*according to the creeds.That is three Lords, and we are forbidden by catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords.
*according to the creeds.That is three Lords, and we are forbidden by catholic doctrine to say that there are three Lords.
I don't recall you posting anything worth addressing. What was your answer in regards to the effectual call vs. the general call?I addressed your argument; why didn't you answer what I said about it after you posted your so-called "refutation"?
Faith in the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. Not faith in water baptism.'faith in the operation of God" (Colossians 2:12)
Peter said receiving the Holy Ghost was promised to those who believed and obeyed his entire message. (Acts 2:2-42) Scripture reveals that some receive the Holy Ghost before being water baptized, and others after being water baptized. (Acts 8:12-18, 19:1-7) What is revealed in all conversion experiences is the need to believe in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, repentance, obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin, and being indwelt with the Holy Ghost.Wrong.
According to Acts 2:38-39, baptism in Jesus' Name is the condition to the fulfilling of a promise of remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Did not realize you were so sensitive and not everything you posted has been very Christ-like. Things are bound to get a bit heated at times in these types of discussions.Nope.
And calling me "delusional" is not very Christ-like.
If I had a mind to do it, I could report your post and you would be disciplined for it.
Yes, water baptism is the operation of God, in context; for the beginning of the verse (Colossians 2:12) says "Buried with Him in baptism".Faith in the operation of God, who raised him from the dead. Not faith in water baptism.
You should be more specific. Because if you cannot be specific about what is un-Christ-like about my posts, then I think that you are just trying to make a general statement that cannot be disputed for that there is no frame of reference to determined whether or not the behaviour was Christ-like or not; it cannot be judged because the specifics have not been mentioned.Did not realize you were so sensitive and not everything you posted has been very Christ-like. Things are bound to get a bit heated at times in these types of discussions.
post #102 (https://christianchat.com/threads/water-baptism-in-jesus-name.211048/post-5081356).I don't recall you posting anything worth addressing. What was your answer in regards to the effectual call vs. the general call?
here is a not Christ like post the implication is totally out of lineGet 'er Holy Ghost.
Water baptism is merely the picture of the reality. Spirit baptism is the reality. You ignored the circumcision made without hands in context. You are absolutely obsessed with water baptism.Yes, water baptism is the operation of God, in context; for the beginning of the verse (Colossians 2:12) says "Buried with Him in baptism".
BlasphemyLord bless you.
Of course he cannot do what he threatened. I prayed that my doctrine would have free course and be glorified, even as it is with me.
You write: "these verses do not say what you are saying"Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
these verses do not say what you are saying
The cross is the point of forgiveness of sin. Faith is the place it is applied.You write: "these verses do not say what you are saying"
I disagree.
It seems that this is clearly what it is saying.
The verses are stating that water baptism is the point of the forgiveness of sins.
If this is not what these verses are saying then what message are they conveying?
"Water baptism is merely the picture of the reality."Water baptism is merely the picture of the reality. Spirit baptism is the reality. You ignored the circumcision made without hands in context. You are absolutely obsessed with water baptism.
The cross is the point of forgiveness of sin. Faith is the place it is applied.
When you come to texts of scripture that taken at face value are incompatible, how do you reconcile them?The scriptures presented in the defense of water baptism being the moment of the forgiveness of sins is accurate.
Your words are simply generic terms and lack textual authority.
God sent His Son to die in my place. I will be damned to think my actions are unto His salvation . God sent the perfect Lamb to the Cross shed His blood for the remission of sins . I will never put getting dunked in a river on the same , or as some here, above the Blood of Jesus. We are saved byYou write: "these verses do not say what you are saying"
I disagree.
It seems that this is clearly what it is saying.
The verses are stating that water baptism is the point of the forgiveness of sins.
If this is not what these verses are saying then what message are they conveying?
Why would you write such a thing and not present the "texts of scripture" that you believe are "incompatible"?When you come to texts of scripture that taken at face value are incompatible, how do you reconcile them?
Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith. You are saying Acts 2:39 says we are saved in baptism. How do you reconcile the 2?Why would you write such a thing and not present the "texts of scripture" that you believe are "incompatible"?