The MOST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT MADE
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I KNOW for a 100% fact (for myself) baptism doesn't save, nor is it necessary for salvation. When I first started to accept this whole "Jesus thing", I went down for an alter call. I said the sinners prayer and was declared saved. A few week later I was baptized. All good, I was going to heaven now. Years later and living in continuous sin and thinking I was saved, I had tragedy hit. I never turned my back on or stopped "liking" Jesus, but I was confused bad. Well long story short once my pride died fully, God picked me back up and saved me, revealing Himself to me and changing me from the inside. I KNOW I am saved now, not a doubt in my mind or heart, and I haven't been baptized again yet (I do plan to though). So I know from self experience that I was dunked under water and not saved, and have not been in the water again since I was saved. Just my testimony on this subject.
11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
The people at the time were following after them, not Christ. Paul was trying to tell them not to do that, and so he had made that statement because if he would had Baptize all of them, it would have been a lot harder for them to stop following after him. Elvis have had a lot of disciples and still has, but just imagine that if he would of Baptize them.
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
The people at the time were following after them, not Christ. Paul was trying to tell them not to do that, and so he had made that statement because if he would had Baptize all of them, it would have been a lot harder for them to stop following after him. Elvis have had a lot of disciples and still has, but just imagine that if he would of Baptize them.
No doubt while arguing that you have to be baptized to be saved....His fallacy is seen in the following truths...
1. The LAW and PROPHETS were UNTIL JOHN
2. The saved, immersed disciples had been called out by JESUS and called a church at least twice in present context
3. The thief acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus
4. Jesus acknowledged his faith
The truth is simple...if he acknowledges the truth of the thief's salvation then his heretical doctrine is out the window so in PRIDE he will end up cooking because he cannot submit to the truth that baptism is not necessary for salvation
Same thing with his use of PETER to justify salvation by water...totally ignores the fact that the word saved by water is only translated ONE TIME and the word has nothing at all to do with soul salvation while rejecting the use of the word SOZO as opposed to diasozo.....because the end result is the same....acknowledge the truth and his heretical Campbellite doctrine is out the window as false.....
1. The LAW and PROPHETS were UNTIL JOHN
2. The saved, immersed disciples had been called out by JESUS and called a church at least twice in present context
3. The thief acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus
4. Jesus acknowledged his faith
The truth is simple...if he acknowledges the truth of the thief's salvation then his heretical doctrine is out the window so in PRIDE he will end up cooking because he cannot submit to the truth that baptism is not necessary for salvation
Same thing with his use of PETER to justify salvation by water...totally ignores the fact that the word saved by water is only translated ONE TIME and the word has nothing at all to do with soul salvation while rejecting the use of the word SOZO as opposed to diasozo.....because the end result is the same....acknowledge the truth and his heretical Campbellite doctrine is out the window as false.....