The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[Kevin]

Jerry,

Well,in the same way that a pauper can go from being broke to being rich just by having some pieces of paper.Suppose the pauper´s uncle died and left him all the cash that was in his safety deposit box (this would be during the time when the Dollar was still backed by either gold or silver).In the box was $1,000,000.00.

But Jerry, you are comparing apples to oranges. In your example, pieces of paper were worth 1,000,000.00 because they money was already there in the first place.

In our debate, the blood of bulls and goats (the pieces of paper), was not worth the full redemption of Christ's blood (the 1 million $), because the blood of Christ had not been shed yet. Christ's blood wasn't there to validate the animals blood. Your example's validity depends upon the money already being there. If the money wasn't already there to back up what the pieces of paper represented, the pieces of paper would not be worth 1 million dollars. You are comparing apples to oranges.

...because He knew that in the future He could place those sins upon Christ at Calvary.

Exactly. The future. This only backs up my arguement that shows that the blood of Christ wasn't there to purifiy the sins that were atoned for by the blood of bulls and goats, because this was a "future" event.

Scripture reveals that God treats all men the same when it comes to salvation(He is no respecter of persons),whether he lived before the Cross or after the Cross.

Agreed.

Before the Cross the Lord could justify the sinner “by blood”(Ro.5:9)

Disagree. Romans 5:9 is speaking of Jesus's blood. It is not possible to justify sinners by blood that had not been spilled yet. Heb. 9:15 states that it was "by means of death" that the sins of the first covenent were redeemed. So, before this death happened, the means by which their transgressions would be redeemed had not happened. It clearly states by what means the sins would be forgiven for the first covenent (by death), and until that means came to pass, redemption would not occur.

If He can deal that way with things in the past,why couldn´t He be able to do the same thing in regard to the things that will happen in the future?

See above. The Bible clearly states what must take place in order for the sins of the first covenant to be forgiven. Until the means by which the sins of the first covenant takes place, the sins are still there.

So the Lord gave the priest the authority to make “atonement” for the sins of His people who were under the Mosaic Covenant.And the High Priest did in fact perform his priestly duties and the sins were taken from the people.

Yes, and those sins would be redeemed by means of Christ's death for the redemption of sins under the first covenant.

Well,the death of the Lord Jesus Christ has many applications in regard to the believer.So by these actions the Lord was given us “types” of the many applications that the death of Christ has in relationship with the sinner.These “types” help us to understand all the blessins we receive through the death of the Lord Jesus.And the sin-offering was but one of the many different “types” that represent the many different applications of His death in regard to the believer.

The sinner cannot please God.

Not true. Do you not think that God would be pleased with a sinner who comes to repentance and obeys the gospel? Obviously God is not pleased with sin, but I'm quite sure He is please with those who turn from their sins by burying the man through baptism, thus being alive to God.

Grace implies that there is no merit in him that receives it—there is no reason why he should be blessed.But that begs the question—how can one man be justified and another not,especially considering the fact that it does not depend on merit?It is because one rejects a righteousness which is independent of the sinner,and the other one accepts.How does one reject,and how does one accept?Well,he accepts by believing the gospel,and he rejects by disbelieving.—“Unto all and upon ALL THAT BELIEVE”.”It is by faith that it may be of grace”—any other ground would be inconsistent with grace.A sinner is “justified by faith”(Ro.5:1).

The faith spoken of is not the kind that is dead unto itself. We have to "obey" the gospel, not just hear and believe. How do we obey the gospel? We have a clear example of how this is done in Acts 2:38. There, sinners were asking what they must do to be saved. What did Peter say? He said "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is a Biblically recorded example of how the gospel is obyed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Kevin,

You do not seem to have an understanding about the concept of the "eternal state",the state in which the Lord exists at the very moment.

Eternity does not mean endless time,but instead it means an dimensation that is without time.The Lord has always exisred in the eternal state,and "time" is a created thing.

Since "time" is a law of our being (meaning that time is associatedwith the existence of this creation),we cannot not really understand the statewhere time does not exist.

As humans we are constrained by the boundries of time,but God is not.He can deal with something in the future just as we can deal with the same thing in the present.

On another point,we can see that the Lord Jesus was able to send away sins before the Cross,and the only way that He could do that was because He knew that they could be placed on Himself after the Cross.

And if He could do that,then He could also authorize the High Priest to do the same thing.And to deny that He could authorize them to send away sins is to deny that the Lord Jesus is Soverign.

In other words,the Lord will not be bound or constrained by the doctrines of man.

