Or so that was the way Paul wanted everyone to think.... I would say that the other apostles would disagree with you.

 

Please support your claim here with Scriptural references. I am intrigued by your statement and would like to know more about how you arrived to that statement.

That's a hogwash answer used to justify cherry-picking OT verses, while ignoring others.

 

I am trying to read between the lines to figure out where you stand on this.:sssh::lol:

So, would putting the requirement of believing on Jesus.

 

I believe if God WANTED Jesus sacrifice to cover all sins whether we believed in Him or not, God could have set it up that way.

 

But He didn't.

 

He put in there a stipulation that we have to accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior and have a personal relationship with Him.

 

That does not mean that Jesus power of sacrifice is diminished.

 

Same with if God setup that baptism is required to receive that power. No limiting of Jesus' power of sacrifice but rather God setting up His own rules on how we receive that power.

 

It just seems completely arbitrary and a bit absurd that God would say "you can accept Jesus and follow his commands diligently all you want, but until someone holds your head under water during a ceremony you are out of luck."

So, would putting the requirement of believing on Jesus.

 

I believe if God WANTED Jesus sacrifice to cover all sins whether we believed in Him or not, God could have set it up that way.

 

But He didn't.

 

He put in there a stipulation that we have to accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior and have a personal relationship with Him.

 

That does not mean that Jesus power of sacrifice is diminished.

 

Same with if God setup that baptism is required to receive that power. No limiting of Jesus' power of sacrifice but rather God setting up His own rules on how we receive that power.

 

So, no deathbed conversions are possible unless a minister is there to simultaneously baptize?

 

When scripture says that "works" are not required for salvation, that there is no act you can take that justifies your salvation, is not baptism an act?

 

Even more loaded, does this not "add to" what we have to do for salvation? What is the difference between requiring baptism for salvation, and requiring, say, taking the sacrament? Scripture can be used to support that requirement, too.

It just seems completely arbitrary and a bit absurd that God would say "you can accept Jesus and follow his commands diligently all you want, but until someone holds your head under water during a ceremony you are out of luck."

 

Not just arbitrary, but limiting.

 

The whole purpose of the New Covenant was to eliminate rules that we could not attain. This is just another "rule."

It just seems completely arbitrary and a bit absurd that God would say "you can accept Jesus and follow his commands diligently all you want, but until someone holds your head under water during a ceremony you are out of luck."

 

It seems a bit absurd to me that God would send HIS SON to this planet to be beaten, crucified and killed all to pay a price for your and I's sins.

 

Would you do that with YOUR CHILD????

 

But that is what God did.

 

It seems absurd in Habib's way of thinking. Unless you need to admit to something and while I respect your opinion, your thinking of things is not necessarily 100% in alignment with God.

It seems a bit absurd to me that God would send HIS SON to this planet to be beaten, crucified and killed all to pay a price for your and I's sins.

 

Would you do that with YOUR CHILD????

 

But that is what God did.

 

It seems absurd in Habib's way of thinking. Unless you need to admit to something and while I respect your opinion, your thinking of things is not necessarily 100% in alignment with God.

 

I would argue, again respectfully, that yours was not.

I would argue, again respectfully, that yours was not.

 

I agree, cause I would not send either of my children to a death like Christ's for any on this thread.

 

And yet, somehow God did.

 

WOW!!!!

 

And also, why I want to see Scriptural reference to support opinions as we are told that the Bible is God's word and God inspired.

He even sent His Son for the benefit of people who He KNEW would reject the sacrifice.

 

Can any of us parents imagine sending our child to that horrible death all for the right of someone to reject it, claim it didn't happen and lead others astray?

The traditional support for requiring baptism is Mark 16:16. I advise you to read that very, very closely, and in its entirety, for what that passage (2 sentences) actually says.

 

Salvation is Jesus, not Jesus + water. At the time you accept Christ, your soul is cleansed by the Holy Spirit. To assert otherwise, seems to limit the reach of Christ's power.

 

What does one do if they see Mark 16:9-20 as addendum to the Gospel of Mark and not part of the original (inspired) author's writings?

He even sent His Son for the benefit of people who He KNEW would reject the sacrifice.

 

Can any of us parents imagine sending our child to that horrible death all for the right of someone to reject it, claim it didn't happen and lead others astray?

 

I agree with you LBBC.

 

However from posts I have seen of some here they believe in "Limited Atonement" (a good Calvinist doctrine). It states that Jesus only died for the saved or elect, not for all humanity.

What does one do if they see Mark 16:9-20 as addendum to the Gospel of Mark and not part of the original (inspired) author's writings?

 

 

I guess if you don't believe its inspired, than it shouldn't be authoritative. You might believe it to be persuasive.

I agree with you LBBC.

 

However from posts I have seen of some here they believe in "Limited Atonement" (a good Calvinist doctrine). It states that Jesus only died for the saved or elect, not for all humanity.

 

You could spin it that way but would be wrong.

Jesus died for all of humanity.

God put an action from all of humanity on it.

You believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God and died for our sins.

That is not exclusionary at all.

PEOPLE choose to be excluded from it but denying that.

 

Is Major League baseball exclusionary because I am not allowed to play in it?

He even sent His Son for the benefit of people who He KNEW would reject the sacrifice.

 

So in John 3:16, why did Jesus say that "whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."? Why did he not say "whoever believes in Him, and is also baptized, shall not perish but have eternal life."?

 

Or John 5:11-12 '"And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." No baptism here.

 

John 14:6 "Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." No baptism here.

 

Romans 10:9-10 "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. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." Again, no baptism.

 

John 1:11-12 "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God."

I am trying to read between the lines to figure out where you stand on this.:sssh::lol:

 

:lol::lol: