WHY?

[Locoponydirtman]

-
What you posted denies that : "Without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission, there is no forgiveness of sin".

So you just posted this : Galatians 1:8

Locoponydirtman.....You just replaced the Cross of Christ, which is the Blood Atonement, with....> "water cult", "doctrines of Devils" that would substitute The Blood and Death of Jesus for/as : "water baptism".
You just did that... Locoponydirtman.

Its "church fathers"....Heretical authors, one who is JEROME,... who took a Latin verse in John 3, and REWROTE IT, mistranslated it on purpose, like this.

"Born again BY water".

"Born again BY water"....

See that reader?
That is the "water cult" Cross denying, Blood Atonement denying: = "baptismal regeneration" "water cult" "doctrine of Devils".

How do you know?
Its because we are BORN AGAIN BY the HOLY SPIRIT...... not by the city water supply.
Even the DEVIL knows that, but, He's happy to have you trust in "water"..

Listen.... its the Blood of Jesus and the Death of Christ that is the BLOOD ATONEMENT that "washes away sin"....... and not water. Never water.. Water is just Water.
Its the Blood of Jesus that is the ATONEMENT for our SIN.
Its the HOLY SPIRIT that applies this SALVATION< this REDEMPTION..... not water.

And "water cults" replace this truth with = "water washes away your sin".

You just read one of these people do it.
And they'll do it again.

See that LIE?
That is a Satanic Lie that DENIES the Cross, and the Salvation of God Through Christ that is the REDEMPTION from Sin as THE BLOOD ATONEMENT.

"Water cults'" teach that WATER is your salvation... and that came from the Heretic JEROME, who mistranslated John 3 from Latin texts, not the Koine Greek...., so that the error, the lie, that is : "baptismal regeneration", " = "saved by water"< is what is taught.
This is the "Douay Rheims" bible, a complete work of the Devil.... that is the authorized CATHOLIC Bible which changed the Blood Atonement, into "water washes away your sin".

Its Hellish and Demonic.

Denying the baptism that Jesus instituted and samctified is denying his blood.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I dont privately interpret any verses.

What other jokes do you tell?

 

[arthurfleminger]

Church tradition for 1, 000 years was to sprinkle unrepentant babes

Where does your that disagree with Scripture? And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

 

[mustaphadrink]

If its "mere speculation" why are you not able to post even one verse from any bible that states that Peter and those in the upper room were water baptized on the "day of Pentecost'?

Dear oh dear. Your knowledge of scripture is very limited. I seem to remember that the scripture says that all the books in the world could not contain what Jesus preached. That being the case, you are going to find things that have not been written but it doesn't take much to work things out if you are skilled in exegesis.

 

[arthurfleminger]

Your last point is a bit confusing.

While I recognize there is a problem with Mat 28… since it was never practiced by the apostles…(which is a biggie) But if Jesus did say that ….then it should have been followed even if it was one time. (They should not be given any more leniency that my kids had, which was….“”one time””) However… I don’t think Jesus said it…. Based on the non-adherence by the apostles and Eusebius (260-340 A.D) who quotes Mat 28:19 as "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name” 17 times including an oration in Praise of Constantine.

Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching whether Christ was God or a creation of God. If the manuscripts (and we don’t know which they were) that he had in front of him were written as” in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” …. Eusebius never would have quoted it as saying “in my name”

Matthew is noted as having a few transcribe errors or deliberate forgeries and this could be one of them… But beyond the noted discrepancies there are no known manuscripts which offer any proof.

Artios, I'm truly amazed at your post. I suspect that you claim to believe in Scripture. But it is clear that when Scripture doesn't agree with your beliefs, you claim that Scripture is wrong. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mustaphadrink]

Last week I read that there were 44,000 denominations. That in itself must make God cry. But that is not the subject of this post. What I want to ask is WHY most of them ignore the teaching of baptism and impose their own interpretation.

I will start with what happened at Pentecost where it says in Acts 2 v 38, Then Peter said to them "Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus baptism Matthew 3 V 16. and when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water and behold, the heavens were open to him.

