I believed the gospel and repented on December 15, 2002. A week later I went and bought a bible and began reading it. It was almost a year later, in November of 2003, that I submitted to baptism. I knew nothing about Christianity, having been an arrogant atheist for years. I became engaged and eventually married a Baptist girl whose dad was a music leader. I remember him distinctly asking me almost a year after I called upon the name of the Lord, "so when are you going to be baptized?". I remember thinking, yes I do need to be baptized! I'm thankful to him for asking me that question. I remember my baptism, and although it was in a Baptist denomination that believes it's an outward sign, etc., I remember coming up out of the water and hearing the gush and noise of the water crashing back down in the pool beneath me. Although for years I believed it to be an "outward sign" because of what I was taught, I've never forgotten the sound of my sins and old life being washed away in that moment. I've since come to believe as you teach, that water baptism is an act of obedience but also where the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit are applied. Thank you for this series, brother.
Well done. This is so perfectly aligned with the word. How can an argument be made against baptism when it is so clearly written all over the book of Acts and throughout the word with Jesus being the authority, because He is the word who put on flesh. He knows what He means and says it repeatedly. Baptizing them in the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Arguments made against the word just don’t hold water.
Romans 10:9-10 says: "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." These verses describe belief as the requirement for salvation under Christ; the belief found in John 3:15 and 16. There is no mention of water baptism anywhere around Romans 10. 1 Peter 3:21 supports the concept of water baptism = "outward expression of an inward work that is or has already taken place". This is the only way to account for thief on the cross, others in the gospels who were saved without water baptism, Cornelius in Acts, and many others today who are saved without getting to the physical water baptism component either because of their faith or impractical (death bed confessions, etc).
In ROM 10:12-13 Calling on the name of the Lord is distinct from believing. It is synonymous with confession unto salvation in vs 9-10. Vs 13-15 (approx) show that faith comes before "calling on name of the Lord", which in Acts 2 & Acts 22:16 is connected with water baptism. Not debating this interpretation, just clarifying so you know why I was making that connection. I made a case for my interpretation in an earlier video: ua-cam.com/video/wGXjU9wDiUY/v-deo.htmlsi=2nQuGNzgwWhmcyAo Gbu!
@@KingdomTheologyTV I don't know. I'm not so convinced that there is that much distinction between believing (faith) and calling upon the name of the Lord at least for the context of believe and faith that one finds in John 3:15, John 3:16, and even the first part of Romans 10:10 which states: "For with the heart one believes and is justified". To most people, justified = saved and faith, but then Romans 10:13 says: For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” So which is it? Is one saved when they believe and have faith? or are they saved only after they call upon the name of the Lord as well? To your point, Romans 10:14 does say: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" which seems to suggest here that they must first believe before calling upon the name of the Lord. But then when one reads the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the same verse, the context of believe here seems not one of faith as in John 3:15, 16 and Romans 10 but rather the context of accepting a few facts that they were made aware of which then makes sense for them to afterwards call upon the name of the Lord to then be saved. As for your Acts references, Acts 2 does not directly associate calling upon the name of the Lord with water baptism and Acts 22:16 does but then why would anyone expect otherwise at any water baptism or many other situations? (rhetorical).
I believed the gospel and repented on December 15, 2002. A week later I went and bought a bible and began reading it. It was almost a year later, in November of 2003, that I submitted to baptism. I knew nothing about Christianity, having been an arrogant atheist for years. I became engaged and eventually married a Baptist girl whose dad was a music leader. I remember him distinctly asking me almost a year after I called upon the name of the Lord, "so when are you going to be baptized?". I remember thinking, yes I do need to be baptized! I'm thankful to him for asking me that question. I remember my baptism, and although it was in a Baptist denomination that believes it's an outward sign, etc., I remember coming up out of the water and hearing the gush and noise of the water crashing back down in the pool beneath me. Although for years I believed it to be an "outward sign" because of what I was taught, I've never forgotten the sound of my sins and old life being washed away in that moment. I've since come to believe as you teach, that water baptism is an act of obedience but also where the forgiveness of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit are applied. Thank you for this series, brother.
Well done. This is so perfectly aligned with the word. How can an argument be made against baptism when it is so clearly written all over the book of Acts and throughout the word with Jesus being the authority, because He is the word who put on flesh. He knows what He means and says it repeatedly. Baptizing them in the Father Son and Holy Spirit.
Arguments made against the word just don’t hold water.
Romans 10:9-10 says: "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."
These verses describe belief as the requirement for salvation under Christ; the belief found in John 3:15 and 16. There is no mention of water baptism anywhere around Romans 10. 1 Peter 3:21 supports the concept of water baptism = "outward expression of an inward work that is or has already taken place". This is the only way to account for thief on the cross, others in the gospels who were saved without water baptism, Cornelius in Acts, and many others today who are saved without getting to the physical water baptism component either because of their faith or impractical (death bed confessions, etc).
In ROM 10:12-13 Calling on the name of the Lord is distinct from believing. It is synonymous with confession unto salvation in vs 9-10. Vs 13-15 (approx) show that faith comes before "calling on name of the Lord", which in Acts 2 & Acts 22:16 is connected with water baptism.
Not debating this interpretation, just clarifying so you know why I was making that connection. I made a case for my interpretation in an earlier video:
ua-cam.com/video/wGXjU9wDiUY/v-deo.htmlsi=2nQuGNzgwWhmcyAo
Gbu!
@@KingdomTheologyTV I don't know. I'm not so convinced that there is that much distinction between believing (faith) and calling upon the name of the Lord at least for the context of believe and faith that one finds in John 3:15, John 3:16, and even the first part of Romans 10:10 which states: "For with the heart one believes and is justified". To most people, justified = saved and faith, but then Romans 10:13 says: For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
So which is it? Is one saved when they believe and have faith? or are they saved only after they call upon the name of the Lord as well?
To your point, Romans 10:14 does say:
"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"
which seems to suggest here that they must first believe before calling upon the name of the Lord. But then when one reads the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the same verse, the context of believe here seems not one of faith as in John 3:15, 16 and Romans 10 but rather the context of accepting a few facts that they were made aware of which then makes sense for them to afterwards call upon the name of the Lord to then be saved.
As for your Acts references, Acts 2 does not directly associate calling upon the name of the Lord with water baptism and Acts 22:16 does but then why would anyone expect otherwise at any water baptism or many other situations? (rhetorical).