That verse does say resurrection and in chapter 1:18-22 one sees not only the resurrection, but the Blood which does the saving.
Baptism is only a symbol of that death burial and resurrection. And it is belief in that act of Jesus Christ that one is able to secure the Grace of GOD to appropriate the GRACE OF THE FATHER which is the atoning/Restoration means for SALVATION.

Baptism as a means is just as symbolic of salvation/redemption as was those "bulls and goats" upon the altar. And they were referred to as "Shadows".

True, Jesus said only the "few on the straight and narrow path" will arrive in heaven/be saved.

Chapter 1:18-22 does refer to the resurrection and the blood. As before, the blood is the source. Belief & baptism are the means - or - God's part and man's part.

Once again, why did the NT authors Not use the word symbolic the way you do and as much as you do? And make FOR SURE that people understood that these things are symbolic like you do?

 

[sincerly]

Chapter 1:18-22 does refer to the resurrection and the blood. As before, the blood is the source. Belief & baptism are the means - or - God's part and man's part.

e.r.m., Mankind has no part in his salvation. Nothing can be boasted of by mankind. It was all done by Jesus Christ. Eph.2:8 Mankind can only humbly confess his guilt, Repent of his sinful ways and submit to the Will of the Father.

Once again, why did the NT authors Not use the word symbolic the way you do and as much as you do? And make FOR SURE that people understood that these things are symbolic like you do?

Peter used "in like figure" in connection to "saved"; and Paul used "like as"; were baptized into" "walk in newness of life" "planted together" "in the likeness of". Those all denote "symbolism". And those I quoted.

It was the "father of lies" who cast doubt over the meaning of GOD'S plain messages. What's so hard to understand concerning the meaning of Beliefs in John 3:16 when it is HIS GIVING OF HIS SON?

 

[e.r.m.]

e.r.m., Mankind has no part in his salvation. Nothing can be boasted of by mankind. It was all done by Jesus Christ. Eph.2:8 Mankind can only humbly confess his guilt, Repent of his sinful ways and submit to the Will of the Father.

There you're wrong. Even the very statement Mankind has no part in his salvation contradicts humbly confess his guilt, Repent of his sinful ways and submit to the Will of the Father.
- John 3:18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.
- John 6:27 Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.” ...29 Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.”
- Romans 10: 9 If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.
- Acts 3:19 Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,[a]
- Acts 2:37 When they heard this, they came under deep conviction[a] and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?”
38 “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These are all mankind's parts.

Mankind having a part does not equal mankind boasting.

Peter used "in like figure" in connection to "saved"

Exactly, Peter didn't use it the way you used it, not in baptism being symbolic toward anything.

Paul used "like as"; were baptized into" "walk in newness of life" "planted together" "in the likeness of". Those all denote "symbolism". And those I quoted

Exactly also. You are saying they denote symbolism. You don't denote symbolism. You say it outright. You actually use the word symbolic every chance you get.
(BTW, Paul says there is a likeness, Paul doesn't say the likeness is the purpose for the baptism).
There is NO comparison.
Belief only advocates say explicitly and Aggressively that baptism's PURPOSE is to symbolize...
They wage a relentness repetitious public campaign, vocalizing the word, 'symbolic' over, & over, and over, till people turn blue, until they don't think twice about. Biblical authors were never so aggressive.

Belief only advocates don't Denote, and Biblical authors didn't explicitly and Aggressively tell people "You get baptized to symbolize...".
for example,
Paul never says "3 Or are you unaware that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death- symbolically? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death - symbolically, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in a new way[a] of life. 5 For if we have been joined with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be[b] in the likeness of His resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self[c] was crucified with Him- symbolically in order that sin’s dominion over the body[d] may be abolished, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin,"

You, however, correct people, ending their sentences for them with the word- symbolically.

It's not just you. I've heard this insertion since 1987 by belief only advocates.

In the 1981 Movie Peter and Paul, the writers Christopher Knopf and Stanley Hough had Anthony Hopkins say "Baptism is only a symbol". I remember watching the movie. I was incensed by that line.

The Biblical authors were never so direct and were NO WHERE NEAR as repetive on a supposed symbolic purpose for baptism as today's belief only advoactes are, hence the discrepancy.