Now,in regard to my words that the "sinner cannot please God".In that regardI was referring to the sinner in his unregenerate state.And in that state he cannot please God:

""So,then,they who are in the flesh cannot please God"(Ro.8:8).

And yes,we must obey Him.And the first and mostly thing we must do is BELIEVE His word.We must BELIEVE the "gospel of the grace of God",which declares that salvation is not dependent on WORKS OF ANY KIND!!!

That is the gosel of our salvation.You may say that you believe that gospel,but if you deny that salvation is independent of any works,you are not really believing the word of God.

Instead you are believing a counterfeit gospel,the gospel has been the beliefs of the pagan religions since the beginning of time.And that religion says that you have to do works of one kind or another in order to obtain salvation.

And it is obvious that when you see Scripture that does not match the teaching that you have received from man,you reject it.That is made apparent by the fact that the verses I provided state in no uncertain terms that the sins of the people had been taken away and that they were clean before the Lord.

Instead of believing these Scriptual passages,you use an argument concerning things that you do not even understand--and by your attitude it is clear that you do not want to know.You would rather reject what is plain in Scripture so you can cling to your man made teaching.It is like you want to hide from the truth.

"And this is the condemnation,that light has come into the world,and men loved darkness rather than light,because their deeds were evil"(Jn.3:19).

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[HopeofGlory]

Kevin,

My replies are bold.

That's an easy one. Think about it. The Lord Jesus came and died so that ALL sins of ALL man could be forgiven. Up until the cross, the only way to have one's sins forgiven were those who were directly forgiven by Christ, or one that was given that authority by Christ.

Before Christ sins were FORGIVEN when the priest made atonement through the blood sacrifice of a bullock. This scripture is not difficult to understand.

And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be FORGIVEN them. Lev. 4:20 (KJV)

God's plan was to have Christ die on the cross, and thus a new covenant began, that by the shedding of His blood, all people would have forgiveness of sins who obeyed the gospel.

What was the fate of believers that died under the old covenant before Christ? Their sins according to you were not fully forgiven, explain what hope they had at death and how they received it.

You won't find one instance in the OT where the Lord gave priests authority over sins. In the OT, when people sinned, the Lord told the priests what to do for atonement, but this is NOT giving them authority to forgive sins. What was it that the Lord told the priest to do, Jerry? Did it not involve the sacrifices of bulls and goats? Yes. Does this forgive sins? NOT according to Hebrews it doesn't.

Hebrews says "take away sins" not "forgive sins".
If OT believers sins were not fully forgiven through sacrifice
they would have had no hope at death. Sacrifices and offerings were "continual" (Num 28) because their sins were continual thus requiring continual forgiveness. After the death of Christ sacricfices are no longer needed yet sin continues. God says without "shedding of blood is no remission". The power of the cross is that it removed sin for all who believe in the new testament. The scriptures teach us that "sin is trangression of the law" and we can believe it, therefore "where no law is, there is no transgression".

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24 (KJV)
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. Gal. 3:25 (KJV)

We can also believe that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God". So, when Hebrews says animals blood could not "take away sins" it does not mean that their sins were not forgiven. We can believe the blood of Christ can "take away sins" because "there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins".

In Christ
Craig

 

[Kevin]

HopeofGlory,

Before Christ sins were FORGIVEN when the priest made atonement through the blood sacrifice of a bullock. This scripture is not difficult to understand.

And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be FORGIVEN them. Lev. 4:20 (KJV)

You are not bringing anything new to the table that has not been addressed. I've already explained why it's not possible for the sins of the OT to be fully forgiven. I invite you to address my points and arguements.

What was the fate of believers that died under the old covenant before Christ? Their sins according to you were not fully forgiven, explain what hope they had at death and how they received it.

I've pointed out several times that by means of Christ's death the sins of the first covenant were forgiven (Heb. 9:15). They were redeemed by the blood of Christ.

Hebrews says "take away sins" not "forgive sins".

True, but this doesn't help your arguement. Fine, the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, which means that they were still there, because they weren't taken away. How can sins be fully forgiven when they are still there, and have the need of being redeemed by the death of Christ (Heb. 9:15)? If they were fully forgiven, what would there be to redeem?

If OT believers sins were not fully forgiven through sacrifice
they would have had no hope at death.

Not true. The sins were paid for in full "by means of death" of Christ for the transgressions under the first covenant. (Heb 9:15).

The power of the cross is that it removed sin for all who believe in the new testament.

The death on the cross was not meant for New Testament believers only, Heb. 9:15 proves this.

