the Script. teach water baptism is to a penitent believer is essential to salvation from alien sins.

And I hope we could have a part 2 of this debate. My rebuttals to round 2 This is quite easy. I am just amazed this person did not try to use the thief on the cross. Let us say I have 50 Million dollars. Let us again say I made a Last Will and Testament. In this Will, I leave all 50 Million dollars to my son, PROVIDED he reads the Bible every day for a year before he receives the money. Now, reading the Bible does not earn anyone 50 Million dollars. If it did, we would all be rich. But, it is a condition I set. Now, let us say sometime before I die, my son shows me the faith that comes from reading the Bible every day for much more than a year. I reach into the safe next to my deathbed and remove all 50 Million dollars. I try to put it in my son's hand, but a lawyer stops me. He tells me, "You cannot do that because of the Will you wrote. Would this not be ludicrous? While I am alive, I can do anything with that money I wish to do. This principle is demonstrated throughout the Bible, but the best known case is in Acts 5:1-10. While the money was in their hand, they had total control over it. But, let us look at the passage that contains the key to my opponent’s question. Hebrews 9:15-16, "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. " When Christ was still here on earth, He had the authority to forgive people of their sins. Look at Mark 2:9-12: Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven;' or to say, 'Arise, and take up your bed, and walk? 'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -- he said to the paralytic -- "I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house. " He arose, and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this! " Before Jesus died on the cross, He was free to change conditions of His New Testament in any way He chose. After His death, according to God, the Testament was in force. Once the Testament was in force, all stipulations and conditions contained therein will be fulfilled or the inheritance (salvation) will not be probated unto us. Response to Con's rebuttal on Round 2 Obedient Faith Here my opponent doesn’t get the picture of the argument; he even accused me of a red herring fallacy. And I think he did not read my whole opening argument. I said: “The truth is that the sinner is saved by a faith which acts. When Paul was justified by faith, he had peace with God (Rom. 5:1). But he did not have peace on the Damascus road when he was told to go into the city where it would be told him what he mustdo (Acts 9:6). He did not find peace immediately in the city when he would not eat or drink (Acts 9:9). He had peace with God when he obeyed the command to arise, be baptized, and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). Only after he was obedient in baptism did he arise, take food. and was strengthened (Acts 9:18-19). That is when he had peace with God; therefore, that is when he was justified by faith! Man is not justified by faith alone (Jas. 2:24-26). ” Get the point Reformedarsenal? To summarize my point, when you are justified by faith you have peace with God (Rom. 5:1). You have been saved. But how and when was Paul justified? When did he have peace with God? When did he see salvation? Did he see salvation by faith alone just as my opponent teaches? No. He had peace with God when he was baptized, when he obeyed! ! Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation) Here my opponent falsely accused me of having “a faulty understanding of Greek Grammar”. My opponent’s assertion on the Greek structure is not the whole picture. Greek word order is relaxed to some degree, but the word endings are more important. These endings are called the morphology of the words and they are critical. But this is at best a tangential point. The true issue is that each step in the path to salvation is a logical progression. For instance, Romans 10:17 states that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. So hearing the Word logically precedes believing it. Believing then logically precedes other actions because no one acts unless they believe there is at least some possibility of achieving the desired outcome. Romans 10:9-10 is powerful because it says that belief is unto righteousness. Verse 14 (and even 9-17 entire) addresses this logical progression. How can a man call on the Lord (which is a specific phrase with a specific meaning, but ultimately is a reference to the point of salvation) if He does not believe? Note that logically Paul places calling on the name of the Lord (which is the point one is saved, whatever calling on the name of the Lord means) after belief. My opponent must address the topic of salvation in the way he have because if he approach it conceptually (in other words, what does the Bible say about each of those steps to salvation rather than what "order" are they presented in any given sentence) it is devastating to their case. Faith must follow hearing. Confession of faith must follow faith. Belief, confession, and repentance are all to salvation (Romans 10:10; 2 Cor. 7:10). Therefore salvation comes after all of these others. Most importantly is how immersion is described in the NT. It is the point we die to the old man and rise up as the new creation (Rom. 6:3-5). It is the point we are born again and enter the kingdom, the church (John 3:3,5). It is when we obey from the heart that pattern of doctrine that we are made free from sin (Rom. 6:16-18), yielding ourselves to Christ through obedience. It is immersion that doth also now save us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 3:21) as an antitype of the Flood that destroyed the wickedness in the world and saved Noah and his family from that wickedness by a type of new Creation (1 Pet. 3:20). In every place, immersion is the pivotal point, the point of transition. According to 1 John 5:6,8, it is at the point of water immersion that we contact the blood. Once a person is immersed, then you teach them the rest and they are to go and sin no more (Matt. 28:19-20). For Remission of Sins - Acts 2:38 To avoid a supposed contradiction with the Bible truth my opponent says that the greek word “Eis” could mean “because of” and to support this assertion he misuses the scriptural truth by using Phil1:6 to establish the usage of greek eis in Acts 2:38. First of all no bible translator would put “because of” in Acts 2:38. This assertion of reformedarsenal has no base and support and also fallible. Second, Using Phil. 1:6 to establish the usage of the Greek eis in Acts 2:38 is flawed. The phrases are in no way parallel, neither in the English nor the Greek. Acts 2:38, eis aphesis hamartia (". .for the remission of sins. .") Phil. 1:6, En Humin eis Christos Iesous (“…is in you in Christ Jesus. .”) Refromedarsenal has ignored Matthew 26:28, which is an exact parallel in both English and Greek, in favour of Matthew 12:41. I wonder why? Acts 2:38, eis aphesis hamartia (". .for the remission of sins. .") Matthew 26:28, eis aphesis hamartia (". .for the remission of sins. .") If Acts 2:38 teaches that we are baptized because we already have received the remission of sins, then consistency demands that Matthew 26:28 teaches that Jesus' blood was shed because we already had the remission of sins. You can't have it both ways! Which will you concede to? Baptism is unto the remission of sins, or Jesus' blood was shed because we were already saved?