Petro said "This not rhetorical at all it is a dumb, question."

rhetorical -1 a : of, relating to, or concerned with rhetoric b : employed for rhetorical effect; especially : asked merely for effect with no answer expected <a rhetorical question>

Actually, I placed an answer "No" there just because whenever I did ask it, no one answered.  It is actually is rhetorical without the "No" since Christ does answer the question in the verse that all the "believers" who called upon the name of the Lord will not be saved.  These people believed the lie instead of the truth.  In their mind the lie was the truth .

2 Thess 2:10-11 and with all the deception of wickedness for those  who perish, because they did not receive the love of the  truth so as to be saved.   For this reason God will  send upon them a  deluding influence so that they will believe what  is false,  in order that they all may be judged  who did  not believe the truth, but took  pleasure in wickedness.

Since you thought the fits question was dumb then I have no dout you will feel the same about the next.  

If everyone who calls on the Lord will be saved, then why wasn't Phaorah saved?

Exodus 9: 27 Then Pharaoh sent for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, " I have sinned this time; the LORD is the righteous one, and I and my people are the wicked ones.

Ex 7:3 - "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

Romans 9:17-22  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR  THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT  THE WHOLE EARTH."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens  whom He desires.  You  will say to me then, "Why  does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O  man, who answers  back to God? The  thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for  honorable use and another for  common use?  What  if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience  vessels of wrath prepared  for destruction?

Who do the will of God? - the vessels of mercy who:

 Believe + Repent + Baptism (by immersion) = Saved.

Ro 8:30 - and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.(NAS)

Romans 8:30 - Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (KJV)

Reba said "To say the Democrate party supports abortion. Is simply a true statment."

But when you leave out half the facts, how can the statement be true?  The implication is that the Republicans do not support abortion. Isn't it also true that the Republican party also supports abortion?  

The Crusader said "I Quoted Petro"

Sorry, I stand corrected.

The Crusader said "unworthy servant, Having read your posts, on this thread, it sounds as though you knew the answer to the question you put forth, and simply wanted to aceentuate it, in a way, that would scold someone.  Maybe not..."

When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos, they knew the proper answer before they talked to him.  And they "explained to him the way of God more accurately."

Acts 18:24-26 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian  by birth, an  eloquent man, came to Ephesus;  and he was mighty in the Scriptures.  This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the  baptism of John;  and he  began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla  and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the  way of God more accurately.

I saw the topic which said "By grace you have been saved."  Jn said he was saved by grace and spiritual baptism.  Shouldn't the topic have said "By grace and spiritual baptism you have been saved."?

Now I have a question for you, the same one asked to Christ:  "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?"

Luke 13:23-30 And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,  "Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. "Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, `Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, `I do not know where you are from.'  "Then you will begin to say, `We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; and He will say, `I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.'  "In  that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.  "And they will  come from east and west and from north and south, and will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.  "And behold, some  are last who will be first and some are first who will be last."

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not  everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART  FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

So according, to Christ is EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord going to be saved?  No. (This one is a Rhetorical question)

Okay, let me get this straight.  First, you say you are saved by grace, then you say “No, I am saved by grace AND baptism of the holy spirit.”  (You must have forgotten to put 1 Peter 3:21 on your orginal list).  The Scriptures say there is one baptism and you say there are two:  the Baptism in the Holy Spirit which is the saving power; and  Baptism for a “public declaration” of  faith in Jesus (of which you never gave me chapter or verse to prove eithers existence – 2 Cor 13:1)

Now you say “To me, being saved by grace and being baptized in the Holy Spirit happen concurrently. When one accepts Jesus as savior, the Holy Spirit enters the heart – and WHAM! one is saved by grace.”

You said you received the Holy Spirit concurrently with your spiritual baptism and Christ received the Holy Spirit subsequent to His baptism.

(Concurrent:  happening at the same time; subsequent: following after. Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Matthew 3:16 - And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.

In fact, if you look at Acts 2:38-40, the Holy Spirit was received subsequent to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, not concurrently.  This cannot be your “public baptism”, since the men were asking “what shall we do?”:

Acts 2:38-40 - Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

You never mentioned anything about repentance, either. (That is not surprising since you forgot to mention the baptism of the holy spirit, also) Yet the apostles said the men had to repent and be baptised to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Since “and” is important to your “saved by grace and spiritual baptism” the word “and” must be just as important here, also.  Why?  Because the word “and “ is used to connect other words together, such as repentance and baptism. Repentance + Baptism = Saved.

(And:  used to indicate connection or addition esp, of items within the same class or type or join words or phrases of the same grammatical rank or function.- Merriam Webster)

If we look elsewhere where the word “and” is connecting words in the same thought to the word “saved” we go to:

Matt 16:15-16 - and he said to them, `Having gone to all the world, proclaim the good news to all the creation; he who hath believed, and hath been baptized, shall be saved; and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned.

Here the word “and” connects the words “Believes” and “Baptised”.  Believes + Baptised = Saved.

Mark 16:15-16     Believes + Baptised = Saved.
Acts 2:38-40      Repents + Baptised = Saved
1 Peter 3:21      Baptism = Saves

Reduced to common denominators,  we have how we are to be saved by Grace:

Believes + Repents + Baptised = Saved.

See JN, that is the advantage of using Scripture to prove Scripture.

Excuse, me but you said you were "saved by grace".  The verse I brought up says "baptism now saves you".  You said "I've been taught that the baptism in this verse refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit (as opposed to water)."

So instead of being "saved by grace" now you say according to 1 Peter 3:21 you are "saved by spiritual baptism"  Could you clarify this confusion?

