Instead, Desi, allow me to ask you a few questions.

What is repentance and what does it have to do with sin? Or does it have absolutely nothing to do with sin in your opinion?

1. What is repentance? To do a �?80�? to turn around, to change one’s mind or direction

2. What does it (repentance) have to do with sin?

Typically, the saying used with these terms together is �?U>repent from/of your sins�?as it is quoted from an unknown location in the bible. *(If this quote is in the NT, please post it, I have not found it, maybe out of oversight, or that it was not there) And the typical meaning of this unknown quote means �?U>turn away from your sins, to God.�?*(General meaning conveyed) Again there is NOT a quote from the NT as such, and the ‘meaning�?of such non-biblical quote, can be just as subjective to and from anyone who wishes to give a definition.   As if, a sin-tainted human being could ever hope to become ‘sinless,�?apart from the imputed righteousness that they have obtained from the Sinless Christ.

But the term “repent�?is used throughout the NT, and does hold the meaning of “to turn, to change direction, or one’s mind.�?And the connection of “repentance�?and the �?U>forgiveness of sin�?is made in 2 places, 1 that you made in acts 5:29-31, and the parallel passage *(context wise) is in Acts 26:15-18, and a joining of the passages (believe it or not) is in acts 2:38.

Acts 5:29-31 “But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.�?/SPAN>

Acts 26:15-18 "So I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 'But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'�?/SPAN>

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, (turn, change mind) and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (‘eis�?{because of}) the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.�?/SPAN>

From Acts alone we read that Christ has ‘given�?/U> forgiveness, Paul says he was send that the gentiles might receive that forgiveness, and Peter says “change your mind�?because of that offer to receive that forgiveness, personally!

If someone gives you any gift, unless you receive that gift, you do not have it, but it still offered as your none the less.  But the “repentance from one’s sin(s)�?is not stated in the NT, only the sin (singular) of unbelief.

John 6:28-29  “They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work (to do, labor) the works (business) of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work (business) of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.�?(namely Christ)

And from previous threads the bible defines “what sin is.�?/FONT>

John 16:7-9 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of (1) sin, and of (2) righteousness, and of (3) judgment: of (1) sin, because they do not believe in Me; of (2) righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of (3) judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.�?/SPAN>

Rom 14:23 “�?U>for (conclusion) whatever is not from faith is sin.

To me it is clear that the connection between repentance and sin is made in the verses I already provided. And it's a personal thing, not a denominational thing.

Now of course this is totally ejecting such passages in the NT that have a MAJOR bearing on the “forgiveness of sin issue.

Eph 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace�?/SPAN>

Eph 4:32 “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.

Col 1:14 “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.�?/FONT>

Col 2:13 “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,�?

Col 3:13 “bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.�?/FONT>

Heb 1:3 “who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,�?(notice by Himself, without our ‘help�?

1john 2:12 “I write to you, little children, Because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake.�?/FONT>

 

This is not denominational dogma, but the NT Teaching concering the beleiver's sins are concerned. *(not just the past ones) col 2:13 says, "ALL" or "...having forgiven you all trespasses," [until you sin again, at least]

Again "how many of our sins" were still in the future after the cross? ALL of them. unless you want to go down the road of Heb 9-10, and those are refered to having nothing to look forward to but to going to hell. The concerning of the 'final sacerfice' for sin. For without the shedding of blood there is NO REMISSION. you going to ask Christ to come back and get beat half to death , and then crusify Him all over again? (Heb 6&10)    i hope not.

Maybe you did not read:

 

Rom 3:10 "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands;

11 There is none who seeks after God.They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable;

12 There is none who does good, no, not one."

13 "Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips";

14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."

 

you do understand ALL are 'sinners' right? so you can place ALL in the Lu 5:32 - "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." reference.

