Acts 2:38 Baptism of the Holy Spirit

[e.r.m.]

To everybody. Feel free to use e.r.m. instead of e r.m. When I first signed up, I messed up. From the beginning, I meant it to be e.r.m.

 

[Shiranui117]

Shiranui117,
I like your defenses on baptism, especially, This is correct. In fact, I heavily repudiated that idea in my explanation to e.r.m.
but I don't know what you mean by ancient church. Best I know is that infant baptism started a couple of hundred years after the first century. There is no scriptural evidence that infant baptism existed in the NT church. The Phillipian jailer's household and Cornelius's household could have been without children, or could have had children of age to believe and repent. It doesn't say. There's nothing compelling to suggest anyone baptized an infant in the NT, especially since it was never mentioned. If it was the norm, an infant baptism culture would have developed within the NT, like it has today and the Bible would have picked up on it.

Sure. Allow me to elaborate.

First off, Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (lived 130-202) mentions infant baptism, and also that of children, in Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 22, section 4:

For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God31343134 [“Renascuntur in Deum.” The reference in these words is doubtless to baptism, as clearly appears from comparing book iii. 17, 1.] —infants,3135[It has been remarked by Wall and others, that we have here the statement of a valuable fact as to the baptism of infants in the primitive Church.] and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.

And Origen (lived 185-254) has 3 passages citing infant baptism:
The first passage cited has: "Baptism according to the practice of the Church is given even to infants"; the second has: "The Church had a tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants"; the third has: "Infants are baptised for the remission of sins . . . That is the reason why infants too are baptised".

Also, apparently Hippolytus of Rome (died 235) also spoke of infant baptism:

At the hour in which the [male chicken] crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

However initially, yes, adult baptism was the norm, because Christianity was primarily growing through adult converts. However, even early on there were families who raised their children in the faith, and these children were baptized, often as infants.

To everybody. Feel free to use e.r.m. instead of e r.m. When I first signed up, I messed up. From the beginning, I meant it to be e.r.m.

Oh wow, I wouldn't have noticed it wasn't e.r.m. had you not said anything

 

[e.r.m.]

Thank you for elaborating.
First off, Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
The baptism of the new covenant in Jesus's name was commanded until after Jesus resurrected. Matthew 19:14 was about laying on of hands and praying. Doesn't carry over to baptism.

Irenaeus of Lyons (lived 130-202) mentions infant baptism, and also that of children, in Against Heresies, book 2, chapter 22, section 4:

For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God31343134 [“Renascuntur in Deum.” The reference in these words is doubtless to baptism, as clearly appears from comparing book iii. 17, 1.] —infants,3135[It has been remarked by Wall and others, that we have here the statement of a valuable fact as to the baptism of infants in the primitive Church.] and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.
The statement itself says "save all" - not specific to children.

And Origen (lived 185-254) has 3 passages citing infant baptism:
The first passage cited has: "Baptism according to the practice of the Church is given even to infants"; the second has: "The Church had a tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants"; the third has: "Infants are baptised for the remission of sins . . . That is the reason why infants too are baptised".
I could see infant baptism arising by the year 200 (That would make Origen 15 y/o, unless he wrote while very young). This practice would be a deviation from the NT church.

Also, apparently Hippolytus of Rome (died 235) also spoke of infant baptism:
At the hour in which the [male chicken] crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.
Same thing, even later.

However initially, yes, adult baptism was the norm, because Christianity was primarily growing through adult converts. However, even early on there were families who raised their children in the faith, and these children were baptized, often as infants.
1) Not as early as the NT, hence a deviation. 2) Baptism, as we've both said, has been for forgiveness of sins. The Jews did not believe in original sin. It's against everything to think that anyone back then would baptize infants for the forgiveness of sins they didn't have. Sin comes at Romans 3:23, not at birth. 3) Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 said that baptism came in conjunction with belief and repentance.

Oh wow, I wouldn't have noticed it wasn't e.r.m. had you not said anything
I've noticed that some have in their replies, they write e r.m. (e.g. -Thanks for that explanation, e r. m.. Are you saying that...).

 

[Shiranui117]

The statement itself says "save all" - not specific to children.

Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.

I could see infant baptism arising by the year 200 (That would make Origen 15 y/o, unless he wrote while very young). This practice would be a deviation from the NT church.

Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?

1) Not as early as the NT, hence a deviation.

Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.

2) Baptism, as we've both said, has been for forgiveness of sins. The Jews did not believe in original sin. It's against everything to think that anyone back then would baptize infants for the forgiveness of sins they didn't have. Sin comes at Romans 3:23, not at birth. 3) Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 said that baptism came in conjunction with belief and repentance.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop

 

[sincerly]

Sincerly,
There are a lot of gaps where you're only expressing your opinions.
1. With as much as YOU use the word symbolic to describe baptism's "purpose", you should be able to find the word symbolic in the Bible, when referring to why people get baptized.
Otherwise I wouldn't use it.

2. When you say baptism has nothing to do with being saved, Stop inferring. Show a verse that says what you say and be done with it, if not let it go. Not interested in reformation theology.

1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and". Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.
Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.
Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.

2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.

Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?


Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.


But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop

My time is up for today. Will reply tomorrow, God willing.

 

[Shiranui117]

1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and". Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.
Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.
Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.

2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.

Where does it say in the Bible that baptism is merely symbolic?

 

[e.r.m.]

Shiranui,

I found a few minutes.

Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.


Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?
A deviation in the sense that it disobeys Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38. Belief and repentance are part of the package.

Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.
I don't see the lack of availability of children as an issue. Baptizing only those of age was, if anything, because belief and repentance were pre-requisites.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop
That's a good point. I had never thought of that before.
I find a couple of problems with it though.
1. There is no sinful nature per say. The greek word for sinful nature is the flesh. The flesh desires bad things. Killing the flesh won't help, lol. It does say by the Spirit put to death the "misdeeds" of the flesh. But for a child to do that while growing up is just a new idea to my ears. I just don't see any discussion in the Bible about a child having the Holy Spirit, to sway me to believe that NT christians baptized children/infants for that reason.

2. There's an overwhelming amount of historical literature that the early catholic church baltized infants not for the sake of receiving the Holy Spirit, but because of original sin. This being the dominant reason later on, then infant baptism wouldn't have existed in the first century because there was no original sin. I had heard of an early debate of whether people should be baptized as a child/infant to get original sin or if they should be baptized just before death so they could no longer committ big sins. Crazy argument, but it shows how much baptism was for forgiveness of sins, since its inception.

The scripture talks about how to raise a child, as you quoted. Holy Spirit not included.

 

[Shiranui117]

A deviation in the sense that it disobeys Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38. Belief and repentance are part of the package.

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.

Jesus does say that we must believe and be baptized. So what's wrong with getting baptized as a baby and then growing up in the faith and believing? They still believe and are baptized.

Also, in Acts 2:38, the Apostles are speaking to an adult audience. As I (think I) said before, adult converts must make a profession of faith prior to baptism. That is the context in which we find this verse: Thousands of converts professing their new faith in Christ, and then being baptized.

I don't see the lack of availability of children as an issue. Baptizing only those of age was, if anything, because belief and repentance were pre-requisites.

They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

That's a good point. I had never thought of that before.
I find a couple of problems with it though.
1. There is no sinful nature per say. The greek word for sinful nature is the flesh. The flesh desires bad things. Killing the flesh won't help, lol. It does say by the Spirit put to death the "misdeeds" of the flesh. But for a child to do that while growing up is just a new idea to my ears. I just don't see any discussion in the Bible about a child having the Holy Spirit, to sway me to believe that NT christians baptized children/infants for that reason.

2. There's an overwhelming amount of historical literature that the early catholic church baltized infants not for the sake of receiving the Holy Spirit, but because of original sin. This being the dominant reason later on, then infant baptism wouldn't have existed in the first century because there was no original sin. I had heard of an early debate of whether people should be baptized as a child/infant to get original sin or if they should be baptized just before death so they could no longer committ big sins. Crazy argument, but it shows how much baptism was for forgiveness of sins, since its inception.

I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.

Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin, as well as estrangement from God.

Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you see the vicious cycle here? Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?

Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.

The scripture talks about how to raise a child, as you quoted. Holy Spirit not included.