John 3 v 23. John was also baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was plentiful there

Matthew 28 v 19. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8 v 36 And as they were going along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said "See here is water! What prevents me from being baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down INTO the water, Phillip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

Acts 10 v 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

Romans 6 V 3. Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized INTO CHRIST JESUS were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3 v 27. For as many as you were baptized INTO CHRIST have put on Christ.

Matthew 3 v 6. And they were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins.

In the New Testament, baptism was in the name or into the name of Jesus, always by immersion, always when there was plenty of water available.

Only ONCE are we told to baptize in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. and as we know we never make a doctrine out of one verse of scripture. Therefore the overwhelming evidence is that you baptize by immersion in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ. One final point nowhere in scripture do you baptize a baby by sprinkling water over its head.

So the question is why do we ignore the scripture on this subject and replace it with our own version?

Point 1. YOU DO NOT make a doctrine out of one verse of scripture

Point 2. ALL scripture is given by God (not some).

What is boring about it Angela?

 

[arthurfleminger]

Where does your that disagree with Scripture? And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

And there are a number of cases in the New Testament in which entire households were baptized. For sure this would include children. Aren't children part of a household? Just asking.

 

[arthurfleminger]

What is boring about it Angela?

It is boring because Angelina doesn't want to hear about 44,000 different sects. But it is true, these sects are all teaching different 'Christian truths'. The pastor down the street isn't teaching the same truths as your pastor. Don't believe me, then why are there so many different denominations?

Christ prayed that all His followers be united, but we're not. This means some aren't teaching truth, simple as that!!!!!!!

 

[mustaphadrink]

When I posted this article, I knew that one thing was going to happen for sure. There would be plenty of people who would say that baptism in water is irrelevant. All sorts of interpretations would be put forward to show why water baptism is irrelevant.

When I am doing exegesis of scripture i tend to start at the beginning and work my way forward from there.

On the day of Pentecost, which was the first day of the New Testament Church, Peter made it very clear what had to happen. Repent and be baptized. They were the first people to become part of the New Testament Church.

if that was the requirement to become a member of the Kingdom of God, and I don't see anywhere where the scripture says you can dispense with the baptism bit, then today it is still repent and be baptised. To do otherwise is to do half measures which by the way the present-day church is very good at.

 

[arthurfleminger]

When I posted this article, I knew that one thing was going to happen for sure. There would be plenty of people who would say that baptism in water is irrelevant. All sorts of interpretations would be put forward to show why water baptism is irrelevant.

When I am doing exegesis of scripture i tend to start at the beginning and work my way forward from there.

On the day of Pentecost, which was the first day of the New Testament Church, Peter made it very clear what had to happen. Repent and be baptized. They were the first people to become part of the New Testament Church.

if that was the requirement to become a member of the Kingdom of God, and I don't see anywhere where the scripture says you can dispense with the baptism bit, then today it is still repent and be baptised. To do otherwise is to do half measures which by the way the present-day church is very good at.

Well 'Mustaphadrink', it's obvious that many don't believe that, no matter what Jesus or Scripture says about baptism. They deny Jesus and Scripture. They impose their own beliefs instead.

 

[mustaphadrink]

And there are a number of cases in the New Testament in which entire households were baptized. For sure this would include children. Aren't children part of a household? Just asking.

It is a good question because in those days the way families were brought up was different to today.

In those days a family was a family. Not a bunch of individuals. For arguments sake, If parents decided they would worship Dianna, the children did the same. If parents moved to another town the children did the same. There was no I will stay here and get my own apartment.

If a family was baptized into the Christian faith all the children were baptized into the Christian faith.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Well 'Mustaphadrink', it's obvious that many don't believe that, no matter what Jesus or Scripture says about baptism. They deny Jesus and Scripture. They impose their own beliefs instead.

That is par for the course with the church today.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

And there are a number of cases in the New Testament in which entire households were baptized. For sure this would include children. Aren't children part of a household? Just asking.

