Your the one who said I lied, you can't back it up?
If you loved me you would help me.
Or, I didn't lie at all?
Loss of salvation???
- Thread starter gratefuloneson
- Start date
-
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.
Your the one who said I lied, you can't back it up?
If you loved me you would help me.
Or, I didn't lie at all?
J
James456
Guest
Indeed:
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1Cor15:50
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness Rom8:10
You sin in your flesh, flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, so the doctrine of purgatory always amazes me. Why would your flesh need to purged of sin in order to enter a place it will not go?
J
James456
Guest
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Heb10:11-14
If you are being made holy, you are not sinless in your flesh, if you were, you would already be perfectly holy, but God sees you as perfect forever still, because He sees the sacrifice His son made for you at Calvary, a once and for all time sacrifice for sin
If you are being made holy, you are not sinless in your flesh, if you were, you would already be perfectly holy, but God sees you as perfect forever still, because He sees the sacrifice His son made for you at Calvary, a once and for all time sacrifice for sin
J
James456
Guest
Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb9:25&26
His withstand God comment was in relation to the fact that Gentiles were being included as that was the contention but his remembering was to do with baptism. Water was John's baptism, the Spirit was Christ's baptism. Peter was starting to cotton onto what Christ meant by baptism.
Acts 11:1-3
Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
Acts 11:15-16
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
There is one baptism and only one baptism. You need to face the fact. Peter did get it wrong but he at least was correctable.
And once more I will point out the irony, two of the greatest salvation moments in history, the Flood and the Exodus, is where those saved did not get wet.
Although you don't see it yet, Peter’s comment regarding God giving the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles (Acts 11:17) was used to argue that water baptism should not be withheld from them, as it was a divinely sanctioned.
As for the flood and exodus, they were foreshadows of the antitype; the NT water baptism.
1 Peter 3:20-21 - Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
ROFL
Emotional blackmail? You didn't think that one through at all did you.
What was the problem with that?
Trying to make you see.
You claimed I lied, but you can't back it up.
I was pressing you to.
After we are reborn we are suppose to be soul winners.
I'm like Paul in Acts 19, ask questions to find out where people are in there walk.
The ones Paul spoke to were honest and humble.
He gave then instructions just like Peter did to those who were humble in Acts 2:37.
They were humble obeyed and were reborn.
We all need to be.
Although you don't see it yet there is only one baptism. How does this baptism save you? By the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Noah was saved by being in the ark. What does the Ark represent? Christ. How are we placed into Christ? Being baptized with the Spirit.
Acts 11:17 was used to justify including the Gentiles, not baptism with water. The contention wasn't that Peter baptized them in water, the contention was he ate with gentiles. His prior vision and the subsequent pouring out of the Spirit on a gentile household was why Peter said he could not stand in God's way. The fact he subsequently baptized them with water was because he still had not realised at that time water was obsolete just as he relates to us in his epistle you quoted.
The flood was a prefiguring of salvation. The water represented the cleansing and removal of filth while the ark represented the safe place. In the same way now, being baptized into Christ sees us baptized into His death (flood) and made alive in His resurrection (ark).
Romans 6:3
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27
for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Water has no power to do this miracle. One baptism, that's it, not two. You even recognise that water was a foreshadowing but you want to keep it in the mix.
Do yourself a favour and every time you see the word baptize, replace it with immerse because it's obvious you cannot associate anything but water with the word baptize.
Paul's explanation reveals people then, as now, had no idea what actually happens upon obedience to God's water baptism command. Man obeys God's command and God brings about the result as detailed. The "If's" in verses 5 and 8, mean far more than most realize:
- Conditional Promises/Logic: In biblical or general logical terms, "If" introduces a prerequisite. For example, "If you do X, then Y will happen." This places the responsibility on the individual to fulfill the condition to receive the outcome.
Rom 6:3-11
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For IF we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise (just like what the previous 2 verses reveal concerning Christ) reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Lastly, Jesus revealed the one baptism involves both water and Spirit. (John 3:5) And each detailed conversion account includes both water and Spirit. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)
Scripture witnesses receiving the Holy Ghost and being water baptized in the name of Jesus are both essential for salvation. And the sequence in which the experiences occur differ.