What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?

 

[e.r.m.]

In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.

Jesus does say that we must believe and be baptized. So what's wrong with getting baptized as a baby and then growing up in the faith and believing? They still believe and are baptized.

Also, in Acts 2:38, the Apostles are speaking to an adult audience. As I (think I) said before, adult converts must make a profession of faith prior to baptism. That is the context in which we find this verse: Thousands of converts professing their new faith in Christ, and then being baptized.

They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.

But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.

Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin, as well as estrangement from God.

Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do you see the vicious cycle here? Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?

Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.

What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?

Until I can respond tomorrow just a couple of comments.
You are presenting teachings I've not heard before, probably cause I'm not too familar with Eastern Orthodox. It is definitely different than what I've heard from Catholics. I'm a little caught off guard.

There is a lot you said that I agree with as well as what I don't agree with.
Good night. Take care.

 

[Shiranui117]

Until I can respond tomorrow just a couple of comments.
You are presenting teachings I've not heard before, probably cause I'm not too familar with Eastern Orthodox. It is definitely different than what I've heard from Catholics. I'm a little caught off guard.

There is a lot you said that I agree with as well as what I don't agree with.
Good night. Take care.

Alright. If you seek clarification on anything I've said, don't hesitate to ask. I'd be happy to explain further. I would also like to hear your agreements and disagreements.

Good night, and you take care as well.

 

[sincerly]

And this is indeed the case.

See 1 Peter 3:18-22: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by/through the resurrection of Jesus Christ[/color], 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

Note that a statement of belief was one of the prerequisites to being baptized:

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Hi Shiranui, I have no problem with baptism per se because Jesus Christ commanded one to (Matt.28:19-20), " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen."
I made the wording red in the areas which shows Jesus to be the one to save and not baptism---in agreement with the context.
It was the "Ark"/"like figure" of Jesus who "saved the eight" "by/from the water".
In Mark16, Jesus is the one speaking and is the scene is that of Matt.28:19-20 above. The "Believes" was John3:16-17, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Baptism in John3 is for the New birth. Yes, as Rom. 6 depicts, Baptism is symbolically "into Christ Jrsus who died, was buried, and was resurrected--and Believers are in being baptised "likewise" dying to the old man of sin and resurrecting into a new spiritual man having the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

And baptism is the means by which we access that forgiveness. It is the means by which we participate in Christ's death and Resurrection. It is symbolic, yes, but it is also much more than that.

"Forgiveness" is by confessing our sins to GOD and Repenting of the same--HE is faithful to forgive us.

Read what Tertullian wrote. We have been over this before. Water by itself does not save anything. We are agreed in this, and we have been in agreement in this from the beginning, so there is no use in bringing it up. However, water with the Holy Spirit does have a salvific effect.

I did! and I do Not agree with his assessment/allusions

So if we cannot trust the faithful students of the Apostles, or even the Apostles themselves, then who can we trust to interpret the Bible correctly? We cannot hope to know for sure whether or not we are interpreting it correctly ourselves. Sola Scriptura was one of the worst things to ever happen to Christianity, and has only led to countless divisions and disputes. "You will know them by their fruits," Christ said.

Shiranui, Paul, in 2Thess.2:3-4, spoke of a "falling away" from the truths of GOD by eccleisiastical professing persons. In Acts 20:28-31, Paul gives his oservations to the Ephesian leaders concerning what he had told the Thessalonians. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "

Everything can be interpreted to be like the conditions of the world at the end if you're bored enough.

Also, if the Apostles and their students had not been faithful to Christ, then how do we know that anything of what we know about Him is true? Islam could very well have it right, in that case.

The same Holy Spirit who "inspired the Prophets"(SCRIPTURES) and Jesus said would guide the honest truth seeker I trust with my salvation rather than some "scholar" who is contradicting the Scriptures which were written for one's admonition.
Your understanding of the scriptures impress me as one who wouldn't rely on another human being for correct understanding----especially in the humans of today---The immorality in high places.

By your answer, I take it the promise of the second coming isn't a concern of yours.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Shiranui, I have no problem with baptism per se because Jesus Christ commanded one to (Matt.28:19-20), " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen."

