The MOST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT MADE

[dcontroversal]

Oh...sorry wrong part of Acts I was at. Sorry.

Yes, however, realize they had not been baptized in the name of Christ. There is a difference.

No biggie and point is...not all baptisms are valid and if a particular baptism is not valid then no baptism took place.....I know you wont agree with this, but case in point is sprinkling.....The only place sprinkling is used is when Jesus talks about washing pots and pans.....IMMERSION is the method used--->JESUS came UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE WATER and when we bury someone....we PUT THEM UNDER THE DIRT or in the case of JESUS he was SEALED in a tomb.

 

[ThomistColin]

No biggie and point is...not all baptisms are valid and if a particular baptism is not valid then no baptism took place.....I know you wont agree with this, but case in point is sprinkling.....The only place sprinkling is used is when Jesus talks about washing pots and pans.....IMMERSION is the method used--->JESUS came UP STRAIGHTWAY OUT OF THE WATER and when we bury someone....we PUT THEM UNDER THE DIRT or in the case of JESUS he was SEALED in a tomb.

Not being abrupt or mean, but why do you call it sprinkling? Every time I've been to a Catholic baptism, the water is poured over the head of the person baptized. And I don't mean like a couple drops, I mean poured. We use this silver bowl that is filled with water and it is poured over the head three times, each time intoning, "In the name of the Father," pour water, "the Son" pour water, "and the Holy Spirit," pour water. Just...don't see that as sprinkling. I've seen Anglican and Methodist pastors do sprinkling by getting their hand wet and then doing it that way, but in the Catholic Church the water is poured.

 

[elf3]

Not being abrupt or mean, but why do you call it sprinkling? Every time I've been to a Catholic baptism, the water is poured over the head of the person baptized. And I don't mean like a couple drops, I mean poured. We use this silver bowl that is filled with water and it is poured over the head three times, each time intoning, "In the name of the Father," pour water, "the Son" pour water, "and the Holy Spirit," pour water. Just...don't see that as sprinkling. I've seen Anglican and Methodist pastors do sprinkling by getting their hand wet and then doing it that way, but in the Catholic Church the water is poured.

Sprinkle pour dunk doesn't matter..baptism doesn't and can't save you.

 

[dcontroversal]

Not being abrupt or mean, but why do you call it sprinkling? Every time I've been to a Catholic baptism, the water is poured over the head of the person baptized. And I don't mean like a couple drops, I mean poured. We use this silver bowl that is filled with water and it is poured over the head three times, each time intoning, "In the name of the Father," pour water, "the Son" pour water, "and the Holy Spirit," pour water. Just...don't see that as sprinkling. I've seen Anglican and Methodist pastors do sprinkling by getting their hand wet and then doing it that way, but in the Catholic Church the water is poured.

While I appreciate the spirit of your approach in your message...to immerse, to dip means to go completely under the water....the two OT examples...

RED SEA water stacked and ISRAEL was on the bottom of the seabed with the water ABOVE their heads on both sides=complete immersion

New generation crossing the JORDAN....water stacked again the children of Israel went on the river bed and the water was above their head....

Baptism is a picture of being dead to the old man...BURIED with JESUS and to ana-stasis (again to stand, resurrected) a new creation in Christ Jesus.....

When we bury somebody do we pour dirt over their head? or DO we put them completely UNDER the ground and or SEAL THEM IN a tomb? The picture must represent burial or the picture is not complete and if not complete...not valid....!

 

[elf3]

Because of God's grace and my faith in Jesus I am not scared of death. If I had to rely on baptism or my "good works" to be saved, I would be scared to death.

 

[dcontroversal]

Because of God's grace and my faith in Jesus I am not scared of death. If I had to rely on baptism or my "good works" to be saved, I would be scared to death.

If faith into Jesus doesn't save then no one is saved and we will all cook for sure....!

 

[Jabberjaw]

he thief is NOT an example of NT salvation so it makes no difference to me if he was baptized or not.

Another proof that you are out of your mind......as the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith....what a joke you are!....BLIND for sure!

When exactly do you suppose the New Testament became in force? Jesus was still alive when he saved the thief, for a New Testament to be in force requires the death of the testator :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

 

[Tateej]

I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding this, you're argument here is from Paul's statement saying that he didn't baptize people but rather that others did? And you see from this statement that there is no logical or reasonable answer to support baptism as a part to obtain salvation. This is your stance yes?

 

[dcontroversal]

When exactly do you suppose the New Testament became in force? Jesus was still alive when he saved the thief, for a New Testament to be in force requires the death of the testator :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Tell that to the disciples who were saved, immersed and called out and sent by Jesus having been called a church in the present context no less than 2 times......SO....believe what you will shark bait!

 

[dcontroversal]

I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding this, you're argument here is from Paul's statement saying that he didn't baptize people but rather that others did? And you see from this statement that there is no logical or reasonable answer to support baptism as a part to obtain salvation. This is your stance yes?

Go read all my posts and you will know exactly where I stand as salvation is not dependent upon baptism as baptism is the public testimony of the inward act and states to the world your are dead, buried with Christ and resurrection a new creation in Christ Jesus....most take a handful of scriptures out of context to teach baptismal regeneration which is a farce.....Biblical salvation is by faith dia grace and is a completed act based upon the faith of Jesus and baptism is the first act of obedience, a work of righteousness and does not save and or add to salvation.<--the short end of the stick if you will...go read all the posts!

Yes I understand the context of the scriptures in the OP, but was making a controversial statement so as to make people think about the absurdity of saying baptism saves and then Paul writes I thank GOD I baptized none of you but.......