The scriptures teach us that "sin is trangression of the law" and we can believe it, therefore "where no law is, there is no transgression".

Sin is more than just trangression again the Mosaic Law. Sin happened in the garden of eden, which is well before the Mosaic Law. Sin continues today, which is well after the Law. Simply put, sin is any transgression against the commandments of God.

We can also believe that "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God".

I hope you aren't taking this literally, that a Christian literally cannot sin....

So, when Hebrews says animals blood could not "take away sins" it does not mean that their sins were not forgiven.

If they were not taken away, then they are still there. If there was total forgiveness, as you claim, then there would be no need for Christ to die for the redemption of the transgressions of the first covenant. How can Christ redeem what is already supposedly fully forgiven?

 

[firechyld]

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Like this thread!"

Bold mine. Obviously.

firechyld

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



Correction, I know so. Your own words condemn you:

"So the hang up I have is your backward teaching , that first water baptism and then you believe and get saved and last get filled with the Spirit.
You keep putting the cart before the horses, and that can`t work."

You are plain saying that I teach that baptism comes before belief, and I have NEVER taught that, and I backed it up with reference after reference of me saying that it takes both belief and baptism, just as Jesus said. I have NEVER put baptism before belief. You are basically saying that I would teach people to get baptized into somehting before they believe in what they are getting baptized into. How rediculous. You just pulled that out of thin air. I have never even hinted that one should be baptized before belief. Never.

You are spreading lies about what I teach, even though I tried to tell you that I've often quoted Mark 16:16 for what it says: belief and baptism. And in light of the evidence that I've shown that proves what I believe, you haven't said jack squat.

Deny all you want, but you are spreading lies about my beliefs. Pathetic and uncool. :down:

Remember I was baptized in the same church belief as you the mission Church of Christ in boston , and like I said before I didn`t know it untill I look at by certificate and now I know why they didn`t ask me if I believed or not, so I will stay on what i say, you put baptism before believe, and it`s not a lie you just can`t face the real truth behind the spirit of your water baptismal rituals. I know from personal experience , and I will not repent this time like I did calling you a Mormon, this time I know I am correct , and the rest againt your teaching knows it also praise God.
Darkness can`t hide from the light .


Let God bless you one day.
Shalome

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Remember I was baptized in the same church belief as you the mission Church of Christ in boston

Your experience with some people in Boston has no bearing on my beliefs whatsoever. I'm not going to try and defend what went on in Boston, because it has no effect upon what my beliefs are.

and like I said before I didn`t know it untill I look at by certificate and now I know why they didn`t ask me if I believed or not

And this is my problem, how? Was I the one teaching you? I wasn't there at Boston, so I don't know what went on, but I know perfectly well what I believe.

t]so I will stay on what i say, you put baptism before believe, and it`s not a lie you just can`t face the real truth behind the spirit of your water baptismal rituals.

It's people like you that really makes it hard to being a Christian. You are pathetic. You are basing MY beliefs based upon your experience with OTHER people.

Dude, you need some mental help. You don't even realize when you are spreading lies about somebody. You have ZERO proof of your accusations. I have provided reference after reference that shows that I include both belief and baptism, and I have never hinted that baptism comes before belief. I've even pointed out how STUPID that would be... that bascially that would mean that I go around telling people to get baptized into something they don't even believe. That is just stupid and rediculous, just like your UNFOUNDED accusation.

I really wish I could find the post where I told you that that belief is the key, and that's where it all begins. We were focusing on Mark 16:16. I remember it quite well, because you somehow thought that I realized that it was belief only was correct, because I stated that belief is where it all starts. I've said that belief is where it starts, but it's not where it ends.

I WISH I could find that post. Oh how I've searched for it. I don't expect you to believe me, but I know I posted it. When and if I find it, I will post it to your lying face. I can't stand liars, and neither can God. :down:

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



Your experience with some people in Boston has no bearing on my beliefs whatsoever. I'm not going to try and defend what went on in Boston, because it has no effect upon what my beliefs are.



And this is my problem, how? Was I the one teaching you? I wasn't there at Boston, so I don't know what went on, but I know perfectly well what I believe.



It's people like you that really makes it hard to being a Christian. You are pathetic. You are basing MY beliefs based upon your experience with OTHER people.

Dude, you need some mental help. You don't even realize when you are spreading lies about somebody. You have ZERO proof of your accusations. I have provided reference after reference that shows that I include both belief and baptism, and I have never hinted that baptism comes before belief. I've even pointed out how STUPID that would be... that bascially that would mean that I go around telling people to get baptized into something they don't even believe. That is just stupid and rediculous, just like your UNFOUNDED accusation.

