The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Clete and c.moore,
No one can 'add to' the salvific sacrifice Christ made at Calvary, and no one has claimed to being doing that by obeying His command to be baptized. You both want to pit obedience to Christ against the fact He paid the full price of our salvation on the Cross. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Jesus said if we love Him we would obey His commands. That's what it comes down to for me. I love Him and will obey ALL THAT HE COMMANDED, not just what modern man-made theologies accept as logical or sensible.
If you don't love Him enough to obey His commands, it seems illogical to me that you could expect, or even want, eternal life in heaven with Him.
Sorry to hear you guys don't love Him enough to follow His commands. I'll pray for you that you have a change of heart and convert completely to the Christian faith, instead of your cafeteria style Christianity where you pick and choose the teachings you like and reject those you don't like or feel doesn't make sense.
God Bless,
Francisco
No one can 'add to' the salvific sacrifice Christ made at Calvary, and no one has claimed to being doing that by obeying His command to be baptized. You both want to pit obedience to Christ against the fact He paid the full price of our salvation on the Cross. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Jesus said if we love Him we would obey His commands. That's what it comes down to for me. I love Him and will obey ALL THAT HE COMMANDED, not just what modern man-made theologies accept as logical or sensible.
If you don't love Him enough to obey His commands, it seems illogical to me that you could expect, or even want, eternal life in heaven with Him.
Sorry to hear you guys don't love Him enough to follow His commands. I'll pray for you that you have a change of heart and convert completely to the Christian faith, instead of your cafeteria style Christianity where you pick and choose the teachings you like and reject those you don't like or feel doesn't make sense.
God Bless,
Francisco
c.moore
New member
Francisco
Do you have to obey and give you wife flowers and love her by doing all you can do first to show you love her´???
Wouldn`t be better to do things freely withóut commandment and laws and be led by your heart to show your love, and your love will helpyou do whatever your love show rathere going to your wife and saying look all I have done and obey.
The Love walk is automactically shown when you really love and this is what I have with Jesus my first love so I look to please my Jesus with faith and doing the best I can when I can with HIs help.
I would rather have a happy loving heart for Christ than try to do God favors and show off all i can do.
If I do all the right things for my wife and my heart is not in it it is dead works or dead obedience I think.
God Bless
c.moore,
Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him. Jesus commanded us to DO some things other than merely believe in Him. If we do not DO those things, including baptism, we are saying we don't love Him.
You can use all the double talk you want, but scripture is absolutely clear on the following facts:
We are joined to Jesus through our death in baptism - Romans 6:3:11
Jesus commanded us to be baptized - Matthew 28:19, John 3:5
Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him - John 14:15
If you love Jesus you will DO what He commanded, and that includes baptism.
Nowhere does scripture talk about 'automatic Love walks' or that it's OK to disobey His commands as long as you have a 'happy loving heart.'
As for me, I love God with all my heart, and because I love Him I choose to obey ALL He commanded to the best of my ability. And when I disobey, I repent and ask forgiveness for my disobedience. But to think it's OK to disobey Him as long as I have a 'happy loving heart' is stupid and completely contradicts the plain words of scripture. Loving God and obeying God are inseparable c.moore. If you don't obey Him you don't love Him, no matter what you say. And if you say you obey Him with loving Him, you're just fooling yourself.
I'll continue to pray that you can see this truth and come to the fullness of Christian faith rather than your 'it's OK to disobey him as long as I have a loving heart' cafeteria faith.
God Bless,
Francisco
Your argument is silly. You are saying, 'Wouldn't it be better to have love for God than to obey Him?' That's utterly ridiculous, and flies in the face of the scriptures I previously quoted. You use the analogy of doing nice things for your wife AS OPPOSED to loving your wife from your heart. This analogy sets up a false dichotomy between loving God and obeying God. YOU HAVE TO DO BOTH, not one or the other.
Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him. Jesus commanded us to DO some things other than merely believe in Him. If we do not DO those things, including baptism, we are saying we don't love Him.
You can use all the double talk you want, but scripture is absolutely clear on the following facts:
We are joined to Jesus through our death in baptism - Romans 6:3:11
Jesus commanded us to be baptized - Matthew 28:19, John 3:5
Jesus said if we love Him we will obey Him - John 14:15
If you love Jesus you will DO what He commanded, and that includes baptism.
Nowhere does scripture talk about 'automatic Love walks' or that it's OK to disobey His commands as long as you have a 'happy loving heart.'
As for me, I love God with all my heart, and because I love Him I choose to obey ALL He commanded to the best of my ability. And when I disobey, I repent and ask forgiveness for my disobedience. But to think it's OK to disobey Him as long as I have a 'happy loving heart' is stupid and completely contradicts the plain words of scripture. Loving God and obeying God are inseparable c.moore. If you don't obey Him you don't love Him, no matter what you say. And if you say you obey Him with loving Him, you're just fooling yourself.
I'll continue to pray that you can see this truth and come to the fullness of Christian faith rather than your 'it's OK to disobey him as long as I have a loving heart' cafeteria faith.
God Bless,
Francisco
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
renewing the mind......
renewing the mind......
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by freelight
So......repentance is necessary for a change in ones mind....thereby affecting ones mentality, attitude, receptivity, heart, spiritual condition - Paul teaches something along the same lines - 'renewing the mind'. So....I would say a shift in consciousness is essential for the transformation or change of ones soul - affecting his direction and vision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
)=============Hello Clete,.............my commentary was a general reference to and universal understanding of 'repentance' (metanoeo) - 'to have another mind'. This was the kind of repentance that Jesus called others to....as a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom. Thus we see that a change of 'mind' was/is necessary for one to enter into a kingdom-consciousness or mentality. No matter what one supposes from a theological standpoint......the act of repentance was called for....for those receiving the good news of the Kingdom. Seen from the perspective of the gospels.....the primary call to humanity in preparing them to receive from heacen is repentance...and then one may enter into and 'see' the Kingdom in their midst. The influx of consciousness is ever-flowing......and who can say whether our repentance prcedes salvation or if receiving salvation produces repentance........for the 'renewing of the mind and transformation of consciousness is on-going - the call was to 'keep on repenting' - a continual verbal sense. Therefore repentance is a continual process as a process of 'mind'. We are repenting daily....if we are truly walking in the Light/Spirit of God....for our mind is ever shifting/adjusting to the orientations of divine Will .....and we are ever-attuning to the ways of Kingdom laws and government.
Repentance is no longer necessary where a mind is perfect and/or a soul is wholly perfected in divine nature.....however processes of mind and consciousness continue.
Repentance is necessary for it is a change of mind, a shifting in consciousness, a turning to what is better, righteous, more whole, more perfect, more true.
paul
renewing the mind......
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by freelight
So......repentance is necessary for a change in ones mind....thereby affecting ones mentality, attitude, receptivity, heart, spiritual condition - Paul teaches something along the same lines - 'renewing the mind'. So....I would say a shift in consciousness is essential for the transformation or change of ones soul - affecting his direction and vision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
)=============Hello Clete,.............my commentary was a general reference to and universal understanding of 'repentance' (metanoeo) - 'to have another mind'. This was the kind of repentance that Jesus called others to....as a prerequisite to entering the Kingdom. Thus we see that a change of 'mind' was/is necessary for one to enter into a kingdom-consciousness or mentality. No matter what one supposes from a theological standpoint......the act of repentance was called for....for those receiving the good news of the Kingdom. Seen from the perspective of the gospels.....the primary call to humanity in preparing them to receive from heacen is repentance...and then one may enter into and 'see' the Kingdom in their midst. The influx of consciousness is ever-flowing......and who can say whether our repentance prcedes salvation or if receiving salvation produces repentance........for the 'renewing of the mind and transformation of consciousness is on-going - the call was to 'keep on repenting' - a continual verbal sense. Therefore repentance is a continual process as a process of 'mind'. We are repenting daily....if we are truly walking in the Light/Spirit of God....for our mind is ever shifting/adjusting to the orientations of divine Will .....and we are ever-attuning to the ways of Kingdom laws and government.
Repentance is no longer necessary where a mind is perfect and/or a soul is wholly perfected in divine nature.....however processes of mind and consciousness continue.
Repentance is necessary for it is a change of mind, a shifting in consciousness, a turning to what is better, righteous, more whole, more perfect, more true.
paul
c.moore
New member
Just so we can see what salvation message francisco has here what he teaches and claims for his salvation message to the world, and this is what he will tella lost soul looking for Christ Jesus to be saved.
Francisco Quoted
[Francisco] Grace, Faith, Repentence, Obedience to all He commands - that's my salvation message. Now can you answer my question?
What do you think about this good news toa lost world??
God Bless
Francisco Quoted
[Francisco] Grace, Faith, Repentence, Obedience to all He commands - that's my salvation message. Now can you answer my question?
