attn: Josh: Romans road & Acts 8

Josh, I want to stick to a pt or 2 otherwise we digress so much that we lose our points in what we are saying.

I do not accept Romans 10 as the plan of salvation for non saved sinners but rather as part of an overall letter of instruction to saved people. Further, the experience cited in Romans 10 is a shared experience to the believers in Samaria in Acts 8, yet they were not saved. I could not in good conscious tell someone to quote Romans 10 and tell them they are saved when they did that in Samaria and were not. That presents a dilemna. Let's talk about this first and then break down some of the others. Let's try to stick to romans 10 and harmonizing it with Acts 8. Thanks and God bless.

Rooster,

You can't honetstly tell me that Luke didn't write acts as a letter to a church of saved people either. Its not like these people were all saved in churches. If you went to any church, they would be reading these letters aloud, to anyone in the church, saved or just curious. When he wrote to the leaders at the church in rome and said that if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart you will be saved, that was a formula that would have been read to the entire congregation. Its not as if they would have said....oh oh oh but wait a moment, we have to explain this is only for US, you guys have to get baptised before any of this matters for you.

you are saying that based on john 3 there is a process presented there that must mimic exactly the process of birth. Maybe its my lack of ignorance, but where does it say that in scripture other than john 3:5, and what in John 3:5 makes you think this is a process rather than a comparison of spiritual birth to the physical, that doesn't mean it contains all the components....why stop there, why don't we have water breaking in the process too...that happens during birth doesn't it?

Lets assume for a moment it was, the birth process, unless something goes utterly wrong, its fairly predictable, I mean that the process for the entirety of humanity hasn't changed much...babies are still had the same way they were 10000 years ago.

You suggest that this birth process may vary from one time to another. You suggest that one time the process may be:
1.hear
2.beleive
3.repent
4.baptize
5.recieve holy spirit
6.salvation

ANother time the process may be:
1.hear
2.believe
3.holy spirit
4.spiritual gifts
5.repent
6.be baptised
6.salvation

Now, I have to write processes for work very often for customers. I often have to explain how to harden various operating systems, how to check for permissions issues, etc...to people who have no idea what I am talking about. So I have to write processes, and often I use the same ones over and over again. If I were to change the steps like you just have, I would confuse and cause trouble with people

If you say that this new birth is a process, I submit that its not possible to alter the birth process, and both spiritual and physical birth must follow the same steps in the process, otherwise its not any kind of process that I know about. And if thats the case, make up a new word for your process, I suggest you call it owetorilotar. I dunno why, but I think it sounds like a good word.

Acts 8 and Acts 10 must jive with each other...they simply have to, and right now, I don't think that you have. So right now, you need to be able to show me that the process can in fact vary in such ways. I think that the evidence shows that the church is the only group given the holy spirit and spiritual gifts, outside of that, the only way people come into contact with the spirit is by being under the influence of a believer, for instance an unbeliever curious about the message at a church who can sense something different about these folks. But he hasn't had the holy spirit given to him, he can just sense they have something and he is intruiged by it.

Now, you can make Acts 8 and Acts 10 jive. If you hold to the idea tha Acts 8 was an outpouring of the spirit to the jewish believers, and Acts 10 was the outpouring on the gentiles, and thats the only time in history that it followed a different method.

I think thats a crock of bs personally, and there is quite a bit of evidence in scripture to support the fact that salvation comes by faith through grace.

I can show you much more than romans 10 as showing justification for salvation by faith through grace making no mention of baptism.


One last thing, on the other thread I asked you if a person who had not been baptised would end up in heaven or hell if they got hit by a car on the way to go get baptised.

If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. If a person responds that he does not know, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because if it were, then the person would be damned.

