Scott Wilson

The Flaw of Substitution vs the Cross of Jesus Christ youtube.com/watch?v=RtigS1… #bible #penalsubstitution #exposed #gospel #deception #falseteachers #wolves #falsegospel #endtimes

@clowndownunder Not a sexualised image at all. Great influence for the youth.

Please note that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s post should feature the attached image. That minor error aside, congratulations to Delta, who did Australia incredibly proud on the world stage 🇦🇺

@TylerRatcliff17 In my 50s and I still jump out. Not a realistic video.

Getting old sucks🤣🤣

@SwordMasterPub Neither is the cross.

@TennesseAussie NT baptism is never referred to as a type. Not once in scripture.

You say we are saved by faith without baptism. Paul says we are saved by faith because of baptism (Gal 3:26:27). You are not the same.

@elonmusk The ability to watch and analyse videos.

Please list the most important features to improve, fix or add in the replies below:

Try this early Grok Build (anything) beta and let us know what to improve. Much appreciated!

Water baptism is clearly a type just like physical circumcision and the cross. If water baptism were required for the forgiveness of sin, the New Testament would state it as a clear condition. It does not. Condemnation is always tied to unbelief (Mark 16:16; John 3:18, 36). Ought a new believer be water baptised. Yes! Just as Abraham ought have been circumcised when commanded. Abraham was justified by his faith, not the act of circumcision, likewise a Christian is justified by their faith, not water baptism.

@TennesseAussie So you aren't going to comment on the errors you made, just gonna keep on going?

Here is another parallel: 1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. The literal blood of Jesus typifies the Spirit (ie. life is in the blood, life is of the Spirit). The cleansing is through the quickening apart from literal water baptism.

You still misunderstand. The “water” typifies the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit which we receive resultany of the “answer of a good conscience towards God.“ The water surrounding Noah purified the world of wickedness. Likewise the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ (Rom 8:2 - Eph 2:5 quickening) purifies us of sin. Look at this parallel: Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Notice no allusion to water baptism, rather “draw near with a true heart” through which the sprinkling and washing occur. Literal water just typifies a spiritual cleansing, it is not the agent itself.

You misunderstand what Peter is talking about. Look at the context: 1Pe 3:20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1. God is patient and wants people to repent and come to a knowledge of the truth. 2. Thus WE SUFFER unjustly to shame (by our good conduct) those who speak evil of us. 3. Christ also suffered unjustly that He might bring the unjust to God. 4. Jesus being put to death in the flesh but being made alive in the Spirit was the means by which He preached unto the spirits in prison (those that are disobedient). 5. God is longsuffering towards the disobedient giving them time to repent (like when Noah prepared the Ark). 6. The flood and Ark example is a “like figure” to water baptism which is ANOTHER FIGURE that points to something. 7. What do the figures point to? FAITH! Noah had faith and those who get baptised have faith. 8. What is faith? It is the answer of a good conscience towards God. A yielded and trusting heart. 9. The yielded and trusting heart will put on the mind of Christ and therefore “have ceased from sin” no longer living according to the lusts of men. THAT is what Peter is clearly teaching and it matches James, John and Paul’s teachings. To pick out 1Pe 3:21 and use it as a proof text for baptismal regeneration is foolish. You have to ignore the entire context and the verse itself to do that. You obviously do that with Romans 6:4-5 as well where Paul is actually speaking of the baptism of repentance (where we die to our old rebellious life) not a physical ordinance.

@TennesseAussie If 1 Peter 3:21 is not about water baptism then the comparison to the waters of the flood make zero sense. It totally breaks the type-antitype relationship.

