water baptism in Jesus' Name.

  • 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.
mailmandan said:
If John 3:16 meant those who truly believe in Him merely "might not perish and merely might have eternal life," then that would contradict John 3:18 which clearly reads "is not condemned" and NOT "might not be condemned."
Click to expand...
The person who believes "is not condemned" in the present tense.

The 2nd type of soil in the parable of the sower, "believes for a while and then falls away"...

does not continue to be free of condemnation afterwards.

Baptism does in fact seal the deal so that it can be said that you "shall be saved"....an absolute promise...

Which is better than the iffy "should not perish" of John 3:16.
 
mailmandan said:
Exactly. The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

11:7 - By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Noah and his family were saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark.
Click to expand...
So, you appear to be attempting to say that baptism in water condemns rather than saves you...

I will only say that such is an ultimate heresy.
 
mailmandan said:
water salvationists
Click to expand...
A misnomer.

Baptism is an identification with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection; and has nothing to do with the water; other than the fact that water is the most expedient way of symbolizing being buried and risen with Christ.
 
mailmandan said:
Exactly. The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE.
In contrast, ONLY the wicked in Noah's day came in contact with the water and they all perished.

11:7 - By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared
an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the
righteousness which is according to faith. Noah and his family were saved by the ark “through (via)
water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark.
Click to expand...
When the Hebrew people were baptized into Moses, not one person got wet then, either.

They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank
the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Ephesians4-5-6s.png

Ephesians 4:5-6
 
  • Like
Reactions: Everlasting-Grace, mailmandan, Ted01 and 2 others
I am growing tired...and therefore I am going to let what I have already said speak for itself.

I may comment in the future on certain statements...

But for now I am growing weary and I think that it is expedient to allow the reader to remember things that I have said when the same arguments are brought up yet again: they can go back to the posts where I addressed those arguments. They can even remember what I said about them if they have been reading the whole of the thread in its entirety.
 
heartwashed said:
I certainly don't hate you...

but you are the one who called me "dude" and someone also called me "wacked out"...was that you?

And certain other people are constantly putting "x's" on my posts.
Click to expand...
Putting an 'x' on your post is not "hating" you; it's disagreeing with your post, or part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Everlasting-Grace
Decided to dredge up the answering post.

heartwashed said:
Yes indeed.

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); the Father (John 4:23-24), the Son (John 4:24; Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12), and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5); the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

There is one God (Ephesians 4:6); the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6, James 3:9 (kjv)), the Son (Hebrews 1:8-9; John 8:58, Exodus 3:14; John 8:59, John 10:31-33; John 8:24), and the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3-4, Romans 8:26-27).

Understand Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 in light of this information.

For I give it in obedience to the following command.

Tit 2:1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
Click to expand...
 
Dino246 said:
There's the rub: they aren't. Point out a specific post where I disagreed and I will explain why.
Click to expand...
All of my posts have been biblical.

I don't normally go backward to dredge up posts that have already been posted.

1) It takes too much time

2) We are given a biblical principle not to do that in Philippians 3:13-14.

However, since you are the one making the accusation, I think that the burden of proof is on you.

It is called "accusations without evidence".
 
Dino246 said:
Read back to your relevant post, then re-read my post. Consider whether the grammar of "should" is actually less certain than that of "shall", or whether the problem is in your misunderstanding of tenses.
Click to expand...
Clearly, "should" is less certain than "shall", by definition.

I "should" be able to fix my car on Sunday...iffy.

I "shall" be able to fix my car on Sunday...a more absolute statement.

More confidence in the latter statement.
 
heartwashed said:
Clearly, "should" is less certain than "shall", by definition.

I "should" be able to fix my car on Sunday...iffy.

I "shall" be able to fix my car on Sunday...a more absolute statement.

More confidence in the latter statement.
Click to expand...
I have full confidence in God's revealed written Word and the
promises He makes therein despite your casting doubt on them.

And I certainly hope the same for any and all who read your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
heartwashed said:
All of my posts have been biblical.

I don't normally go backward to dredge up posts that have already been posted.

1) It takes too much time

2) We are given a biblical principle not to do that in Philippians 3:13-14.

However, since you are the one making the accusation, I think that the burden of proof is on you.

It is called "accusations without evidence".
Click to expand...
Actually, you made the claim, "All of my posts are biblical" which puts the onus on you to prove it.

You have misunderstood Philippians 3:13 and gravely misapplied it.

If you don't want to take the time to learn, why do you ask me to show you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Everlasting-Grace
Magenta said:
I have full confidence in God's revealed written Word and the
promises He makes therein despite your casting doubt on them.

And I certainly hope the same for any and all who read your posts.
Click to expand...
You should put your trust in the more absolute promises of scripture; rather than in the promises that are "iffy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back