What do you think about this good news toa lost world??
God Bless
Kevin
New member
Clete,
I take the weekend off of debating, only to find absolutely baseless arguments in response to my post?
I already see that Francisco has done a fine job of showing just how rediculous your assertions are. I mean, c'mon... two churches at Ephesus. How baseless can you get. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Desperate, you are!
And the fact that the traditional tomb of John is located in Ephesus shows that more than just Peter preached to the Gentiles. But of course, that means nothing to you.
And I see you were not able to produce ONE example in the NT about people getting converted by believing and confessing (a work). Not one. I've already showed you Biblical examples of how believing and confessing go hand in hand with baptism. Paul's own conversion tesifies to that. Why didn't he just believe and confess? Why didn't anybody?
And just looking at your theology from a logical standpoint is absolutely rediculous. It says that you live a life of sin and not repent of them. You can do whatever you want - kill, rape, murder, blaspheme, etc.... but as long as you believe in Christ, you'll be ok. How rediculous.
And you do have a great deal to learn about works. To you all works = works of the flesh, which is absurd, as I pointed out in my last post to you what the Bible defines as works of the flesh.
Dude... I could go on... but if you are so BLIND that you can't see that Ephesus was a Gentile church, and then you make up some fairy tale that Paul and John were writing to two different churches, you've already defeated your own theology by resorting to absolutely baseless, desperate, made up claims.
If you want to debate me, back up your claims, don't just throw out baseless assertions (2 Ephesus chruches, give me a break).
I take the weekend off of debating, only to find absolutely baseless arguments in response to my post?
I already see that Francisco has done a fine job of showing just how rediculous your assertions are. I mean, c'mon... two churches at Ephesus. How baseless can you get. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Desperate, you are!
And the fact that the traditional tomb of John is located in Ephesus shows that more than just Peter preached to the Gentiles. But of course, that means nothing to you.
And I see you were not able to produce ONE example in the NT about people getting converted by believing and confessing (a work). Not one. I've already showed you Biblical examples of how believing and confessing go hand in hand with baptism. Paul's own conversion tesifies to that. Why didn't he just believe and confess? Why didn't anybody?
And just looking at your theology from a logical standpoint is absolutely rediculous. It says that you live a life of sin and not repent of them. You can do whatever you want - kill, rape, murder, blaspheme, etc.... but as long as you believe in Christ, you'll be ok. How rediculous.
And you do have a great deal to learn about works. To you all works = works of the flesh, which is absurd, as I pointed out in my last post to you what the Bible defines as works of the flesh.
Dude... I could go on... but if you are so BLIND that you can't see that Ephesus was a Gentile church, and then you make up some fairy tale that Paul and John were writing to two different churches, you've already defeated your own theology by resorting to absolutely baseless, desperate, made up claims.
If you want to debate me, back up your claims, don't just throw out baseless assertions (2 Ephesus chruches, give me a break).
c.moore
New member
Hello Kevin
I have part one and two here for you.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=271
God Bless
I have part one and two here for you.
http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=271
God Bless
c.moore,
Have you made up your mind yet? Can you love Jesus yet refuse to obey all that He commands?
That's what it comes down to c.moore. You either love Jesus, or you don't. He said "If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15)
Jesus commanded baptism for all believers.
You agreed with me in our chat room conversation yesterday that you have to love Jesus to be saved.
Then you agreed, after many evasive manuevers, that you have to obey Jesus to be saved.
So why do you balk at agreeing that you must obey Jesus' command to be baptized?
It would be very nice and refreshingly different if you don't start all the evasive manuevers and just answer me directly. Will you do that please?
God Bless,
Francisco
Have you made up your mind yet? Can you love Jesus yet refuse to obey all that He commands?
That's what it comes down to c.moore. You either love Jesus, or you don't. He said "If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15)
Jesus commanded baptism for all believers.
You agreed with me in our chat room conversation yesterday that you have to love Jesus to be saved.
Then you agreed, after many evasive manuevers, that you have to obey Jesus to be saved.
So why do you balk at agreeing that you must obey Jesus' command to be baptized?
It would be very nice and refreshingly different if you don't start all the evasive manuevers and just answer me directly. Will you do that please?
God Bless,
Francisco
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Just to let you know, when you copy and paste large materials from another author, it tends to make people not want to even read it because of the vast quantity of text.
I did take a look at it, however. It's obviously speaking on the essientialness of the Blood of Christ, which I'm already well aware of. I have agreed with that point all along. You seem to quickly forget the things I say, or you just don't understand what I'm saying. I've told you that we are baptized for the remission of sins by the blood of Christ. Sound familiar? It should if it doesn't.
Never have I proclaimed that water actually washes our sins away. It's just water, and could never take place of the blood of Christ.
I also read in the first article that all you have to believe and Jesus just automactically comes into your heart. Of course you know I'm going to disagree with this, because this is not the method seen in the New Testament at all!
I find it odd that you posted the 2nd part of your article. It actually supports what I've been saying all along, that there is ONE baptism, and this baptism is written about in Romans 6, which you guys contend is speaking about Spirit baptism. But the author of your author gets it right, acknowledging that Romans 6 is referring to water baptism:
Amen to what this says, it echos what I've been saying. And then I see:
Rising out the water, every sin has been forgiven. This author agrees with me that baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did you quote him?
The deal is, just because baptism is symbolic of you seem to think that it has nothing to do with our salvation. But staying with Romans 6, we find that not to be true:
5) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
7) For he who has died has been freed from sin.
These are conditional verses, c.moore. IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (through baptism) we will likewise be ressurected, just as Christ was ressurected. IF.
In verse 7, who has been freed from sin? Who? Those who have died with Christ through baptism. 2 Timothy supports this condtional statement by saying that IF we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. IF, if, if.
So IF you have NOT died with Christ, you will not live with Him. IF you have not died with Christ, you are not freed from sin. IF you are not united in Christ's death, we will not be in the likeness of Christ's ressurection.
IF you haven't died from sin, you aren't saved.
By being baptized for the remission of sins (why do you think Christ commanded it!), we have obeyed what God has told us to do to have our sins forgiven, which is BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will only cover those who obey the command of baptism, because baptism PURPOSE is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Rom. 6). I know I've explained this before.
See above. The forgiveness is out there. All we have to do is obey what is commanded for the remission of our sins - baptism.
You put a lot of faith in your TV evangelists. I put my faith in what the word of God says. If Billy Graham and others alike convert people by asking them to say the sinner's prayer, then those people have NOT obeyed what GOD COMMANDED for the remission of sins. What do you think God is going to think about that? Who is man to change God's plan of salvation? Don't you find it just a little odd that there is not ONE example in the New Testament, NOT ONE, of people being saved by a sinner's prayer? Yet, belief and baptism is found in many, many places, which just echos what Christ said about salvation: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
I've been over "what if" senarios soooooooo many times. Why do you still test me? It's all in God's hands, but I would rather stand before God being in the postion of knowing that I was going to obey the commdment of God for the remission of my sins, rather than standing before Him not believing what He commanded for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation.
As I've said many times in the past... what if scenario's don't change one bit of what God commands and expects of us for salvation. What if statements are nothing more than trying to use rare case, extreme scenarios to try and "water down" what God commands us to do for the forgiveness of sins.
I mean, WHAT IF a man was hearing the gospel, but before he got a chance to believe, he died of a heart attack before he believed? Pretty lame, huh? What if scenarios hold no water.
Ooooh... so you now think Acts 2:38 is referring to WATER baptism instead of Spirit baptism. I'm glad you finally realize that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism. I've been trying to tell you this over and over. But you know... what I say doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. I don't know why you bother asking me questions.
And in answer to your question above, it's just another "what if" scenario. See above. However, I would definately encourage a church to perform baptism when the person is ready, which is what we see in the Bible. Baptism should not be a calendar event. By the way, those 3,000 people were baptized in one day in Acts 2. See verse 41.
Baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and ressurection. And by dying with Him through baptism, we have obeyed what God commanded for the forgiveness of our sins. And also reflect again about the conditional statements of Romans 6... you know... the "IF" part.
Is it not possible to lose our salvation after obeying the gospel? You bet it is. Please don't tell me you now believe in OSAS! That's why I used the term that we are in a "state of salvation", because we are only in that state as long as we don't turn our backs on God. However, on Judgement Day, if Christ says to you, well done ye good and faithful servant, enter into the gates of Heaven... then you are saved.
I've got news for you... being a Christian IS hard. Why do you think that Christ said:
Matt. 7:13,14 (MKJV)
13) Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.
14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Now, of if all you had to do was believe ONLY, and you were saved from that moment on, the above verses wouldn't make much sense, because a lot of people believe, EVEN the demons (James 2:19). The pathway to life would be WIDE instead of constricted.