Why weren't the Biblical authors as OBIQUITOUS about baptism's symbolic purpose as belief only advocates?

u·biq·ui·tous
/yuˈbɪk

wɪ

təs/ Show Spelled[yoo-bik-wi-tuh

s]
adjective
existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent

It was the "father of lies" who cast doubt over the meaning of GOD'S plain messages. What's so hard to understand concerning the meaning of Beliefs in John 3:16 when it is HIS GIVING OF HIS SON?

Giving His Son, God's part. Believing, one of man's part.
If you're going to respond with "It's man's only part", be ready to present a verse with the word "only" in it.

 

[sincerly]

It was the "father of lies" who cast doubt over the meaning of GOD'S plain messages. What's so hard to understand concerning the meaning of Beliefs in John 3:16 when it is HIS GIVING OF HIS SON?

Giving His Son, God's part. Believing, one of man's part.
If you're going to respond with "It's man's only part", be ready to present a verse with the word "only" in it.

Hi e.r.m., What you are calling man's part is YES--that in his disobedience which caused the death penalty to be pronounced in the first place..

The Scriptures state that one's death is the payment for that act of disobedience. One's acknowledgment of that fact, Repenting of that wrong action, submitting now to the will of GOD or being baptized does not pay the price required by the Scriptures----that of "DEATH".

It was Jesus Christ--The SON of GOD-- who is/was the promised "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8) that the Father gave upon the Cross as the correct substitute and willingly paid the "death penalty" for mankind. ALL who would accept that sacrifice as one's release from the death penalty will return to the initial principle which Adam and Eve failed to achieve---OBEY and Live.

The salvation of ALL was fully paid by Jesus Christ. As one initially chose to disobey and die, the Salvation is freely offered to All who will/have accepted that GRACE---unmerited favor/Love/which is bestowed by the Father in the giving of HIS SON as the payment for the "Sins of the world".

All the confessing, repenting , submitting, believing is man's freedom of choice to live or die-----but can not pay the penalty of DEATH.
(Even the devils believe. (James 2:19))

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi e.r.m., What you are calling man's part is YES--that in his disobedience which caused the death penalty to be pronounced in the first place..

The Scriptures state that one's death is the payment for that act of disobedience. One's acknowledgment of that fact, Repenting of that wrong action, submitting now to the will of GOD or being baptized does not pay the price required by the Scriptures----that of "DEATH".

It was Jesus Christ--The SON of GOD-- who is/was the promised "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8) that the Father gave upon the Cross as the correct substitute and willingly paid the "death penalty" for mankind. ALL who would accept that sacrifice as one's release from the death penalty will return to the initial principle which Adam and Eve failed to achieve---OBEY and Live.

The salvation of ALL was fully paid by Jesus Christ. As one initially chose to disobey and die, the Salvation is freely offered to All who will/have accepted that GRACE---unmerited favor/Love/which is bestowed by the Father in the giving of HIS SON as the payment for the "Sins of the world".

All the confessing, repenting , submitting, believing is man's freedom of choice to live or die-----but can not pay the penalty of DEATH.
(Even the devils believe. (James 2:19))

The very act of accepting God's grace and believing in Jesus is an example of cooperating with God in our salvation. Does it pay the penalty of death? No. But will we obtain salvation even if we refuse it? No, we have to accept the salvation that Christ offered us and cooperate with Him in our salvation.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hi e.r.m., What you are calling man's part is YES--that in his disobedience which caused the death penalty to be pronounced in the first place..

The Scriptures state that one's death is the payment for that act of disobedience. One's acknowledgment of that fact, Repenting of that wrong action, submitting now to the will of GOD or being baptized does not pay the price required by the Scriptures----that of "DEATH".

It was Jesus Christ--The SON of GOD-- who is/was the promised "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8) that the Father gave upon the Cross as the correct substitute and willingly paid the "death penalty" for mankind. ALL who would accept that sacrifice as one's release from the death penalty will return to the initial principle which Adam and Eve failed to achieve---OBEY and Live.

The salvation of ALL was fully paid by Jesus Christ. As one initially chose to disobey and die, the Salvation is freely offered to All who will/have accepted that GRACE---unmerited favor/Love/which is bestowed by the Father in the giving of HIS SON as the payment for the "Sins of the world".

