The MOST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT MADE

[dcontroversal]

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.

This too shows blindness as (AND NOW IS) is present tense...so go peddle your heresy someplace else as your gospel of a different kind will take you straight to the smoking pit...NO WATER THERE dude!

Originally Posted by phil112 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."


SEA PERCH here fails to acknowledge (AND NOW IS) so as to promote his heretical Alexander Campbellite dogma

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.

 

[Bride]

Hi. I've never had any controversy with this scripture actually, and I love all that Paul has written. I've been baptized of course and woe to me if I hadn't decided to die in Christ in the appointed manner, but to each his own. As far as Paul's statement, it doesn't matter who does the baptizing is all he is saying. Not whether or not it is a subject of any other consideration. It just boils down to a person's submission in spirit, to dying to self, so that they can arise out of baptism into newness of life, no longer a servant to sin, but walking in the righteousness of the Holy indwelling Spirit of Jesus resurrected from the dead. That's what it means to me anyway, and what total peace this is in the Kingdom

 

[dcontroversal]

Hi. I've never had any controversy with this scripture actually, and I love all that Paul has written. I've been baptized of course and woe to me if I hadn't decided to die in Christ in the appointed manner, but to each his own. As far as Paul's statement, it doesn't matter who does the baptizing is all he is saying. Not whether or not it is a subject of any other consideration. It just boils down to a person's submission in spirit, to dying to self, so that they can arise out of baptism into newness of life, no longer a servant to sin, but walking in the righteousness of the Holy indwelling Spirit of Jesus resurrected from the dead. That's what it means to me anyway, and what total peace this is in the Kingdom

Without a doubt the context is clear and known....the contention is those who teach that immersion is necessary for biblical salvation...Of the which it is not...but is a picture of what has taken place inwardly, states to the world that you are dead to the old man, buried with Christ and resurrected a new creation is Christ Jesus...is a work of righteousness and does not save and or add to the complete salvation that is found in the completed work of Jesus and faith into said work!

 

[newbirth]

Without a doubt the context is clear and known....the contention is those who teach that immersion is necessary for biblical salvation...Of the which it is not...but is a picture of what has taken place inwardly, states to the world that you are dead to the old man, buried with Christ and resurrected a new creation is Christ Jesus...is a work of righteousness and does not save and or add to the complete salvation that is found in the completed work of Jesus and faith into said work!

the context is clear as in your OP where you don't have a clue of what the scripture is saying until it was pointed out to you...and still will not admit your error but pretend you posted it for controversy ...
here is your OP...

You know...for those who teach a watered down salvation and the ones who trust into baptism as part of their salvation explain the following....

IF BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION THEN WHY DID PAUL SAY....

I THANK GOD I BAPTIZED NONE OF YOU but Crispus and Gaius.....1st Corinthians 1:14

This man wrote almost HALF of the N.T. and IF BAPTISM WAS CRITICAL to SALVATION then this has got to be the most controversial statement in the bible and he must have been off of his rocker to pen that statement!

It is also the most anti-evangelistic statement in the scriptures if BAPTISM is NECESSARY....

GOD said...WHEN I SEE THE BLOOD I WILL PASS OVER YOU........

HE DID NOT SAY.....WHEN I SEE THE BLOOD, WATER AND WORKS I WILL PASS OVER YOU!

IF BAPTISM was necessary...PAUL WOULD HAVE BEEN IMMERSING EVERYBODY that he could get HIS HANDS ON as his hearts desire was to win everyone to the truth and eternal life!

here is your second post...

No doubt.....wonder why none of the water for salvation pushers wont answer this OP......I am sure they will come up with some lame excuse based upon scriptures so twisted out of proportion that it will resemble Mr. Twisty and His cousin OUTTA WHACK!

it is clear you take that scripture to mean baptism is not necessary...

and this is your response trying to show you understand...

I understand the context as well, but at the same time to say that if BAPTISM is necessary for salvation makes this statement misleading in the very minimum......

Baptism is a picture of what has taken place based upon faith and is our outward testimony of an inward faith....it is the 1st act of obedience and water pushers for salvation take a few scriptures out of context to push that doctrine.....Jesus was the SON of GOD by BIRTH and only came to be identified by his IMMERSION.....which did not add to or complete his sonship....

which shows you have no understanding of scripture...

 

[dcontroversal]

the context is clear as in your OP where you don't have a clue of what the scripture is saying until it was pointed out to you...and still will not admit your error but pretend you posted it for controversy ...
here is your OP...

here is your second post... it is clear you take that scripture to mean baptism is not necessary...

and this is your response trying to show you understand...

which shows you have no understanding of scripture...

Ok...now you are accusatory and judging what I know or don't know and my motive which you have no ability to do....so...seems obvious that the devil leads you and you will do the work of your father...so good luck with your father in the smoking pit!

 

[Bride]

Without a doubt the context is clear and known....the contention is those who teach that immersion is necessary for biblical salvation...Of the which it is not...but is a picture of what has taken place inwardly, states to the world that you are dead to the old man, buried with Christ and resurrected a new creation is Christ Jesus...is a work of righteousness and does not save and or add to the complete salvation that is found in the completed work of Jesus and faith into said work!

Actually, the only contention in that verse, is the unimportance of who baptizes another. I've looked again at it, and I don't find anything in that verse having to do with whether or not baptism is necessary or it is a work of salvation. That controversy is absent as far as I can see, at least in scriptures anyway. I guess it depends on who you talk to I suppose.