You are proof texting a single verse and adding rhetoric to it. 1st Peter is not about water baptism, that verse is Peter utilising a picture to teach a spiritual truth. Peter writes in chapter 1: 1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. Obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love which he then associates with the new birth. Water baptism is not even mentioned. Why? Because Peter is not talking about “salvation through literal water baptism.” He is speaking of a holy life (ie. moral conduct) through obedience to the truth. Pe 1:14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. He later associates being “dead to sin” by associating our former life with His death that we live unto righteousness, following His example. 1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: 1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1Pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. Then in 1Pe 3:16 he speaks of how we will suffer unjustly for righteousness sake that we might shame our persecutors (and bring them to God). Peter then connects that thought to Jesus suffering once for sins that He might bring us to God (1Pe 3:18). Peter specifically refers to “death in the flesh” but “quickened (made alive) by the Spirit.” (1Pe 3:18). This death and quickening was the means by which Jesus preached to those in prison (1Pe 3:19) to which THEN Peter speaks of the flood of Noah’s day as being the like FIGURE of baptism (ie. ANOTHER FIGURE) which is illustrating the “answer of a good conscience towards God” (1Pe 3:21). Peter then immediately goes on to connect ”putting on the mind of Christ” with the ”cessation of sin“ (1Pe 4:1) and “no longer living the rest of outle time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God” (1Pe 4:2). Peter’s whole emphasis is on a changed mind, a death to the old and being raised up into the new through obedience to the truth through the Spirit. No emphasis on water baptism whatsoever, only an allusion to a “like figure” which points to the “answer of a good conscience.” That’s the clear context. Alluding to one verse by ignoring the context and reading into it some doctrine is an erroneous action. Again, the danger is you have to support the idea that people come to God in their rebellion, old man alive, still serving sin because you are forced to connect the end of that rebellion to some magic or work of God during the rite. You eliminate godly sorrow working repentance unto salvation from the Gospel.

This is eigesis. You have concluded water baptism does nothing and then read that into the text. Peter gives us Noah and his family, 8 souls saved dia (by the means of, through the agency of) water. In other words, the water saved them. Then he declares that the antitupos of the Flood, baptism, saves. We know this is water baptism because it is tied to the flood. So Peter declares that water immersion, the antitype of the flood, does also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the antitype being pointed to by the Flood. Peter explicitly declares this. He further clarifies that this isn't a simple bath, or even a Jewish ritual removing external filth, but is the epirotema, that answer to that which is demanded by a good conscience, that penitent heart you are talking about. A man can have a good conscience and not be saved. See Paul for an exmaple (Acts 23:1). But when he turns from sin and towards God in faith, he makes that appeal to God to save him by doing what God commanded him to do to be saved. Your objection ultimately amounts to being saved by rejecting what God commanded you to do to be saved and doing it your own way.

Furthermore, we don’t “make an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Peter doesn’t say that in his letter like you claim: 1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The “answer of a good conscience toward God” is something we do, not something we appeal to God for. You have it backwards and it is not surprising considering you have someone whom is “alive to” and still “serving sin“ going to get baptised somehow thinking that that action will somehow change them from being rebellious to faithful. The answer of a good conscience toward God (ie. a result of the “clearing” in 2Cor 7:11) is what brings salvation because the soil has been made good and is thus able to receive the implanted Word, receive the Spirit of life. Water baptism doesn’t purify the conscience, the Spirit of God does through obedience to truth. We turn to God broken and cry out seeking mercy having emptied ourselves of guile. God responds by quickening us. The dynamic is simply “by grace through faith” NOT any kind of water ordinance. Water baptism is a picture, a type, a shadow, an instructional tool, an opportunity for expression etc. Water baptism is NOT that which it points to, which is the new life IN Christ having died to our old life in Adam.

Paul used the term “Lord” as a mark of respect. He didn’t even know who he was talking to the first time he used the word. Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. He then uses the term “Lord” again as a mark of respect and obviously as a recognition of authority due to seeking instruction. Act 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. That is not the same as “calling upon the name of the Lord” to be saved (ie. Rom 10:13). Paul still did not understand the New Covenant and had most certainly not entered into it yet. What contradicts scripture is disassociating “repentance” from “no longer serving sin.” When you ignore the whole counsel of scripture in favour of some pet doctrine you are forced to ignore your own inconsistent logic. Paul taught: Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. “Obedience from the heart” is clearly an act of the will. The same with “whom we yield to.“ Freedom from sin is clearly connected to a change in heart allegiance. What bring that about? Paul explains it as godly sorrow and succinctly elaborates on the effect: 2Co 7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2Co 7:11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. Godly sorrow working repentance produced the allegiance change. The Prodigal Son “came to himself” in the pig pen and changed his allegiance. Serving sin ended. When you take that dynamic and rip it away from repentance and associate it with a literal ordinance you destroy that dynamic and unwittingly support false conversions due to people being led to believe that real change and the literal water are associated. Water baptism becomes the priority as opposed to the death of the old man in repentance. It’s a sad fact and even sadder you cannot see it.