Its pretty clear cut, but you don't seem to want to take a definite stand on it. The bible only gives us those options.

josh: You can't honetstly tell me that Luke didn't write acts as a letter to a church of saved people either.

me: Josh, Acts is a historical account of the birth of the Church. It wasn't written with the same purpose as the Epistles. It was written to chronicle the birth of the church. It shows exactly how sinners were saved. The Epistles are not a historical account of non believers becoming believers but rather letters of instruction to established churches that were struggling in some area and needed clarification.

josh: When he wrote to the leaders at the church in rome and said that if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart you will be saved, that was a formula that would have been read to the entire congregation. Its not as if they would have said....oh oh oh but wait a moment, we have to explain this is only for US, you guys have to get baptised before any of this matters for you.

me: Josh, Paul specifies in his greetings exactly who the letters are for. They are written to Saints, called out ones, chosen ones etc. Your applying a typical sunday at your church to a typical service thousands of years ago. These letters would have been passed around to saved people to read. Non saved people were typically taught about Jesus and His Kingdom from the Old Testament.

Josh: you are saying that based on john 3 there is a process presented there that must mimic exactly the process of birth. Maybe its my lack of ignorance, but where does it say that in scripture other than john 3:5, and what in John 3:5 makes you think this is a process rather than a comparison of spiritual birth to the physical, that doesn't mean it contains all the components....why stop there, why don't we have water breaking in the process too...that happens during birth doesn't it?

Me: Josh, heavenly or spiritual things are are the model to which physical things are patterned. The 2nd birth is patterned after the first birth. You have repentance (turning around) passage through blood and water, and breath of life. You leave a dark world for a new life. The old world of darkness is comfortable but you will die if you don't leave. You come out a babe. You could say that the water breaking is the sign that the babe is ready. So to when a non believer is witnessed to and through the washing of the Word becomes "ready" for birth.

josh: ANother time the process may be: 1.hear 2.believe 3.holy spirit 4.spiritual gifts 5.repent 6.be baptised 6.salvation

Me: Josh, repentance will always preceed receiving the Holy Spirit. One cannot recieve anything from God unless they repent. If they are baptized prior to repenting they are just getting wet.

josh: Acts 8 and Acts 10 must jive with each other...they simply have to, and right now, I don't think that you have. So right now, you need to be able to show me that the process can in fact vary in such ways.

me: Josh, I don't believe I have to show you that they harmonize, they do harmonize. Scripture presents both historical moments as acceptable pictures of sinners being saved. In one instance they listened to the word (obviously believed and accepted) and recieved the Spirit. They were immediately commanded to be baptized. In the other historical account, they heard, accepted, received miracles, were baptized but received the Spirit after Peter and John came through to pray for them. They are both historical and acceptable renditions of the new birth process in which we see repentance, burial in Jesus name and the infilling of the Spirit. All harmonize with Peter's message in Acts.

josh: I think thats a crock of bs personally, and there is quite a bit of evidence in scripture to support the fact that salvation comes by faith through grace.

me: Josh, it's not either or. Faith and grace are required when one hears, when one repents, when one is baptized and when one recieves the Spirit. You almost sound like baptism is some secular invention...a bit dirty...a "work" that hinders people from REALLY getting to know Jesus. Friend, Jesus instituted baptism and HE IS IN THE WATER. His very presence. We are buried with Him! The blood is in the water! If you are looking for Jesus, you can find Him in the cleansing water!

josh: I can show you much more than romans 10 as showing justification for salvation by faith through grace making no mention of baptism.

me: Josh I want to keep this real focused. Romans 10 and Acts 8. You have completely missed my point or ignored it. The point is that every scripture you want to show such as Romans 10 and any other contain an inherent conflict. That is, in Acts 8, they (the Samarians) had faith and an outpouring of grace but they didn't yet have the Spirit. My point is two fold. The Romans experience was in Samaria. It looked like a good old baptist revival. But they didn't have the Spirit yet. How can you tell someone to recite Romans 10 and be assured they are saved when if you would have been in Samaria, you would have told these people they were saved prior to receiving the Spirit based on the fact that they accepted the word, recieved the preaching, were baptized in the name of the Lord, had miracles, joy etc.?!!?