The question I have is why do people want to change the plan of God's salvation, converting people with a sinners prayer, which has no Biblical authority.
I a problem with Freak's theology, yes, because preaches a watered down version of the gospel, faith only, as you do... and that's contrary to the Bible. Ever notice how Freak has trouble answering my and other people's questions? He can't even answer the simple question of is repentance necessary for salvation. He can't say yes, because if he does, then he admits that something we do (a work), repentance, is needed for salvation which kills his faith only saves balogney. Believing is one thing... repenting is an entirely different matter.
Obedience to God is NOT about boasting. We have NOTHING to boast about. We obey God because we have faith in Him and what He says, and the disobedient will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
Just to let you know, when you copy and paste large materials from another author, it tends to make people not want to even read it because of the vast quantity of text.
I did take a look at it, however. It's obviously speaking on the essientialness of the Blood of Christ, which I'm already well aware of. I have agreed with that point all along. You seem to quickly forget the things I say, or you just don't understand what I'm saying. I've told you that we are baptized for the remission of sins by the blood of Christ. Sound familiar? It should if it doesn't.
Never have I proclaimed that water actually washes our sins away. It's just water, and could never take place of the blood of Christ.
I also read in the first article that all you have to believe and Jesus just automactically comes into your heart. Of course you know I'm going to disagree with this, because this is not the method seen in the New Testament at all!
I find it odd that you posted the 2nd part of your article. It actually supports what I've been saying all along, that there is ONE baptism, and this baptism is written about in Romans 6, which you guys contend is speaking about Spirit baptism. But the author of your author gets it right, acknowledging that Romans 6 is referring to water baptism:
Amen to what this says, it echos what I've been saying. And then I see:
Rising out the water, every sin has been forgiven. This author agrees with me that baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did you quote him?
The deal is, just because baptism is symbolic of you seem to think that it has nothing to do with our salvation. But staying with Romans 6, we find that not to be true:
5) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
7) For he who has died has been freed from sin.
These are conditional verses, c.moore. IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (through baptism) we will likewise be ressurected, just as Christ was ressurected. IF.
In verse 7, who has been freed from sin? Who? Those who have died with Christ through baptism. 2 Timothy supports this condtional statement by saying that IF we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. IF, if, if.
So IF you have NOT died with Christ, you will not live with Him. IF you have not died with Christ, you are not freed from sin. IF you are not united in Christ's death, we will not be in the likeness of Christ's ressurection.
IF you haven't died from sin, you aren't saved.
By being baptized for the remission of sins (why do you think Christ commanded it!), we have obeyed what God has told us to do to have our sins forgiven, which is BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will only cover those who obey the command of baptism, because baptism PURPOSE is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Rom. 6). I know I've explained this before.
See above. The forgiveness is out there. All we have to do is obey what is commanded for the remission of our sins - baptism.
You put a lot of faith in your TV evangelists. I put my faith in what the word of God says. If Billy Graham and others alike convert people by asking them to say the sinner's prayer, then those people have NOT obeyed what GOD COMMANDED for the remission of sins. What do you think God is going to think about that? Who is man to change God's plan of salvation? Don't you find it just a little odd that there is not ONE example in the New Testament, NOT ONE, of people being saved by a sinner's prayer? Yet, belief and baptism is found in many, many places, which just echos what Christ said about salvation: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
I've been over "what if" senarios soooooooo many times. Why do you still test me? It's all in God's hands, but I would rather stand before God being in the postion of knowing that I was going to obey the commdment of God for the remission of my sins, rather than standing before Him not believing what He commanded for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation.
As I've said many times in the past... what if scenario's don't change one bit of what God commands and expects of us for salvation. What if statements are nothing more than trying to use rare case, extreme scenarios to try and "water down" what God commands us to do for the forgiveness of sins.
I mean, WHAT IF a man was hearing the gospel, but before he got a chance to believe, he died of a heart attack before he believed? Pretty lame, huh? What if scenarios hold no water.
Ooooh... so you now think Acts 2:38 is referring to WATER baptism instead of Spirit baptism. I'm glad you finally realize that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism. I've been trying to tell you this over and over. But you know... what I say doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. I don't know why you bother asking me questions.
And in answer to your question above, it's just another "what if" scenario. See above. However, I would definately encourage a church to perform baptism when the person is ready, which is what we see in the Bible. Baptism should not be a calendar event. By the way, those 3,000 people were baptized in one day in Acts 2. See verse 41.
Baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and ressurection. And by dying with Him through baptism, we have obeyed what God commanded for the forgiveness of our sins. And also reflect again about the conditional statements of Romans 6... you know... the "IF" part.
Is it not possible to lose our salvation after obeying the gospel? You bet it is. Please don't tell me you now believe in OSAS! That's why I used the term that we are in a "state of salvation", because we are only in that state as long as we don't turn our backs on God. However, on Judgement Day, if Christ says to you, well done ye good and faithful servant, enter into the gates of Heaven... then you are saved.
I've got news for you... being a Christian IS hard. Why do you think that Christ said:
Matt. 7:13,14 (MKJV)
13) Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.
14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Now, of if all you had to do was believe ONLY, and you were saved from that moment on, the above verses wouldn't make much sense, because a lot of people believe, EVEN the demons (James 2:19). The pathway to life would be WIDE instead of constricted.
The question I have is why do people want to change the plan of God's salvation, converting people with a sinners prayer, which has no Biblical authority.
I a problem with Freak's theology, yes, because preaches a watered down version of the gospel, faith only, as you do... and that's contrary to the Bible. Ever notice how Freak has trouble answering my and other people's questions? He can't even answer the simple question of is repentance necessary for salvation. He can't say yes, because if he does, then he admits that something we do (a work), repentance, is needed for salvation which kills his faith only saves balogney. Believing is one thing... repenting is an entirely different matter.
Obedience to God is NOT about boasting. We have NOTHING to boast about. We obey God because we have faith in Him and what He says, and the disobedient will NOT inherit the kingdom of God.
The evidence is two fold.
1. John agreed to limit his ministry to the circumcision. Gal. 2:9
2. The theme of his rightings. Which is consistent with that limitation.
I do not contend that there was another Ephesus. Simply that both circumcision and grace believers were both present in that city. Paul wrote to one group, John and Jesus both wrote to the other.
I understand that this conclusion is based logically upon dispensational presuppositions, so please spare me a reinterpretation based on non-dispensational presuppositions.
This statement is stupid and is an obvious attempt to anger me and obfuscate the point. I didn't come up with dispensational theology off the top of my head (in fact, "I" didn't come up with it at all), and the only "facts" as you call them that I am willing to ignore are those that are irrelevant or aren't established facts. There is a reason why it is considered the "TRADITIONAL" burial place of John.
Further, we as Christians (at least protestant Christians), do not use tradition as a basis for theology. We use the bible. Whether or not the cannon of scripture is based in part on tradition is irrelevant. The fact that it made it into the scripture is proof enough for me that those ‘traditions’ are true and valid facts of history. Any traditions that did not make it into the cannon are still just that--traditions. The cannon of scripture is complete and is the absolute arbiter of theology. Tradition has a place in both historical & theological discussions but our theology is not to be based on them.
No, I don't, but until you, no one has been willing to debate dispensationalism on this thread. Everyone seems happy to debate their conclusions, but not the foundations upon which they are founded.
First of all, Jesus didn't forget anything. The 12 were of a different dispensation than the Body of Christ. The rapture had nothing to do with them. Asking a question like that proves that either you are ignorant of what Dispensationalism teaches or that you wish to attack Dispensationalism based on teachings that you know to be fallacious. Which is it? Are you ignorant or a liar?
Secondly, Dispensationalism as a formal system of theology is recent; the ideas that became that system are not. In the interests of brevity(this is going to be a long post anyway) I won’t give actual quotations but will give a short list of early church writers who mention dispensational-like concepts…
1.Justin Martyr (110-165) held a concept of differing programs of God. See the Dialogue with Trypho.
2.Irenaeus (130-200) wrote about “…four principal covenants given to the human race…”. See “Against Heresies”, III,xi.8
3.Clement of Alexandria (150-220) distinguished three patriarchal dispensations (in Adam, Noah, & Abraham) as well as the Mosaic.
4.Samuel Hanson Coxe (1793-1880) backed up his own sevenfold dispensational scheme by Clement’s fourfold one. (See “Ante-Nicene Fathers”)
5.Augustine (ca. 400 a.d.) reflects on these early dispensational ideas in his writings. (See ‘To Marcellinus’, CXXXVIII, 5, 7)
Now, I am not saying that these early church fathers were dispensationalists in the modern understanding of the word but I present this information in refutation of you assertion that “dispensational 'theology' (was) completely unknown to any Christian before 1830”.
