Salvation Not Possible Without Works

[Cassian]

There is no argument here, this is water. And we are also told when the person was to be baptized (AFTER they were made disciples (saved)


This is dangerous. Because it makes assumptions. Which may or may not be true. That is like saying every time you see the word circumcize, You automatically assume it means physical act. When this is so obviously not true.




1. Romans does not speak of raising, Thus to use this as an example would not be honest. According to romans, Our ressurection is a yet future event, If anything, this proves it is NOT WATER.
2. Col 2: 12 Specifically states it is the work of God who raised him from the dead who baptizes us, Unless your "human baptizer" raised Jesus from the dead, It most certainly is not him,
3. Matt 28 says to baptize them, And we are the ones told to do the baptizing, It does not say what a person is baptized in, so we must interpret it by who is the one doing the baptizing. Rom 6 and Col 2 specifically states what we are baptized in. So to interpret the word baptize to mean in water, You would have to interpret romans 6. Baptized in water in christ, Baptized in water and in his death, And in col 2. It would be Baptized in water in CHrist.

You see how foolish this sounds,

So as I said earlier, It is not that hard, Just open your mind, You will see what is being said.



Again this is a false premise it is not baptized into the spirit. It is baptism of *the spirit is doing the work) so this argument is already off base.



Having the spirit is due to annointing. Not baptizing. Any theologion no matter what they believe should understand this



Well of course it is wrong, because it is based on a false premise.



In your example which is false, Yes you would be right,

But that is not what is being said, The elements of romans 6 and col 2 is the object that is specifically says we are baptized into. The HS is the one who performs this baptism It is a baptism of God. As col 2 says.


I would suggest next time you investigate something, you should make sure you have your facts right. If you cut and pasted this you obviously did not investigate what the guy said, Or you still show you do not understand what we are saying..

I am not going to respond to the rest. Lets get thes down pat first. Then we can move on to the rest.

Col 2:12 is actually refering to Rom 6:3-4. Romans, the entire chapter has always been known as the baptism chapter. Vs 3-4 is what baptism accomplishes besides entrance into Christ John 3:5. There has only ever been ONE baptism as they stated already back in the Nicene Creed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Excellent posts.....

We go from one major problem of sola scriptura of Protestants on faith, works and grace to another, baptism which also was never a problem, no controversies in 2000 years, but sola scripturist just cannot come to any unity.

Yes,

Lets be like the jews. Who listened to men, Added to the word of God, and declared themselves soul authorities.

You would think after 2000 years they would have learned from mans mistakes. But the roman church proves that man continues to make the same mistakes over and over, And man never learns.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Col 2:12 is actually refering to Rom 6:3-4. Romans, the entire chapter has always been known as the baptism chapter. Vs 3-4 is what baptism accomplishes besides entrance into Christ John 3:5. There has only ever been ONE baptism as they stated already back in the Nicene Creed.

Col 2: 12 is paul speaking of the SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION done without handsand although yes it can be used with romans 12. It can not be taken out of context of the verses preceding and following it. This is what happens when you listen to MEN and not the word of God.

We start at verse 11: [SUP]11 [/SUP]In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

This is showing the spiritual circumcision (washing or cleansing) which is done because of the circumcision of Christ on the cross, And paul makes it clear. IT IS NOT DONE BY HANDS (not physical)

then we move to verse 12: [SUP]12[/SUP]buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

This shows us HOW the spiritual circumcision was accomplished, the one WITHOUT HANDS. We are Buried with him AND raised with him, through faith. IN THe WORKING OF GOD WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. This is also separate from romans 6 As in romans 6, our raising is yet future.

Then we go to vs 13 and on: [SUP]13 [/SUP]And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, [SUP]14 [/SUP]having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Again PROVES that spiritual circumcision is the context of the whole passage, He made us alive by cancelling the debt we have against him (thus forgiving us of ALL sin, Because he nailed that debt on the cross. There is absolutely NO WAY one can add water in this interpretation It has NOTHING to do with water, it is about the forgiveness of sin and new birth WROUGHT by the baptism INTO Christ.

If you want to listen to men. Good luck and have fun.

As for me, I will interpret the word of God the way it is written, Not one part of a whole conversation taken out of context. WHich you are doing.

 

[notuptome]

The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators. Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that — Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.

I disagree. The Greek would lead me to believe that this is not water at all. The baptize word here is to immerse which I read as immersing in the doctrines of the faith. The command is to go and teach, teach the doctrines necessary to bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Deeper than you want to go but that is a better understanding of the passage that does not force it to contradict other baptismal passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Cassian]

Yes,

Lets be like the jews. Who listened to men, Added to the word of God, and declared themselves soul authorities.