Further, you want to recite verses that say you must believe to be saved, or faith comes by grace etc. I BELIEVE THAT. That is what you seem to be missing. You cannot be born again w/out faith and grace. However, you seem to think that faith and grace are divorced from baptism.

josh: If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by faith, isn't enough for salvation. If a person responds that he does not know, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because if it were, then the person would be damned.

Its pretty clear cut, but you don't seem to want to take a definite stand on it. The bible only gives us those options.

me: Josh, I'm not afraid to take a stand. I just don't know until I get to heaven. However, I do believe God is loving and just and will make the perfect judgement. However, based on what I read, the new birth consists of being born AGAIN of WATER AND SPIRIT. That new birth is shown time and again in Acts where we see sinners getting saved by death (repentance) burial (baptism) and resurrection (Spirit). Based on that, I would say, that you must be baptized to be truly born again.

If the children of Israel had not been baptized, they would not have been delivered. If Noah had not been baptized, he would have died with the old world. Had Naaman not been baptized, he would have died of leprosy. Had Jonah not been baptized, he would never had preached to Ninevah, he and Ninevah would have both died. The bottom line is that all those types show sin and forgiveness of sin in type.

However, we can get to all of those. I want to stay focues. If Romans 10 is all you need to quote to be saved...how come the believers in acts 8 in Samaria did not get the Spirit prior to Peter and John coming through. Let's please try to stay on topic (I know, I digress also). We can really develop this thoroughly but for right now I want to stick to one point. Acts 8 and Romans 10. If Romans 10 is the "way" to get saved...how come the Samarians did not have the Spirit prior to John and Peter coming down?!!?!?!

Rooster, you seem to be unaware of the traditions of the early church. These documents that make up the new testament are almost exclusively letters written from one person to another, passed from church to church, and read aloud following the jewish tradition that it came out of where every sabbath the scrolls are read ALOUD.

Who was Acts written to then? To the general unsaved public to be posted in the marketplace? Just in case someone was curious I suppose?

I understand this isn't an epistle, but it was read aloud in churches the same way that any other letter or scroll would have been, thats all. Pauls letters, Acts, the old testament, all of those were read aloud to anyone who was there, they did not exclude non believers from those preceedings which they were not ready for.....because WE RENOUNCE SECRET WAYS...remember?


So Rooster, you say that heavenly things are patterened after physical, yet you don't provide me any scriptural evidence to this in regard to bapstism, just your opinion on how things work and an example. Thats not going to work here. You cannot recieve the spirit until you are saved. The scripture is very very very very clear on that. You will not speak in tounges until you are saved. THe only thing I can figure is thaty ou don't believe anyone is saved until death...if thats teh case, well then I cant even have this debate with you until we have that one first.

Now Rooster, the ritual of baptism is a beautiful thing. I am very happy I did it, and I tell people they need to be baptised. I never want you to think that I think people shouldn't be baptised. However, I think it is a separate commandment. Having faith is not the same as being baptised, they aren't all put together as you'd like them. You are born again, and because of that you are baptised. I even admitted to you that not being baptised is a sinful, disobidient action. But thats irrelevant, we are all sinful and disobedient, and you break Jesus' commandments every day, Baptism isn't like the most important one or anything. He did insitute it, but its something for us, not for God. the work on Gods side is done, before the baptism, not during or after. Jesus said it was finished, that meant he paid our debt....thats when you and I were forgiven, not at baptism.

