Sadly, that is typical of folks who are mixed up in false religions and cults. It's difficult for such folks to see anything beyond their biased church doctrine.
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.
I'm still not seeing any commandment in that context whereby Paul commanded water baptism OTHER than his talking about the inclusive nature of as many who were water baptized, they too were enjoined into the death and resurrection with Christ. Again, not one commandment for it for all believers. One is arguing from silence to establish that legalistic doctrine for water baptism from this context or any other addressed in the latter parts of Paul's epistles. Those who think timeline is not relevant, they are willfully ignorant.
Also, taking a verse ripped from its context, thus isolating it from the full meaning of the discussion from which you ripped this verse, you do err; especially when you ADD to the verse meaning that's nowhere upheld in that context or any other that is relevant for us today. Look at that pesky little word "if" in that verse; he clearly was including those who were water baptized into burial with Christ. Yes, but that is not a commandment for all to be water baptized. Let's look further down in that context:
Rom 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
We see here Paul's drawing a line of INCLUSIVENESS to those who are not identified as having been water baptized. Not one phrase in that context commands water baptism in addition to the GRACE by which they were already saved and dead with Christ.
If you can't see that in the text, then that can only be slated as a lack of understanding of the clear message within that context or it's willful blindness on the basis of what one WANTS to believe.
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit [Not by water, but by ONE SPIRIT.] are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
See the contrast. The conditional IF in Rom. 6:5, NOT being a commandment but rather an inclusiveness of those who were indeed water baptized, they too were baptized into the death and resurrection with Christ AND partake of the baptism by the Spirit under the Gospel of Grace. Paul having to deal with contentions over whose name some were baptized into in relation to others, that shows to us the foolishness behind bickering over water baptism, and to settle the matter, he instructed being RE-BAPTIZED into the name of Christ Jesus. Yes, adults can and do become eaten up with pride even in which name into which they were baptized.
THAT is systematic theology at its best when one considers the totality of the information ending at the latest destination of Paul's epistles, written at the latter part of his ministry before his murder, that gives to us the needed storyline of the progression unto the REAL story behind what is relevant for us today.
I've already quoted for everyone that there is ONE baptism, not two...not water AND Spirit. It is ONLY by Spirit.
MM
Response to both, anyway we can keep things simple???
I say one word and you have a lenthley pargare for each one!
As you can see instead of just shaing scripture you have to explain it.
If I did what you did I would be wrighting a book also.
How do you expect me to comment to your every comment???
Since I'm not reading all of that what do you think of my respnose to Acts 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4????
What is sad, is the james guy must have put me on ignore so he can talk about me and not too me.
Gossip its finest.
If we have a problem with each other we are suppose to discuss it, not him he just talks behind people back.
He only likes people like you, who agree with him!!
Thought I read where you were putting Dan on ignore?
Ya know, lying is a sin.
Message from the soup Nazi:
“No salvation for you! Two eternities!”
Scripture needs to be explained to you, yet you seem to skim over my posts instead of reading them. So, my posts are too long or are you just too lazy to read them? I already shared with you what I thought of your response to Acts 15:7-9; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
J
James456
Guest
Can you tell me, where it is written in scripture, Father and Son dwell in the unsaved? Thanks
No scritpures do not need to be explained.
People who have to explain them they are trying to make them fit what they think they mean.
Did you respond to them, try to find them in your everylasting talking and get back to you.
Scripture does need to be explained to those who misinterpret scripture through cherry picking and failing to consider the totality of scripture.
Why can’t you just answer a question directly? Do you believe those that are not water baptized and do not speak in tongues are saved? My answer= yes. Your answer= ?
I’m not asking you to provide scripture or write an essay. Just asking for a simple yes or no.
J
James456
Guest
Tell me grasshopper, have you replied to Dan stating you would no longer reply to him, and “dusting my feet”?
If so you are a liar. And at the end of the Book we know what happens to liars.
Unless of course you can admit that if you are indeed saved you will remain so, and confess your sin!
Did I judge you?
I am just letting you know what the Word of God says.
If anything?
It is the Word that judges you.
Please!.... I will let the Word speak for Himself.
We don't answer your questions because you never hear the answers.
Your stupidity game is your desire to control and manipulate the narrative.
.....
Tongues was sign gift.
It was given to the very early church before believers even had Scriptures to stabilize themselves with.
We do not need such a sign today.
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes,
but in understanding be mature.
NOTE!
In the law it is written: = Law was directed to the Jew!
“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people; = This people? Specifically, Jews!
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”
I will speak to this people; = This people? Specifically, Jews!
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”
says the Lord.
Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;
The Jews were being evangelized strongly during those days.
Tongues was given as a sign to the unbelieving Jews!
For many Jews refused to believe, just like Pharaoh refused the signs from God.