Who is my "brother" in Christ?

[Guest shiloh357]

Then I guess you ignore Acts 2:38

No I don't ignore Acts 2:38 at all. But Acts 2:38 is not a doctrinal teaching on baptism, and thus is insufficient to create a doctrine that says baptism is required for salvation.

What you are operating from is the negative inference fallacy. It assumes that if a positive statement is true, all negatives are likewise true. The assumption is that if any one repented and believed but failed to be baptized, they were not saved, and that is a logical fallacy in handling that passage.

I suspect you believe that the pharse "for the forgiveness(remission) of your sins" should be "because of the forgiveness(remission) of your sins". If so then you will need to reconcile that with:

Matthew 26:27-29

27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

NASB

The first for in Greek is gar, the second is peri and the third is eis - all different. If the use of eis to mean because of the forgiveness of your sins then Jesus would have been crucified because of the forgiveness of sins "already".

It is easily reconciled in terms of context. Word usage always trumps word meaning. The use of eis in Matt. 26:27-29 is not the same as in Acts 2:38 because the conext is different. Context always determines how we understand word usage. For instance, context is the determining factor in how I understand the word love when someone says, "I love my spouse" or "I love icecream." Same word but different usages and the same applies in Greek as well.

As it is used in Acts 2:38, they are being commanded to repent and be baptized on account of the forgiveness of their sins, baptism being the visible seal of that remission.

[Scare Bear]

I know of a Marine that had a buddy that was on the fence about becoming a Christian and then in Iraq he made the choice and accepted Jesus. He was killed by an IUD two days later, before he could be baptized. According to you, he is burning in Hell because he could not get baptized. That is wrong, you are wrong.

I know we all like to think that everyone who accepts Jesus will go to heaven but the bible says otherwise. I know it doesn't feel good, trust me, I have friends and family members who believe in Jesus but are on the wrong paths. Remember, "not everyone that says unto me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven." Is it harsh? Unfortunately, there is a harsh reality out there and not everyone is going to heaven.

He will be in heaven, that one is easy. Look at The Parable of the Workers in the Field, the man that came in at the last hour had the same reward as those who worked all day.

Not according to the bible, Matthew 10:32

[Guest shiloh357]

As for Cornelius, he was saved after his baptism. If not why was he ordered to be baptized?

(Acts 10:48

48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

NASB)

It wasn't suggested, it was ordered. The Holy Spirit had fallen upon them and they needed baptism even though the baptism of the Spirit had already occurred. Why? There is no other place in the NT where this is played out.

As a matter of fact Philip had baptized in Samaria some time earlier and when the apostles found that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon those in Samaria, they sent Peter and John to lay on the hands that they too might receive the Holy Spirit. If baptism of the Holy Spirit happens at the point of faith, something didn't go right. This too is a one of a kind unique happening that has many questions surrounding it.

In the case of Cornelius the "seal" of the Holy Spirit came before baptism in water. I think it was to convince Peter that the other sheep were right in front of him - Gentiles.

These type of happenings have not been demonstrated in this way or in Samaria in any other occasion unless you have an example that I cannot recall.

so then, the Holy Spirit comes upon us prior to our salvation, is that what you are saying?

No, it came on Cornelius before.

the Holy Spirit does not come upon anyone prior to salvation. Cornelius and his house had received the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues, which is a sign of the infilling of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit NEVER fills unbelievers. That was the indication that they had believed and received salvation. To say that the Holy Spirit came on believers prior to salvation is really, really bad theology and it shows that you are not intellectually honest about the weaknesses in your view.

[Scare Bear]

That is sloppy exegesis. Anyone can cherry pick certain verses and string them together like lights on a Christmas tree and make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. That is one tell-tale way of spotting false doctrine. It is never based on a treatise or solid teaching from Scripture is based on grabbing individual verses, ignoring their immediate context and subjectively applying them to issues they were not meant to address.

That demonstrates nothing but a very cultic handling of Scripture.

It is cultic to read and study the bible and look at the bigger picture?

[eis]

No, it came on Cornelius before.

so then, Cornelius was another exception to the rules. This view of yours requires a lot of exceptions to the rules. Don

[Guest shiloh357]

I know we all like to think that everyone who accepts Jesus will go to heaven but the bible says otherwise.

Really??? Where does the Bible say that? Show ONE person in the Bible who received Christ but went to hell anyway.

I know it doesn't feel good, trust me, I have friends and family members who believe in Jesus but are on the wrong paths. Remember, "not everyone that says unto me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven." Is it harsh? Unfortunately, there is a harsh reality out there and not everyone is going to heaven.

First of all Jesus was referring to those who simply offer religious lip service. Jesus did not say that not every who receives me as savior is going to heaven. What you are saying is that if someone was not saved the way YOU were, they are not Christians.

It is a very cultic and nonChristian view point.

[Guest shiloh357]

That is sloppy exegesis. Anyone can cherry pick certain verses and string them together like lights on a Christmas tree and make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. That is one tell-tale way of spotting false doctrine. It is never based on a treatise or solid teaching from Scripture is based on grabbing individual verses, ignoring their immediate context and subjectively applying them to issues they were not meant to address.

That demonstrates nothing but a very cultic handling of Scripture.

It is cultic to read and study the bible and look at the bigger picture?

You are not looking at any picture beyond what your cult wants you to see and frankly both you and eis are horrible in terms of exegesis and have no business telling anyone anything about the Bible.

[eis]

That is sloppy exegesis. Anyone can cherry pick certain verses and string them together like lights on a Christmas tree and make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. That is one tell-tale way of spotting false doctrine. It is never based on a treatise or solid teaching from Scripture is based on grabbing individual verses, ignoring their immediate context and subjectively applying them to issues they were not meant to address.

That demonstrates nothing but a very cultic handling of Scripture.

It is cultic to read and study the bible and look at the bigger picture?

You are not looking at any picture beyond what your cult wants you to see and frankly both you and eis are horrible in terms of exegesis and have no business telling anyone anything about the Bible.

I don't know there, friend, you are the one who sounds "cultic". Maybe my hermeneutic doesn't match yours, but it appears that it is much more correct.

[eis]

... frankly both you and eis are horrible in terms of exegesis and have no business telling anyone anything about the Bible.

And you are qualified based on what? Your exegesis?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

That is wrong for three reasons.

1. The New Covenant was cut in the blood of Jesus that was shed before the thief died.

So you're saying everything was fulfilled before Christ even rose? Then why did He even have to rise from the dead?

Everything connected to redemption was paid for on the cross. I did not say everything was fulfilled on the cross. The Resurrection did add anything to redemption.

QUOTE

2. Jesus died BEFORE the thief died. So the thief died AFTER the New Covenant was cut.

The order in which Jesus died or the thief died has no bearing on this. The fact of the matter was that the thief was still under the old law when he made the statement.

You mean Old Covenant not Old Law. There is a difference.

The thief was under the old covenant, but that is irrevelant. Nothing about salvation changed from old to new covenant. Had baptism been required for salvation under the Old Covenant, it would have been required for salvation under the New.

So when exactly did this New Covenant take place? When the soldier pierced His side? When the thief was speaking with Him? When someone sneezed? I think you're grasping for straws on this one my friend.

When Jesus said it is finished.

1 Peter 3:20 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