Dispensationalists do not claim that the system was developed in the first century: nor is it necessary to be able to do so because your accusation that, since Dispensationalism (as a system) is relatively new then it is therefore false, is an incorrect use of history. The fact that something was taught in the first century doesn’t make it right, and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it false. The question is not whether or not Dispensationalism is historic?, but is it scriptural?
The charge of newness was leveled at the doctrine of the Reformers. Calvin’s answer then could be used today to defend Dispensationalism against the same charge:
“First by calling it ‘new’ they do great harm to God, who’s Sacred Word does not deserve to be accused of novelty….that it has lain long unknown and buried is the fault of man’s impiety. Now when it is restored to us by God’s goodness, its claims to antiquity ought to be admitted at least by right of discovery.” – John Calvin, “Prefatory Address to King Francis,” in “Institutes of the Christian Religion” 1561
And one final point on this subject…The man who systematized, or formulized a particular theology is irrelevant, as is the date when he did it. What matters is whether it is consistent with scripture. I don't think that Darby had everything right, nor do I think Calvin, Luther, Augustine, you, myself or anyone else has everything right. What I contend is that dispensational theology does the best job of any system of which I am aware, of explaining scripture consistently, logically, and in such a way that one doesn't have to make certain scriptures say things that they don't appear to be saying by a simple reading of the text.
So says you! There’s this little known character in the Bible named Paul who had a few things to say about it. And there’s also book in the Bible that deals almost exclusively with events surrounding the second coming. I’ll give you a hint. The book starts with R, and the city of Ephesus is mentioned.
And by the way, Dispensationalism is theology. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you. But regardless, it is actually theology. And while I do agree with it, it is inaccurate to say that it is MINE. I'm not making this stuff up as I go. And I didn't live in you favorite century...the 1800's.
That’s a good one… accusing a Pauline dispensationalist of ignoring Paul! Paul speaks here of being baptized into the Spirit. I could establish this but I won’t waste my time doing so. You would (and have already) rejected my interpretation of scripture because you reject Dispensationalism. As I have told Kevin, our disagreement hinges entirely upon who’s system of theology is correct and it is therefore a waste of time debating anything other than the fundamentals of those systems and their validity.
In response to this…
You said this…
In reference to your question about Abraham…I’ll answer your question with a question. Does is not say that, “Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness”? And doesn’t Paul say he (Abraham) was the father of both groups?
I answered in this way because much else would require that pesky dispensational interpretation of scripture again and I’m avoiding that for reasons stated above.
You sir, are a hypocrite. You accuse me of taking scripture out of context and then try to apply this verse in such a way as to place believers under the law. What you say Paul “clearly taught” is the exact opposite of what his entire ministry was about. Dispensationalist agree with Paul, that evil people go to Hell and righteous people do not, whether they have the law or not (which is Rom. 2 in a nutshell).
This is insane, you raise up straw men like nobody I’ve ever seen! Do you expect me to take you at all seriously when you make such an idiotic accusation? First of all the devil could not be saved in the first place, regardless of what he believes or does. Secondly, stop saying things are “clearly” taught. The phrase doesn’t make your arguments any more true or false, and you have an uncanny ability of assigning “clarity” to teachings that aren’t there. What should be ‘clear’ is that James’ point was to say that a simple intellectual acceptance of the fact that God exists or even the historical facts surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is not sufficient. One must, believe that those facts are for your benefit, humbly coming to Christ as your Savior. In other words you must have FAITH in Christ (Himself), not just in His existence.
There are so many fallacies of logic in this statement that I hardly know where to begin. Fortunately, much of this is addressed earlier in this post, but this part is classic:
“Any 'system' that teaches anything that is not true can only be false in and of itself. If your dispensational 'system' was true, then it could espouse nothing but truth.”
This statement implies a belief that you know all truth. You obviously believe that your own system of believe is correct, and according to this statement, that system must not teach anything false (or else it wouldn't be at all correct), and that all systems that teach anything contrary to your system must therefore be entirely false, and thus you have the true Apostolic faith! How lucky for us that you have joined us here on TOL! You should email Knight and inform him that this site is no longer necessary and that he should start a new site where you answer any theological questions that come up in the Body of Christ from this point forward.
Actually it was God’s plan to bring all people to Himself through Israel’s Kingdom. Israel hated the King, and so God didn’t give them this kingdom (See Jeremiah 18). Instead, as Paul does CLEARLY teach the whole world was reconciled through the cutting off of Israel. Read Romans 11:11-15 Especially verse 15.
“11 I say then, Have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them (Israel) to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?”
It was God who was no longer making the distinction between Jew and Gentile, not Peter, which is itself a fundamental change in the message. Peter simply was agreeing with God who had to go to some lengths to convince Peter to even keep company with a gentile(not to mention going into his house and eating with him) even after Peter was indwelt with the Holy Spirit. God did this with Peter in order to communicate to him (the leader of the 12 and of the circumcision believers) that the program was now different.
Oops, more dispensational interpretation!
Yet in the face of this very plain scriptural truth, your fairy tale 'theology' would require us to believe this inspired scripture is a lie and that God did make distinctions between Jews and Gentiles insofar as the message to Christians. If both Jew and Gentile are to be saved 'through the grace of our Lord Jesus', then why would God send two different messages? That's as believable as Grimms Fairy Tales. I wonder if John Nelson Darby (inventor of Dispensationalism) was somehow related to the Grimm family?
The fact that both Jew and Gentile would be saved “through the grace of our Lord Jesus” WAS the “second” message. Before this, salvation was only available to the Gentile if he became a Jew and obeyed the Mosaic Law. i.e. became circumcised, et all.
Romans 11:6 “6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
Romans 4:5 “5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Jesus’ figure of speech was intentionally cryptic. He was answering a question posed to Him by people who did not have faith in Him but in the miraculous works that they saw with their own eyes. Thus, saying that without faith, works (miracles) mean nothing. Which, by the way, sums up Christ’s ministry pretty well. Jesus, while not ignoring action on the part of the faithful, was not focused on it, but on faith. He spent three years looking for faith and hardly found any at all. Your focus, on the other hand is fixed on works to prove faith. I understand that the context of our discussion doesn’t EXACTLY fit with this observation but its close enough.
Not Paul’s definition, apparently. See above.
This is a good example of how Dispensationalism allows one to take the scripture as is. It means what it says it means. I do not have to force Paul into saying something contrary to the theme of every book he wrote. And likewise, I don’t have to make James appear to be preaching salvation by grace alone! They both were preaching what it appears that they were preaching by a simple cursory reading of the text. All that is necessary is to acknowledge is that James wrote to the circumcision believers and Paul wrote to the Body of Christ. Both authors state plainly who their intended audience was. Paul to Gentiles and James to “the dispersion” or in other words the Jews scattered abroad because of the persecution in Israel.
This ability afforded by and only by dispensationalism is a major reason why one should see at least some validity in the system. It makes the bible readable AND understandable to regular people who don't have seminary degree's and who are so called experts. Which is the way you would intuitively expect God to write the bible.
I think I have found one piece of common ground with you. Neither of us are Calvinists, which is a good thing! :thumb:
Now, I know that this has been a long post and I apologize for that, but it couldn’t be avoided. I tried to respond directly to virtually every point you made so as to avoid further accusations of being evasive. However, in the future I will not respond to anything that is not concerning basic presupposition of our respective systems of theology. Not because I can’t, but because it is a waste of time to go back and forth reinterpreting the same scriptures over and over and over again.
And more importantly, I will not respond to you at all if you can not be respectful and intelligent. The juvenile rantings in your statements to me are uncalled for and I believe sinful. Sarcasm and a little light hearted ribbing or even the occasional harsh word is one thing but you were overly emotional and hostile to a point that can not be justified and I for one will not tolerate such behavior.
And, finally, in order to avoid being accused of plagiarism, some of the material in this post was taken (although not always ver batem) from “Dispensationalism” by Charles C. Ryrie.
Resting in His Grace,
Clete
Last edited:
Clete,
First, Gal. 2:9 does not 'limit' John to preaching the gospel to the Jews, it merely suggests that was his focus for some period of time after the meeting with Paul. You are making a rash assumption that is completely unsupported when you suggest John was 'limited' to preaching to the Jews from Gal. 2:9 forward.
Second, if you see Gal. 2:9 as limiting John to ministering to the Jews, why did it not limit Paul to preaching to the Gentiles??? Romans 2:17 is a perfect example of Paul preaching to Jews. The letter to the Romans also contains instructions for Gentiles as well. Why? Because the Christian church included both Jew and Gentile converts. While Paul's focus was spreading the gospel message to the Gentiles, he was certainly not 'limited' in such a way that he could not address Jews as well. And John was no more limited than Paul.
Third, all Christians are 'grace believers', not just Gentile Christians. Peter makes this abundantly clear in Acts 15:
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, saving us all by His grace, which Peter and the other Jewish Christians obviously believed. They were ALL 'grace believers', just as all Christians are today.