I made the wording red in the areas which shows Jesus to be the one to save and not baptism---in agreement with the context.

Yet through baptism, we are brought TO Christ. As said before, baptism is the means by which we access the salvific effects of Christ's death and Resurrection. This is an idea you have yet to disprove.

It was the "Ark"/"like figure" of Jesus who "saved the eight" "by/from the water".
In Mark16, Jesus is the one speaking and is the scene is that of Matt.28:19-20 above. The "Believes" was John3:16-17, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Baptism in John3 is for the New birth. Yes, as Rom. 6 depicts, Baptism is symbolically "into Christ Jrsus who died, was buried, and was resurrected--and Believers are in being baptised "likewise" dying to the old man of sin and resurrecting into a new spiritual man having the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Where do you see that it is only symbolically?

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

In other words, baptism is the means by which one is fully brought into the Body of Christ, and it is the means in which we obtain the Holy Spirit--and this process itself is guided by the Holy Spirit.

"Forgiveness" is by confessing our sins to GOD and Repenting of the same--HE is faithful to forgive us.

This is true, but this could lead to a topic on Confession. So for now, I'll let this tangent go.

Shiranui, Paul, in 2Thess.2:3-4, spoke of a "falling away" from the truths of GOD by eccleisiastical professing persons. In Acts 20:28-31, Paul gives his oservations to the Ephesian leaders concerning what he had told the Thessalonians. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "

The same Holy Spirit who "inspired the Prophets"(SCRIPTURES) and Jesus said would guide the honest truth seeker I trust with my salvation rather than some "scholar" who is contradicting the Scriptures which were written for one's admonition.

But how can the Holy Spirit lead two believers to completely different conclusions about Who God is, Who Christ is, Who the Holy Spirit is, the means by which we are saved, how to act towards others, what is sinful and what is not, the role of the Church, whence Truth is derived, and the role of the Sacraments?

You can have two Christians both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet differ from each other in almost every way in how they read the Scriptures and how they believe. How can the same Spirit of Truth be guiding both of them?

Paul would beg to differ about the role of the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Also, don't forget that the Church proved itself capable, even in Acts, of settling doctrinal matters in the correct way by the will of the Holy Spirit:

3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
. . .
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Yes, there will be heretics and false teachers arising within the Church. But they will never be victorious.

Ephesians 5:23-30
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. . . 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.

In other words, Christ takes care of the Church and makes sure He keeps her clean.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
Individual heretics may fall away from the Church, but how can evil and falsehood destroy the whole body of Christ, when Christ Himself tends to the Church, and when it is being guided by the Holy Spirit?

John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

I will further note that 1 and 2 Timothy lay out specific instructions about deacons, bishops and priests, and that the New Testament is replete with references to a hierarchic order in the Church even during the time of Acts and Paul's Epistles. However perhaps this is better saved for another topic. Feel free to start a new topic on this, or to ask me to do so, if you would like to discuss this further.

Your understanding of the scriptures impress me as one who wouldn't rely on another human being for correct understanding----especially in the humans of today---The immorality in high places.

I beg your pardon, I'm afraid I don't quite understand this comment of yours, but I get the gist that it's a compliment of some sort? Could you clarify what you mean?

By your answer, I take it the promise of the second coming isn't a concern of yours.

What do you mean here?

 

[sincerly]

Yet through baptism, we are brought TO Christ. As said before, baptism is the means by which we access the salvific effects of Christ's death and Resurrection. This is an idea you have yet to disprove.

Hi Shiranui, Your saying such doesn't make it so. None of your Scriptures validate the assumption as I have shown.
Again, What is it that "brings one to Christ?" Not Baptism, as that is in attaining the "new man"--being "born again." Salvation is BY the blood of Jesus Christ---not by baptism.
Notice Gal.3:16-29, "Wherefore the law(Decalogue) was our schoolmaster(By it one has knowledge of one's Sin--Rom.3:20) [to bring us] unto Christ(Redeemed by the Blood of), that we might be justified by faith. (John 3:16--belief in HIS Sacrifice.)

Where do you see that it is only symbolically?