I really wish I could find the post where I told you that that belief is the key, and that's where it all begins. We were focusing on Mark 16:16. I remember it quite well, because you somehow thought that I realized that it was belief only was correct, because I stated that belief is where it all starts. I've said that belief is where it starts, but it's not where it ends.

I WISH I could find that post. Oh how I've searched for it. I don't expect you to believe me, but I know I posted it. When and if I find it, I will post it to your lying face. I can't stand liars, and neither can God. :down:

Mormons , and JHW say they tell the truth also and point out scriptures as well , but you have you know the spirit behind them or to test the spirit, and you will find the truth, and i had to check your spirit Kevin, and that was one of the reason it pointed me to the same spirit , and teaching of baptism is more important and first in your doctrine, believe it or not.:down:
I think if I gave you a glass of water , you might baptize in it , but just joking .

peace

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Mormons , and JHW say they tell the truth also and point out scriptures as well , but you have you know the spirit behind them or to test the spirit, and you will find the truth, and i had to check your spirit Kevin, and that was one of the reason it pointed me to the same spirit

None of your ramblings changes the fact that you have NO evidence to show that I put baptism before belief. Do you not know what EVIDENCE is? Why do I bother with you?

Unless you can show me where I said that one needs to be baptized before they belive (which is STUPID), then you have no evidence to back your accusations.

All you have are verses that are speaking about BAPTISM. They do not mention anything about belief because belief isn't what I was giving answer to. I could pull the same LAME LOAD OF GARBAGE on you. All I would have to do is find verses where you mention belief, AND MENTION NOTHGING ABOUT GRACE. By your rediculous logic, I could then say that you put belief before GRACE, because there's no mention of GRACE. Do you seee how STUPID and LAME that reasoning is? It would be **FOOLISH** to draw the conclusion that you put belief before grace just because there were some posts where you didn't mention grace... only belief. But, that is EXACTLY the kind of rediculous logic and reasoning that you are using against me.

I've also pointed out that by your reasoning that I would be teaching people to get baptized into something they don't believe in. That doesn't make ANY sense at all. Yet, you cling to something as rediculous as this.

You then try to define MY beliefs based upon your dealings with OTHER people. They are NOT me. What they teach has NO bearings upon my beliefs and teachings. That is nothing more than a lame, pathetic attempt to justify your unfounded lies.

You need to go ask somebody about what EVIDENCE is, because what you have presented so far is not evidence. I know what I believe and teach, and you have nothing on me to dispute that. Imagine how angry you would be (or should be) if somebody took things that you said out of context and used them as a basis for unfounded LIES about your teachings and beliefs. NOT COOL.

 

[c.moore]

Originally posted by Kevin
c.moore,



None of your ramblings changes the fact that you have NO evidence to show that I put baptism before belief. Do you not know what EVIDENCE is? Why do I bother with you?

Unless you can show me where I said that one needs to be baptized before they belive (which is STUPID), then you have no evidence to back your accusations.

All you have are verses that are speaking about BAPTISM. They do not mention anything about belief because belief isn't what I was giving answer to. I could pull the same LAME LOAD OF GARBAGE on you. All I would have to do is find verses where you mention belief, AND MENTION NOTHGING ABOUT GRACE. By your rediculous logic, I could then say that you put belief before GRACE, because there's no mention of GRACE. Do you seee how STUPID and LAME that reasoning is? It would be **FOOLISH** to draw the conclusion that you put belief before grace just because there were some posts where you didn't mention grace... only belief. But, that is EXACTLY the kind of rediculous logic and reasoning that you are using against me.

I've also pointed out that by your reasoning that I would be teaching people to get baptized into something they don't believe in. That doesn't make ANY sense at all. Yet, you cling to something as rediculous as this.

You then try to define MY beliefs based upon your dealings with OTHER people. They are NOT me. What they teach has NO bearings upon my beliefs and teachings. That is nothing more than a lame, pathetic attempt to justify your unfounded lies.

You need to go ask somebody about what EVIDENCE is, because what you have presented so far is not evidence. I know what I believe and teach, and you have nothing on me to dispute that. Imagine how angry you would be (or should be) if somebody took things that you said out of context and used them as a basis for unfounded LIES about your teachings and beliefs. NOT COOL.

If you don`t feel so guilty about this .Don`t commit on what I say if you think you are not hiding anything.