 

 

2 thes 2:9-10 "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 

and 1tim 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

Knowledge of 'what' Truth? what 'repentance'? From one's unbelief in Christ, and trusting Him. (the sin part comes afterwards when we actually have a 'chance' dealing with our 'sins' with the indwelling Holy Spirit in us.)

Hi Desi -

 

I read what have said a few times, but I am not sure that I understand your position. So based on your reading of Acts 2:38:

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, (turn, change mind) and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for (‘eis�?{because of}) the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.�?/FONT>

It looks like you are saying because you first have forgiveness of sins, therefore repent and be baptized. Is this correct?

I am not sure where you arrive at the 'eis' {because of}, as I haven't seen any translation that uses this interpretation of the word for. I would argue "for" in this verse is used as "to obtain" ("eis" = "to") so... first, repent and be baptised, the result is to obtain remission of sins. The more dynamic translations explicitly come out and state this, for example the CEV reads:

Peter said, "Turn back to God! Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins will be forgiven.

In Christ,

Bill

I guess this does tie into the docrtine thats taught in "water baptism regeneration."

the basics is one has to be baptized in water to have their sins 'remissed' (removed washed away, ect...)  That is taught in many churches. But there is a couple of assumptions that go with that, 1) water baptism is 'part of the gospel'   2) the water 'washes away' our sins. 3) nessary for salvation. (part of '1')

 

but to try to stay focused on your question what does "For" mean in acts 2:38?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Desi, I admire your attempt at scholarship. But I think you might be deciding which use of eis is "because of" or "leading to, to acquire" not based on knowledge of the use in the Greek but instead on some other criteria, like a previous doctrinal preference.

In your endeavor to find the essence of the gospel and what is principally necessary for salvation you reject most of what it says. What I have learned is that all of it is essential without getting lost in what comes first or what is more important. It’s not a matter of subtracting what we might deem unnecessary but adding what Jesus said was part of the salvation experience.

Joh 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.

Mt 24:13 - But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mr 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mt 7:21 - Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Joh 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It all matters.

Hi Desi -

 

So I have it clear in my mind, what you are saying is:

Is this accurate?

not sure what that was all about in #14 but..

Joh 3:5 go to ---->john 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." notice the physical/ spirtuial contrast? (Vs. 4) "...Can he enter a second time into his mother`s womb, and be born?" (vs.7) Don`t marvel that I said to you, `You must be born anew' [above]. [Greek]

mat 24:13 read the verses BEFORE the 'one-liner'

(11)Many false prophets will arise, and will lead many astray. (12) [reason]Because iniquity will be multiplied, the love of many will grow cold. (13)[contrast] But he who endures to the end, the same will be saved.    NOT TO mention the entrie chapter is about the tribulation, not genral salvation.

Mk 16:16 {not in orginal texts} Greek texts fround dating earlier than the manuscripts used for KJV. Mark's gospel ends at vs. 9.

Mt 7:21 And this refernce to the 'baptism' subject is "why"? its taking about false prophet(ess.)

John 3:16, (again the baptism reference aludes me) "believes in Me" what? Death, burial, and resserection (1corth 15:1-4)? or just whatever? Its a lilttle vague on 'believes what'?

 

what are you tring to say blue? you believe water baptism is a "must" or what?

The Bible says, "there is 1 Lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism" and "that by 1 Spirit are we ALL baptized into 1 Body" (eph 4:5, 1corth 12:13) Christ said you wil be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and that John baptized with water. Acts 1.

 

Maybe we should start a water baptism thread, lol

 

bill ill have to write to you back, in a bit.

hiya bill. wanted to write back, concering to your questions for clairification. (thanks for asking by the way, it does help in one's understanding)

 

1) Jesus died for ALL sins at the cross for the saved and unsaved, past, present future.  This was a free gift to all.

---correct.

John 1:29 "On the next day, he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

1john 2:2 "And he [Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world."

rom 5:8-9 "But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..."

1pet 2:24 "who his own self bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed." ect.