2Pet.3:21("in like figure"); Rom.6:3(were baptized into Jesus Christ.). Those are not literal. However, baptism is symbolically referring to the Believer as being "born-again."

I am aware of the Holy Spirit's functions. However, The Holy Spirit will never "lead" two seekers to two contradicting points of view. One of those "spirits" will be false---see 1John4:1-3

But how can the Holy Spirit lead two believers to completely different conclusions about Who God is, Who Christ is, Who the Holy Spirit is, the means by which we are saved, how to act towards others, what is sinful and what is not, the role of the Church, whence Truth is derived, and the role of the Sacraments?

Shiranui, Daniel was just as bewildered by hearing the prophetic message of what sounded like believers of GOD persecuting the saints of GOD and "thinking to change God's times and laws."
I have shown you where that would happen and that power would continue to the end of time. Satan rebelled in the presence of GOD. Eve had no problem accepting misinformation in her being beguiled.

You can have two Christians both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet differ from each other in almost every way in how they read the Scriptures and how they believe. How can the same Spirit of Truth be guiding both of them?

That is why Paul admonished Timothy to "Study" and "rightly divide"(interpret) the Scriptures. The Scriptures don't lie/deceive---like Eve, one chooses to accept their own preceived "lusts".

Paul would beg to differ about the role of the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Also, don't forget that the Church proved itself capable, even in Acts, of settling doctrinal matters in the correct way by the will of the Holy Spirit:

Yes, the "church" was the repository for the Truths which was given, but was not to "think to Change the LAWS of GOD". Eusebius wrote this: "All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day."

Yes, in Acts15, there were some "believing Pharisees" who wrongly held tight to "circumcision and those sacrificial special(3X year) feast laws" which Jesus fulfilled(on the cross).
vs.21 acknowledges that the Sabbath is still being honored and NO CHANGE of it or the basic Principles of Sinai was addressed in this "council".

Yes, there will be heretics and false teachers arising within the Church. But they will never be victorious.

Right! The "false" are the wicked--professing/sheep in wolves clothing ones who are rewarded as is Satan. Rev.12:17, "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
It is the Remnant of the "Church" that Paul was establishing along with the rest of the Apostles and Believing converts which are seen in each of the "seven churches".(another topic).

Ephesians 5:23-30
In other words, Christ takes care of the Church and makes sure He keeps her clean.

Shiranui, Jesus Christ died for the sins of every person who has ever lived or will live prior to his second coming. However, the many are called, but few are chosen from that multitude. Those who are chosen are those who have accepted the "blotting out"/cleansing from all sins/in the washings of generation by HIS Shed BLOOD. Those HE Redeemed have chosen to "overcome by that blood". Therefore, "clean ever whit".(John13:10)---Another symbol of that "saving", as well as humility--enemy of pride.

 

[Shiranui117]

Hi Shiranui, Your saying such doesn't make it so. None of your Scriptures validate the assumption as I have shown.
Again, What is it that "brings one to Christ?" Not Baptism, as that is in attaining the "new man"--being "born again." Salvation is BY the blood of Jesus Christ---not by baptism.
Notice Gal.3:16-29, "Wherefore the law(Decalogue) was our schoolmaster(By it one has knowledge of one's Sin--Rom.3:20) [to bring us] unto Christ(Redeemed by the Blood of), that we might be justified by faith. (John 3:16--belief in HIS Sacrifice.)

We've been over this before. This argument is starting to go in circles.

2Pet.3:21("in like figure");

Uhh, there is no 2 Peter 3:21... And 1 Peter 3:20-21 says this:
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 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,

Also, see Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Rom.6:3(were baptized into Jesus Christ.). Those are not literal. However, baptism is symbolically referring to the Believer as being "born-again."

And where does it say that Baptism is merely symbolic?

I am aware of the Holy Spirit's functions. However, The Holy Spirit will never "lead" two seekers to two contradicting points of view. One of those "spirits" will be false---see 1John4:1-3

Exactly. But with Sola Scriptura, there is no way to be sure which Spirit is true, and which spirit is false. It's just one man's word versus another, and even if there is Scripture that blatantly disproves one's position, it's either reinterpreted in a way that doesn't contradict the position, or somehow disregarded. Very rarely do people actually admit that their interpretations are incorrect. Interpretation vs. interpretation will always end in a draw without an outside means of measuring and judging.