All the confessing, repenting , submitting, believing is man's freedom of choice to live or die-----but can not pay the penalty of DEATH.
(Even the devils believe. (James 2:19))

See, I respect you, but here is where I can't respect your argument.
Instead of addressing the main issue addressed, Why you speak much more frequently and directly about symbolism than the apostles did, you instead change the parameters of a side answer.
The statement of man's part was about participating in his/her salvation.
Because I didn't say "man's part in his/her salvation", you took the segment of "man's
part" and said his part is his destruction.

Back to: Man's part "in his/her salvation" are still the verses listed. All are man's part of getting saved.

You're using belief only advocate word play, which doesn't stand up to Biblical scrutiny.

Case in point, no ever said that those scriptures said man's pays for his salvation.
Indeed, man's participation "in his/her salvation" is not the the same as paying the price, so you're arguing something that was never put forth.

Mankind is expected to follow the scriptures listed in order to be saved as his/her part "in salvation", and this is not considered payment, it's considered God's expectation of him/her to be saved. God has done his part in our salvation, and He expects is to do our part "to be saved." They are not just freedom of choice, but expectation, responsibility and it is still not payment.
-John 3:18 Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God.

-John 6:27 Don’t work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him.” ...29 Jesus replied, “This is the work of God—that you believe in the One He has sent.”

-Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.

-Acts 3:19 Therefore repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped out, that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,[a]

-Acts 2:37 When they heard this, they came under deep conviction[a] and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?” 38 “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why don't you address the discrepancy between the intensity of the symbolic purpose of baptism between belief only advocates and Biblical authors?, according to my last post, not this quick summary.

 

[sincerly]

See, I respect you, but here is where I can't respect your argument.
Instead of addressing the main issue addressed, Why you speak much more frequently and directly about symbolism than the apostles did, you instead change the parameters of a side answer.

Hi e.r.m., respecting your person and your freedom to believe anything you choose doesn't mean that what you choose to be right is Scripturally Correct.
I have addressed the Scriptural main issues presented and no matter your arguments presented---salvation is only by/through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.
Even the thief on the cross didn't have to ask the soldiers to allow him to be baptized and replace him on the cross. Jesus acknowledged the thief's Faith in Jesus Christ's there on the Cross as sufficient for the thief's request to be granted.
The thief acknowledged his worthiness /correct judgment to be crucified.He Acknowledged Jesus as innocent of wrong doing and as LORD.
The point is the Thief sharing the same same Death event as Jesus and was assured of a Resurrection just as Jesus said HE WOULD BE RESURRECTED. (And NO those specific words were not uttered---but they are true---since Jesus said the thief would be with Jesus in paradise.).

All who are to be "saved" are actually to be done so by/through believing in that resurrection and therefore the second coming of Jesus Christ as the "REDEEMED BY HIM/HIS ACTIONS".

Baptism is still symbolic of the actions done by Jesus.

 

[e.r.m.]

Hi e.r.m., respecting your person and your freedom to believe anything you choose doesn't mean that what you choose to be right is Scripturally Correct.
I have addressed the Scriptural main issues presented and no matter your arguments presented---salvation is only by/through the shed Blood of Jesus Christ.

I agree that you addressed what you wanted to address. We covered about Jesus's blood and was
asking now (and continuing to ask) about the discrepancy between the the bombardment of the use of the word symbolic and it's derivatives by belief only advocates compared to the greatly less use of these terms by Biblical authors. When a person is backed into a corner, then it is predictable for them to lash out with earlier and repetitive arguments and dig their heels in. I've seen behavior like this before.
(I have nothing to say regarding this discrepancy, for whatever reason. Stop asking, I don't want to talk about it).

Even the thief on the cross didn't have to ask the soldiers to allow him to be baptized and replace him on the cross. Jesus acknowledged the thief's Faith in Jesus Christ's there on the Cross as sufficient for the thief's request to be granted.
The thief acknowledged his worthiness /correct judgment to be crucified.He Acknowledged Jesus as innocent of wrong doing and as LORD.
The point is the Thief sharing the same same Death event as Jesus and was assured of a Resurrection just as Jesus said HE WOULD BE RESURRECTED. (And NO those specific words were not uttered---but they are true---since Jesus said the thief would be with Jesus in paradise.).

