[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by boaz212

Thanks everyone for responding to my question. It's clear to me now when Paul got saved which the time when he called out Lord the second time knowing it was Jesus.
As far as Ananias telling Paul Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, I am still search for the answer.
Tony, I have not studied the NT in the dispensational view you had presented. It will take some more time for me to continue reading and praying for understanding before I am sure how to interpret the dispensations more scripturally. I appreciate your detailed explanation. I will be reading this thread a few more times through in the near future.
Thank you all.

Brother, if you study the OT and Matthew, and the commissions, both prior to the crucifixion and after the resurrection, and understand that we are a parentheses, and just let everything fall into place, you'll get the same joy from study that I do.

Paul was saved under, and the gospel preached to him was that of Matthew 24 and 28, Mark 16 and Acts 2, and the revelation of the mystery of the Body of Christ was given him by direct revelation of Jesus Christ. There's a lot of confusion over Ananais's statement to Paul of washing away his sins in water baptism, and it means just what it says. Paul was baptized under the apostolic water baptism of Acts 2 and when it says "for" the remission of sins it means just that: for the remission of sins.

Let Paul be what he claimed to be: a wise masterbuilder, let him be the prince of the apostles that Christ made him. Let him be the custodian of the 3 Biblical dispensations(not Scofield's "seven"): The transition from the kingdom gospel that was put on hold(Rom. 11), the gospel of grace through Christ crucified for all, Jew and Gentiles alike, and the first writer to the Jews in the Tribulation.

Grace and peace brother, it takes study, it won;t come all at once, but most of all belief.

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Fredoheaven

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

In Acts 9 is the event that made him a believer whereas, Acts 22 to be noted is telling his testimony concerning his conversion. Paul was already been saved by virtue of what happened in Acts 9 and accordingly, he was already saved when Annanias baptized him.

In Acts 22, there were some records in Paul's Testimony that seem in contradictory in Acts 9. One of it is the "voice" being heard in 9:7 and no "voice" being heard in 22:9. Then the problem of being baptized, and washed away thy sins (22:16) whereas in Acts 9, Paul was saved and was baptized.

Let me have my best guess in this particular text of 22:16.

1. The use of "AND" of 22:16
AND

To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Tashonda sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."
To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."
To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but in this usage): "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.
To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage): "Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."
To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally (usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards frequently and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."
To suggest a kind of "comment" on the first clause: "Charlie became addicted to gambling — and that surprised no one who knew him."

"Arise and be baptized" would meant Paul to submit to baptism as a result of his conversion and to symbolized what had Christ did unto him.
"And wash away thy sins" this might be the result of Paul calling on the Lord.

I hope this will help but I beleive many brethren will come out answering your question in a more clearer way. God bless you!!!

Brother, as KJV believers we frequently rise to the occasion when someone tries to "go to the Greek" to correct what the English says, but when confronted with the clear statements that crosses our denominational beliefs, we are guilty of the same thing: twisting the English. Why can't we not "guess" and just let the word of God say what it says? When Peter said water baptism in Acts 2 was "for" the remission of sins, it meant just what it said, for the remission of sins. That was the commandment of Mark 16. That was the commandment given to Paul and when Ananias said to wash away his sins that's exactly what the man meant, that's exactly what Paul, a Pharisee and Hebrew of the Hebrews, understood. Paul's baptism is not our baptism(I Cor. 12:13)because there were signs following Paul's baptism(his sight restored).

There is no "where unto", "because of", "for to", "beknownst upon", in Acts 2 or 9: the KJV translators knew what Peter said and meant, why don't we? Why do we deplore "correcting the English with the Greek" and then do the same to redefine English?

Why do we condemn Covenant/Reformed theology and then practice it?

Grace and peace brother Fred, my "guessing" days are over.

Tony

[Fredoheaven]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Brother, as KJV believers we frequently rise to the occasion when someone tries to "go to the Greek" to correct what the English says, but when confronted with the clear statements that crosses our denominational beliefs, we are guilty of the same thing: twisting the English. Why can't we not "guess" and just let the word of God say what it says? When Peter said water baptism in Acts 2 was "for" the remission of sins, it meant just what it said, for the remission of sins. That was the commandment of Mark 16. That was the commandment given to Paul and when Ananias said to wash away his sins that's exactly what the man meant, that's exactly what Paul, a Pharisee and Hebrew of the Hebrews, understood. Paul's baptism is not our baptism(I Cor. 12:13)because there were signs following Paul's baptism(his sight restored).

There is no "where unto", "because of", "for to", "beknownst upon", in Acts 2 or 9: the KJV translators knew what Peter said and meant, why don't we? Why do we deplore "correcting the English with the Greek" and then do the same to redefine English?

Why do we condemn Covenant/Reformed theology and then practice it?

Grace and peace brother Fred, my "guessing" days are over.

Tony

Thanks bro. Tony, still learning your mother tongue English. Great input here. I must end my best guess on my comments. I have to live and believe what the Word of God said to me and not what others say. I have to practice what I preach and I believe that's what I learned from you.