BTW, Samuel Hanson Coxe spelled his name C-O-X. It was his son Arthur that adopted the old spelling of the name by adding the E to the end. And both of these men opposed Darby's far-fetched 'theology.'
Then to say that just because something wasn't taught until the 19th century doesn't make it false is also bunk. Our Christian religion was revealed to the apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If someone comes along 1800 years later with a new or different message, then it is not something revealed by Jesus or the Holy Spirit to the apostles and is therefor false.
Paul clearly talks about being buried as in being submerged in water. The entire Church, from the first century on, understood this clearly. Besides, how can one be buried in the Holy Spirit? What a ridiculous notion.
Paul says those who persevere in doing good are rewarded with eternal life, and those who do not receive anger and wrath. How can it be any clearer?
Even so FAITH, if it hath not works, is dead, being ALONE.
And just to make sure you can see the context of this book, since you have apparently never read it, take a look at this:
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Hmmmm, I can't seem to find that teaching of 'faith alone' in these preceeding verses. It sure looks to me like James is saying we have to manifest our love for our neighbors through good deeds like feeding and clothing the needy.
[color]Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.[/color]
Hmmm, and I can't see your 'just have faith' idea here either. It sure looks pretty clear to me that James is saying Abraham was justified by something he did, by HIS WORKS. That is what it VERY CLEARLY says, Clete.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY. Likewise also was not RAHAB THE HARLOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD also.
Hmmm, some more VERY CLEAR teachings of James. AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can it be any more CLEAR than that Clete?
Well, Clete, if you can't see by now how oversimplified the dispensational message is, and how convoluted it is causing you to play with words and perform mental gymnastics to make it fit, then all I can do is pray for you.
God Bless,
Francisco
You have several problems with your evidence Clete.
First, Gal. 2:9 does not 'limit' John to preaching the gospel to the Jews, it merely suggests that was his focus for some period of time after the meeting with Paul. You are making a rash assumption that is completely unsupported when you suggest John was 'limited' to preaching to the Jews from Gal. 2:9 forward.
Second, if you see Gal. 2:9 as limiting John to ministering to the Jews, why did it not limit Paul to preaching to the Gentiles??? Romans 2:17 is a perfect example of Paul preaching to Jews. The letter to the Romans also contains instructions for Gentiles as well. Why? Because the Christian church included both Jew and Gentile converts. While Paul's focus was spreading the gospel message to the Gentiles, he was certainly not 'limited' in such a way that he could not address Jews as well. And John was no more limited than Paul.
Third, all Christians are 'grace believers', not just Gentile Christians. Peter makes this abundantly clear in Acts 15:
7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, saving us all by His grace, which Peter and the other Jewish Christians obviously believed. They were ALL 'grace believers', just as all Christians are today.
No, I'm not trying to anger you. And I realize you didn't come up with dispensational theology, John Nelson Darby did that in the mid 1800's. And you totally missed my point about John's burial place. You previously said it wouldn't make any difference to you if John was buried in Thailand. By saying that you are saying that even if it was proved John were buried in Thailand you would ignore that fact. That's stupid! You can't ignore facts just because they don't fit with the fairy tales concocted by a failed lawyer who wanted to start his own religious club.
Paul instructed that we should hold to all the traditions he taught, whether by word or letter, not just the ones that would 'make it into scripture.' Your idea that the bible is the 'absolute arbiter of theology' would have left the church without any theology for the first four hundred years. But that's not what happened. The apostles handed down the teachings, primarily by oral preaching, and these teachings were handed down through repeatedly through the ages. When the church created the bible by pulling all inspired scripture together into one book (late 4th century), the church leaders who decided what was scripture judged the writings by comparing the writings to the teachings that had been handed down from the apostles. If the writings somehow contradicted the traditional teachings, it was obvious the writing was not inspired. So to divorce your beliefs from tradition and history is to divorce yourself from the foundation upon which the bible was created.
The problem is dispensationalism has no foundation, that's why they ignore you. It's a ridiculous notion to think a failed lawyer would suddenly have all this new information that Jesus and the Holy Spirit didn't propagate to the church for over 1800 years. There is no rational explanation for Darby's ideas, just as there is no rational explanation for Joseph Smith's (founder of Mormonism) ideas. They both claimed to have visions that completely contradicted the Christian teachings of the previous 1800 years. Maybe they both had visions, but I can assure you they were not divine visions. Hmmmm, I wonder who would want these men to have visions that would cause division and contradiction among Christians??? You should be able to figure that one out.....
LOL! Your circular reasoning kills me. You can only support dispensationalism with dispensationalism. That's hilarious, and what's even funnier is you don't seem to be aware that you're doing that.
Another knee slapper! Just because someone uses the words 'dispensation' does not mean they subscribed to the beliefs developed by Darby after his visions. The word is used to describe the covenantal arrangements God made between Himself and man through the ages. For example, Clement of Alexandria talks of the 'patriarchal dispensations' with Adam, Noah and Abraham in describing the covenant's God made with each of these patriarchs of the Israelites. But when we talk of 'dispensational theology', we are referring to the theology Darby created after his 'visions.'
BTW, Samuel Hanson Coxe spelled his name C-O-X. It was his son Arthur that adopted the old spelling of the name by adding the E to the end. And both of these men opposed Darby's far-fetched 'theology.'
Hmmm, would you say then that the teachings the apostles gave to the first century church could have been in error? That is what you're saying when you said "The fact that something was taught in the first century doesn’t make it right." And you know that is absolutely bunk.
Then to say that just because something wasn't taught until the 19th century doesn't make it false is also bunk. Our Christian religion was revealed to the apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If someone comes along 1800 years later with a new or different message, then it is not something revealed by Jesus or the Holy Spirit to the apostles and is therefor false.
Well, this is really the crux of the matter isn't it. But how do you judge whether dispensationalism is 'scriptural'? The Mormons and Jehovahs say there brand of 'Christianity' is scriptural. The 33,000 Protestant denominations all claim their particular brands of faith are scriptural, as do Catholics and Orthodox. So how are we supposed to know who's telling the truth? By comparing it to the historical teachings that exist from the first century church that was taught by Jesus and the apostles, not by a failed lawyer who had 'visions' 1800 years later.
Clete, Jesus promised to leave the Holy Spirit with His church to guide it to all truth. If you believe no one has it all right, then you must believe Jesus broke His promise. That's a result of the problems you have recognized in your own dispensational theology. If you know that dispensationalism doesn't have it all right, then you are duty bound to find the theology that does have it all right.
Again you miss my point. The dispensationalist version of the Rapture was completely unknown until it was developed by Darby and the Brethren in the 1800's. There are NO writings by ANYONE before that time that described the dispensationalist version of the rapture. If you think there are, please post them and enlighten us all.
Gosh NO, we don't want you to waste your time expounding on what Paul meant about baptism on a thread that's discussing baptism! How laughable.
Paul clearly talks about being buried as in being submerged in water. The entire Church, from the first century on, understood this clearly. Besides, how can one be buried in the Holy Spirit? What a ridiculous notion.
Hmmm, so I wonder who told us the truth, Paul or James? Or could it be that a persons justification before God is a continual process like I said? Can someone be justified through faith, and then also justified later by an obedient action? If so, then Paul and James are BOTH correct. If not, as you seem to claim, then Paul's words are correct and the Holy Spirit must have misled James.
You sir, are a blind fool who distorts the plain words of scripture to fit Mr. Darby's man-made visionary theology. How in the world do you say I'm placing believers under the 'law'? I'm assuming you mean the Mosaic Law? These verses have nothing to do with the Mosaic Law. They are Paul's very clear words that your fairy tale theology contradicts. Otherwise you wouldn't have to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make his plain words mean something that fits with Darby's ridiculous notions.
Paul says those who persevere in doing good are rewarded with eternal life, and those who do not receive anger and wrath. How can it be any clearer?
My friend, you seem to suffer from severe cranialrectumitis. Your interpretation of James' teachings seem to leave out that fact that he VERY CLEARY says FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. Why should I not say that is CLEAR? Just because it doesn't fit with your abbridged version of the Christian faith? BTW, the only place in scripture that we find the words 'faith' and 'alone' together in the same sentence is when James says:
Even so FAITH, if it hath not works, is dead, being ALONE.
And just to make sure you can see the context of this book, since you have apparently never read it, take a look at this:
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Hmmmm, I can't seem to find that teaching of 'faith alone' in these preceeding verses. It sure looks to me like James is saying we have to manifest our love for our neighbors through good deeds like feeding and clothing the needy.
[color]Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.[/color]
Hmmm, and I can't see your 'just have faith' idea here either. It sure looks pretty clear to me that James is saying Abraham was justified by something he did, by HIS WORKS. That is what it VERY CLEARLY says, Clete.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY. Likewise also was not RAHAB THE HARLOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD also.
