Baptist and Baptism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
p_rehbein said:
A wee bit too Jewish Legalism for me........leaving out the "o" in God...........

If y'all feel that strongly about it.........call Him what He called Himself "I Am." Oh, no, wait, Christ also called Himself "I Am." Guess that would mess y'all up a wee bit?

:)

Abba, Father, God, Jesus Christ, I Am, Jehovah Jireh.................. perfectly acceptable names to call God as far as I am concerned. He is ONLY CONCERNED that we do so with love for Him in my opinion.............

But, hey, if that makes folks happy (leaving the "o" out) then that's cool with me. However, for someone to pretend that they are more respectful towards The Lord God to leave out the "o" is more than a wee bit being full of themselves in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Amen.....like that makes them more holy or something...Paul, Peter and even Jesus <--all JEWS USED THE TERMS FOR GOD......it is ridiculous to believe that leaving out the "o" when using the GENERIC NAME FOR GOD is upholding some sort of spiritual code or creedance.......it is rather ridiculous....
 
The thief on the cross was being put to death for murder and thievery...He was identified with Barabbas which was in the same boat as the two thieves that were crucified with Jesus....No murderer hath eternal life dwelling in him.......the thief was not saved and or immersed when he went to the cross....this can be deduced from ALL ACCOUNTS in the gospels....not only is it adding to scripture to say he was immersed, it is also putting the OX BEFORE THE CART.......it is interesting to me how many will add to scriptute in order to peddle a false gospel or to support their false view!!
 
Sipsey said:
We

Preston39,77

I studied he origins a few years back and did not remember baptism being considered “necessary “ for salvation by Baptist teachings. I just went back and restudied the issue going back to the early formation of its variants in the early 1600’s. There were some early adherents that “may” have taught that, but they never were in the majority and were a splintered group. I don’t know what variation of Baptist church you attended in the 60’s, but their beliefs pertaining to baptism were not the norm within mainstream Baptist church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Magenta said:
Spinning? No, I am trying to reason with you. If water baptism was a requirement for salvation, then the thief was not saved and you call Jesus a liar. You can try to dictate my participation, but you are not my boss, and I thank God for that :)
Click to expand...

end of discussion. You are a spinner...I did not call anyone a liar.
 
posthuman said:
if you can't understand what you read, or if you reject the plain very thing you asked for, there's not much sense in me continuing with you.
Click to expand...

not that that means i won't continue anyway. just that i don't always act rationally, and i don't like the idea of giving up on someone. that's sad.
 
preston39 said:
end of discussion. You are a spinner...I did not call anyone a liar.
Click to expand...

she was using a logical analysis to show what the implications of the idea of baptismal regeneration are for the thief on the cross, not actually accusing you. i doubt she assumed you had actually thought that implication through, concluded it to be blasphemous, and accepted it. rather, that you had not, and i assume she is trying to show you why the example of the thief on the cross is so famously given as an argument against baptismal generation, in hopes to persuade you. it is given often, because it is a powerful argument.
 
posthuman said:
she was using a logical analysis to show what the implications of the idea of baptismal regeneration are for the thief on the cross, not actually accusing you. i doubt she assumed you had actually thought that implication through, concluded it to be blasphemous, and accepted it. rather, that you had not, and i assume she is trying to show you why the example of the thief on the cross is so famously given as an argument against baptismal generation, in hopes to persuade you. it is given often, because it is a powerful argument.
Click to expand...
Thank you, posthuman :)
 
Robertt said:
so if they unsaved, what were they doing preaching the message, going out healing people. und

cool so unsaved people were sent out by Jesus to go preach the gospel.
Luke 10:1 (KJV)
1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

Matthew 10:5-8 (KJV)
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Amazing what unsaved people can do

Also what about the thief on the cross
Luke 23:42-43 (KJV)
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

When was he Baptised in the holy spirit so he could enter paradise.
Click to expand...

Yes they preached that The Kingdom was at hand .. Meaning that the Kingdom was near.. Not that the Kingdom has already established.. And the Holy Spirit did perform miracles through them.. But the Gospel Kingdom was not established untill the Holy Spirit came down on the day of penticost and made them all temples of the Holy Spirit..

When was he Baptised in the holy spirit so he could enter paradise.
Click to expand...

Well you could ask when where any of the OT prophets and devout Jews Baptised in the Holy Spirit? I would say it was imputed to them after Jesus was executed on the cross and said "it is finished" ...
 
preston39 said:
A high respectful reference to G-d is a old long standing Hebrew contribution to protection of His most high name....in case of miss use. Google... why o is left out of G-d.
Click to expand...

No it is has nothing to do with respecting God at all.. It is a tradition of men, derived from the traditions of the Jews.. Never was it based on any Torah teachings.. It is actually showing disrespect to not call someone by their acceptable title or name..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
Adstar said:
No it is has nothing to do with respecting God at all.. It is a tradition of men, derived from the traditions of the Jews.. Never was it based on any Torah teachings.. It is actually showing disrespect to not call someone by their acceptable title or name..
Click to expand...

I would add, when Jesus taught the pattern for prayer He also told His deciples that they could call God by an even more personal name, ABBA or Father, a very endearing term.
 
So, if God declares us saved, redeemed, sanctified, justified, washed in the blood of the Lamb, and we willfully sin, you think He snatches all that back?’; and says, “I made a mistake.” Or more likely, will experience chastisement here, and loss of rewards? It’s one or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
dcontroversal said:
Amen.....like that makes them more holy or something...Paul, Peter and even Jesus <--all JEWS USED THE TERMS FOR GOD......it is ridiculous to believe that leaving out the "o" when using the GENERIC NAME FOR GOD is upholding some sort of spiritual code or creedance.......it is rather ridiculous....
Click to expand...

In your book...of which no one knows. (did you mean credence?)
dcontroversal said:
The thief on the cross was being put to death for murder and thievery...He was identified with Barabbas which was in the same boat as the two thieves that were crucified with Jesus....No murderer hath eternal life dwelling in him.......the thief was not saved and or immersed when he went to the cross....this can be deduced from ALL ACCOUNTS in the gospels....not only is it adding to scripture to say he was immersed, it is also putting the OX BEFORE THE CART.......it is interesting to me how many will add to scriptute in order to peddle a false gospel or to support their false view!!
Click to expand...
dcontroversal said:
We already know he misunderstands much.....
Click to expand...

You are a leftist...I see....typical of those , when they have no defense of position they attack.
You are disagreeing with G-d's word....not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back