Heb 9:26 "or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

 

Forgiveness is extended to all, but not all recieve the forgiveness offered. *(accept)

 

2)yes.

Forgiveness is accepted by the acceptance of the gospel. *(1corth 15:2-3) Believing that Christ died for us (personaly), indivuadualy. As in Post #6, Christ offers the forgiveness *(acts 5:29-31), and we turn to God *(repentance) from unbelief *{not sin's'} [acts 26:15-18] to recieve that forgiveness, and recieve the Spirtual baptism that gives us that forgiveness, and regenerated Life. *(acts 2:38)

 

3&4) really mix together, but yes.  I would reference to you a paper that i posted on another forum http://www.msnusers.com/ChristianDiscussion/Documents/1%20John%201%2C%209%20paper.doc  that has reference material on the subject.

But i have made the anology before "if after 4-5-6 years of marrage to my wife, and turn over onr morning asking her to 'marry me' would i be 'exercising faith' over the last 4-5-6 years, that we have been already married?"  No i would not be, but would rather be insulting her, with the full knowledge of the last 4-5-6 years together.

So asking Christ to 'forgive us' over and over is not believeing that "Christ actually took away my sins, but the sins of the entire world."

 

I try do not 'spin the cross' and say, "Christ died for some of my sins, and im responsible for the rest of them."  That flys in the face of "without the shedding of blood, there is NO forgiveness," (heb 9:22) Asking Christ to "forgive us again, and again, and again, and again." is asking Christ to climb up on a cross and spill more blood. THATS what hebrews 10 is all about for those who teach 'some stuff 'what is in another thread in this forum.

 

you did kind of had a 'slanted' question in #3, though, and i would also respond to "just because we can does not mean we should." BECAUSE of :

 

titus 2:11-12 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we would live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world;"

 

not the "Law of God" remember "the Law brings wrath"(rom 4:15) and the power of sin is in the LAw(1corth 15:56), and "we're not under the Law" (rom 6:14-15) and "There is now, NO comendation for those who are IN Christ" *(Rom. 8:1)

Look the paper over in the link above for specifics for 'we confess to get forgiven.' instead of "confessing (Agreeing) that we ARE forgiven"

#16

not sure what that was all about in #14

#14 was about a few things Jesus said that were pertinent to salvation=eternal life=entering the kingdom of God=entering the kingdom of heaven. But I already knew you're not sure what that was all about.

but..

Joh 3:5 go to ---->john 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." notice the physical/ spirtuial contrast? (Vs. 4) "...Can he enter a second time into his mother`s womb, and be born?" (vs.7) Don`t marvel that I said to you, `You must be born anew' [above]. [Greek]

mat 24:13 read the verses BEFORE the 'one-liner'

LOL, Desi, one-liners is all you comments elicit.

(11)Many false prophets will arise, and will lead many astray. (12) [reason]Because iniquity will be multiplied, the love of many will grow cold. (13)[contrast] But he who endures to the end, the same will be saved. NOT TO mention the entrie chapter is about the tribulation, not genral salvation.

Let’s examine your statement logically. If it is only during tribulation that people must endure in order to be saved then the requirements for salvation are not equal for all people. Your one-liner gospel is then inadequate to save everyone since by Jesus words endurance is necessary for the salvation of those you say experience the tribulation.

On the other hand, the context speaks of things that transpire from the very beginning of the church age to the return of Christ up to and including the tribulation. This being the case the end is relative to those he warned at the time. The end they were to endure to for those that heard Him say those words would be the end of their lives. And their endurance was to remain faithful to the gospel in all its aspects.

I don’t know about you but the other hand seems much more logical to me.

Mk 16:16 {not in orginal texts} Greek texts fround dating earlier than the manuscripts used for KJV. Mark's gospel ends at vs. 9.

Mt 7:21 And this refernce to the 'baptism' subject is "why"? its taking about false prophet(ess.)

