Once you reply, if ever, we can go on to the necessity of baptism for salvation using just the Bible.
**Once you reply, if ever, we can go on to the necessity of baptism for salvation using just the Bible.**
You’re talking to the wall.
I’m ‘sola scriptura’, and I’ve taken those that think they are sola scriptura to task on water baptism. They claim to believe it all, but that baptism comes after salvation, thereby in their ignorance, they have unwittingly reworded scripture, such as Mark 16:16 to say this instead:
“He that is saved, shall believe and should be baptized (sprinkled, but not necessary)..” (the Calvinists)
“He that believeth is saved, and then should be baptized (sprinkled or immersion, but not necessary)..”. (many more of the Prods)
This is their rewording of Acts 2:38:
“He that is saved will repent and believe (the Spirit given by that point), and should be baptized..”. (Calvinists. They believe the Spirit is given at the moment the individual says that they believe in Jesus, which can preceed repentance, according to their predestination interpretations).
“He that repents, believes (receives the Spirit at this point), is saved, and should be baptized..”. (many more of the Prods)
But, to my knowledge, the EO, RCC, and the bulk of the Prods do not baptize in the name of Jesus, making the command void of the only name that can save.
Another part of the scripture that the Calvinists disregard:
Jesus Christ taught about the new birth, saying that when one receives the Spirit, there is a confirming sound: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou HEAREST the SOUND thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE..” (EVERYONE! Not just those on Pentecost) “..that is BORN of the SPIRIT”. John 3:8
The bulk of the prods run to the epistles to find their instruction for salvation, ignoring the introductions of those epistles, which salute the ‘saints’ that they were written to. This is the context: Those folks have already obeyed (believed) Acts 2:38.