Another very predictable "I don't want to talk about it" method. Bring out a third issue outside of the current conversation. An issue that has been answered (The thief was before baptism in Jesus's name was commanded -after Jesus's resurrection) so many times that this is just a distraction away from answering the discrepancy between belief only advocate's reliance on the term symbolicism, compared to Biblical authors.

All who are to be "saved" are actually to be done so by/through believing in that resurrection and therefore the second coming of Jesus Christ as the "REDEEMED BY HIM/HIS ...

Repeating again what's already been answered, believing wasn't listed in 1 Peter 3:21, but baptism was. Believing was implicit, plus baptism was explicit.

Baptism is still symbolic of the actions done by Jesus.

Are you willing to admit that you don't want to address the discrepancy?

(Below is an excerpt from the previous post describing the discrepancy).
You are saying they
denote symbolism. You don't denote
symbolism. You say it outright. You
actually use the word symbolic every
chance you get.
(BTW, Paul says there is a likeness,
Paul doesn't say the likeness is the
purpose for the baptism).
There is NO comparison.
Belief only advocates say explicitly
and Aggressively that baptism's
PURPOSE is to symbolize...
They wage a relentness repetitious
public campaign, vocalizing the word,
'symbolic' over, & over, and over, till
people turn blue, until they don't think
twice about. Biblical authors were
never so aggressive.

Belief only advocates don't Denote,
and Biblical authors didn't explicitly
and Aggressively tell people "You get
baptized to symbolize...".
for example,
Paul never says "3 Or are you unaware
that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into His
death- symbolically? 4 Therefore we
were buried with Him by baptism into
death - symbolically, in order that, just
as Christ was raised from the dead by
the glory of the Father, so we too may
walk in a new way[a] of life. 5 For if we
have been joined with Him in the
likeness of His death, we will certainly
also be in the likeness of His
resurrection. 6 For we know that our
old self[c] was crucified with Him-symbolically in order that sin’s
dominion over the body[d] may be
abolished, so that we may no longer
be enslaved to sin,"

You, however, correct people, ending
their sentences for them with the
word- symbolically.

It's not just you. I've heard this
insertion since 1987 by belief only
advocates.

In the 1981 Movie Peter and Paul, the
writers Christopher Knopf and Stanley
Hough had Anthony Hopkins say
"Baptism is only a symbol".

The Biblical authors were never so
direct and were NO WHERE NEAR as
repetive on a supposed symbolic
purpose for baptism as today's belief
only advoactes are, hence the
discrepancy.

Why weren't the Biblical authors as
OBIQUITOUS about baptism's
symbolic purpose as belief only
advocates?

u·biq·ui·tous
/yuˈbɪk wɪtəs/[yoo-bik-wi-tuh s]
adjective
existing or being everywhere,
especially at the same time;
omnipresent

 

[sincerly]

I agree that you addressed what you wanted to address. We covered about Jesus's blood and was
asking now (and continuing to ask) about the discrepancy between the the bombardment of the use of the word symbolic and it's derivatives by belief only advocates compared to the greatly less use of these terms by Biblical authors. When a person is backed into a corner, then it is predictable for them to lash out with earlier and repetitive arguments and dig their heels in. I've seen behavior like this before.

Then why are you using the same behavior? Any discrepancy is of your own making/insistence.
Symbolic has the meaning of "stands for", "implies", "to signify", "to indicate", to illustrate", etc. and can be used "figuratively", "allegorically", "metaphorically", "emblematically", "Typically", "Representatively", etc.

It(baptism) is still symbolic whether or not one uses Peter's "the like figure" or "symbolic". (And without what baptism is "symbolic"---(i.e.)the death burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ---it(baptism) is meaningless.)

Yes, John's baptism was one of repentance---and most of the 22 times baptism was found in the Scriptures refers to that event. Col.2:12-13, re-enforces Rom.6:1-6, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; ..."

Your assumptions/speculations concerning The Scriptures do NOT mean what the messages of the Scriptures are giving.(Nor me!)

There is NO discrepancy of the Scriptures to address and it is "your views" which "do not square-up" to "the plumb-line" of the Scriptures.

 

[Shiranui117]

As long as this thread fails to make any actual progress (noting that none of my points from several days ago have been even looked at by sincerly), and as long as the same old stuff's being rehashed and brought back up, I'm out.

Posting this for your consideration:

e.r.m., sincerly, it was a pleasure. May God bless us all.