That is why Paul admonished Timothy to "Study" and "rightly divide"(interpret) the Scriptures. The Scriptures don't lie/deceive---like Eve, one chooses to accept their own preceived "lusts".

Yes, the Scriptures don't lie. But people misinterpret the Scriptures. When it comes down to merely private interpretations of the Scriptures, it's impossible to decide which interpretation is right, because those who derive the wrong conclusions from Scriptures will always reinterpret any Scripture that disproves their position.

Yes, the "church" was the repository for the Truths which was given, but was not to "think to Change the LAWS of GOD". Eusebius wrote this: "All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day."

The Sabbath was still honored. It was just no longer the day of worship.

Yes, in Acts15, there were some "believing Pharisees" who wrongly held tight to "circumcision and those sacrificial special(3X year) feast laws" which Jesus fulfilled(on the cross).
vs.21 acknowledges that the Sabbath is still being honored and NO CHANGE of it or the basic Principles of Sinai was addressed in this "council".

Acts 15:28-29For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

I see nothing about worshipping on the Sabbath.

In addition, even in Acts we see proof that the Christians worshipped on Sunday, AKA the first day of the week, AKA the eighth day.

Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

In the earliest days of the Church, Christians would go to the synagogue to hear the readings of the Scriptures, but after the Jews kicked us out, we just decided to have the whole shebang on Sunday, since we couldn't do it on Saturday anymore. It was a logistical circumstance, not a matter of faith.

Also, Romans 4:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Either way, whether or not we work on the Sabbath, and whether or not we read the Scriptures on the Sabbath, we give glory to God. And that was the point of the Sabbath in the first place, was it not?

It is the Remnant of the "Church" that Paul was establishing along with the rest of the Apostles and Believing converts which are seen in each of the "seven churches".(another topic).

Wait, what? Paul and the Apostles were only establishing a remnant of the Church? They didn't establish the Church as a whole? How does that make sense?

Shiranui, Jesus Christ died for the sins of every person who has ever lived or will live prior to his second coming. However, the many are called, but few are chosen from that multitude. Those who are chosen are those who have accepted the "blotting out"/cleansing from all sins/in the washings of generation by HIS Shed BLOOD. Those HE Redeemed have chosen to "overcome by that blood". Therefore, "clean ever whit".(John13:10)---Another symbol of that "saving", as well as humility--enemy of pride.

All Christians accept the work that Christ has done for them at some point in their Christian life. However, there are those who are lazy in ensuring that they maintain their salvation and cooperate with God, and there are those who turn away entirely. Salvation can be lost. It's more accurate to say that all are chosen, but not everyone accepts the election.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;

 

[Muffled]

They were cleaned "word spoken to them", before the command for baptism was given. This is why Peter wasn't baptized. Baptism started with the new covenant.

The Bible never refers to baptism as magic, Zwingli did. Amazing how a guy's idea from the 1520s is reveberated by protestants today.

Spiritual acts are not by definition devoid of physical aspects. E.g.- Romans 10:9-10 confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord".

Jesus was baptized and didn't even need to be cleansed.I believe Christians have attributed different meanings to baptism from the original meaning but that does not mean that Jesus delineated a new meaning in the new covenant.

It is nice to know my concept isn't new but I don't always agree with Zwingli on everything. I certainly don't agree with Calvin on many things and most likely don't agree with some of the concepts of Luther either. As for Roman Catholic theology, I believe it to be highly flawed.

I believe it is as Jesus says in John 3 that never the twain shall meet. No doubt physical things can accompany spiritual things but a presence of the physical thing does not connote the presence of the spiritual thing. However no-one will ever be aware of the spiritual thing unless something physical is done to proclaim it.

 

[Muffled]

Are you denying that baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and asserting that baptisms should only be done in the name of Jesus?

Acts says that, as far as the baptismal formula goes, baptizing in the name of Jesus alone isn't enough.

Acts 8:15-17 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.