 

[Ella85]

Tell that to the disciples who were saved, immersed and called out and sent by Jesus having been called a church in the present context no less than 2 times......SO....believe what you will shark bait!

Loollll shark bait haaaaaa

 

[Tateej]

Okay, there are many ways this could branch out in discussion then. If what you say is true, then I'm at a loss with verses such as Acts 2:38, Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:16, Acts 8:35-38, and Acts 16:31-33. As well as Jesus talking to Nicodemus in John 3. I know God's Word can not lie being that the Word is God (John 1:1-2) and that God can not lie (Titus 1:2) so why would there be any statement in the Bible at all saying to be baptized? Why make statements saying one would be damned if he/she did not believe and was not baptized?

 

[Tateej]

I know I did not address Paul here, I will, just not yet. Getting there soon...

 

[elf3]

I am just gonna jump in here with John 3:5 KJV "Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' ".

Now what I will do is add 3 different study Bible notes on this verse. The reason I am doing this is for all to see how it is explained in 3 different "versions".

The King James Study Bible--3:5 Born of water implies natural, physical birth, since Spirit refers to supernatural spiritual birth.

The NIV Study Bible--3:5 born of water and the Spirit. A phrase understood in various ways: 1. It means much the same as "born of the Spirit" (v.8; cf. Tit 3:5). 2. Water refers to purification. 3. Water refers to baptism--that of John (1:31) or that of Jesus and his disciples (v.22; 4:1-2).

New Geneva Study Bible NKJV--3:5 born of water and the Spirit. Some suggest that the "water" is the release of fluid that accompanies physical birth, but linguistic considerations point to understanding "water" and "Spirit" as referring to a single spiritual birth. Many interpreters understand "water" here as the water of baptism, but such a reference, before Christian baptism was instituted, would have been meaningless to Nicodemus. Others find a reference to John's baptism, but Jesus nowhere makes John's baptism a requirement for salvation. Probably the statement refers to Old Testament passages in which the terms "water" and "Spirit" are linked to express the pouring out of God's Spirit in the end times (Is 33:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-27). The presence of such rich Old Testament imagery accounts for Jesus' reproof of Nicodemus (v.10): as a "teacher of Israel, he should have understood.

In 3 different Study Bibles all put together by different groups of men we come to a pretty good conclusion that "water" is not implying a "water baptism". Only the NIV mentions it as a meaning of "water baptism" and it is the last of 3 notes on the verse.

Now the rebuttal will be that these notes are written by men so they can misinterpret the passage. All I can say is study the passage yourself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let Him guide you and teach you.

Okay, there are many ways this could branch out in discussion then. If what you say is true, then I'm at a loss with verses such as Acts 2:38, Matt. 28:19-20, Mark 16:16, Acts 8:35-38, and Acts 16:31-33. As well as Jesus talking to Nicodemus in John 3. I know God's Word can not lie being that the Word is God (John 1:1-2) and that God can not lie (Titus 1:2) so why would there be any statement in the Bible at all saying to be baptized? Why make statements saying one would be damned if he/she did not believe and was not baptized?

Here ya go

 

[Jabberjaw]

The thief is NOT an example of NT salvation so it makes no difference to me if he was baptized or not.

Another proof that you are out of your mind......as the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith....what a joke you are!....BLIND for sure!

When exactly do you suppose the New Testament became in force? Jesus was still alive when he saved the thief, for a New Testament to be in force requires the death of the testator :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Tell that to the disciples who were saved, immersed and called out and sent by Jesus having been called a church in the present context no less than 2 times......SO....believe what you will shark bait!

Okay, you danced around the answer, you said seabass was out of his mind and blind because you say "the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith", now it is simple Jesus was yet alive when he spoke to the thief, and the Hebrew writer tells us :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Now referring to what I just quoted of the Hebrew writer, without the distraction of calling names and sarcasm, explain how the N.T. was in force when our Lord spoke to the thief on the cross.

 

[phil112]

Okay, you danced around the answer, you said seabass was out of his mind and blind because you say "the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith", now it is simple Jesus was yet alive when he spoke to the thief, and the Hebrew writer tells us :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Now referring to what I just quoted of the Hebrew writer, without the distraction of calling names and sarcasm, explain how the N.T. was in force when our Lord spoke to the thief on the cross.

John 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."

 

[SeaBass]

John 4:23 "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him."

The verb "shall" is future tense. What Christ is saying is the change from the OT dispensation to the NT dispensation was beginning to place, not completed but starting to take place and would not, could not be completed and take effect until after Christ's death, Heb 9:16,17.

 

[SeaBass]

Okay, you danced around the answer,....

....and will continue to do so.

 

[dcontroversal]

Okay, you danced around the answer, you said seabass was out of his mind and blind because you say "the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith", now it is simple Jesus was yet alive when he spoke to the thief, and the Hebrew writer tells us :

Hebrews 9:16-17 (NKJV)
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Now referring to what I just quoted of the Hebrew writer, without the distraction of calling names and sarcasm, explain how the N.T. was in force when our Lord spoke to the thief on the cross.

AND your limited view, both you and sea perch fail to take into account that JESUS WAS AREADY DEAD when the two thieves had their legs broken to facilitate their death.....JESUS was DEAD before the thief DIED...both of you and your watered down doctrine will take you both to the smoking pit as the thief is a primo example that you both spiritualize away and reject as it shoots down your heretical doctrine!

 

[dcontroversal]

....and will continue to do so.

That's rich coming from you and your hand full of scriptures taken out of context to teach your Campbellite doctrine....You will see one day soon dude and then it will be to late for you and your pal! Good luck with your father Alexander...!