John 3:16, (again the baptism reference aludes me) "believes in Me" what? Death, burial, and resserection (1corth 15:1-4)? or just whatever? Its a lilttle vague on 'believes what'?

So then you believe that the KJV has been tampered with and is unreliable as the word of God? That sounds a little Muslim or Mormon to me.

The fact of the matter is that Mk 16:10 and on is in other manuscripts that although they may not be earlier copies could have been accurate copies of manuscripts earlier that the parchment copies that survived much longer than the originals though copied later possibly form fragments when the church enjoyed affluence to be able to use parchment.

Hmmm, that sounded like one of your paragraphs.

what are you tring to say blue? you believe water baptism is a "must" or what?

The Bible says, "there is 1 Lord, 1 faith, 1 baptism" and "that by 1 Spirit are we ALL baptized into 1 Body" (eph 4:5, 1corth 12:13) Christ said you wil be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and that John baptized with water. Acts 1.

It’s not me trying to say anything, Desi. I was just sharing what is written in respects Jesus�?words pertinent to salvation which you appear to dismiss.

Imagine Jesus telling the apostles and subsequent generation of preachers to baptize in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and you saying, "no thanks, it’s not necessary". Oh wait a minute, we don’t have to imagine. You did say that.

Maybe we should start a water baptism thread, lol

No need, Desi, we both already know what you would contribute, LOL.

 

The same blue, from another thread. if you dont actually want to discuss thing, but throw mud, then it thats 2 to 'tango.' So i'll walk from that. but IF you actually want to discuss things then we can. if all you want to do is trash talk, then thats fine. But im sure the other SDA would have a problem with your 'fine example of the SDA world.'

 

 

If you want ill post the entire chapter, but was being considerate in that water baptsim has ZERO beaing of this thread topic. 

 

 

My "one-liner" gospel is Paul declaring with the Holy Spirit , By direct commandment by the Lord *(1corth 14:37) of WHAT is the gospel, ---ACCORDENING TO THE SCRIPTURES--- (by the way) not just 4 verses, but as declared by the entire OT. but i guess that IS a 'one-liner' is it not?

Again you err in the assumption that Jesus is talking about "Eternal Salvation" in vs. 13, but is gives the context *(that dirty word) for the subject matter. False prohet-(ess) will come, and things will get worse, and those who 'endure' will "Survive," not ALL believers will survive the tribulation, but the term is "delivered" not eternal *(or temporal) salvation from hell. Big differance with context, i know.   but oh well.

 

 

to you? well if you believe the KJV came down from heaven in england in 1611, then you do have that right, but i would have to respectfully disagree. Any serious bible studant  should know that a "TRANSLATION" by difination in not the orgional text. Duh. You do understand that the OT was in hebrew, and the NT was in Greek, not 17th century English? We have the Greek manuscripts to try/ test any and ALL TRANSLATIONS from the KJV, NIV, NASV, KJB, CIA and whatever.

 

And that ALL TRANSLATIONS are subject to the orgionals, not the orgionals are subject to the TRANSLATIONS. I would hope that would be a basic concept.

And the OLDER MANUSCRIPTES *(written closer to the orgionals) than "Later" manuscripts, are more "Reliable" do to the point they were written / copied CLOSER than those that were written LATER, again go figure.

 

But with such vague difinations now a days like "eternal" means "temporal" and 'Translation' means "orgionals," anything is possible, i guess. But i dont believe that Enstins theroy of reilitivity applies to "hard terms of defiining things." but it could in a relative world, i guess.

It’s not me trying to say anything, Desi. I was just sharing what is written in respects Jesus�?words pertinent to salvation which you appear to dismiss.

Imagine Jesus telling the apostles and subsequent generation of preachers to baptize in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and you saying, "no thanks, it’s not necessary". Oh wait a minute, we don’t have to imagine. You did say that.