You would think after 2000 years they would have learned from mans mistakes. But the roman church proves that man continues to make the same mistakes over and over, And man never learns.

It is actually the other way around. Protestants have in many ways copied the the method of errors that the Roman Catholic used.

Whereas the Church of Christ established at Pentecost has never changed the Gospel. The Holy Spirit has guarded both the Church and His Body from the errors of men.

 

[Cassian]

Col 2: 12 is paul speaking of the SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION done without handsand although yes it can be used with romans 12. It can not be taken out of context of the verses preceding and following it. This is what happens when you listen to MEN and not the word of God.

We start at verse 11: [SUP]11 [/SUP]In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

This is showing the spiritual circumcision (washing or cleansing) which is done because of the circumcision of Christ on the cross, And paul makes it clear. IT IS NOT DONE BY HANDS (not physical)

then we move to verse 12: [SUP]12[/SUP]buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

This shows us HOW the spiritual circumcision was accomplished, the one WITHOUT HANDS. We are Buried with him AND raised with him, through faith. IN THe WORKING OF GOD WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. This is also separate from romans 6 As in romans 6, our raising is yet future.

Then we go to vs 13 and on: [SUP]13 [/SUP]And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, [SUP]14 [/SUP]having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Again PROVES that spiritual circumcision is the context of the whole passage, He made us alive by cancelling the debt we have against him (thus forgiving us of ALL sin, Because he nailed that debt on the cross. There is absolutely NO WAY one can add water in this interpretation It has NOTHING to do with water, it is about the forgiveness of sin and new birth WROUGHT by the baptism INTO Christ. If you want to listen to men. Good luck and have fun.

As for me, I will interpret the word of God the way it is written, Not one part of a whole conversation taken out of context. WHich you are doing.

Granted the Apostles were men, but they were given the Revelation from the Holy Spirit. It is they that taught the early Church. It was they that established that Gospel into practice as well. So, yes, it is men, inspired and led by the Holy Spirit.
However, you are only using your opinion upon a text. You, unlike the Apostles, were not given the Gospel, nor like the early Church, was never taught the Gospel of Christ.

I always find it strange that Protestants in general claim the RCC is of men, yet all they have ever produced from sola scriptura is of men. Beginning with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and down to the latest man derived theory, has all been from men.

If you can add some evidence to your opinion, you might have some credibility, but asking I know is futile because there is none outside of your opinion. Your version of vs 13 in Col 2 is not even about ONLY believers. All the work of Christ on the Cross was for the world, the human race. The curse that was nailed to the Tree was the curse of death. Christ overcame death for all men, freed all men from the bondage to sin.
So, I'll keep with the understanding that has been upheld by the Holy Spirit unchanged by man for 2000 years. YOu can hold to your personal interpretation if that makes you more comfortable.

 

[Jabberjaw]

I disagree. The Greek would lead me to believe that this is not water at all. The baptize word here is to immerse which I read as immersing in the doctrines of the faith. The command is to go and teach, teach the doctrines necessary to bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Deeper than you want to go but that is a better understanding of the passage that does not force it to contradict other baptismal passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I am up for you explaining to me how the Greek says something different than the English, I love how when one cannot get out of the English what they want it to say, they head for the Greek.

 

[Shava]

It is actually the other way around. Protestants have in many ways copied the the method of errors that the Roman Catholic used.

Whereas the Church of Christ established at Pentecost has never changed the Gospel. The Holy Spirit has guarded both the Church and His Body from the errors of men.

How true my friend.

 

[JaumeJ]

Although I am an avid student of Hebrew, you are correct in your reasoning here. No one learns anyting from the Word unless it is given him by the Holy Spiri.

I know when I was newly in the Lord, I really did not need to know anything more than what was given me at that instant, but part of my thanksgiving consists of continually reading the Word in my native tongue, English, and of late the study of Hebrew. The Hebrew serves to underscore and magnify what the Holy Spirit has shown me in the Word, yet, I am far from understanding a lot of the Word, and this will be true for almost all who believe. All should keep this in mind when sharing what they have been given to know, or what they think they know. The Father is not about to deliberately lose any saved soul.

I am up for you explaining to me how the Greek says something different than the English, I love how when one cannot get out of the English what they want it to say, they head for the Greek.