Peter explained that God filled the Gentiles with the Holy Ghost because He knew their hearts. And since God knew their hearts He knew they would obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. (Acts 15:7-8) Peter's comment about not withstanding God indicates he would have thought twice about water baptizing Gentiles if God did not sanction it. (Acts 11:17-18)
J
James456
Guest
But you believe the unsaved can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit don't you. In my view, and this is a sincere view, that negates me finding your beliefs credible. Whether it be Pentecostals(mainline) catholics, lutherans, methodists, Baptists, or any other mainline denomination, and, though these denominations may have much differences in beliefs, they all know the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the unsaved. And therefore, Father and son do not dwell in the unsaved. In my view, you have made a fatal as it were error concerning christian belief, in respect of credibility
According to you 99.6% on Christians will be in hell. Only the 0.6% that share your false beliefs will be saved.
Having sat through Pentecostal Oneness sermons before and having see people simply repeating the same gibberish claiming it was tongues and hearing the false teacher spew pride and hatred towards the rest of Christians, I’m ok being with the 99.6%. I pray that one day your eyes will be opened.
You misunderstand the points made about 1 Peter. The flood event, the dying of the sinful, foreshadows the NT water baptism reality; believers sins are remitted upon baptism in the name of Jesus made possible through His death, burial and resurrection.
Both water and Spirit are involved in the NT rebirth conversion. (John 3:5)
In water baptism, it is the Spirit of God that brings about the reality He promised when man chooses to believe and obey the command.
I leave you with this thought. The Bible records water baptism in the name of Jesus, and the giving of the Holy Ghost as part of the gospel message initially presented to Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans. In addition, the biblical account includes the account in Acts 19:1-7 to dispel the idea that the other records sole purpose is to reveal all nations are accepted of God. The account points to the truth that every individual is responsible to believe, repent, be water baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin and receive the Holy Ghost. After Paul shared the gospel with the 12 men they worked side by side carrying forth the message to others in Ephesus. (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)
Since I don't tell you anything of what my church says how do you know what I say comes from my church?
Using the same crystal ball as you do with all of you accusations of me?
I wonder about those who were/are baptized in filthy pond water filled with harmful microbes one dares not drink, or contaminated river water also filled with little critters one should never ingest?
Conversely, do they think that the filtered and chlorinated tubs in their churchianity buildings do a better job at allegedly washing away their sins more effectively because of that water allegedly being more clean...apart from those who might pee in it from the giggles of glee for thinking they've really accomplished something in addition to the allegedly insufficient Blood of Christ and His grace...?
I'm just wondering, because when John the Baptist, who is emphatically stated to have been sent to preach AND to baptize, as a complete and utter contrast to Paul who said that he was NOT sent to baptize, John, who baptized in the Jordan river, was that river's water cleaner back then than now? Can anyone in that gang answer these questions?
What of those baptized in the Dead Sea? They must have been pushed down harder into that brackish, salty water to get them fully immersed. Did that preservative salt do a better job at allegedly cleansing and washing away sins better than that wimpy, peed in, chlorine saturated and shocked water used in churchianity tubs, did that huge salt content do a better job at allegedly washing away sins?
Given their thinking that works-based salvation through self effort in water baptism supplements the Blood of Christ and His unmerited favor, I'm figuring that they must give some consideration to the water quality, would they not?
How about all those legalistic followers of ordinances and Law out there, those who believe water baptism remits their sins...do you all and your gang ever give thought to all that? After all, legalism most generally always gives thought to all aspects of a ceremonial act required for some spiritual outcome, right?
Consider leaven in bread. Given that detail as to what had to be left out of bread for it to be fit for the offerings and partaking in ceremonial endeavors that we Israeli's practiced throughout our ancient history on the basis of the Law, one would think that they all must have SOME minimal standards for the cleanliness of the water. Do they think they're more clean had their getting wet been performed in the chlorinated waters of their churchianity tub up front...or wherever it is?
MM
J
James456
Guest
I would mention this, and the subject of it is not important, the point of it is.
