Addressing this one first because it's on the actual topic (Yes, I know Im the one who caused a secondary tangent).Regarding this "change of heart", are you referring to regeneration, as in a "new heart", or simply changing the mind, which is the Greek meaning of the word??
I was using "change of heart" as meaning "reversal of intention".
But you also know that RM has that problem. And being aware that he doesn't always see the details, you knowingly, passively allowed him to continue to misinterpret "Jesus' baptism" to mean "water baptism in Jesus' name"...when you COULD have easily told him you meant "when Jesus was water baptized by John". That kind of tactic is what the serpent did to Eve when he said "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4) in answer to Eve's statement of "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Gen. 3:3) The serpent likewise knew that Eve was misinterpreting what God said (she added "neither shall ye touch it"). And he COULD have easily told her what God actually said/meant... but instead he (too) knowingly, passively allowed her to continue in her misconception to her own destruction.I correct when I come across errors. I don't "subvert" the Bible or other posters.
And since you have made this charge, would you kindly provide actual evidence to support your charge. Rm has a huge problem with understanding words, it seems.
At no point did he actually LIE to her. He just left out enough truth to allow her to fail. That's subversion of truth (IMHO).
Definition of subvert
1: to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : RUIN
2: to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith
Source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subvert
I understand that verse. And regardless of whether or not I fit your definition of commentator, why rely on commentators (aka MAN)? Why not just ask God what it means? Does he not promise that the Holy Ghost will teach us all things?His whole doctrine of requiring water baptism to be in the resurrection is based on a verse that no commentator even understands. There are no historical records to explain the practice of proxy baptism.
I would disagree with that doctrine. I would also disagree that it is beyond nuts. If the commentators don't have a great grasp of understanding, why the unnecessary slam of RM's understanding? Why not just call it "wrong"? And that's more of a rhetorical question. I'd just as soon leave RM's interpretation to RM on that one, since he's not here talking about it.Yet, Rm continues to think that a dead person can be proxy baptized so they will be in the resurrection. That is beyond nuts.
Love in Jesus,
Kelby