 

[mailmandan]

Refusing to obey the gospel is refusing to believe, refusing to repent, Lk 13:3,5, refusing to confess, Mt 10:32,33 and refusing to submit to baptism, Mk 16:16.

If you refuse to repent then you will not believe the gospel and become saved, which results in a lack of sincere confession from the heart and a lack of believer's baptism. Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.. According to you, those who believe the gospel are still lost until they repent, confess and get baptized "after" they believe the gospel, but not according to Paul. Again, Romans 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" For those who don't truly believe the gospel, repentance would merely be self-reformation, confession would merely be lip service, and baptism would merely be a bath.

I agree that belief is more than just a mental assent of the mind. In Jn 6:27-19 Jesus calls belief a wrok that He gave His listeners to do.

Through believing in Him, we are trusting in His finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of our salvation. If we are trusting in works which follow believing in Him to save us, then we don't truly believe in Him. The work accomplished through believing in Him is we have chosen to trust in His finished work of redemption to save us and not in our works. Saved through faith, not works, not according to our works, not by works of righteousness which we have done.

Jn 3:16---------------believe>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:,3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Rom 10:9,10--------confess>>>>>>>>>>>unto salvation
Acts 2:38------------baptized>>>>>>>>>>>remission of sins

Repent and believe the gospel. You reversed the order which turns believe into mere mental assent and repent into self-reformation. Believe unto righteousness, confess unto salvation. Not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together. The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart "together" (that is, the word of faith which we preach). Repentance is connected to remission of sins. Baptism is parenthetical.

Since there is just one way to be saved, no alternatives. And the ible does not contradict itself then a saving belief includes repentance, confession and baptism.

Repentance is a change of mind which results in the new direction of believing in Christ for salvation. Repentance and believing are inseparable in salvation. Confession is from a believing heart (Romans 10:9,10) and is by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). Belief and confession are not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together. Salvation is signified, yet not procured by water baptism. Your 4 step formula for salvation is a mixed up patched together different gospel.

You post ", repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ and is not a totally separate act from faith"


I agree. Again:

If you agree, then why do you place repentance "after" believe? Is it repent and believe the gospel like the Bible says or believe the gospel then afterwards repent? You have it out of order in your 4 step program for salvation.

Jn 3:16--------------believeth>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved
Lk 13:3,5------------repent>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish/saved

Can a person truly believe without first repenting? The answer is no.

Since there is just one way to be saved then belief MUST include the work of repenting. THis means all the "belief only" in the world can never save an impenitent person, Rom 2:4,5.

Believing without repentance is not saving belief. You can have mental assent belief in the existence and historical facts about Christ (which falls short of saving belief) apart from repentance, but until you change your mind about your sinful position and need for Christ to save you and choose to trust in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of your salvation, you have not chosen to repent and believe the gospel and are not saved. Mere mental assent belief followed by self-reformation misses the mark.

You post "You place repentance after faith" Why would an unbeliever repent?

An unbeliever is not only an atheist. Anyone who has not yet placed their faith in Christ as the all sufficient means of their salvation is still an unbeliever.

An unbeliever does not believe in Christ, in heaven or hell or even thinks anything about sin.

I was an unbeliever when I chose to repent and believe the gospel. I believed in the existence of Christ and in heaven and hell and also believed that I was a sinner prior to changing my mind and choosing to believe the gospel. Luke 13:3, Jesus calls all to repent or perish. For some people though, prior to coming to the end result of repentance in receiving salvation (faith in Christ for salvation), they must change their minds about other specific things in order to get there. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one's mind about his previous concept of God (as in Acts 17:30) and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9). On the other hand, believing in Christ for salvation, focuses on the new direction that change of mind must ultimately take, namely, trusting in Jesus Christ as the all sufficient means of our salvation.

Sins would mean nothing to an unbeliever? Heb 11:6 repentance is not possible nor pleasing to God without faith.

Sins mean something to an unbeliever who has come to understand and find conviction in the fact that they are a sinner in need of a Savior (Romans 3:23; 6:23). For those who love their sin and couldn't care less about needing a Savior, sin means nothing. Without repentance it's impossible to come to faith in Christ. Repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. How do you define repentance? Become sinless after faith?

In Rom 10:9,10 Paul first puts confession before belief but then puts belief before confession. Why/how can someone confess a thing they do not believe in their heart?

