We don't know that...It doesn't say...But other verses in the scripture pretty much let us know...
At least twice in the New Testament, faith/belief preceded baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; Acts 18:8);
...at least twice, the message was received first, and baptism ensued (Acts 2:41; 8:37)
...and 3-4 times people received the Holy Spirit, and THEN were baptized (Acts 10:47; 11:16-17; 9:5-6, 17-18;)
I'm trying to make sense of your criticism here...You seem to agree that baptsim is always after repentance/belief...And that's exactly what I have been saying...In addition, it's the belief that gets you saved, not the baptism...
But then when you get beyond the milk of the word, you can learn that the true baptism is immersion in Jesus, not water...
.. Jesus told Saul to be baptized and THEN call on His Name (Acts 22:16)
You are mistaken and that embarrasses me...
Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me,
Paul knew who the Lord was and he submitted himself to the Lord's will before he regained his sight and was baptized...In other words, Paul became a believer, first...
...and 3-4 times whole households were baptized simultaneously even when perhaps ONLY the parents expressed faith -- as these baptisms likely included children and perhaps infants (1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:14-15, 33)...making this family dynamic less individualistically 'decisions for Christ' than you'd like to present it;
Perhaps and likely don't cut it...Perhaps Jesus was a rock star afterall...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
This person's entire family got preached to, obviously believed as they were told (and of course that would exclude anyone who was too young to understand ) and then they were saved...
You can't add perhaps and likely to the scriptures and come away with the truth...Just as you can't add the perpetual virginity of Mary and come away with the truth...
REPENT and be baptized...
Listen: two entire families were baptized in Acts 16, and your "perhaps & likely" assumption that all were of a certain age just doesn't cut it. You can't add perhaps and likely to the scriptures -- that these family members were of a given age -- and come away with the truth...
Note your comment didn't even address Lydia's family -- only the Philippian jailers. "Perhaps" Lydia's family was of a given age doesn't cut it. Or, Lydia's family was "likely" to be of some responsive age. Where do you find that in Acts 16:14-15? (Or do you use the Magic 8-ball Commentary & insert that into the text?)
Why do you assume that when Acts 16:14 very clearly and specifically says that "The Lord opened HER heart" -- not her family's heart or "their" hearts.
You can't add into Scripture the plural word "hearts" when it's not there (Acts 16:14-15). And you can't guess, "Oh, the Lord must have opened their hearts, too -- right all at the exact same time."
Just as you can't add the perpetual virginity of Mary and come away with the truth...
(I don't...not Catholic)
REPENT and be baptized...
Yes...and a promise of which children are not to be excluded, says Acts 2: 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."
So you saved yourself?
YOU were saved on such & such a day when
YOU decided that
YOUR belief would be something passing muster with God? Who gets the glory & credit there? (An awful lot of YOUs and YOURs in that system)
(Let's face it: Even a confession of belief is 100% the Holy Spirit...No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" -- 1 Cor. 12:3...My point is that it's Somebody Else who's inside of us -- the Holy Spirit the Prompter -- and Somebody Else who transcends us -- Jesus Christ the Savior -- who saves us. I'm sure you meant more than that, but you make it sound like checklist Christianity...believe this & that, and you're saved).
Besides, what did Jesus say?
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved... (Mark 16:16)
If belief was all that was required, Jesus would have stopped right there. Now I know the rest of the verse makes it clear, as does the unbaptized thief on the cross, that God can and does work around baptism in keeping people from condemnation. So I don't ignore that, either. You can't interpret Mark 16:16 to say Jesus belittled or dissed baptism by ranking it of no importance...which, BTW, you keep doing.
Since you were ignorant of Matthew 28:18-20 -- which is the very commission upon which worldwide disciple-making is based, it doesn't surprise me to see you diss baptism in other ways as well.
You: You are mistaken and that embarrasses me...Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Paul knew who the Lord was and he submitted himself to the Lord's will before he regained his sight and was baptized...In other words, Paul became a believer, first...8" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked.
Well, knowing who the Lord is and actually having a living relationship are two different things. James said that the demons believe -- and tremble.
Here's the problem: You hint that I took Acts 22:16 out of context by not recognizing the already existing Lord-Saul relationship in Acts 22:10 -- all just because Saul called Him, "Lord."
But if you're going to cite context, please cite the entire context -- Acts 22:8: "'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied.
In other words, the Saul you are elevating as having this "relationship with the Lord" has only seconds before been labeled by Jesus Christ a persecutor of Him -- and His body. (Surely, you know Jesus' words about not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord...").
Frankly, if Saul the persecutor of Christians -- if Saul who later called himself the "chief of sinners" was already all fine and hunky-dory in a "Lord-subject/servant relationship" -- except, of course, for some "minor corrective course" -- then I don't think Jesus would have needed to come and present Himself personally and address Him the way He did.