I know when my kids are caught in some lie or something , they try to defend themselves, you act like my kids when they are caught

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

If you don`t feel so guilty about this .Don`t commit on what I say if you think you are not hiding anything.

I know when my kids are caught in some lie or something , they try to defend themselves, you act like my kids when they are caught

Excuse me? Don't comment when you are spreading lies about my beliefs? Just as God HATES lies, I HATE lies. Period. You opened your mouth and publically accused me of something that is nothing short of a lie.

I'm not hiding anything at all, I'm merely outraged by your lies about me. What, you don't think a person should stand up for themselves when they are being lied about, especially in a public setting? You've got some serious issues. I don't take lies lightly, and neither does God. You mean to tell me if someone was spreading lies about you, that you wouldn't say a word?

 

[c.moore]

You said:You mean to tell me if someone was spreading lies about you, that you wouldn't say a word?

I would just try to do what Jesus would do, and I think he would say: just speak to my hand because my ears and eyes are not listening, and reading what you have to say.

peace

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

I would just try to do what Jesus would do, and I think he would say: just speak to my hand because my ears and eyes are not listening, and reading what you have to say.

Actually, Christ tells us to let the other person know that he has sinned against us, and if that doesn't work, bring more people into it (Matt 18:15-17).

But hey, I've told you and shown you evidence of what I say: that it takes both belief and baptism. Throughout this thread, I've stated that it takes both belief and baptism, and I've never said anything that would suggest that baptism should come before belief. That doesn't even make sense! As I've said before, that is just completely rediculous, and the fact that you cling to that idea just shows the lack of evidence on your part. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind teaching such a rediculous thing. This is what you are suggesting:

Person 1: "Hey... you over there... come here! I want to baptize you!"

Person 2: "Baptize me? Into what? For what reason?"

Person 1: "Don't worry about it... I'll tell ya after I baptize you!"

That is nothing short of rediculous. Yet this is what you are claiming!

If you can't see that you don't have a shread of evidence, that's your problem, not mine. I know what you are saying about me is a lie, because I know what I beleive, and I have no reason to lie about my beliefs. Believe me, if I believed that, I would defend it, not deny it. You should know me well enough by now that I will vigorously defend my beliefs, not deny them.

I was reading in Mark 11 earlier today, and I came accross verses 25-26. They speak about how if one doesn't forgive the tresspasses of other men, then neither will the Father forgive that person. You are not worth the risk of God not forgiving me. So, with that in mind, I'm going to do my best to let this go. I forgive you, c.moore, even if you can't realize that you've done something wrong.

I hope you seriously examine yourself in hopes that you might realize that you are indeed spreading lies about me.

 

[c.moore]

You said:But hey, I've told you and shown you evidence of what I say: that it takes both belief and baptism. Throughout this thread, I've stated that it takes both belief and baptism, and I've never said anything that would suggest that baptism should come before belief. That doesn't even make sense!

Quote c.moore
1Co:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I know I can speak with a muslim and they come up with thier story they are a peaceful religion, and they say that, but I know they are really a violent demonic religion without them even admitting it, and I tel them that sometimes, because I know the spirit behind it, and the same with your water baptism ritual I know the decieve spirit behind this teaching by my experience with this spirirt, and fruits of water baptism doctrine of salvation which you believe, with belief or without belief Kevin , I am say ing I know the decieve spirit of the devil behind your doctrine and this is why I said you believe baptism saves not believing which you get mad,and the devil is mad at me also, but because I prayed to God about me not repenting God said I am a evangelist, and a follower of the truth , and I know beter because Jesus is in me and I don`t have to prove , and debate about true facts and what I know is true, he reminded me A evangelist is only to preach the truth , and it up to the person to recieve or reject, and Jesus will deal with the rejects that`s not my job.
So , Jesus spoke to me because I can hear His voice as being a sheep, he said: I know you know in your heart you are correct, and when the sky is blue and somebody else tries to prove even from the bible the sky is green, and the stars are black , I must humble myself with gentleness as I do on the streets so God can take me to a higher level in HIs Kingdom, and Glory, The Holy Spirit came me these scriptures and said I should show them to you .
Ro:14:12: So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Ro:14:13: Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Ro:14:14: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Ro:14:15: But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Ro:14:16: Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Ro:14:17: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Ro:14:18: For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Ro:14:19: Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Ro:14:20: For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Ro:14:21: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Ro:14:22: Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Ro:14:23: And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So I must repent , and give my humble loving apology to you brother Kevin for offending you, and when it is a lie to you I am sorry I wrote things to offend you and your belief, and I will never do it again.
I thank you also for forgiving me and you also showed me again that you are a man a humble man by taking the first step to forgive me.
I thank the Holy Spirit revealing to me things I shouldn´t do , and sometime I do slip out into my natural flesh, and speak before I ask the Holy spirit to guide me with the right words.
I am still learning Kevin , and even if I live to be 120 years old I will still miss the mark sometimes specially concerning other people belif, and thinking, and level of faith.
This is why the Lord of told me not to debate about the bible but, only ask questions to other that believe what i believe to gain positive knowledge so I will only do that, I learn my lesson again but experience . Once again I thank you for having patience with me, and you help me to grow also to another level in my faith with Jesus Christ, our Father and God.


