aim suggesting that baptism is baptism and they did it in water before and after the cross and it was done in Jesus name
And to say “ water baptism “ and then suggest it isnt the one baptism the Bible teaches us to partake of has absolutely no basis whatsoever
rhe relationship of the only baptism there is which happens to be done in water to salvation is this
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Mark 16:15-16 KJV
your saying “ water baptism has nothing to do with salvation “ I’m agreeing with the lords own words who states very clearly applicable to all creatures in tbe world “ anyone who believes the gospel and is baptized shall be saved “
my point to you is how many baptisms re there ? And were the apostles and philip practicing a false and irrelevant water baptism ? That has nothing to do with anything or is baptism baptism and happens to be done in water designed by God who sent John to baptize for remission of sins ?
what is baptism if it’s not what th y we’re doing in water and calling it baptism ?
why the need to create a different baptism what is it we rob dirt on ourselves and then we’re baptized ? Does someone say “ you’re baptized now “ alscazamm ! What’s baptism if it’s not water baptism that the church kept doing in scripture is all I’m asking you
there’s no reason to create an alternative to what is plainly written when we “ interpret “ and the. We end up trying to disprove those plain statements clearly showing us “ yes they were baptizing in water like Philip and Peter clearly did “ when we can’t accept that it’s not that we’re super spiritual and have super indeerrsndkng it’s because we’re too proud to accept any correction from scripture and change what we used to think
a there’s no shame in being corrected about anything when it’s clear hat we have misunderstood it’s actually a merit and strength to acknolwedge things we had wrong before makes us wise in the end
baptism is just baptism is what I’m suggesting it’s what people have been doing for two thousand years now you believe Jesus died for your sins and raise up to life so you get baptized in his name this does involve the “evil hated water , yeah “ but jesus sure never had a problem getting baptized in water infact he insisted upon it it seems like he would t be partaking of irrelevant matters and even insisting on it
abut it’s alright with me if you want to create a second baptism that replaces the biblical one I just though you might want to consider that the apostles and early church kept baptizing in water and said there’s just the one baptism no intent to argue with you just making a simple point I think you have wrong
And to say “ water baptism “ and then suggest it isnt the one baptism the Bible teaches us to partake of has absolutely no basis whatsoever
rhe relationship of the only baptism there is which happens to be done in water to salvation is this
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Mark 16:15-16 KJV
your saying “ water baptism has nothing to do with salvation “ I’m agreeing with the lords own words who states very clearly applicable to all creatures in tbe world “ anyone who believes the gospel and is baptized shall be saved “
my point to you is how many baptisms re there ? And were the apostles and philip practicing a false and irrelevant water baptism ? That has nothing to do with anything or is baptism baptism and happens to be done in water designed by God who sent John to baptize for remission of sins ?
what is baptism if it’s not what th y we’re doing in water and calling it baptism ?
why the need to create a different baptism what is it we rob dirt on ourselves and then we’re baptized ? Does someone say “ you’re baptized now “ alscazamm ! What’s baptism if it’s not water baptism that the church kept doing in scripture is all I’m asking you
there’s no reason to create an alternative to what is plainly written when we “ interpret “ and the. We end up trying to disprove those plain statements clearly showing us “ yes they were baptizing in water like Philip and Peter clearly did “ when we can’t accept that it’s not that we’re super spiritual and have super indeerrsndkng it’s because we’re too proud to accept any correction from scripture and change what we used to think
a there’s no shame in being corrected about anything when it’s clear hat we have misunderstood it’s actually a merit and strength to acknolwedge things we had wrong before makes us wise in the end
baptism is just baptism is what I’m suggesting it’s what people have been doing for two thousand years now you believe Jesus died for your sins and raise up to life so you get baptized in his name this does involve the “evil hated water , yeah “ but jesus sure never had a problem getting baptized in water infact he insisted upon it it seems like he would t be partaking of irrelevant matters and even insisting on it
abut it’s alright with me if you want to create a second baptism that replaces the biblical one I just though you might want to consider that the apostles and early church kept baptizing in water and said there’s just the one baptism no intent to argue with you just making a simple point I think you have wrong
-
1
- Show all
