Why is it a problem for God to bless Childen by their parents dedicating them to G_d?
Who said it is a problem? But why G_d? Or was that a typo?Why is it a problem for God to bless Childen by their parents dedicating them to G_d?
Some early church leaders beleived the Didache is Scripture and quoted it as such.I make no mistakes and can make .o mistakes sticking solely with the simple truth of God's inspired word. Believe whatever junk you like. Goodbye![]()
James 1:22-25Adding the word have doers not change anytthing
the word recieve means to grab ahold. To grasp.
this is who God gives the right or power to become his children.
what is the best response toThat is exactly the point.
Baptism was not mentioned in the context of the gospel.
read Eph 2:10This thread is derailed.
What happened to faith and works?
False. There is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.
Ephesians 4:5 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. *Also see John 4:10,14; 7:37 for the word drink(s).
I forget who it was Brother, friendWho said it is a problem? But why G_d? Or was that a typo?
See post #221what is the best response to
Mark 16:16
King James Version
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
I showed you from scripture that there is only one baptism that places us into the body of Christ and that is Spirit baptism, not water baptism.Be specific
False. Yes, you are. You are disagreeing with the clear, straightforward words of the bible not me. Yes, there is only one baptism that places us in the body of Christ, and it's clear which one it is: immersion in water as was initiated by John the Baptist and which is carried forward as the norm throughout NT scripture unless otherwise stated.
One minute you advocate plain English and now you are resorting to the original Greek which doesn't change the truth I already explained to you. For we were all baptized by[a] (Or with; or in) one Spirit.. For by one Spirit are we all baptized. This is to be understood not of water baptism; for the apostle says not in one, and the same water, but "by", or "in" one Spirit, are we all baptized; the baptism of water, and Spirit baptism are two different things; see (Matthew 3:11). Well folks, DJT_47 is wrong again.And 1 Cor 12:13 on which we've exchanged comments before, is really "in one Spirit" not by one Spirit" when you look at the original Greek.
I'm sorry but your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with (Luke 24:47; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) Now for the upteenth time, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.Acts 2:38-47 clearly tells you how and why WATER baptism is required: for the remission of sins, to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to be added to the body of Christ by the Lord himself.
If Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 did teach what you are implying then we would have multiple contradictions in scripture, so your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 and misapplication of 1 Corinthians 12:13 must be rejected. Roman Catholics and Mormons along with other works-salvationists would agree with your biased interpretation surrounding water baptism which should be a major red flag for you but you are too biased and too blind to see it.These words of scripture can't be twisted or manipulated no matter how hard one may try. If Acts 2:38 tells you the point at which you receive the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which it does, how is it that the Holy Ghost is baptizing you somehow by some unknown other process according to your logic, and obvious misunderstanding and misspplication of 1 Cor 12:13?
Water baptism is the picture of the simulation of Christ's death, burial and resurrection but is not the reality of causing us to be buried and raised with Christ. As Greek scholar AT Robertson put it so well: The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin, forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer). There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.It's also easy to see, by even a casual reading of Romans 6, that only water baptism can accomplish the simulation of Christ's burial and resurrectionas discussed therein.
Scripture is Scripture not what some believe it to be. It was already quite apparent the early church of the bible was already experiencing problems and was starting to go astray bring influences by false teaching and doctrines. Why would we then think that the church and doctrines were not even becoming more corrupted and off the rails as time went on, and why then would we think the did ache be more accurate than the actual scriptures and put our faith in this secondary document.? Makes no sense and in fact makes very bad sense. And by what authority would such a document have to supercede the Holy Scriptures, those that were actually inspired?? Bad idea. Believe that nonsense if you like, but I sure won't.Some early church leaders beleived the Didache is Scripture and quoted it as such.
![]()
If you don’t know history, then you don’t know anything. You are a leaf that doesn’t know it is part of a tree.
![]()
“Success is not final. Failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.”
“No research without action, no action without research”
"In fact, the world needs more nerds."
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
“The best research you can do is talk to people”
“Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the ability to investigate systematically and truly all that comes under thy observation in life.”
“Research is something that everyone can do, and everyone ought to do. It is simply collecting information and thinking systematically about it.”
“If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
The canon of the NT was not defined until about 400 AD CE.Scripture is Scripture not what some believe it to be. It was already quite apparent the early church of the bible was already experiencing problems and was starting to go astray bring influences by false teaching and doctrines. Why would we then think that the church and doctrines were not even becoming more corrupted and off the rails as time went on, and why then would we think the did ache be more accurate than the actual scriptures and put our faith in this secondary document.? Makes no sense and in fact makes very bad sense. And by what authority would such a document have to supercede the Holy Scriptures, those that were actually inspired?? Bad idea. Believe that nonsense if you like, but I sure won't.
Truth is doctrine was becoming more defined via Church FAthers(who were taught by the Apostles) and by Councils. You get a failing grade when it comes to Church History.Scripture is Scripture not what some believe it to be. It was already quite apparent the early church of the bible was already experiencing problems and was starting to go astray bring influences by false teaching and doctrines. Why would we then think that the church and doctrines were not even becoming more corrupted and off the rails as time went on, and why then would we think the did ache be more accurate than the actual scriptures and put our faith in this secondary document.? Makes no sense and in fact makes very bad sense. And by what authority would such a document have to supercede the Holy Scriptures, those that were actually inspired?? Bad idea. Believe that nonsense if you like, but I sure won't.
So what? Does that somehow validate non-scripture giving it the same or even more credence? Do the words of the did ache supercede the words of the bible? You can believe that if you like but I certainly don't.The canon of the NT was not defined until about 400 AD CE.
That may be what the Catholic Church would have you believe, but it is not historically true. And never forget that the Catholic Church also included seven non-canonical books into their bibles. BTW, the term "C.E" is used by unbelievers. Believers use the term "A.D." = Anno Domini = In the year of our Lord = acknowledgement that dating is governed by Christ.The canon of the NT was not defined until about 400 AD CE.