Again Show me from the bible, not EGW, where water baptism is nessary for salvation. The Bible says, "There is 1 faith, 1 Lord, 1 Baptism", and the Bible says,"by (not in) 1 Spirit are we ALL baptized into 1 boby" and Christ says, "John baptized with water but YOU WILL BE baptized by the Holy Spirit, in a few days from now. And the Bible says, "I was not sent to baptize, but was sent to 'preach the gospel'." How can paul then say "baptism is part of the gospel," if he says he wasnt sent to do such but to preach 'WHATEVER the gospel is', and excludes water baptism?

LOGICALLY If paul says " i was sent to preach whatever the gospel is," BUT NOT TO baptize people, either paul is a hipocrite, OR dosent know his gospel, that he later referes as  "the Gospel by which you are saved, accordenly to the scriptures." (1corth 15:1-4) OR Water baptism IS NOT part of the gospel but is done by believers as a RESULT of being saved, *(er...cant say that) .

Now if you want to throw mud you can, but it make no sence to me. but if you want to talk, then we can.

The same blue, from another thread. if you dont actually want to discuss thing, but throw mud, then it thats 2 to 'tango.' So i'll walk from that. but IF you actually want to discuss things then we can. if all you want to do is trash talk, then thats fine. But im sure the other SDA would have a problem with your 'fine example of the SDA world.'

Let get one thing straight here, Desi, in these discussions I represent only myself, not the good people of the "SDA world". Anything I might say in not necessarily supported by this station or its sponsors.

And I would actually like to discuss things with you. So please point out the mud I slung so that I might avoid it in the future.

LOL, Desi, one-liners is all you comments elicit.

If you want ill post the entire chapter, but was being considerate in that water baptsim has ZERO beaing of this thread topic.

Sure, post the whole scriptural thing. Just leave your comment out and I'll probably agree to the whole thing.

If it is only during tribulation that people must endure in order to be saved then the requirements for salvation are not equal for all people. Your one-liner gospel is then inadequate to save everyone since by Jesus words endurance is necessary for the salvation of those you say experience the tribulation........And their endurance was to remain faithful to the gospel in all its aspects. *(which are defined as???)

I gave you a short list in message 14. Things like doing the will of the father (which, based on the context, is not anomia.)

My "one-liner" gospel is Paul declaring with the Holy Spirit , By direct commandment by the Lord *(1corth 14:37) of WHAT is the gospel, ---ACCORDENING TO THE SCRIPTURES--- (by the way) not just 4 verses, but as declared by the entire OT. but i guess that IS a 'one-liner' is it not?

Ok it's not a one-liner, it's a four-liner. Is it compatible with all scripture? Yes of course. I've always said so. Is it all there is that can be said to be the gospel? No. God preached the Gospel to Abraham and it didn't include what is written is 1 Cor 15.

We're going in circles Desi.

Again you err in the assumption that Jesus is talking about "Eternal Salvation" in vs. 13, but is gives the context *(that dirty word) for the subject matter. False prohet-(ess) will come, and things will get worse, and those who 'endure' will "Survive," not ALL believers will survive the tribulation, but the term is "delivered" not eternal *(or temporal) salvation from hell. Big differance with context, i know. but oh well.

Hmmm, are you saying that some some salvation is not eternal? That vaguely sound like something an old friend of mine might says. You might know him by the nickname of retmsgt666. He says that saved is not salvation.

But I wonder, is the salvation that happens at the very end to those that experince the tribulation less eternal than that salvation that happens to us now when we accept Jesus as our personal savior?  I'll have to think about that; in context of course.

So then you believe that the KJV has been tampered with and is unreliable as the word of God? That sounds a little Muslim or Mormon to me.

to you? well if you believe the KJV came down from heaven in england in 1611, then you do have that right, but i would have to respectfully disagree. Any serious bible studant should know that a "TRANSLATION" by difination in not the orgional text. Duh. You do understand that the OT was in hebrew, and the NT was in Greek, not 17th century English? We have the Greek manuscripts to try/ test any and ALL TRANSLATIONS from the KJV, NIV, NASV, KJB, CIA and whatever.

