Obviously, in Corinth, Paul baptized only Stephanas and Gaius and Crispus. However, many were baptized in Corinth (Acts 18:8). How were they baptized, since Paul didn't baptize them?
Saved by Water
- Thread starter Wansvic
- 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.
Actions speak louder than words. Paul did not neglect to baptize the Philippian jailer.
You are obviously not in the proper state fo mind to be able to receive the truth on this matter; since you seem to think that the truth about God makes Him schizophrenic and therefore I think you would be more inclined to reject the truth about God.
My Bible tells me not to sow among thorns so my responses from here out will not be to you...as I think that your mind is closed to the truth and therefore it might be a fruitless endeavor to try to convince you of it.
My Bible tells me,
Jer 4:3, For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.
Jer 4:4, Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
So, my responses from here on out will not be addressed to you.
You need to be more specific than that.
Just painting a broad brush over someone and saying that everything they post is false doctrine; you are calling me a false teacher.
And yet, you have not refuted anything that I have taught with holy scripture.
If you are going to make accusations without evidence know that you may be reported sooner rather than later.
FreeGrace2 said:
There is no verse that says that water baptism saves.
I'm not going to search your list. I provide the verses, not just citations like you do. That's lazy.
It's easy to give lists. Give me an actual verse that SAYS what you claim, since you haven't so far.
Get off your chair and get to work.
There is no verse that says that water baptism saves.
I'm not going to do YOUR work. If you think there is a verse that plainly tells us that water baprtism saves, then quote it for all to see.
I'm not going to search your list. I provide the verses, not just citations like you do. That's lazy.
It's easy to give lists. Give me an actual verse that SAYS what you claim, since you haven't so far.
Get off your chair and get to work.
I realize that I am not supposed to be posting to you as of post #1,883 so let me apologize to anyone who might be a nit-picker about preachers needing to be perfect in everything that they say and do.
(while I believe that entire sanctification is possible, I do not claim to have attained to it).
FreeGrace2 said:
Sheer speculation. Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim.
Paul's answer to what the jailer MUST DO to be saved said NOTHING about baptism. That is a fact.
I suppose you are going to "punt" and claim Paul's answer wasn't complete.
If that were true, then the Holy Spirit wasn't being totally honest.
Sheer speculation. Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim.
Instead of dodging my comment about Paul and the jailer, why don't you face the facts?
Paul's answer to what the jailer MUST DO to be saved said NOTHING about baptism. That is a fact.
I suppose you are going to "punt" and claim Paul's answer wasn't complete.
If that were true, then the Holy Spirit wasn't being totally honest.
It is my refined style of preaching that I choose to disperse knowledge (Proverbs 15:7) while at the same time concealing it (Proverbs 12:23). I do this by referencing verses for the most part and only quoting them when I think that it is absolutely necessary.
Looking up the scriptures that I have posted is your homework; not mine.
If you don't want to answer them then I rest content in the fact that there are others who will also do their homework and they will come to the knowledge of the truth apart from any arguments that you may have against it.
FreeGrace2 said:
Why do you continue to argue against the FACT that Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim? If water baptism was required to be saved, then Paul's answer WOULD HAVE included water baptism. How can you not see that?
If water baptism was required for salvation, Paul would have said so. And he didn't say so.s
No one is arguing that Paul disagreed with water baptism. So don't try to make it look as if that's our position. We call that being very dishonest.
What you cannot argue against is that Paul's answer to the jailer's question about what he MUST DO to be saved was to believe, without ANY mention of water baptism.
Paul's answer REFUTES your position thoroughly.
Why do you continue to argue against the FACT that Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim? If water baptism was required to be saved, then Paul's answer WOULD HAVE included water baptism. How can you not see that?
What a ridiculous retort. The jailer asked a question and Paul answered it. And you just want to dodge the truth.
If water baptism was required for salvation, Paul would have said so. And he didn't say so.s
That doesn't help you in any way. Those who reject your ideas agree that water baptism is a symbol for being a Christian, which is what the jailer did.
No one is arguing that Paul disagreed with water baptism. So don't try to make it look as if that's our position. We call that being very dishonest.
What you cannot argue against is that Paul's answer to the jailer's question about what he MUST DO to be saved was to believe, without ANY mention of water baptism.
Paul's answer REFUTES your position thoroughly.
Says the guy whose view is that God is a schizophrenic who talks to Himself. Real slick.
you are far from truth with your unbiblical ideas.