Yes, of course Paul had to have his sins washed away. Not through “water baptism” but through “calling upon the name of the Lord” and entering into the New Covenant. He had not done that yet. He was currently a Pharisee being corrected. The "wash away thy sins" is connected to "calling on the name of the Lord" NOT with the ordinance of water baptism. Act 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, Ananias was inviting Paul to come to the Lord and water baptism was a means by which he could first exercise his faith in a tangible way. He had been shocked on the road by Jesus confronting him and he still would have been confused when meeting with Ananias, he wasn't a Christian yet, again, he was a Pharisee being corrected. He still had to call upon the name of the Lord, put his old life on Jesus, and be raised up into newness of life through the Spirit. The same Paul who experienced this is the same Paul who would later write Romans, Colossians and Ephesian’s where he would connect baptism to the end of one’s old life of serving sin. Paul clearly recognised the difference between the antitype (literal water) and the washing wrought by the Spirit. He would associate the “buried in baptism” to the cessation of serving sin, clearly an allusion to genuine repentance. Whom we serve is not connected to a physical ordinance but is connected to a heart change. One of the major problems you have by placing “dying to sin” as a result of the literal ordinance is that you have unrepentant rebels being baptised with the baptism itself somehow ending the rebellion. Jesus preached repentance FIRST, not water baptism. Godly sorrow works repentance NOT water baptism like you teach. A rebel going into the water, their old man alive, still obeying sin, is not going to magically change allegiance because they get wet. If that was the case then the priority would be on getting everyone water baptised and you do not see that anywhere in the New Testament. The priority is to forsake evil and turn to God. The message of Paul was: ”…that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.“ It’s repent and be baptised, not get baptised to cause your repentance. That is backwards and unbiblical.

@TennesseAussie No, you gave me a rambling explanation of your belief on baptism, but I didn't see a yes or no to my question. Did Paul still have his sins. Answer yes or now and then explain so your answer is clear. If you can't, then I'll just ignore you and the conversation is over.

Again, none of those verses say anything about the genetic propagation of sin. You are acting like a Protestant who will point to 2Cor 5:21 in saying it points to a legal swap when it doesn’t. You cannot quote a single verse from the Bible which states sin is propagated from parent to child. Sin is moral, it is not transferable. Murder, theft and idolatry are rooted in the exercise of a choice, not genetics or birth origin. 1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Paul is not speaking of Original Sin anymore than he is speaking of universal salvation. He is speaking by way of example, action and power: 1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. By Adam sin manifested. By Jesus the resurrection of the dead manifested. Yet somehow you proof text it to support the notion that sin is genetically propagated. The verse says no such thing. Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Do babies speak? Do babies really speak and tells lies as soon as they are born? That’s hyperbole, an exaggerated use of language to give vividness to a subject. Read the whole chapter. The Psalmist is speaking of judgment of the wicked not of genetic propagation. He is saying that the wicked are estranged from their youth speaking lies, bearing poison, refusing the counsel of God. Go read it for yourself. The rest of your proof texts are the same. Your starting point is your doctrine, not God’s revelation. That’s why you bend the scriptures to fit your presupposition instead of allowing God’s revelation to inform you. No different to the typical Protestant.

@TennesseAussie 1 Cor 15:22 Psalm 58:3 Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23 Ephis 2:3

The difference between Catholics and many Protestants is this; Some Protestants believe that once a person accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, that alone guarantees eternal salvation forever. Catholics, however, believe that following Christ is a lifelong journey of faith, obedience, grace, and perseverance. We believe in; - Believing in Christ in our heart - Confessing Him with our mouth - Keeping His commandments - Living faith through works of love - Receiving Baptism - Receiving the Holy Eucharist - His Body and Blood - Repenting when we fall - Remaining faithful until the end The Catholic understanding of salvation is not that we "earn" Heaven by our own power. Salvation is entirely by God’s grace. But we must COOPERATE with that grace and remain in Christ. That is why Jesus said; “He who endures to the end will be saved.” - Matthew 24:13» So if someone asks me as a Catholic, "Are you saved?" I would say: I was saved. I am being saved. And I hope to be saved as I remain faithful to Christ until the end. Because salvation is not just a one-time moment. It is a lifelong walk with Christ.