Hmmm, some more VERY CLEAR teachings of James. AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can it be any more CLEAR than that Clete?
Well, Clete, if you can't see by now how oversimplified the dispensational message is, and how convoluted it is causing you to play with words and perform mental gymnastics to make it fit, then all I can do is pray for you.
God Bless,
Francisco
Fransico,
Don't be lazy.
When responding to my posts please read the entire post before wasting my time responding to points by making other points that I answer later in my post!
Nearly your entire post is nothing but reinterpretation of scripture which is correct and true IF you nondispensational presuppositions on which they are based are true.
I do not reject any first century teaching or tradition that made into scripture. Because, by virtue of the fact that it made into scripture, it is no longer tradition, but inspired scripture. Before the bible was complete there was an obvious need for reliance upon tradition, but with the permanence of the written word, tradition is no longer needed. This is standard orthodox Christian belief. I can’t believe your even arguing this point. Tradition is not superior to scripture! We are not to judge scripture based on traditions but the reverse. If a tradition contradicts the bible then it’s wrong. Period.
John's burial place is not only traditional, but irrelevant. I don't care where he was buried because it doesn't make any difference! If, by some odd turn of events, his body was proven to have been buried in Oklahoma City, it wouldn't bother me. It would be weird, but it wouldn't be a crisis for either Christianity, or Dispensationalism because there is not a single Christian or Dispensational teaching that hinges upon what someone did with John's body after he died.
John Darby, helped formalize Dispensational theology into a system, but as a shown in my last post he didn't come up with the ideas. And, he did not start the Plymouth Brethren, although he became a leader of that group. All of which is irrelevant. Reformation theology isn't to be judged as valid or invalid based on what kind of men Luther, or Calvin were, but on scripture. The same is true of Dispensationalism.
When I gave a list of early church writers who wrote about "Dispensational-like" ideas, I immediately afterward stated that I did not and was not saying that these early church fathers where dispensationalists. And yet, you waste time refuting that point which I didn't even make. If you would read the entire post and respond to it as a whole, this waste of time would be avoided.
Have you emailed Knight yet? How long before the site is shut down?
Clete
Don't be lazy.
When responding to my posts please read the entire post before wasting my time responding to points by making other points that I answer later in my post!
Nearly your entire post is nothing but reinterpretation of scripture which is correct and true IF you nondispensational presuppositions on which they are based are true.
I do not reject any first century teaching or tradition that made into scripture. Because, by virtue of the fact that it made into scripture, it is no longer tradition, but inspired scripture. Before the bible was complete there was an obvious need for reliance upon tradition, but with the permanence of the written word, tradition is no longer needed. This is standard orthodox Christian belief. I can’t believe your even arguing this point. Tradition is not superior to scripture! We are not to judge scripture based on traditions but the reverse. If a tradition contradicts the bible then it’s wrong. Period.
John's burial place is not only traditional, but irrelevant. I don't care where he was buried because it doesn't make any difference! If, by some odd turn of events, his body was proven to have been buried in Oklahoma City, it wouldn't bother me. It would be weird, but it wouldn't be a crisis for either Christianity, or Dispensationalism because there is not a single Christian or Dispensational teaching that hinges upon what someone did with John's body after he died.
John Darby, helped formalize Dispensational theology into a system, but as a shown in my last post he didn't come up with the ideas. And, he did not start the Plymouth Brethren, although he became a leader of that group. All of which is irrelevant. Reformation theology isn't to be judged as valid or invalid based on what kind of men Luther, or Calvin were, but on scripture. The same is true of Dispensationalism.
When I gave a list of early church writers who wrote about "Dispensational-like" ideas, I immediately afterward stated that I did not and was not saying that these early church fathers where dispensationalists. And yet, you waste time refuting that point which I didn't even make. If you would read the entire post and respond to it as a whole, this waste of time would be avoided.
Have you emailed Knight yet? How long before the site is shut down?
Clete
Last edited:
Clete,
The fact is, your dispensational theory goes out the window with the very first argument. The primary basis of dispensationalism is that Paul had a different message for Gentiles than the message John, amongst others, had for the Jewish Christians. You hold out Gal 2:9 to show this 'limitation.' However, the limitation only exists in your distorted interpretation, as evidenced by the fact Paul VERY CLEARLY preached to Jewish Christians as well as to Gentiles. For the supposed limitation in Gal 2:9 to be a valid argument, Paul would have also been 'limited' to preaching only to Gentiles, but as I showed before in Romans 2:17ff, Paul preached to Jews as well. If there was a 'dispensationalist theology' in place, then those limitations would have been necessary. Since the limitations are non-existant, then there was no separate dispensation for the Gentiles.
Your theory also conflicts with the many instances of the apostles teaching that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, are all saved by the grace of God, yet you try to divide the two. Peter VERY CLEARLY said God makes no distinction between the two, so why would there be two different messages?
And why, if there was a third message, is scripture silent as to exactly what the message was and when it was given to Paul?
And why, if the message was different, did Paul go to Peter, James and John for their approval of this message as he did in Gal 2?
Sorry Clete, none of it makes any sense.
God Bless,
Francisco
The fact is, your dispensational theory goes out the window with the very first argument. The primary basis of dispensationalism is that Paul had a different message for Gentiles than the message John, amongst others, had for the Jewish Christians. You hold out Gal 2:9 to show this 'limitation.' However, the limitation only exists in your distorted interpretation, as evidenced by the fact Paul VERY CLEARLY preached to Jewish Christians as well as to Gentiles. For the supposed limitation in Gal 2:9 to be a valid argument, Paul would have also been 'limited' to preaching only to Gentiles, but as I showed before in Romans 2:17ff, Paul preached to Jews as well. If there was a 'dispensationalist theology' in place, then those limitations would have been necessary. Since the limitations are non-existant, then there was no separate dispensation for the Gentiles.
Your theory also conflicts with the many instances of the apostles teaching that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, are all saved by the grace of God, yet you try to divide the two. Peter VERY CLEARLY said God makes no distinction between the two, so why would there be two different messages?
And why, if there was a third message, is scripture silent as to exactly what the message was and when it was given to Paul?
And why, if the message was different, did Paul go to Peter, James and John for their approval of this message as he did in Gal 2?
Sorry Clete, none of it makes any sense.
God Bless,
Francisco
Clete,
I'm going on vacation today and won't be back until next Tuesday. Why don't you save your reply until then and we can start a separate thread to discuss this. We are way off the subject of baptism, so we should start another thread for our present discussion.
God Bless,
Francisco
I'm going on vacation today and won't be back until next Tuesday. Why don't you save your reply until then and we can start a separate thread to discuss this. We are way off the subject of baptism, so we should start another thread for our present discussion.
God Bless,
Francisco
c.moore
New member
It is not a a must to be saved by obeying but the bible says if you love you will obey, not you must obey or your ordered to obey.
Now if I don`t love God with all my heart the evidence might or will come out in disobeying and practicing sinning.
yes , I believe we should get water baptized , but not for salvation or getting saved.
water baptism is not what saves and that is another gospel when you have to take a dip in water to be born again or to be put in a how case to be watch if you obey and be righteous to show if you love God first before being saved or on the way of getting saved one day.
God Bless
c.moore
New member
Kevin Quoted:
Never have I proclaimed that water actually washes our sins away. It's just water, and could never take place of the blood of Christ.
Quote c.moore
Now we are getting some where.
I am glad to know that you accept the blood of Jesus to have priority over some baptism.
Quote kevin
I also read in the first article that all you have to believe and Jesus just automactically comes into your heart. Of course you know I'm going to disagree with this, because this is not the method seen in the New Testament at all!
Quote c.moore
OHHH if you say so, but this is why I posted that author because he believes like we do and has the same salvation message
Quote Kevin
I find it odd that you posted the 2nd part of your article. It actually supports what I've been saying all along, that there is ONE baptism, and this baptism is written about in Romans 6, which you guys contend is speaking about Spirit baptism. But the author of your author gets it right, acknowledging that Romans 6 is referring to water baptism:
quote: c.moore
In the Scriptures there is but one form of baptism. That's by the submerging of the repentant individual in water. The apostle Paul describes it as a watery grave: "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him through baptism into death" (Romans 6:1-11). And emerging from this watery grave - we would die if we stayed there! - is symbolic of our resurrection as "a new creature in Christ" (6:4-5).
Amen to what this says, it echos what I've been saying. And then I see:
Quote c.moore
Did you notice he said it is a symbol water baptism??
quote:
Rising out of the water, every sin has been forgiven. We are clean! The Lamb of God, Jesus of Nazareth, has taken all the sin of each of us upon himself through his suffering and his sacrificial death on the hill of Golgotha - "the place of the skull". His life blood, lanced by a Roman spear, Poured from his lacerated body.
