Say a phrase, and you are saved...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

I would gather that's why it's not a DIRECT command.

You missed the point of my post completely.
It would have been a direct command by Jesus to have the officer's servant healed.
The indirect part is that it is someone or something else actually doing the physical healing.
We are commanded directly to be baptized, and the grammatical element only comes in because we can not baptize ourselves. We consent to it and get in the water and all of that, but there has to be at least one other person involved.
This is why I beg you not to attempt any biblical interpretation on this forum because you have an inability to grasp complex concepts and you follow garbage that the frauds of your cult put out.

reply to post by jmdewey60


It's not so much that I missed your point, but more that I'm refusing to let this discussion drift away from my original point. I made the distinction earlier that the "for" in verse 38 should be taken as a "because of" for in English and not an "in order to" usage of the word for in regards to baptism and the remission of sins. You tried to criticize Dr. Zodhiates about repentance when that was never my point to begin with. You attacked his knowledge without any justification, and until you present contrary information his resume is light years better than your's is in the area of Biblical Greek. Now, his point, and I've looked up Matthew Henry's commentary and it's consistent that baptism is not something that saves people or removes their sin, but is a symbolic gesture a saved person does because they are identifying with Christ and their sins have been forgiven. Here is another opinion of 2:38 from Bible.org that is also consistent:

Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.

Bible.org.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You tried to criticize Dr. Zodhiates about repentance when that was never my point to begin with.

I don't much care about what your original point was because I am familiar with your philosophy and know where it leads, and the cult doctrine behind it.
What I was pointing out is that the person you are worshiping is obviously in the same cult, so no amount of credentials takes away from the fact that he is preaching the doctrines of devils. He is lying in order to promote the cult philosophy. At its core it promotes evil by denying the power of repentance. It tries to make it as of no importance, and something to be quickly discarded (since being "saved" makes it rather redundant) as just a quaint holdover from the past, when people believed that their behavior mattered.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Seriously, what cult is NOTurTypical a part of? I know that he has "JESUS FREAK CULT" as his ATS tag, but I seem to recall he posted that in response to accusations like yours.

To say that some specific thing is a cult, like the "true church" kooks may well turn out to be, is one thing, but I have yet to see anything that would indicate that NOTurTypical is in any sort of cult. To the contrary, he gives every indication that he's rational, educated, and a staunch defender of the Christian faith.

As I said yesterday, you used to have similar characteristics, and I usually thought of JMDewey posts as a different perspective than mine, but still very reasonable, but these days, you seem irrationally reactive.

Whether we argue about what day is the Sabbath, or whether works contribute to salvation or not, it is incumbent on Christians to show some modicum of solidarity, rather than gleefully throwing another under the bus for some small technical slight (true, or not.)

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You tried to criticize Dr. Zodhiates about repentance when that was never my point to begin with.

I don't much care about what your original point was because I am familiar with your philosophy and know where it leads, and the cult doctrine behind it.
What I was pointing out is that the person you are worshiping is obviously in the same cult, so no amount of credentials takes away from the fact that he is preaching the doctrines of devils. He is lying in order to promote the cult philosophy. At its core it promotes evil by denying the power of repentance. It tries to make it as of no importance, and something to be quickly discarded (since being "saved" makes it rather redundant) as just a quaint holdover from the past, when people believed that their behavior mattered.

edit on 16-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

What are you talking about, the only time he referred to repentance he said it was a "direct command"? You may not care that that had nothing to do with my point, but I do care and wont address a red herring, sorry it's irrelevant to the point I made about the purpose and function of baptism in Acts 2:38. And who is "worshipping" the man?? I referred to him as an expert in Biblical Greek, which he is. That's common appeal in a debate, sourcing expert opinion.

reply to post by adjensen

. . . I seem to recall he posted that in response to accusations like yours.

Not "like" mine but specifically mine.

I have yet to see anything that would indicate that NOTurTypical is in any sort of cult.

His signature identifies him as a member of the "I Hate Religion" cult. The video that it links to is a subsidiary, the "Tough Guy Sinner" cult, which is also a subsidiary of the larger "Free Grace" cult, in turn a subsidiary of the main cult of Dispensationalism, which is essentially a whole separate religion which takes the form, in a cameleon manner, of Christianity but on closer scrutiny reveals itself as a kind of anti-christianity designed to support zionism and its takeover of Palestine.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

. . . I seem to recall he posted that in response to accusations like yours.

Not "like" mine but specifically mine.

