Can't see the relevance of 2-3 witnesses.
Why could Jesus not condemn the adulteress woman?
Anyway.
Answer this question.
If today you do not speak in tongues are you not saved?
Yes or no please.
Saved by Water
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
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.
Why could Jesus not condemn the adulteress woman?
Anyway.
Answer this question.
If today you do not speak in tongues are you not saved?
Yes or no please.
My asinine comment is actually true.
If a person believes something that goes against scripture. The person is wrong and the scripture is right.
The gospel message that includes the need to believe, repent, be water baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost will continue until Christ returns. Jesus said the message would be preached in all nations beginning in Jerusalem. (Luke 24:47) And that message is alive and well today. However, not everyone believes what Jesus said.
Lastly, Paul's epistles were written to born again believers who had already obeyed the NT mandate. The letters mainly contain explanation of God's principles and instruction about what is considered Godly behavior.
Since our discussion has not been very fruitful I think it best to leave things where they are. I pray God will provide revelation to each of us as no progress can take place without it.
I am confident in what is stated in the KJV. And that does include the info about Peter telling them what to do. Many of the other translations distort the message.
I agreed they are necessary in the exact post you replied to.
Jesus would not condemn the adulteress woman because all of her accusers left.
No, it is quite asinine.
That's not what you said. Everything you post is wrong. It goes against Scripture.
Wrong again. Paul's answer to the jailer is how one gets saved. We see the exact same truth in John 3:16, 5;24 with 10:28, 6:40, 11:25-27, Acts 16:31, Rom 10:9, Gal 3:26.
How beautifully SIMPLE it must have been to be in the first believers group!
Having the apostles address the words that Jesus spoke to them firsthand.
Believing a man, made flesh is God!
By believing his death,burial and resurrection is freedom from sin.
NOT having man made interpretation and traditions to lean on.
Even Paul being an outsider to the apostles kept his teachings true to what Jesus spoke when instructing the gentiles.
Why can't WE simply stand on God's word w/o bringing in theologies of what MAN SAYS AS OPPOSED TO GOD WORDS?
Having the apostles address the words that Jesus spoke to them firsthand.
Believing a man, made flesh is God!
By believing his death,burial and resurrection is freedom from sin.
NOT having man made interpretation and traditions to lean on.
Even Paul being an outsider to the apostles kept his teachings true to what Jesus spoke when instructing the gentiles.
Why can't WE simply stand on God's word w/o bringing in theologies of what MAN SAYS AS OPPOSED TO GOD WORDS?
Why? The KJV was translated from manuscripts dated the 10th Century. Why do you trust newer manuscripts over the ones written MUCH CLOSER to the original autograph? That doesn't make sense.
How would the scribes who copied manuscripts in the 10th Century have more clarity than scribes who copied manuscripts that were within 100 yrs of the original manuscripts?
The problem is how people take clear words and mold them into their own agenda.
Paul speaking of not being sent to baptize, and glad he didn't baptize certain ones is in 1 Corinthians 1.
Interesting that you mention Paul teaching that certain ones had to be rebaptized in the name of our Lord.
That reiterates the actual message often misconstrued as trinity. Good job.
S
SophieT
Guest
actually I don't have an argument now then, do I. the factual evidence of your Oneness doctrine has been well documented by yourself
I have referenced many scriptures and refuted your false claims. when all else fails, when it becomes glaringly obvious of Wansvics inability to address scripture given to illustrate the Oneness error, he/she then claims questions have not been answered
that's just a bogus claim. as bogus as the Oneness doctrine you adhere to
I did one better. I presented scripture that quotes what Jesus said regarding baptism.
again, Oneness doctrine sprouted at the turn of the 20th C so your sect is way behind in historical authenticity
Answer the questions asked many times.
Do you believe in the trinity?
If you don't speak in tongues are you not saved?
Why are you avoiding the questions?
S
SophieT
Guest
Jesus said the following:
"I and my Father are one." John 10:29
"If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." John 10:37-38
Your comments show what I've stated about people not reading entire posts before responding. I answered your questions. If you are seriously interested you may want to check my posts.
I think the context of of Paul's interaction with the Corinthians sheds light on the relevance of his comments. He was clearly frustrated with those in that church that were placing significance in the person who baptized them. Paul was glad that not many could be doing that in regard to him. He reprimanded them by making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the only one who should be esteemed in connection with their water baptism was the one who was crucified for them; the Lord Jesus:Paul speaking of not being sent to baptize, and glad he didn't baptize certain ones is in 1 Corinthians 1.
Interesting that you mention Paul teaching that certain ones had to be rebaptized in the name of our Lord.
That reiterates the actual message often misconstrued as trinity. Good job.
1 Cor 1:11-15
"For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
I respectfully disagree that the Acts 10 record shows that a person is saved the moment they believe:
Notice what Peter was saying in verse 43 when the Holy Ghost fell on them. What does the group hear, believe. and obey in connection with the name of the Lord? See verses 47-48. What occurred is paralleled in Peter's message on the Day of Pentecost. Peter at that time stated everyone who believed in Jesus was to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin. (Acts 2:38) He also stated that the promise that included receiving the Holy Ghost was for all those the Lord would call. (Acts 2:39)
Acts 10:43-48
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...