When I first ventured onto internet debating websites, I used to tell people the entire law handed down at Sanai/what was written in it had been abolished. A Pentecostal, whom I used to argue with much, I mean debated, told me I was being heretical. What was written in the moral law had not been abolished, only the penalty concerning it had been. I would normally have dismissed his views, if they differed from mine, but this time I didn’t, I went away and thought about it, and I came to see he was correct.
In my view, you should do the same, at the real point of contention here, it would be the wise thing to do.
According to you 99.6% on Christians will be in hell. Only the 0.6% that share your false beliefs will be saved.
Do you think Acts 2:38 is a false gospel?
Do you think being baptized in JESUS name is a false gospel?
Do you think JESUS filling us with the Holy Ghost and the evidence of it is a false gospel?
Your view is just the oposite of JESUS'S.
Looks to me like .6 is heanve bound not the 99.4!!
Matthew 7:13-14
King James Version
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
FYI, NOTING I SHARED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH A CHURCH, I ONLY SHARED HIS WORD!!!
Why are you talking about demoninations?
I'm sure your numbers are wrong, I'm sure there will be more than .6% Heaven bound.
Have YOU received the Holy Ghost since you have believed???
I wonder if you will ever take people off of ignore so you and discuss your concerns with the ones your talking about, kinda behind their back since they can't respond?
You appear to have an issue with understanding some aspects of descriptors in language. Notice Paul stating something that's key to those verses, not to mention the context itself that defies your claims.
Think about his words where he stated, "...so many of us as were baptized..." That doesn't at all lay the groundwork for a command that ALL be water baptized. Where do you see any commandment in that phraseology? Please explain that.
That you're missing the thrust of his words by falsely injecting something into it that's simply not there, and that you continue to fail at showing to us with the clarity of evidential grammar, you're missing the fact that Paul was only stating that those who HAD been water baptized were baptized into the death of Christ Jesus. Yes. Granted. Nobody is disputing that so far as I have seen thus far. There's a vast difference between commandment and simply explaining the equality with the death and resurrection of Christ b y way of a past act that SOME of them had performed, but nowhere stated as a supplement to the UNMERITED favor of salvation by grace through faith.
Now, will you PLEASE highlight and discuss any measure of commandment in that text and its context where you think he is COMMANDING water baptism for all Jews and Gentiles under the Gospel of Grace? Repeating the same old error will never prove your case. Why not discuss the merits of your claim by quoting the relevant text and discussing how any of that equates over into a guidance command for all.
Yes and Jesus also commanded offering up burnt sacrifices too in Matthew 8:4...so what? I have grave doubts that you even attempt to do that today. The instruction for water baptism was a different dispensation of instructions for salvation from what Paul preached as his gospel given to Him by that same Jesus. Jesus, in His gospel, never once preached as the means to salvation, FAITH IN the cross, His death and resurrection, as the basis for salvation. Therefore, your placing so much emphasis on the cherry-picked elements of those instructions to those people at that time is suspect to say the least. Not even Peter preached faith in the cross as the means to salvation in Acts 2, but only pointed to the cross in his indictment against the Jews who were his audience.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you playing on the idea that God did instruct different things in relation to the Law but could not have differentiated within His saving gospels? If so, then why? Why do you think the Lord could not have commanded, over His own creation, the requirement for water baptism for some people at a distinctive time before the fall of Israel, and then something different after that fall so that salvation would THEN come unto Gentiles apart from having to join with Israel BEACUSE of that middle wall of partition that fell with Israel? Why do you remain resistant to that which is clearly shown to us in the text?
Again, you continue in your play upon the fallacy of an argument from silence...the silence being even ONE command from Paul for ALL Gentiles and Jews being water baptized for the remission of sins. Paul clearly stated that faith in the three elements stated in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 as what is required for salvation. The clarity of that is unmistakable, but you choose to resist the obvious in order to continue parroting the legalistic claim for requirement through getting wet in contrast to unmerited favor.
Tell us, how does the MERIT of water baptism fit in with the UNMERITED favor we already have through faith? This dichotomy of yours and many others is a manic denial of not only the narratives but also the very key words therein. The utter silence in you demonstrating quotation and discussion of the terms, grammar and systematic collective on this topic speaks loud volumes to the severe lack in your case.
Please prove your case with more than distant and hollow claims by providing substance.
Thank you.
MM