I'm glad you pointed this out. Confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead are not as two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart" (together) that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (notice the reverse order from verse 9 to verse 10) - that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Confess/believe; believe/confess. In 1 Corinthians 12:3, notice - ..no one can say that Jesus is Lord except BY the Holy Spirit. There is divine influence or direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a person when confessing Jesus as Lord. This confession is not just a simple acknowledgment that Jesus is the Lord (even the demons believe that), but is a deep personal conviction, without reservation, that Jesus is that person's Lord and Savior. So simply believing in our head (and not in our heart) that God raised Him from the dead does not result in righteousness and simply reciting the words "Jesus is Lord" not by the Holy Spirit from a check list of steps as if they are simply magic words that automatically get us an entry pass through the door of eternal life is not unto salvation.

In Mat 21:32 Mk 1:15 Jesus was speaking to Jews who were already believers in God, not atheists. They had the OT law given to them but were not believing and obeying it. If they had been believing the OT law they would have known that Jesus was the Messiah the OT prophets spoke about. So they needed to repent and believe God's law. The Jews needed to repent of their hard heart they had toward Christ then they could come to believe in Christ and realize they were lost in their sins and needed to repent of those sins.

They needed to repent and believe the gospel. For John came to them in the way of righteousness, and they did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him. Who was saved? Those who refused to repent and believe or those who chose to repent and believe?

In Acts 20:21 Paul was "Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks"..."repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul was summarizing His preaching he had done in Ephesus: to the Jews He preached repentance toward God to the Gentiles he preached faith in Christ. One cannot force order of events into ths summary Paul was making.

Why does that same order come up three different times (Matthew 21:32; Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21) if the order is believe the gospel then repent "afterwards" in order to become saved? Can someone truly believe the gospel without first repenting "changing their mind" in the process?

Rom 10 "And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard" If one cannot believe what they have not heard, how can one repent when he has not heard or believed Christ?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Once they have heard of Christ and have become convicted of their sinful position and need for a Savior, then they can repent and believe the gospel. Of course we come to believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ before we choose to trust in Him as the all sufficient means of our salvation. If our belief falls short of trusting exclusively in Christ for salvation (and we are trusting in works for salvation) then we don't have saving belief.

One cannot be saved unless they FIRST confess Christ. One is a denier of Christ and remains in that sate until they do confess Christ.

Belief in the heart and confession in the mouth are together when receiving salvation. It's not believe today and finally confess next week. Romans 10:8 - But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth AND in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach):

In Rom 10:10 Paul said confession is UNTO salvation. Paul did not say confession is BECAUSE one is already saved.

Read it all. Paul said with the heart, one believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation TOGETHER. The word is near you in your mouth AND in your heart.

Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"

They obviously failed to publicly confess Christ in this situation in front of the Pharisess, but does that mean they never confessed Christ? The Apostle Peter at one point failed to confess Jesus before men and denied Him three times (John 18:17,25-27), but after the Holy Spirit was given, he was a different man who boldly confessed Him (Acts 4:8-13). We know that Peter was saved even though he had a weak moment and the same may be true for these Jewish rulers as well.

Belief alone, that is, belief void of confession cannot save.

Belief that is void of confession (all together) is not saving belief from the heart. One snap shot in someone's life failing to publicly confess Christ does not mean that they never confessed Him at all. Peter had a weak moment and failed to publicly confess Christ, even denying Him three times in one snapshot of his life but does that mean his belief was void of confession and cannot save him? You have turned salvation into a works based performance rather than salvation through faith in Christ.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It is actually the other way around. Protestants have in many ways copied the the method of errors that the Roman Catholic used.

Whereas the Church of Christ established at Pentecost has never changed the Gospel. The Holy Spirit has guarded both the Church and His Body from the errors of men.

Oh is this so?

Sorry, The church started in around 300 AD looks nothing like the church of the NT, Nor do they teach the same gospel.

God gave the high priest of Israel the same thing He gave Peter. We see how fast man twisted the word of God and made it no gospel at all. In fact the very High Priest of God is the one who had Christ killed.

Again, If you want to listen to men. Have fin.. But you would be better off listening to God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Granted the Apostles were men, but they were given the Revelation from the Holy Spirit. It is they that taught the early Church. It was they that established that Gospel into practice as well. So, yes, it is men, inspired and led by the Holy Spirit.
However, you are only using your opinion upon a text. You, unlike the Apostles, were not given the Gospel, nor like the early Church, was never taught the Gospel of Christ.

This is all you have? Typical romanist. You can not argue against the truth, all you can do is attack.

You sound just like the jews in christ day, and their arguments to Christ. but your so into trusting men, you can not even see it.