Very clear verses prove that.
Gen 1:26 says "God said, let US make man in OUR image". But go ahead and ignore what you CANNOT explain.
The rest of us in our sound mind understand exactly what Gen 1:26 means.
Paul very likely knew that he was going to baptize the Philippian jailer when he believed...it may have been par for the course in those days that everyone who believed would be baptized as a matter of course. Therefore Paul didn't need to tell the Philippian jailer that he needed to be baptized because he was going to baptize him and somewhere in Paul's preaching the jailer understood the necessity of that...because Paul did baptize him.
I believe that you are the one who dodged my information about the fact that Paul adopted the methods that Jesus used in John 4:2 when it came to baptizing. Because obviously, many in Corinth were baptized (Acts 18:8). While Paul only baptized Stephanas and Crispus and Gaius.
FreeGrace2 said:
Everything you've been posting.
What part of "everything" do you not grasp? In fact, I can't be more specific than that.
Everything you've been posting.
Do you not grasp the meaning of words?
What part of "everything" do you not grasp? In fact, I can't be more specific than that.
All means just that; all.
I've proven your false teaching by quoting verses that prove that your ideas cannot be true.
Ha. The evidence is in your posts. As everyone can see.
I will say to you that it is my position that baptism has the power to save; not that one must necessarily be baptized in order to be saved.
I do believe that remission of sins is promised to those who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins.
It should be clear that if anyone has any doubt of whether they have the Holy Ghost, that they can remove all doubt by fulfilling the condition of a conditional promise (in Acts 2:38-39).
Your opinion here has no bearing on the truth of the discussion.
Just more dodging. What else?
Again, just more dodging. Some would call it being lazy.
Regardless, you haven't yet addressed the verses that I have quoted. So go back and address them to show how I am wrong in my use of them.
More accusations without evidence.
What verses in particular are you talking about? maybe you could reference them like I do. Because I have no idea what verses you are referring to.
FreeGrace2 said:
Sheer speculation. Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim.
Instead of dodging my comment about Paul and the jailer, why don't you face the facts?
Paul's answer to what the jailer MUST DO to be saved said NOTHING about baptism. That is a fact.
I suppose you are going to "punt" and claim Paul's answer wasn't complete.
If that were true, then the Holy Spirit wasn't being totally honest.
It is Paul's answer that refutes you. The jailer wanted to know HOW to be saved. Or what he MUST DO to be saved.
And Paul's answer EXCLUDED water baptism. That is the fact.
That the jailer did get baptised has nothing to do with your unbiblical claim.
If water baptism is required to be saved, Paul would have been NEGLIGENT to leave that out, since everyone after Paul up to today will read an answer that would be INCOMPETE. What's wrong with you?
Water baptism is commanded. We all agree with that. That's not the issue, which it seems you are simply trying to shift things, like moving the goal posts.
Water baptism is commanded, but NOT for salvation. It's a symbol. 1 Pet 3:21
Sheer speculation. Paul's answer to the jailer REFUTES your claim.
Instead of dodging my comment about Paul and the jailer, why don't you face the facts?
Paul's answer to what the jailer MUST DO to be saved said NOTHING about baptism. That is a fact.
I suppose you are going to "punt" and claim Paul's answer wasn't complete.
If that were true, then the Holy Spirit wasn't being totally honest.
This doesn't support your claim that water baptism is required for salvation. You are just continuing to miss the point or dodge the facts.
It is Paul's answer that refutes you. The jailer wanted to know HOW to be saved. Or what he MUST DO to be saved.
And Paul's answer EXCLUDED water baptism. That is the fact.
That the jailer did get baptised has nothing to do with your unbiblical claim.
This is the most irrational "reason" I've ever heard. Sheer nonsense. Remember that the Bible was written for US too. We understand God's Word from what we read in God's Word.
If water baptism is required to be saved, Paul would have been NEGLIGENT to leave that out, since everyone after Paul up to today will read an answer that would be INCOMPETE. What's wrong with you?
I have no idea what you are insinuating here. Please clarify.
OK, let me be real clear here. No one is arguing AGAINST water baptism. Can you grasp this fact? Seems that you cannot.
Water baptism is commanded. We all agree with that. That's not the issue, which it seems you are simply trying to shift things, like moving the goal posts.
Water baptism is commanded, but NOT for salvation. It's a symbol. 1 Pet 3:21