God Bless you and Carri.
peace:up:

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

and when it is a lie to you I am sorry I wrote things to offend you and your belief, and I will never do it again.

Thanks for the apology, but I think you are doing it for the wrong reason. I don't think somebody should apologize unless they really feel that they've done something wrong. You seem to be apologizing because I was offended, rather than seeing that you did something wrong. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know. What led me to this conclusion is when you said: "and when it is a lie to you". It doesn't sound like you believe that you were spreading lies about me.

If you confronted a satanist and you told them that what they were doing was wrong, and they got offended, would you repent? Unless you were unchristian like about it, I wouldn't think that you should repent of it, even though you offended them. There's a good chance the Pharasees were offended by Jesus when He called them brood of vipers, but I'm quite sure Christ didn't repent of that.

The same goes for a brother. If you tell them that they are doing something wrong, and you truly believe it, and have reason/evidence to believe it, and they get offended about it, I think you should stand your ground.

But when the brother challenges your accusations, you should be able to give some solid evidence that supports your accusation. Without evidence, an accusation is empty. That's why I asked you to show me where I stated that baptism should come before belief. I have yet to see any evidence of that. On the other hand, I have shown you reference after reference that shows that I believe that it takes both belief and baptism, and nowhere did I even hint that baptism would come before belief.

So, again, I don't think you should repent unless you really feel like you've done something wrong.

Take care, c.moore.

 

[c.moore]

Hello kevin

Maybe the word I should use is trangression against another brother.
I think I explained myself very clearly in my last post about my apology, and I did offend you in what i said, and I can only do what Jesus wants me to do according to His word which I quoted.

God bless you
peace

 

[Freak]

Kevin,

I wonder what other false doctrine you hold besides baptismal regeneration?

 

[c.moore]

Kevin, did I say you have quoted that you put baptism before belief , and I have seen the quote you said this or did I say I believe you put baptism before belief, and I know that the spirit of your doctrine is baptism is what saves without belief, and I,I think, and I Know you take baptism as the key for salvation, did I say this ????

I am trying to make sure my apology is correctly spoken on the matter.
maybe you can paste the post I said you quoted baptism is without belief.

thanks

 

[Freak]

Kevin,, answer the question posed to you by me...

 

[Kevin]

c.moore,

Kevin, did I say you have quoted that you put baptism before belief , and I have seen the quote you said this or did I say I believe you put baptism before belief, and I know that the spirit of your doctrine is baptism is what saves without belief, and I,I think, and I Know you take baptism as the key for salvation, did I say this ????

No, you didn't say that I have quoted that I put baptism before belief. The reason I'm asking you to provide that information is because you made a false accusation about my beliefs.

You said:

"So the hang up I have is your backward teaching , that first water baptism and then you believe and get saved"

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=161

Here, you are clearly accusing me of having a backward teaching. Since you accuse me of teaching this rediculous doctrine, I want to know where I stated that a person should get "first water baptism and then you believe and get saved". You accused me, I called you on your accusation, and I want evidence of your accusation.

You then go on to make it sound like I believe that baptism only will save a person, which I certainly don't believe either. You said:

"notice you mention nothing about believe or believing, only baptism is needed for salvation only ."

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66&perpage=15&pagenumber=162

I am trying to make sure my apology is correctly spoken on the matter.

I tried to show you above that you made an accusation about my teachings, and that I've never taught that. An accusation that is not true is a lie.

Your apology doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me considering that you don't believe that you've lied about my beliefs. If you believe what you are saying to be true, then you shouldn't apologize for stating what you believe to be the truth. If you see somebody teaching what you feel is backward teaching, you have every right to point that out, and there should be no need to apologize for exposing what you believe to be a backward teaching, but you better be able to back it up when that person calls you on it.