Rising out the water, every sin has been forgiven. This author agrees with me that baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did you quote him?
The deal is, just because baptism is symbolic of you seem to think that it has nothing to do with our salvation. But staying with Romans 6, we find that not to be true:
5) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
7) For he who has died has been freed from sin.
These are conditional verses, c.moore. IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (through baptism) we will likewise be ressurected, just as Christ was ressurected. IF.
Quote c.moore
What is meant by likeness????
Quote Kevin
In verse 7, who has been freed from sin? Who? Those who have died with Christ through baptism. 2 Timothy supports this condtional statement by saying that IF we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. IF, if, if.
So IF you have NOT died with Christ, you will not live with Him. IF you have not died with Christ, you are not freed from sin. IF you are not united in Christ's death, we will not be in the likeness of Christ's ressurection.
IF you haven't died from sin, you aren't saved.
Quote c.moore
But isn`t that a faith thing ro believe by faith you have died from your sins??
quote:
I would like to ask you kevin what is more important the blood of Jesus that takesand washes our sins awayor is it the getting wet and water baptism that takes our sins away and the wate rH2O that washes or sins and make us white as snow???
Quote Kevin
By being baptized for the remission of sins (why do you think Christ commanded it!), we have obeyed what God has told us to do to have our sins forgiven, which is BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will only cover those who obey the command of baptism, because baptism PURPOSE is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Rom. 6). I know I've explained this before.
quote:
So Kevin, if the case is to be put in water after believing then Billy Graham and hundred of other evangelist like Rienhard Bonnke who has over 1.5 million people get saved or believe in his alter call are not saved because there was no beach or poolls to be baptized in is this true???
Quote Kevin
You put a lot of faith in your TV evangelists. I put my faith in what the word of God says. If Billy Graham and others alike convert people by asking them to say the sinner's prayer, then those people have NOT obeyed what GOD COMMANDED for the remission of sins. What do you think God is going to think about that? Who is man to change God's plan of salvation? Don't you find it just a little odd that there is not ONE example in the New Testament, NOT ONE, of people being saved by a sinner's prayer? Yet, belief and baptism is found in many, many places, which just echos what Christ said about salvation: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Quote c.moore
So all those people who repented and believed in Christ and ask the blood of Jesus to wash them at Billy Graham meetings and other Evangelist meeting were not saved at all because they all didn`t obey and get wet afeter they got saved is this correct and all the hundred of Evangelist, pastorand prophet are on their way to hell because they didn`t give a complete water gospel is that correct?????????
quote:
Also When a person maybe believes on a street by witnessing and it is a monday, and the church is only open on sunday and the person hasn`t been baptized yet and that person get killed or dies before sunday in your doctrine this person will have to go to hell because he didn`t get water baptized for his sins to be forgiven and can`t be saved is this true???
Quote Kevin
I've been over "what if" senarios soooooooo many times. Why do you still test me? It's all in God's hands, but I would rather stand before God being in the postion of knowing that I was going to obey the commdment of God for the remission of my sins, rather than standing before Him not believing what He commanded for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation.
As I've said many times in the past... what if scenario's don't change one bit of what God commands and expects of us for salvation. What if statements are nothing more than trying to use rare case, extreme scenarios to try and "water down" what God commands us to do for the forgiveness of sins.
I mean, WHAT IF a man was hearing the gospel, but before he got a chance to believe, he died of a heart attack before he believed? Pretty lame, huh? What if scenarios hold no water.
Quote c.moore
I use this so we can see eye to eye and get the whole message what I am saying and why I believe and trust the bible is saying to me.
I can do my best explaining the spiritual things of God by what If to a natural religious person, that is led more by the flesh than the Spirit.
quote: c.moore
Also if a church is so large that they only have a baptism every 3 month or more will all the thousands of people in between that believe and repented, and was not watered baptized also go to hell because they didn`t get their sins washed away in water and didn`t do like the bible say`s in Acts 2:38????
Quote Kevin
Ooooh... so you now think Acts 2:38 is referring to WATER baptism instead of Spirit baptism. I'm glad you finally realize that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism. I've been trying to tell you this over and over. But you know... what I say doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. I don't know why you bother asking me questions.
Quote c.moore
No you are putting Words in my mouth I didn`t say I believe that, I only mention what you believe and was using you Acts 2:38 which you try to build your doctrine on.
Quote kevin
Baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and ressurection. And by dying with Him through baptism, we have obeyed what God commanded for the forgiveness of our sins. And also reflect again about the conditional statements of Romans 6... you know... the "IF" part.
Quote c,moore
I don`t think you friend Francisco would agree with you on what you said about an symbolic anything, I am glad to see you do, this is an improvement praise God.
quote: c.moore
This is why I ask how many people didn`t you bring to the Lord with your doctrine, because your salvation message is like a hoping and wishing, gospel, and alot of hard works.
Quote kevin
I've got news for you... being a Christian IS hard. Why do you think that Christ said:
Matt. 7:13,14 (MKJV)
13) Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.
14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Now, of if all you had to do was believe ONLY, and you were saved from that moment on, the above verses wouldn't make much sense, because a lot of people believe, EVEN the demons (James 2:19). The pathway to life would be WIDE instead of constricted.
Quote c.moore
It`s not hard , because with Jesus the yoke , and burden is light and easy Kevin, and it is a matter of Choice , receiving, and trusting in Jesus .
Really no works or religious rituals inclúded in the salvation message, but if you wants some reward , try to be obedient , and please our Father.
God Bless
Never have I proclaimed that water actually washes our sins away. It's just water, and could never take place of the blood of Christ.
Quote c.moore
Now we are getting some where.
I am glad to know that you accept the blood of Jesus to have priority over some baptism.
Quote kevin
I also read in the first article that all you have to believe and Jesus just automactically comes into your heart. Of course you know I'm going to disagree with this, because this is not the method seen in the New Testament at all!
Quote c.moore
OHHH if you say so, but this is why I posted that author because he believes like we do and has the same salvation message
Quote Kevin
I find it odd that you posted the 2nd part of your article. It actually supports what I've been saying all along, that there is ONE baptism, and this baptism is written about in Romans 6, which you guys contend is speaking about Spirit baptism. But the author of your author gets it right, acknowledging that Romans 6 is referring to water baptism:
quote: c.moore
In the Scriptures there is but one form of baptism. That's by the submerging of the repentant individual in water. The apostle Paul describes it as a watery grave: "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him through baptism into death" (Romans 6:1-11). And emerging from this watery grave - we would die if we stayed there! - is symbolic of our resurrection as "a new creature in Christ" (6:4-5).
Amen to what this says, it echos what I've been saying. And then I see:
Quote c.moore
Did you notice he said it is a symbol water baptism??
quote:
Rising out of the water, every sin has been forgiven. We are clean! The Lamb of God, Jesus of Nazareth, has taken all the sin of each of us upon himself through his suffering and his sacrificial death on the hill of Golgotha - "the place of the skull". His life blood, lanced by a Roman spear, Poured from his lacerated body.
Rising out the water, every sin has been forgiven. This author agrees with me that baptism is for the remission of sins. Why did you quote him?
The deal is, just because baptism is symbolic of you seem to think that it has nothing to do with our salvation. But staying with Romans 6, we find that not to be true:
5) For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
7) For he who has died has been freed from sin.
These are conditional verses, c.moore. IF we have been united together in the likeness of His death (through baptism) we will likewise be ressurected, just as Christ was ressurected. IF.
Quote c.moore
What is meant by likeness????
Quote Kevin
In verse 7, who has been freed from sin? Who? Those who have died with Christ through baptism. 2 Timothy supports this condtional statement by saying that IF we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. IF, if, if.
So IF you have NOT died with Christ, you will not live with Him. IF you have not died with Christ, you are not freed from sin. IF you are not united in Christ's death, we will not be in the likeness of Christ's ressurection.
IF you haven't died from sin, you aren't saved.
Quote c.moore
But isn`t that a faith thing ro believe by faith you have died from your sins??
quote:
I would like to ask you kevin what is more important the blood of Jesus that takesand washes our sins awayor is it the getting wet and water baptism that takes our sins away and the wate rH2O that washes or sins and make us white as snow???
Quote Kevin
By being baptized for the remission of sins (why do you think Christ commanded it!), we have obeyed what God has told us to do to have our sins forgiven, which is BY the blood of Christ. Christ's blood will only cover those who obey the command of baptism, because baptism PURPOSE is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Rom. 6). I know I've explained this before.
quote:
So Kevin, if the case is to be put in water after believing then Billy Graham and hundred of other evangelist like Rienhard Bonnke who has over 1.5 million people get saved or believe in his alter call are not saved because there was no beach or poolls to be baptized in is this true???