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not  the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for  a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

JN said "I've been taught that the baptism in this verse refers to baptism in the Holy Spirit (as opposed to water)."

So you are saying that baptism of the Holy Spirit saves you?  So, if there is only one baptism, which you say, is by the Holy Spirit, . . .

Eph 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Then why were the imitators of Christ baptising in water? That makes two baptisms?  . . . one in water and one in the spirit. Isn't that a contradiction?

Acts 8:36-38  As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Could you explain this verse to me.  I know there are no contradictions in the Scriptures, since they are inspired by God, so why do the Scriptures say "baptism now saves you"?

1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not  the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for  a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

ebia stated "What on earth are you on about? You're very quick with your bible quotes, but you haven't stopped to explain what argument you are making."

Well, it should be very clear, but some people in the Scriptures had real problems with their eyes, ears, and understanding, so I will be clear.

Many chose to obey man over God and few chose to obey God over man.
I count mysellf with the few, Why don't you?

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

ebia asked "And your point is?"

If you chose to be a slave of Caesar that is your choice . . .

Ro 6:16 - Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

However, the apostles and I were bought with a price:

1Co 7:23 - You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

That is why we imitate the true Master:

Joh 10:27 - "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

When the body of Christ had a need for "maintainance" in the body, they didn't run to the pharisees nor to the romans to ask them to be the head of Christ so they could elect a board (of directors) to resolve the problem.  Instead, the righteous pulled righteous men from the congregation to resolve the problem.

Acts 6:3-5 "Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.  "But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."  The statement found approval with the whole congregation;  and they chose Stephen,  a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas,  a proselyte from Antioch.

I will take offense, however, at ANYONE who seems to feel superior in faith to myself because they "meet in someone's home" instead of a church building. Nor do I claim to be the most spiritually mature, however, arrogance over this matter is uncalled for. There is nothing wrong with holding church in a larger building. Praise the Lord that some places NEED larger buildings to accomadate all those who are seeking or being spiritually fed! And the fact of the matter is, no matter where you go in the USA there will be taxes. Property taxes, etc. Do you think the Lord cares if the church gets good enough treatment from the government today as to be able to avoid some of these taxes? Why not look upon this as a blessing. People, in America, have the privilege now of going to church and, as of now at least, the government supports it.

***First, please show me where anyone said meeting in a large building was bad.  However, spending God's money to make a "Crystal Cathedral", the "Vatican/Palace" at Rome, or any other smaller version in the multimilion dollar building price range.  That is nothing more than idol worship.

Second, the Scriptures indicate God is the head of Christ and Christ the head of the church.  No where does it say to make Caesar the head of Christ.  The pharisees thought is was good to allow the Romans to run thier synaguouge.

Joh 11:48 - "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

However, the Christians did not allow the Pharisees to rule (to be the head) of the body of Christ.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

I agree with the statement as well, that Christ's church is not an organization. It is an organism.

***And a human body is not organized?  I see a pair of legs that are organized with the feet, knees and hips.  I see a pairs of arms, organized with elbows and hands.  Pretty wonderfully organized to me.  I don't know what the Psalmist would be boasting about if one hand connected to the ankle.

Ps 139:14 - I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

Psalms 119 said "They are no longer governend by Biblical standards, but rather the message of the gospel is dictated by the government.(just look to our northern neighbors in Canada)"

Psalms 119 is thinking.  Good job.

Psalms 119 said "So in essence the True Church is not an organization. It is governed by Gods Laws not mens."

The problem is the modern church does not imitate Christ nor the teaching of Christ, instead they imitate the government.  

However, in Scripture, the body of Christ was "organized" to represent the human body, of which Christ was the head and God was the head of Christ.  You will also, notice that other parts of the body had no right to be separate from the body of Christ (Division/Factions), nor considered more important then any other part of the body.  However, if Pastor C. Lupus, Pastor Rep Tile or So-Called Christian brother came into the body (viruses) the other parts of the body had a duty to remove them from the body.

I will gladly show all Scripture to back up my paragraph, if requested, however, right now I don't have the time.

Okay, I see your point and mine is that we who know better should follow the biblical instructions and beseechings with regard to who we really are.

What we have, as you have aptly stated, is an organization filled with tares, apostates, and unbelievers who go about conducting religious services while many of the leaders are Sheep in Wolves clothing and false prophets.

It reminds me of where Paul said, "Are you of Apolllos, et.al." The modern church has come right along and done the very things the scriptures warn against us doing.

Thanks for participating in this discussion,

aw

aw, I tip my hat to you.  At least their are a few noble minded individuals on this forum who can look at the Scriptures and make a proper assessment and judgment of the error of the "modern" church and/or world.

aw said "I'm sorry, but I think you are missing the point by comparing the church to an "ORGANIZATION." We are not, but what we are is a "CALLED-OUT" body that is the visible expression of the Lord Jesus Christ in this earth."

Sorry, but I am not confused.  I understand that the Scriptures indicated the Elect are to be imitators of Christ and to be a body.  I am pointing out that the "modern church" is not an imitator of Christ, hence the points I raised.  The "modern church" is organized as a corporation which has a board of directors (shortened to "board").  They are a creation of the state since they follow all the guidelines from the state and not Scripture.  They also receive a tax break for following the guidelines of the state and not Scripture.  The "faithful" of the "modern church" expect to receive a benefit from both Caesar and God.  As I indicated, God has a rude surprise waiting for them.  However, had they read the Scriptures and applied them, it wouldn't be a surprise.