I always find it strange that Protestants in general claim the RCC is of men, yet all they have ever produced from sola scriptura is of men. Beginning with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and down to the latest man derived theory, has all been from men.

If you can add some evidence to your opinion, you might have some credibility, but asking I know is futile because there is none outside of your opinion. Your version of vs 13 in Col 2 is not even about ONLY believers. All the work of Christ on the Cross was for the world, the human race. The curse that was nailed to the Tree was the curse of death. Christ overcame death for all men, freed all men from the bondage to sin.
So, I'll keep with the understanding that has been upheld by the Holy Spirit unchanged by man for 2000 years. YOu can hold to your personal interpretation if that makes you more comfortable.

again more attack. no fluff. We should not be listening to you anyway, Your not a priest or anything, thus according to your own doctrines, you are not authorised to teach anyone.

either way, If you can not read it and understand it that speaks volumes.

I do not have to twist what it says to get my view. I just read it and take it literally. you have to allegorize, twist, and turn every word to get your belief to stand.

God did not give us a word to confuse us, He gave us a gospel which is pure and undefiled.

Paul knew it was all God. Not his own works.. I think I will follow him, and not paganized church who thinks it is Gods representative on earth, when it looks NOTHING like the church of God.

Rev 1: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, [SUP]5 [/SUP]and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, [SUP]6 [/SUP]and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

God has washed us, Not some man in water, And he made all he washed a king and priest to God and father of all things.

Follow your priest of men. I will follow My Savior.

 

[Vaudeville]

I always find it strange that Protestants in general claim the RCC is of men, yet all they have ever produced from sola scriptura is of men. Beginning with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and down to the latest man derived theory, has all been from men.

"You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors.
It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society."
—John Paul II (to voodoo representatives of Benin on 4 February 1993 at Cotonou)

During a visit to Africa in 1982, John Paul II heard a proposal by Conciliar bishops to blend “ancestral customs” into “Catholic” rites; a year later, he took “africanization” a step further by giving a Vatican-level post to Zambia’s “Archbishop” Emmanual Milingo, who critics accused “of practices that approach witchcraft”; and in 1984, he donned a monkey-skin tribal headdress in Nairobi to express (here is paraphrased the stock line he uses around the world) “solidarity with the deepest aspirations and noblest traditions of your people.”[64] “On August 8, 1985,” writes the French traditionalist Catholic priest, Father Noel Barbara, “in Togo, Africa, he [John Paul — JKW] actively assisted in pagan ceremonies in a secret grove near Lome. Several days later he participated in other non-Catholic religious rites at Kara and at Togoville.”[65] Reflecting on his performance of pagan rites at a site consecrated to the worship of tribal gods, John Paul exalted: “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.”[66]

 

[Cassian]

Oh is this so?

Sorry, The church started in around 300 AD looks nothing like the church of the NT, Nor do they teach the same gospel.

God gave the high priest of Israel the same thing He gave Peter. We see how fast man twisted the word of God and made it no gospel at all. In fact the very High Priest of God is the one who had Christ killed.

Again, If you want to listen to men. Have fin.. But you would be better off listening to God.

Where is your evidence on this assertion. I hear this assertion a lot, but have never seen any evidence to follow. It always ends up as just an unfounded assertion.

 

[Cassian]

This is all you have? Typical romanist. You can not argue against the truth, all you can do is attack.

You sound just like the jews in christ day, and their arguments to Christ. but your so into trusting men, you can not even see it.


again more attack. no fluff. We should not be listening to you anyway, Your not a priest or anything, thus according to your own doctrines, you are not authorised to teach anyone.

either way, If you can not read it and understand it that speaks volumes.

I do not have to twist what it says to get my view. I just read it and take it literally. you have to allegorize, twist, and turn every word to get your belief to stand.

God did not give us a word to confuse us, He gave us a gospel which is pure and undefiled.

Paul knew it was all God. Not his own works.. I think I will follow him, and not paganized church who thinks it is Gods representative on earth, when it looks NOTHING like the church of God.

Rev 1: Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, [SUP]5 [/SUP]and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, [SUP]6 [/SUP]and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

God has washed us, Not some man in water, And he made all he washed a king and priest to God and father of all things.

Follow your priest of men. I will follow My Savior.

It really shows your ignorance of both history and scripture. The first thing Protestants do to validate their personal opinions is attack the RCC. You are swinging in the wind here since I have not even mentioned the RCC nor alluded to them.
What you have exhibited is the denounciation of a Church, the RCC, who exhibits all the same principles as Protestants. By condemning them you are condemning yourself. The savior you are following seems to be you.
But I will let you cite the evidence that shows what you state has always been the Gospel from the beginning.