Quote Kevin
You put a lot of faith in your TV evangelists. I put my faith in what the word of God says. If Billy Graham and others alike convert people by asking them to say the sinner's prayer, then those people have NOT obeyed what GOD COMMANDED for the remission of sins. What do you think God is going to think about that? Who is man to change God's plan of salvation? Don't you find it just a little odd that there is not ONE example in the New Testament, NOT ONE, of people being saved by a sinner's prayer? Yet, belief and baptism is found in many, many places, which just echos what Christ said about salvation: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.
Quote c.moore
So all those people who repented and believed in Christ and ask the blood of Jesus to wash them at Billy Graham meetings and other Evangelist meeting were not saved at all because they all didn`t obey and get wet afeter they got saved is this correct and all the hundred of Evangelist, pastorand prophet are on their way to hell because they didn`t give a complete water gospel is that correct?????????
quote:
Also When a person maybe believes on a street by witnessing and it is a monday, and the church is only open on sunday and the person hasn`t been baptized yet and that person get killed or dies before sunday in your doctrine this person will have to go to hell because he didn`t get water baptized for his sins to be forgiven and can`t be saved is this true???
Quote Kevin
I've been over "what if" senarios soooooooo many times. Why do you still test me? It's all in God's hands, but I would rather stand before God being in the postion of knowing that I was going to obey the commdment of God for the remission of my sins, rather than standing before Him not believing what He commanded for the remission of sins is necessary for salvation.
As I've said many times in the past... what if scenario's don't change one bit of what God commands and expects of us for salvation. What if statements are nothing more than trying to use rare case, extreme scenarios to try and "water down" what God commands us to do for the forgiveness of sins.
I mean, WHAT IF a man was hearing the gospel, but before he got a chance to believe, he died of a heart attack before he believed? Pretty lame, huh? What if scenarios hold no water.
Quote c.moore
I use this so we can see eye to eye and get the whole message what I am saying and why I believe and trust the bible is saying to me.
I can do my best explaining the spiritual things of God by what If to a natural religious person, that is led more by the flesh than the Spirit.
quote: c.moore
Also if a church is so large that they only have a baptism every 3 month or more will all the thousands of people in between that believe and repented, and was not watered baptized also go to hell because they didn`t get their sins washed away in water and didn`t do like the bible say`s in Acts 2:38????
Quote Kevin
Ooooh... so you now think Acts 2:38 is referring to WATER baptism instead of Spirit baptism. I'm glad you finally realize that Acts 2:38 is referring to water baptism. I've been trying to tell you this over and over. But you know... what I say doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. I don't know why you bother asking me questions.
Quote c.moore
No you are putting Words in my mouth I didn`t say I believe that, I only mention what you believe and was using you Acts 2:38 which you try to build your doctrine on.
Quote kevin
Baptism is symbolic of Christ's death, burial, and ressurection. And by dying with Him through baptism, we have obeyed what God commanded for the forgiveness of our sins. And also reflect again about the conditional statements of Romans 6... you know... the "IF" part.
Quote c,moore
I don`t think you friend Francisco would agree with you on what you said about an symbolic anything, I am glad to see you do, this is an improvement praise God.
quote: c.moore
This is why I ask how many people didn`t you bring to the Lord with your doctrine, because your salvation message is like a hoping and wishing, gospel, and alot of hard works.
Quote kevin
I've got news for you... being a Christian IS hard. Why do you think that Christ said:
Matt. 7:13,14 (MKJV)
13) Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it.
14) Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Now, of if all you had to do was believe ONLY, and you were saved from that moment on, the above verses wouldn't make much sense, because a lot of people believe, EVEN the demons (James 2:19). The pathway to life would be WIDE instead of constricted.
Quote c.moore
It`s not hard , because with Jesus the yoke , and burden is light and easy Kevin, and it is a matter of Choice , receiving, and trusting in Jesus .
Really no works or religious rituals inclúded in the salvation message, but if you wants some reward , try to be obedient , and please our Father.
God Bless
c.moore
New member
baptism views and notes
baptism views and notes
Why in John 3:5 does it says "be born of water and spirit", yet you say water baptism is not necessary now? And if it is not needed among Gentiles, why in Acts 10:47,48 does the Bible say that Gentiles were baptized in water?
ANSWER
Regarding being baptized in "water" and in "spirit" (John 3:5) --- Jesus explained what he meant in the very next verse (John 3:6): "that which is born of the flesh [water] is flesh [i.e. a human birth]; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit [i.e. a spiritual birth]. Jesus was saying that being born the first time in this flesh (water), was not enough. We must be born a second time (in Spirit). If being born "of water" was, as you say, water baptism, then a person must be born again, AGAIN!(Three times - once into this world in the flesh, a second time in water baptism, and a third time in Spirit baptism). Regarding Peter's baptizing of the Gentiles --- that was something that Peter and the first Jewish believers did. When Peter and those with him were astonished that the holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles, Peter "could not forbid them water", because that is what every Jew who repented prior to this happening did. If you were a Jew, and you repented - then you submitted to John the Baptist's baptism of repentance - and then, submitted again to Jesus' baptism in Spirit. There was no other way (in Peter's and the Jews' minds, that is). However, as the gospel was going forward, and as the truth of Jesus's baptism was being made known, God needed a new man. He needed a man that could explain (as a wise master builder) what it was that was necessary in the dispensation we are now in - and that man was the Apostle Paul. HE was the one who would explain how a person was made one of God's children NOW. Paul taught that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body". When a person receives the Spirit, it is God saying that the person receiving it has repented.
God Bless
baptism views and notes
Why in John 3:5 does it says "be born of water and spirit", yet you say water baptism is not necessary now? And if it is not needed among Gentiles, why in Acts 10:47,48 does the Bible say that Gentiles were baptized in water?
ANSWER
Regarding being baptized in "water" and in "spirit" (John 3:5) --- Jesus explained what he meant in the very next verse (John 3:6): "that which is born of the flesh [water] is flesh [i.e. a human birth]; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit [i.e. a spiritual birth]. Jesus was saying that being born the first time in this flesh (water), was not enough. We must be born a second time (in Spirit). If being born "of water" was, as you say, water baptism, then a person must be born again, AGAIN!(Three times - once into this world in the flesh, a second time in water baptism, and a third time in Spirit baptism). Regarding Peter's baptizing of the Gentiles --- that was something that Peter and the first Jewish believers did. When Peter and those with him were astonished that the holy Ghost was poured out on the Gentiles, Peter "could not forbid them water", because that is what every Jew who repented prior to this happening did. If you were a Jew, and you repented - then you submitted to John the Baptist's baptism of repentance - and then, submitted again to Jesus' baptism in Spirit. There was no other way (in Peter's and the Jews' minds, that is). However, as the gospel was going forward, and as the truth of Jesus's baptism was being made known, God needed a new man. He needed a man that could explain (as a wise master builder) what it was that was necessary in the dispensation we are now in - and that man was the Apostle Paul. HE was the one who would explain how a person was made one of God's children NOW. Paul taught that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body". When a person receives the Spirit, it is God saying that the person receiving it has repented.
God Bless
c.moore
New member
Some facts and note on water baptisam
Some facts and note on water baptisam
There were only two baptisms ever ordained of God: 1) John the Baptist's (in water) and Jesus's(in the Spirit). One was a shadow "type". The other was the reality in Christ. One has "faded away". The other is here. Or as Paul said, there is now "ONE baptism" (Eph.4:5). So we are faced with the stark reality of choosing, as Paul did, which baptism truly washed away sin. And once that choice is made, we must (as we do the other ceremonial shadow types of the law) let the "shadow" go. Which is the real ONE baptism now? Water or Spirit? If we choose water, then we choose to cling to what Paul called "dead works" --- works that were once ordained by God, but which he has now done away with. If we choose Spirit baptism - then it becomes obvious that water baptism is a useless ceremony, just as all the other ceremonial works of the law have become. All these ceremonies were holy and right in their time. But they were "dead works" when God brought about a change through Christ Jesus.
God Bless
Some facts and note on water baptisam
There were only two baptisms ever ordained of God: 1) John the Baptist's (in water) and Jesus's(in the Spirit). One was a shadow "type". The other was the reality in Christ. One has "faded away". The other is here. Or as Paul said, there is now "ONE baptism" (Eph.4:5). So we are faced with the stark reality of choosing, as Paul did, which baptism truly washed away sin. And once that choice is made, we must (as we do the other ceremonial shadow types of the law) let the "shadow" go. Which is the real ONE baptism now? Water or Spirit? If we choose water, then we choose to cling to what Paul called "dead works" --- works that were once ordained by God, but which he has now done away with. If we choose Spirit baptism - then it becomes obvious that water baptism is a useless ceremony, just as all the other ceremonial works of the law have become. All these ceremonies were holy and right in their time. But they were "dead works" when God brought about a change through Christ Jesus.
God Bless