When the Apostles say to baptize "in the name of the Lord Jesus," they mean to baptize with the AUTHORITY of Jesus. But as far as the actual FORMULA of baptism, one baptizes "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as commanded in Matthew 28:19.


Are you also denying that baptisms are done using water?


Acts 2:29-47 does not contradict the fact that baptisms are performed using water. It simply doesn't go into specifics about how those baptisms were performed.



Acts 8:36
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”


The Ethiopian eunuch clearly connects the idea of water and baptism.

Acts 10:47
“Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

I will note that the Holy Spirit came upon the members of Cornelius's household before they were actually baptized. This, however, is the exception rather than the norm. Even still, there is again this connection between water and baptism.

The water baptism was, as Jesus commanded, into the death ,burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins by HIS Act upon the Cross as Peter expressed.

I would argue that it doesn't matter much but it certainly behooves us to do it the way we were commaned to do it.

The context is not that the baptism did not represent repentance but that it was not accompanied by a reception of the Holy Spirit. In that sense it is like the baptism of John.

Acts 19:2 and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.
3 And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John’s baptism.

In my case I repented before I was saved or baptized. I received the Holy Spirit when I was saved and baptized later. My baptism was neither for repentance nor reception of the Holy Spirit nor for salvation but as a revelation to the Christian community that those things had occurred in my life and as an act of obedience to the requirement of Jesus for disciples to be baptized.

That is in affect a belief in magic. It doesn't work any better one way or another any more that the seven sons of Sceva could cast out demons in the name of Jesus.

A baptism done without water would be just as effective. I could do one with a blanket.

1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;

 

[Muffled]

Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.

Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?


Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.


But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?

"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop

I believe children can be baptized but I would debate the efficacy of it. Children do not go through any change through the baptism. I could baptize a dog and get the same results.

I disagree. I believe every infant carries a conscience from previous lives and in all cases that conscience is not pure. However I also believe that a conscience can carry a repentance and/or salvation from a previous life. I believe the baptism of the infant will not purify its conscience and an infant with a cleansed conscience doesn't need a baptism.

IMO baptism of infants comes from a belief that an unbaptized child will go to hell. I don't believe that will happen or that baptism changes the destination.

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe children can be baptized but I would debate the efficacy of it. Children do not go through any change through the baptism. I could baptize a dog and get the same results.

Baptism is not just for the remission of sins. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit indwells the new Christian, and the power of sin and death is removed from the newly-baptized. Infants are also under the rule of death, and they also need to be raised up to new life in Christ.

I disagree. I believe every infant carries a conscience from previous lives and in all cases that conscience is not pure. However I also believe that a conscience can carry a repentance and/or salvation from a previous life. I believe the baptism of the infant will not purify its conscience and an infant with a cleansed conscience doesn't need a baptism.

Reincarnation is neither Biblical nor Christian, but that's neither here nor there. I wouldn't mind discussing this with you in another topic.

IMO baptism of infants comes from a belief that an unbaptized child will go to hell. I don't believe that will happen or that baptism changes the destination.

So baptism has no effect at all, in your opinion? Do you believe in predestination?

 

[sincerly]

We've been over this before. This argument is starting to go in circles.

Hi Shiranui, Yes, It has been going in circles from the beginning with e.r.m.; now with you.

Uhh, there is no 2 Peter 3:21... And 1 Peter 3:20-21 says this:
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 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,

In the various translations of "Corresponding to that," one has these:"like figure"; "an antitype"; "a picture of"; "symbolizes "; "after a true likeness"; "which figure "; "a symbol of immersion"; "nunc similis formae"; Therefore, it is the Scriptures which in all translations and, in context, the message is salvation through Jesus Christ. Baptism shows/demonstrates that salvation "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not in or by the act of baptism.

Also, see Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

And where does it say that Baptism is merely symbolic?

The context of those verses attest to the fact.

Exactly. But with Sola Scriptura, there is no way to be sure which Spirit is true, and which spirit is false. It's just one man's word versus another, and even if there is Scripture that blatantly disproves one's position, it's either reinterpreted in a way that doesn't contradict the position, or somehow disregarded. Very rarely do people actually admit that their interpretations are incorrect. Interpretation vs. interpretation will always end in a draw without an outside means of measuring and judging.

