Featured What would the following verse mean if

That's right Percho, Paul came to his conviction over time, more than a day, and spent years in study and meditation preparing to preach among the heathen. Let's stick with what scripture actually says, and not just ignore scripture and assert what men have invented. Acts chapter 9 describes Paul still in prayer three days after Jesus appeared to him on the road.

One way to look at it was when Saul "arose" that equates with him "calling on the name of the Lord." And being "baptized" could refer to being sealed with the Holy Spirit because God accepted his faith. So if this describes Paul's conversion, it occurred 3 days after being knocked off his horse and Paul's choice to call on the name of the Lord. Just saying...

 

Yeshua1 claims and assertions oppose scripture. Revelation does "open us up" to whatever was revealed, but the claim of supernatural enablement is simply added to the text without a shred of support. Paul was a devout Jew, a believer in God and in the promised Messiah. So he was already "open" to God's promised Messiah. Therefore he was "of My sheep."

Three of the four soils (Matthew 13) received the gospel, therefore Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false.

 

saul HATED jesus and his followers, as jesus to him got what he deserved, being a false messiah!

he approved and sought out saints to be killed off...

NOT one of the sheep!

God HAD to spiritually intervene and grant him a new heart and mind concerning who jesus was!

And paul got/received DIRECT REVELATION from the risen christ concerning the Gospel, as related to law and grace of God!

paul received Galatians and Romans from the Lord!

 

Yeah...haven't read the whole thread...but that is just the most ill-thought -out and ridiculous statement. It does no such thing, not at all. This fails to consider the very real possibility that God is Sovereign enough to choose, of his own Divine Purpose, of his own reason, to set the stage as he wishes...He is God...He is God enough to give man freedom of will (within his own prescribed limits) as he chooses...What a weak, unimaginative, childish, and non-Sovereign God you Calvinists worship. He is a 5 year-old child who merely utilizes force to demand his own way every day in all situations. What an unloving and preposterous deity this is. Don't you get it that the God who made us in his own image, wanted someone to love him freely in return, as ALL of us do? Did you buy your wife???? Is she some poor stupid "mail-order" slave whom you use and abuse at will? Or is she the loving being who chose....of all people....YOU, and you alone to love and adore....What kind of bride do you want? What kind of Bride did God want? The God worshipped by Calvinists is simply non-Sovereign, weak and un-creative. Whatever he did, he has never romanced the bride he wanted....and he never "drew" her to him...he just made an obstinate toy soldier obey his "will". I shudder to think of how your "bride" is treated if you "romanced" her the same way your deity does.

 

I was on vacation for a week, thus this delayed replay.

I meant that Mark 16:16 is given in parallel with the other accounts of the "Great Commission" (teach all nations, baptizing them). We understand this to be water baptism (disciples baptize with water). In this parallel account, it would seem that Jesus makes the statement in Mark 16:16 just after telling the disciples to "preach the gospel to every creature [baptizing them]." Then, telling them "He that believes and is baptized will be saved" would still be referring to the water baptism that He just told them to do, hence my explanation above.

Sure. I would agree.

My explanation:

1. The Greek word for for here--eis--does not always mean "to obtain." It can generally mean "pertaining to" or even "because of" (Mat 12:41; Luke 11:32; 5:14). Peter could be saying to be baptized "pertaining to" or "because of" the forgiveness of sins, not so that they would obtain it.
2. Both repent and remission of [your] sins are in second person plural. be baptized is in third person singular. Although it is not a hard rule in Greek that the two cannot be linked, it can indicate that Peter intended repent to go with remission of [your] sins, and that "[let each of you] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" is a parenthetical construction as one could be deduced from 1 Peter 3:21.
3. Although the baptism of John the Baptist is not the same as "Christian baptism," a parallel description could shed light on what Peter meant in Acts 2:38.
   Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
   John preached the baptism OF repentance for the remission of sins. It is the repentance that is for the remission of sins, and the baptism is an identification with that repentance.
4. A non-dispensational understanding of Daniel's 70-weeks can influence one's understanding of Peter's message to the Jews at Pentecost. If Daniel's 70th week began at Christ's baptism where He began to "confirm the covenant with [the] many for one week," He was cut off "in the midst of the week" (causing "the sacrifices and oblations to cease"), and there remained another 3 1/2 years for the disciples to finish the "covenant" with Israel before God sent Peter to the Gentile Cornelius, Peter's language could reflect Israel-specific language that would target the priestly nation and would be understood more like John's baptism.

In Acts 22:16 there is only one kai (AND) in the Greek, not two. Ananias gives Paul two commands on each side of the kai, each with a participle modifier. In the Greek, it looks like this:

Arising, be baptized AND wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.​

or

Having arisen, be baptized AND wash away your sins, having called on the name of the Lord.​

Command #1: Be baptized by getting up.
Command #2: Wash away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord.

It is the calling on the name of the Lord that results in washing away sins, not the baptism.

I would say it is referring to the spiritual reality of regeneration in which the water baptism is an identification.

Like above, I would say that the baptism could be referring to water baptism as an identification of the spiritual regeneration through faith. Paul could be saying that the water baptism (which they had already had) was outward proof of the faith that they had in Christ, and that this faith was all that is needed to be "Abraham's seed" (rather than circumcision and the Law).

Similar to the above. The circumcision is not the same as the baptism. The circumcision made without hands is regeneration. Whereas the context of all three of these passages seem to mention baptism in passing, it seems that Paul may be referencing their water baptism as an identifying indicator of the faith that they have pertaining to their regeneration.

I agree with this for the most part. Peter makes reference to Jesus' physical resurrection as being "quickened by the Spirit" which is what happens to us internally when we are regenerated. Noah's family were "saved by water" in that they were in the ark, and the one's literally immersed in the water were actually the unsaved. Just like the water can be referenced as a synecdoche of the salvation Noah had from God in the ark, so the water baptism we do in our "answer" or "pledge" of a good conscience before God symbolizes the "putting away of the filth of the flesh" that the Spirit does in us through "the washing of water by the word." (Eph 5:26)