If you don't know until you get to heaven rooster, then you can't say that baptism is nessessary for salvation. period. You just admitted that you don't know. Its not about you judging people, your not the one judging, Gods word is, your just telling me what it says, so again, based on that can you answer? If its still I don't know, then you see my point. So, in your next post, I would expect you to say something like "according to the scripture that person would not be saved and would be damned" Or " I see your point, scripture is not clear on if baptism being a requirement for salvation" or "Im not sure, but I think so anyway"

And Jonah, a great example.....who made him go to ninevah? He ran away, remember? Then a work of God made him be swallowed by a fish, and he stayed there 3 days...intresting symbolism eh? anyway....that was an act of God that saved them, Jonah, if God had not intervened, who knows what would have happend, but an act of God did this...just like an act of God gives the holy spirit to us. and lays us into death, life, and resurrection with christ.

You keep on asking me about acts chapter 8, and Im going to keep asking you about acts 10, when the holy spirit is poured on when Peter is speaking, not after baptism. Again, its very clear what position spiritually someone is in when they obtain spiritual gifts. They are ONLY given out to members of the church. I have shown you that clearly from scripture, I don't understand how you can say that these weren't complete believers, they had the spirit. thats all thier is to it, Once you have the spirit, your in bro.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned"
1st Cor 2:14

"1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue[1] does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.[2] 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues,[3] but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues,[4] unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified." 1 Cor 14: 1-5


So, my friend, if your truly speaking in tounges, your saved, according to paul.

Well for me its a personal issue, Ive done probably 80 + hours of study on the problem we are dicussing here, and I did it because I really thought that what I had been taught might be wrong...and I wanted to do the right thing with God. If God really did say something, and its laid out in his word, then we should follow it, and he did tell us to be baptised, but he didnt say it saves or doesnt save us, only gave us a command to do it.

I know theological discussions can be quite boring to those who don't care, so pardon my boring you.

josh: So Rooster, you say that heavenly things are patterened after physical, yet you don't provide me any scriptural evidence to this in regard to bapstism, just your opinion on how things work and an example. Thats not going to work here.

me: Paul compares repentance to death (crucification), baptism to burial and resurrection to receiving the Spirit. Death is a "physical state" yet Paul uses it to make a spiritual point. Burial is a "physical state" yet Paul uses it to make a spiritual application. Etc.

josh: You cannot recieve the spirit until you are saved.

me:
John 3:3 you must be born again of WATER and Spirit.

The Spirit of life is part of the new birth. However, like a baby, it is not the only part of the process. You must have the blood the water and the Spirit.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water AND (KAI=EVEN) blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Jo 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, AND the blood: and these three agree in one.

The witness of the believer is the witness of the WATER AND THE BLOOD AND THE SPIRIT and these 3 agree in One.

josh: The scripture is very very very very clear on that. You will not speak in tounges until you are saved.

me: no, the scriptures teach that the infilling of the Holy Spirit is being born again of Spirit. It is analogous to being resurrected. However, Jesus still had to be crucified and still had to be buried. Although recieving the Spirit is required, we also still have to die on a cross (repent) and be buried (baptized).

josh: THe only thing I can figure is thaty ou don't believe anyone is saved until death...if thats teh case, well then I cant even have this debate with you until we have that one first.

me: no, people are saved and born again while living. True deliverance will come at death but you can be born again while living.

josh: Now Rooster, the ritual of baptism is a beautiful thing. I am very happy I did it, and I tell people they need to be baptised. I never want you to think that I think people shouldn't be baptised. However, I think it is a separate commandment.

me: interesting. The written word doesn't always convey that. I get the sense that it's a hindrance. Some ritual or "work" that is an option.

josh: However, I think it is a separate commandment. Having faith is not the same as being baptised, they aren't all put together as you'd like them.

me: you mean people with no faith get baptized??!?