 

[Cassian]

"You have a strong attachment to the traditions handed on by your ancestors.
It is legitimate to be grateful to your forbears who passed on this sense of the sacred, belief in a single God who is good, a sense of celebration, esteem for the moral life and for harmony in society."
—John Paul II (to voodoo representatives of Benin on 4 February 1993 at Cotonou)

During a visit to Africa in 1982, John Paul II heard a proposal by Conciliar bishops to blend “ancestral customs” into “Catholic” rites; a year later, he took “africanization” a step further by giving a Vatican-level post to Zambia’s “Archbishop” Emmanual Milingo, who critics accused “of practices that approach witchcraft”; and in 1984, he donned a monkey-skin tribal headdress in Nairobi to express (here is paraphrased the stock line he uses around the world) “solidarity with the deepest aspirations and noblest traditions of your people.”[64] “On August 8, 1985,” writes the French traditionalist Catholic priest, Father Noel Barbara, “in Togo, Africa, he [John Paul — JKW] actively assisted in pagan ceremonies in a secret grove near Lome. Several days later he participated in other non-Catholic religious rites at Kara and at Togoville.”[65] Reflecting on his performance of pagan rites at a site consecrated to the worship of tribal gods, John Paul exalted: “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.”[66]

You seem to have the same ignorance of history as eternally-grateful. Where did I ever state that I either was RCC or even alluded to being RCC. If one as a Protestant is going to defend his/her own views, one should do so from the positive vantage position, rather than first denigrating what might be one's opposition. The fact that one first needs to denigrate some other view in order to validate ones own view shows one is on very sandy ground. After 500 years Protestants are still protesting the RCC.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Where is your evidence on this assertion. I hear this assertion a lot, but have never seen any evidence to follow. It always ends up as just an unfounded assertion.

well of course not.

They tell you what to believe, how to believe, and who to listen to so no amount of evidence could ever be shown to you, because of the fear they have placed in you.

whether you want to see it or not makes no difference.

again, You follow your men and their distorted word of scripture, and modern day talmud (laws and scripture added to the true word of God) I will follow the God of the bible.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It really shows your ignorance of both history and scripture. The first thing Protestants do to validate their personal opinions is attack the RCC. You are swinging in the wind here since I have not even mentioned the RCC nor alluded to them.

1st, I am not attacking the RCC. I am speaking against the group of churches and world religion started in 300 AD.
2nd. you started it by using RCC terms (sola scriptura, protextant etc) So you are fooling no onw (even though you think you may be smart)
3rd. Your the on who started the atttack, and using the NORMAL RCC and associated churches means of argumnent, So do not be the hypocrite you are by saying that I am doing what you have already done.

News flash bud. i already explained the passage to you. You have done nothing but attack me. and not even tried to explain the passage, or show where I have erred in what I said about the passage. Those who have open eyes can plainly see this, so your arguments are falling on death ears.

What you have exhibited is the denounciation of a Church, the RCC, who exhibits all the same principles as Protestants. By condemning them you are condemning yourself. The savior you are following seems to be you.
But I will let you cite the evidence that shows what you state has always been the Gospel from the beginning.

lol. You do not even know the gospel. Yet again you do not even have an argument, all you have are attacks.

If you want to speak and talk about scripture (this is a bible study forum) lets do this. Thats what I am here for.

If all you want to do is attack. Well then you are in the wrong place.

 

[Shava]

I disagree. The Greek would lead me to believe that this is not water at all. The baptize word here is to immerse which I read as immersing in the doctrines of the faith. The command is to go and teach, teach the doctrines necessary to bring them to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Deeper than you want to go but that is a better understanding of the passage that does not force it to contradict other baptismal passages.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Baptism is described as going down into the water and coming up out of the water. (Matthew 3:16-17, Acts 8:38-39) Only immersion has the one being baptized going into the water.

As it has been stated by others, the Greek word means to immerse.

This can also bee seen in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 where baptism is described as a burial.

 

[notuptome]

Baptism is described as going down into the water and coming up out of the water. (Matthew 3:16-17, Acts 8:38-39) Only immersion has the one being baptized going into the water.

As it has been stated by others, the Greek word means to immerse.

This can also bee seen in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 where baptism is described as a burial.

Immersion does not mandate water. Are you really that shallow intellectually? One can be immersed in thought which is an activity you may have heard of.

Study to show thyself approved. Study requires some degree of effort.

For the cause of Christ
Roger