Shiranui, Why did Jesus say to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."??(John 3:39) Jesus said(John17:17), "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Jesus never claimed to say/speak/or teach anything, but as the Father had given HIM to relay to the People.
In Isa.8:20, it is the Scriptures which correctly guides one----NOT the sayings of mankind. " To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them".
Therefore, who is the Authority--GOD through the Scriptures OR mankind by his lustful biases?? Your answers are pointing to the latter.

Yes, the Scriptures don't lie. But people misinterpret the Scriptures. When it comes down to merely private interpretations of the Scriptures, it's impossible to decide which interpretation is right, because those who derive the wrong conclusions from Scriptures will always reinterpret any Scripture that disproves their position.

Shiranui, "those people" were the ones who the Holy Spirit prophetically said would "fall away" and teach contrary to the "truths" given by GOD.
Yes, they did try to "reinterpret" "valid sounding reasons" for their erroneous teachings.
The Sabbath is just one of those false teachings.---as you demonstrated. (in Acts 15; and Acts20:7)

I see nothing about worshipping on the Sabbath.

In addition, even in Acts we see proof that the Christians worshipped on Sunday, AKA the first day of the week, AKA the eighth day.

Did you overlook/or just ignore Acts 15:21?? and the many scriptures where Jesus Kept the Sabbath as did Paul and that teaching in the synagogues was on Sabbath?
Also, Acts 24:14 counters your ecf's reasonings concerning Acts20:7, "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:" (and that emphasizes the validity of Isa.8:20, again.)

In the earliest days of the Church, Christians would go to the synagogue to hear the readings of the Scriptures, but after the Jews kicked us out, we just decided to have the whole shebang on Sunday, since we couldn't do it on Saturday anymore. It was a logistical circumstance, not a matter of faith.

Shiranui, "In the earliest days of the church" the Apostles were told to finish the work Jesus started---"To the Jew first and then the Gentile". In Daniel the prophecy was, (Dan.9:24), "to finish the transgression". The Jewish "nation" had already rejected their Messiah---now by going to the Synagogues, those ambassadors for the Kingdom could explain those truths of the Scriptures(which testify of ME) to the Peoples(Jews and Gentiles) assembled there for a witness. The record(Scriptures) reflects their answers.
Eusebius's comments was "faith"---"We Changed"

Also, Romans 4:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Either way, whether or not we work on the Sabbath, and whether or not we read the Scriptures on the Sabbath, we give glory to God. And that was the point of the Sabbath in the first place, was it not?

Lev.23:1-3, explains that the Sabbath wasn't just a day free from labor(work), but a day of holy convocation(assemblage) with the Lord and GOD of All Creation. Isa.58:13, gives GOD'S View(as well as Ex.20:8-11), "If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:..." '
How can one "give glory to GOD" by disobeying GOD? That Commandment is one of the TEN---and carries the death penalty for "breaking". Right?

Wait, what? Paul and the Apostles were only establishing a remnant of the Church? They didn't establish the Church as a whole? How does that make sense?

Shiranui, The "universal church" was established by the "Go ye and teach", but you are failing to acknowledge the Prophecies of the Scriptures. There was a "falling away". That "power" is still exercising its contrary to GOD's teachings. It did rule and persecute GOD's People for 1260 years. It did sustain a set back for awhile, but now is ready for the second phase of its prophesied life before Jesus comes again.
That power gave birth to many "daughters". Therefore, GOD'S Church is only a "Remnant" of the "professed believers", but it will be the Triumphant Church.

Look at that prophecy again,(2Thess.2:3-4, 8), "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.....And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: "

All Christians accept the work that Christ has done for them at some point in their Christian life. However, there are those who are lazy in ensuring that they maintain their salvation and cooperate with God, and there are those who turn away entirely. Salvation can be lost. It's more accurate to say that all are chosen, but not everyone accepts the election.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;

Shiranui, Peter wrote it correctly.ALL are "Called to be a part of the Kingdom"; however, only the elected by GOD because their names remain in the Lamb's book of life will be accepted into the Kingdom and that via the blood of Jesus.
Matt.7:21-23, tells of those "professed Christians".