Yes, they are. Also note that according to the book of Hebrews, baptizm is compared tl circumcision, which was done to converts when converted but children of the house at 8 days old.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It is a good question because in those days the way families were brought up was different to today.

In those days a family was a family. Not a bunch of individuals. For arguments sake, If parents decided they would worship Dianna, the children did the same. If parents moved to another town the children did the same. There was no I will stay here and get my own apartment.

If a family was baptized into the Christian faith all the children were baptized into the Christian faith.

True, enlightenment egalitarianism had not entered the picture yet.

 

[Artios1]

Artios, I'm truly amazed at your post. I suspect that you claim to believe in Scripture. But it is clear that when Scripture doesn't agree with your beliefs, you claim that Scripture is wrong. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not unusual to be amazed by my post.... I am an amazing person ....due to the Christ in me.

What I am underwhelmed about .... is your response to my previous post (#21) ....Which I stated
"If you can find me one place in Gods Word where that formula was used in baptism .... I will humbly accept."

Not only would I accept ....I would be truly amazed .... because it was never used. That has got to cause you some consternation as to why the apostles deliberately disobey ""Christs own words"". That, in addition to what the father of church history Eusebius (260-340 A.D) quoted regarding verse Mat_28:19 (#12) you have to wonder.

I have been doing biblical research for many years and I don't put much stock in extrabiblical writings, although the writings of Eusebius were written in a different light... But what the Apostles practiced offer a greater insight. And even when Peter became over zealous and carried out a water baptism (Act 10:47) ....he corrected himself (Act 11:16).

There are several areas throughout the New Testament where translators have added words or verses in effort to booster their beliefs...... most of which can be identified in earlier manuscripts.... that is not the case with Matthew, which is why I rely primarily on what the apostles practiced.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Why Eusebius, the founder of what would be later called arianism. A group that denies the trinity altogether.
Why not the writings of Polycarp disciiple of John, or the disciple of Polycarp, Ireneaus? Or Justin the Martyr, or Clement? All church Fathers predating Eusebius, and out numbering him, and not guilty of anti trinitarian heresy.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

One could refer to the didache, and leave it there.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I much prefer to go by the teaching of scripture which in this case is very clear.

so do I

And those who replace spirit baptism with water baptism are in error

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

If it is not why were the listeners told to get baptized for the remission of sin? I think you are just making things up as you go along.

they were told to get baptized BECAUSE they had RECIEVED remission of sin.

Peter only told those who0 repented and recieved the spirit to be baptized. If you studied more, you might see this

 

[arthurfleminger]

It's not unusual to be amazed by my post.... I am an amazing person ....due to the Christ in me.

What I am underwhelmed about .... is your response to my previous post (#21) ....Which I stated
"If you can find me one place in Gods Word where that formula was used in baptism .... I will humbly accept."

Not only would I accept ....I would be truly amazed .... because it was never used. That has got to cause you some consternation as to why the apostles deliberately disobey ""Christs own words"". That, in addition to what the father of church history Eusebius (260-340 A.D) quoted regarding verse Mat_28:19 (#12) you have to wonder.

I have been doing biblical research for many years and I don't put much stock in extrabiblical writings, although the writings of Eusebius were written in a different light... But what the Apostles practiced offer a greater insight. And even when Peter became over zealous and carried out a water baptism (Act 10:47) ....he corrected himself (Act 11:16).

There are several areas throughout the New Testament where translators have added words or verses in effort to booster their beliefs...... most of which can be identified in earlier manuscripts.... that is not the case with Matthew, which is why I rely primarily on what the apostles practiced.

Artiose, you made it very clear in your post that you don't agree with Scripture when Scripture disagrees with you. You posted, "Matthew is noted as having a few transcribe errors or deliberate forgeries and this could be one of them…"

You've set your opinions above Scripture, God's Word, because you don't want to believe Scripture. Sad but true. When Scripture doesn't agree with you, you say it's a forgery.