Well, I didn't want to say that, but yes, that's what I recall. However, I also recall it being set in a rather sarcastic perspective, rather than any sort of admonition.

I have yet to see anything that would indicate that NOTurTypical is in any sort of cult.

His signature identifies him as a member of the "I Hate Religion" cult. The video that it links to is a subsidiary, the "Tough Guy Sinner" cult

As a Catholic (though a new one, lol,) I suppose that I would have first claims against someone with a "I Hate Religion" perspective. However, I can see his point, and it's not one that's against you, or me, or anyone, for that matter, but against institutions that we have no part of.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

What are you talking about

Go back and look at what I was saying yesterday, and what I said is born out by your reply quoting Henry.
As far as what you want to address or not based on your idea of red herrings, I am not concerned about.
As far as I am concerned you can just stay quiet and not respond to my posts at all.
I'm not done yet and am working on compiling more evidence to back up my original charge.
Now the devious Satan guided spewings of people like your newest object of idolatry, takes several lies and combines then to create a new doctrine completely the opposite of normal Christianity so I have to take each on, the easiest I already did in my earlier post. I'm working on the others that are a little more subtle.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Now you're just trolling.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Now you're just trolling.

My saying I don't care in respose to your threat of not replying to my posts? Huh!
The central problem with your cult's resident Greek expert's "exegesis" of Acts 2:38 is how he deals with the preposition eis (εἰς).
According to FreeDictionary, a preposition is: a word or group of words used before a noun or pronoun to relate it grammatically or semantically to some other constituent of a sentence.
The "noun" is forgiveness. The "other constituent" that is being related to forgiveness is "be baptized".
Greek takes its prepositions generally from words that convey a sense of a literal physical relationship between things.
I think a visual aid would be useful.

Looking at the diagram, think of the circle as being the state of having your sins forgiven.
Eis indicates the motion of going from outside the circle, the state of not having your sins forgiven, towards your goal or desired end result, being forgiven, which lies within the circle.
What you cult's "expert" is doing is pretending that you can take the English translation, "for" and then using that as your point of departure (disregarding the original Greek text) from which to look back at the process as a confirmation that you were all along in no need of being forgiven, having already been "saved" (something the New Testament never describes in the past tense, much less a state believers can claim for themselves).

A friendly reminder...

...to stick to the thread's subject matter and refrain from personal affronts.

Thank you.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Are the Adventists cult members too in regards to baptism? Their official statement of faith on the subject aligns with the previously mentioned Greek expert, Matthew Henry's exegetical commentary, and the quote from Bible.org which was also posted previously. Here is the official statement of faith on the matter of baptism on Adventist.org:

15. Baptism:

By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

Are the Adventists also a cult?

reply to post by jmdewey60

having already been "saved" (something the New Testament never describes in the past tense, much less a state believers can claim for themselves).

Also from Adventist.org:

10. Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.

That implies that SDAs are "Once saved, always saved" believers, is that the case?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Are the Adventists cult members too in regards to baptism?

I already went over this before with you that this is one person's opinion, on that web site, about what Adventists in general believe.
Adventist believe baptism is not an option and is necessary for salvation just like it says in the Bible (as long as you do not explain it away like your cult does).

reply to post by adjensen

That implies that SDAs are "Once saved, always saved" believers, is that the case?

If you were to go on and never sin the rest of your life after you are baptized, then you could conceivably be "once saved".
Abiding in Christ means not sinning.
What the "Free Grace" cult believes is that continued sinning is completely irrelevant in regards to salvation.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Are the Adventists cult members too in regards to baptism?

I already went over this before with you that this is one person's opinion, on that web site, about what Adventists in general believe.
Adventist believe baptism is not an option and is necessary for salvation just like it says in the Bible (as long as you do not explain it away like your cult does).

edit on 17-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

It's a dot org website for the Adventists. And the position above says it's a symbol, consistent with the other three explanations of baptism that it's done after conversion to identify with Christ, not done prior to or in order to convert.

So are Adventists cult members too?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by adjensen

 

That implies that SDAs are "Once saved, always saved" believers, is that the case?

If you were to go on and never sin the rest of your life after you are baptized, then you could conceivably be "once saved".
Abiding in Christ means not sinning.
What the "Free Grace" cult believes is that continued sinning is completely irrelevant in regards to salvation.

edit on 17-10-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

That's absolutely false, I've never heard anyone affirm that. In fact the inverse, that if there is no conviction and fruit of repentance in a person's life that moat likely means they were never born of the Spirit to begin with.