Respectfully disagree? Hmmm. That's what the "duh" is for? Again you insinuate that I am not a serious bible student. Why, because we disagree and you are the epitome of serious bible students.  I respectfully disagree, duh.

And that ALL TRANSLATIONS are subject to the orgionals, not the orgionals are subject to the TRANSLATIONS. I would hope that would be a basic concept.

And the OLDER MANUSCRIPTES *(written closer to the orgionals) than "Later" manuscripts, are more "Reliable" do to the point they were written / copied CLOSER than those that were written LATER, again go figure.

The orignals don't exist. All we have are copies that may or may not have been precisely copied as was the OT by the Massorites. What we do have are a few parchments that are indeed the older copies but any "serious bible studant" knows that these parchments have more discrepancies between them than the many and geographically widely spread paperus manuscripts have between them. I would rather believe, and this is purely personal, that testimony of many who say the same thing than the two or three rich guys who's stories don't jive.

The older parchments were probably copied during the time when the church began to enjoy affluence in the fourth century. By then, many uncsriptural traditions had infiltrated the pure apostolic doctrines. Not having the originals, we have to decide what is more reliable. I already told you the criteria I use. In that respects, the KJV isn't that bad a translation.  But I read them all.

But with such vague difinations now a days like "eternal" means "temporal" and 'Translation' means "orgionals," anything is possible, i guess. But i dont believe that Enstins theroy of reilitivity applies to "hard terms of defiining things." but it could in a relative world, i guess.

Do you now wish to discuss relativity in a religious group?

It’s not me trying to say anything, Desi. I was just sharing what is written in respects Jesus�?words pertinent to salvation which you appear to dismiss.

Imagine Jesus telling the apostles and subsequent generation of preachers to baptize in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and you saying, "no thanks, it’s not necessary". Oh wait a minute, we don’t have to imagine. You did say that.

Again Show me from the bible, not EGW, where water baptism is nessary for salvation. The Bible says, "There is 1 faith, 1 Lord, 1 Baptism", and the Bible says,"by (not in) 1 Spirit are we ALL baptized into 1 boby" and Christ says, "John baptized with water but YOU WILL BE baptized by the Holy Spirit, in a few days from now. And the Bible says, "I was not sent to baptize, but was sent to 'preach the gospel'." How can paul then say "baptism is part of the gospel," if he says he wasnt sent to do such but to preach 'WHATEVER the gospel is', and excludes water baptism?

I have never used EGW to prove anything, Desi. And it's of a concern that you keep bringing that up since it seems a not so veiled rebuke against all SDA's.  As a matter of fact, no one is shoving EGW down your throat. Why are you gagging?

I'm not saying that baptism saves. Baptism is an act of faith in Christ. Jesus saves the one that has the faith to get baptized, Mr 16:16. Jesus told the disciples to teach everything that Christ had commanded them and to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy ghost. If you don't want to participate because you individually decided it's not necessary, that's your choice.

By the way, Paul was not the only apostle and Paul's epistle are not all there is to the NT. And, they are the ones Peter said had hard things to understand which the unstable wrest to their own destruction.

LOGICALLY If paul says " i was sent to preach whatever the gospel is," BUT NOT TO baptize people, either paul is a hipocrite, OR dosent know his gospel, that he later referes as "the Gospel by which you are saved, accordenly to the scriptures." (1corth 15:1-4) OR Water baptism IS NOT part of the gospel but is done by believers as a RESULT of being saved, *(er...cant say that) .

Like I said, Desi, we needen't get bogged down by sequence. But if you need to, your right, once you're saved, it is expected that you do get baptized. But you made it sound like it was something that if you do it was against faith.

Were you baptized?

Now if you want to throw mud you can, but it make no sence to me. but if you want to talk, then we can.

I respond in kind, Desi. And hey, we're talking.