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Belief (faith) was a requirement to getting the eunuch getting baptized.

josh: You are born again, and because of that you are baptised.

me: Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

josh: I even admitted to you that not being baptised is a sinful, disobidient action.

me: so...someone can be in a consistent state of sin and be actively disobedient and they were saved?

josh: But thats irrelevant, we are all sinful and disobedient, and you break Jesus' commandments every day

me: ummm...when you actually are born again, you are not in a state of sin. You are in a state of completely handing over your life, your sins, your will to Jesus. If you are told to be baptized and you (by your own admission) are sinning and not obeying, then you haven't repented and made Jesus Lord and King...since he commanded it.

josh: , Baptism isn't like the most important one or anything. He did insitute it, but its something for us, not for God

me: Josh, that's an unbelievable statement. Every move of God which is delivering in nature is for us, not for God. If God tells you to be baptized in His name, and you disobey and don't do it, where's your heart?

josh: the work on Gods side is done, before the baptism, not during or after. Jesus said it was finished, that meant he paid our debt....thats when you and I were forgiven, not at baptism.

me: Josh, God's work began before we are concieved, God's work is done prior to us being saved, God's work is done while we repent, when we obey God and are baptized, down the road, when we fail. There is no aspect of our life in which God is not working and certainly not the institution of baptism which He initiated.

josh: Jesus said it was finished, that meant he paid our debt....thats when you and I were forgiven, not at baptism.

me: but when is that forgiveness APPLIED. It's universal (for everyone) but when is it applied? It's applied based on our reaction to the gospel. The whole word is not saved. Grace is applied as a response to our faith and obedience in being born again.

josh: If you don't know until you get to heaven rooster, then you can't say that baptism is nessessary for salvation. period. You just admitted that you don't know. Its not about you judging people, your not the one judging, Gods word is, your just telling me what it says, so again, based on that can you answer? If its still I don't know, then you see my point. So, in your next post, I would expect you to say something like "according to the scripture that person would not be saved and would be damned" Or " I see your point, scripture is not clear on if baptism being a requirement for salvation" or "Im not sure, but I think so anyway"

me: ok, you have to ;-)

josh: And Jonah, a great example.....who made him go to ninevah? He ran away, remember? Then a work of God made him be swallowed by a fish, and he stayed there 3 days...intresting symbolism eh? anyway....that was an act of God that saved them, Jonah, if God had not intervened, who knows what would have happend, but an act of God did this...just like an act of God gives the holy spirit to us. and lays us into death, life, and resurrection with christ.

me: Josh, Jonah is a type of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and at the same time, it shows how his followers (Jonah) also are willing to die (Jonah jumped off the boat to save the sailors), was completely immersed in water (buried) was as good as dead, was swallowed by a fish (a type of Jesus) and while buried under water, prayed and arose and he who was dead was now alive! We live the gospel with Jesus!

Josh: You keep on asking me about acts chapter 8, and Im going to keep asking you about acts 10, when the holy spirit is poured on when Peter is speaking, not after baptism.

Me: ummm...Acts 8, Acts 10 and Romans 10 all agree Josh. We don't disregard one for the other. 1cor is about maintaining order with the Spiritual gifts. This is written to born again believers who have already been baptized.

Josh, we are digressing completely and will chase wisps if we continue down this path. My premise is asking you to compare and contrast Romans 10 and Acts 8.

If Romans 10 is the plan of salvation, then how is it that the believers in Samaria believed in Jesus but didn't yet have the Spirit. That's my question. I just want your opinion on how you harmonize Romans 10 and why the belivers in Samarian didn't have the Spirit?

Hermas
"'I have heard, sir,' said I [to the Shepherd], 'from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.' He said to me, 'You have heard rightly, for so it is'" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism--which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes--by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

"Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12).

"We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: 'I am to be baptized with a baptism' [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

Tertullian addresses the verse, "I came not to baptize"

Chapter XIV.-Of Paul's Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize; " , as if by this argument baptism were done away!

For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?

However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize.

But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them,

while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peace-making" apostle,
for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

Josh, Why was Paul told to go to Annias who will tell him what to do (same thing God told Cornelius) and both of them were commanded to get baptized?!?!

Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Do you realize that after Paul received the revelation of who Jesus was and still wasn't saved until days later when he met Annias. He believed, he was being obedient, he had faith. He had talked to Jesus. It wasn't until he went to Annanias, who God said, "would tell him what to do", that he was commanded to be baptized and WASH AWAY THY SINS calling on the name of the Lord! (note all of the recipients of baptism in Acts called on the name of the Lord 'Jesus').
here's a link with a lot more ancient apologist who believed in the necessity of baptism:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id141.htm

I'm still digressing. My original premise is compare and contrast Romans 10 and Acts 8. Why do you say Romans 10 is what one must "do" yet they did all that in Acts 8 (and more) and didn't have the Spirit yet?!?!

I agree with JoshuaB on this matter.

I think the Bible is very clear as to how one can be saved and the role baptism plays in the scheme of things.

If anyone, and that means you Rooster, say that one "needs" to be baptised in order to be "saved" (and we all know what "saved" means right?) then they are clearly going against what is stated in the Bible and in essence MAKING salvation a work not unlike circumsion. A work of the flesh, a work of the law AND NO PERSON is saved by such means NO ONE!

Any person can be save at any give point in their live including on their death bed before breathing their last breath, IF the BELIEVE in their HEART and CONFESS with their MOUTH Jesus Christ is Lord and God raise Him from the dead (in essence believing the gospel).

Rooster, no offense but this is also another problem I have with your denominational beliefs. The first is denial of the Trinity the second is denial of salvation by Faith ONLY.

I think rooster has a valid question guys. And I'd also be interested in hearing the responses.


Also, m.g. is repentance necessary for salvation? If you say yes, then you add to "faith" and fall victim to your own judgement above. If you say no, repentance is not necessary, then you have to virtually ignore much of the bible.

MG, I would expect no less of you my friend ;-) Do you ever read what I wrote? I quoted all of your apologetic hero's who believed in baptism for the remission of sin?!!?

Puzzled, good to see you my brother. Josh, I was on line all day at work and I can't do this at work w/out feeling guilty! So if I'm slow to your response that will be why. Thanks for your input!

mg: Any person can be save at any give point in their live including on their death bed before breathing their last breath, IF the BELIEVE in their HEART and CONFESS with their MOUTH Jesus Christ is Lord and God raise Him from the dead (in essence believing the gospel).

me: then 1) why didn't the believers in Samaria receive the Spirit after they had believed the gospel and been baptized in the name of the Lord?

2) Why wasn't Paul saved (his sins remitted) as soon as He spoke to our Lord and recieved the revelation that Jesus is God and Messiah? He certainly wasn't disbelieving, he wasn't rebellious, he didn't run from Jesus and deny Him. He obeyed him and went to see Annias who God told him, would tell him WHAT HE OUT TO DO. Annias doesn't have a whole lot to say except to tell Paul that the voice he heard was the God of their Fathers and TO GET BAPTIZED, WASHING AWAY HIS SIN! Why wasn't his sins gone prior to that??

Act 22:10 And I (PAUL) said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee TO DO.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

MG: Rooster, no offense but this is also another problem I have with your denominational beliefs. The first is denial of the Trinity the second is denial of salvation by Faith ONLY.

ME: MG, Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

...no offense taken. I am glad to have your aboard.

No offense but part of the problem I have with orthodoxy is their denial of monotheism in favor of a polytheistic model and their denial of baptism. But I digress...

Acts 8 (or for that matter Acts 22) Samaria, or Paul, repentant, believing but not saved. Samaria, no Spirit, Paul, no sins remitted until he's commanded to be baptized...

If Romans 10 is the plan of salvation, then how is it that the believers in Samaria believed in Jesus but didn't yet have the Spirit?

Because they hadn't recieved baptism by the holy spirit. They had been baptised with water, not with the holy spirit, two separate things Rooster.

If you want a really good study on baptism, you can check one out if you have time at http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/baptism.html

Josh