@Xtopher_Uzo Joh 9:34  They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

@TennesseAussie Go and understand that verse very well. Good luck 👍

Psalm 51:5 does not teach Original Sin. Psa 51:5  Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.  I was born in a hospital, a hospital was not born in me. The Bible clearly teaches how sin works: Jas 1:14  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.  Jas 1:15  Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.  We see that occurring with Eve in Genesis 3: Gen 3:6  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.  Eve was drawn away and enticed by her own lust, sin was brought forth and that sin brought forth death. That's what the Bible teaches. Eve didn't need some genetically propagated Original Sin for that to occur and neither do we. God even told Cain to rule over sin. Gen 4:7  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  Likewise the Apostle Paul tells us to do likewise: Rom 6:12  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.  Psalm 51:5 does not say anything about the genetic propagation of a thing called "sin" from parent to child. It's simply David alluding to the fact that he was born into a wicked world. Sin has to do with choice and so does righteousness. That is why we are responsible. Original Sin shifts the blame.

@TennesseAussie Psalm 51:5 Go and read it

Protestantism and Catholicism both operate within a framework of error. Thus they are "oppositions of science falsely so called." 1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1Ti 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. youtube.com/watch?v=nAarlM…

@SwordMasterPub I did answer yours. If you didn't see that I did I must assume you didn't actually read my response. That would be telling.

@TennesseAussie The answer to your question is "in the water of baptism". Will you please answer mine?

Water is the antitype to the "answer of a good conscience toward God" (ie. FAITH). 1Pe 3:20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  1Pe 3:21  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:  See how Peter associates baptism with the "putting away of the filth of the flesh" which matches EXACTLY what Paul teaches in Romans 6 (ie. no longer serve sin). The answer of a good conscience towards God (faith) is what brings the true change, not participation in a water ordinance. The antitype of water baptism points to the real thing in the same way that physical circumcision pointed to the circumcision of the heart. That's why Paul would connect the two in Colossians. Col 2:11  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:  Col 2:12  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Did Paul still have sins to wash away when Ananias came to him and called him brother? If so, why did Ananias tell Paul to arise and be baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? Could Ananias have meant brother in the sense that they were both Jews by nationality rather than spiritually?

The "wash away thy sins" is connected to "calling on the name of the Lord" NOT with the ordinance of water baptism. Act 22:16  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, Ananias was inviting Paul to come to the Lord and water baptism was a means by which he could first exercise his faith in a tangible way. He had been shocked on the road by Jesus confronting him and he still would have been confused when meeting with Ananias, he wasn't a Christian yet, he was a Pharisee being corrected. He still had to call upon the name of the Lord, put his old life on Jesus, and be raised up into newness of life through the Spirit. The counsel of scripture says: Act_2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom_10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Not "call upon Jesus" + "water baptism." Sure one can "call upon Jesus" at the same time they are water baptised but the two are not synonymous. Ananias was telling Paul to call on the name of the Lord and water baptism is an emblematic expression of doing that very thing, it is not the thing itself. We put our old life and thinking (old man) upon Jesus and where WE put to death and WE put on the life of Jesus Christ through faith (ie. repentance of dead works and faith towards God) wherein God then quickens us (Eph 2:5). By putting the "death of the old man" and "no longer serving sin" as not occurring until one goes through the ordinance of water baptism it undermines genuine repentance. Think about it using common sense. The Apostle Paul would be in rebellion, obeying and serving sin, his old man alive, BEFORE he gets wet and somehow some magic is going to occur in the water wherein the rebellion end would end? That's false teaching. The rebellion ends in repentance which is why the Bible says "repentance for remission." Those whom confess and forsake their sins find mercy (Proverbs 28:13). We point towards water baptism as an exercise of faith, as an emblem signifying entering into the New Covenant through repentance and faith. Water baptism is NOT repentance and faith any more than physical circumcision was for the Israelites.