 

[dcontroversal]

Actually, the only contention in that verse, is the unimportance of who baptizes another. I've looked again at it, and I don't find anything in that verse having to do with whether or not baptism is necessary or it is a work of salvation. That controversy is absent as far as I can see, at least in scriptures anyway. I guess it depends on who you talk to I suppose.

Your missing the point...yes the context is that it does not matter who does the immersion and that is the context......go read all the posts as I started this thread in a controversial way so as to bring to light the points made dia the WHOLE thread.....!

As there are those who teach baptismal regeneration and push Campbellism and to start the thread I chose Paul's statement and at the end of the day if BAPTISM is needed for salvation NO MAN OF GOD would say what was said...I fully understand the context and one saying I am of this person I am from that person etc....

Like if I said....I am glad I won none of you to the LORD......

 

[newbirth]

Ok...now you are accusatory and judging what I know or don't know and my motive which you have no ability to do....so...seems obvious that the devil leads you and you will do the work of your father...so good luck with your father in the smoking pit!

you say accuse and judge ....the facts are there and you do not deny them...

 

[dcontroversal]

you say accuse and judge ....the facts are there and you do not deny them...

Whatever dude....!

 

[dcontroversal]

Actually, the only contention in that verse, is the unimportance of who baptizes another. I've looked again at it, and I don't find anything in that verse having to do with whether or not baptism is necessary or it is a work of salvation. That controversy is absent as far as I can see, at least in scriptures anyway. I guess it depends on who you talk to I suppose.

The contention is between those in here who push a watered down blood and those who teach the blood for salvation...

When I see the BLOOD I will pass over you

not

When I see the blood, water and works I will pass over you

 

[newbirth]

Your missing the point...yes the context is that it does not matter who does the immersion and that is the context......go read all the posts as I started this thread in a controversial way so as to bring to light the points made dia the WHOLE thread.....!

As there are those who teach baptismal regeneration and push Campbellism and to start the thread I chose Paul's statement and at the end of the day if BAPTISM is needed for salvation NO MAN OF GOD would say what was said...I fully understand the context and one saying I am of this person I am from that person etc....

Like if I said....I am glad I won none of you to the LORD......

any true man of God would say what Paul said...because baptism is necessary...that is why he asked the question ...were you baptised in the name of Paul? Paul understand baptism makes us one with Christ....Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ....

so Paul is saying I am glad I did not baptise you for the simple reason you might say I baptised you so you are one with me...If baptism was not necessary then there would not be a reason to mention anything about it...

 

[posthuman]

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.

look:

Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
(John 19:31-33)

Christ died before this thief did.
and so the mans sin was atoned for, so even speaking as though Jesus did not have authority to forgive sin on earth (plainly, He did!!) -- there is no ground to say that he, who had put his faith in Christ and received the promise from His very lips, died outside the new covenant.

 

[Jabberjaw]

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!

Jesus was alive (had not died yet) when he forgave the sins of the woman in Simons house :

Luke 7:48 (NKJV)
48 Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."


Like the thief, as well this woman, the N.T. had not yet come into force, if it had been in force for either, He would not be just in putting them into a saved state, He would be going against his own word bypassing the requirement for one example baptism (Mark 16:16), but because his word was not yet in effect, he could save anyone he wanted subject to his Fathers will.

After the cross, he could not save either unless they obeyed His gospel.

 

[Jabberjaw]

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...!

Who and where do you get the idea I (or seabass for that matter) give any credence to a Campbell doctrine (if there is one), I would caution you that you tread on dangerous ground to teach any other doctrine than that of Christ (as I believe seabass and myself do, unless with other than your profane words and name calling can prove us wrong) :

Galatians 1:6-8 (NKJV)
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

 

[Jabberjaw]

look:

Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
(John 19:31-33)

Christ died before this thief did.
and so the mans sin was atoned for, so even speaking as though Jesus did not have authority to forgive sin on earth (plainly, He did!!) -- there is no ground to say that he, who had put his faith in Christ and received the promise from His very lips, died outside the new covenant.

See my post #153

 

[Jabberjaw]

This too shows blindness as (AND NOW IS) is present tense...so go peddle your heresy someplace else as your gospel of a different kind will take you straight to the smoking pit...NO WATER THERE dude!

Originally Posted by phil112 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."


SEA PERCH here fails to acknowledge (AND NOW IS) so as to promote his heretical Alexander Campbellite dogma

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.

You read only what you want (three words) lift them out of context and completely change the meaning and say someone else "fails to acknowledge".

"but the hour cometh" future tense,
"and now is" present meaning it is in the works but not yet in force,
"when the true worshipers" future tense.
"shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" future tense
"for the Father seeketh such to worship him." past perfect progressive tense

the N.T. was being taught, but was not yet in force until his death Hebrews 9:16-17

 

[dcontroversal]

Who and where do you get the idea I (or seabass for that matter) give any credence to a Campbell doctrine (if there is one), I would caution you that you tread on dangerous ground to teach any other doctrine than that of Christ (as I believe seabass and myself do, unless with other than your profane words and name calling can prove us wrong) :

Galatians 1:6-8 (NKJV)
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Yeah you should pay attention to this warning as the warning is directed at those who would add to FAITH for salvation....Galatians 3...so I suggest you pay attention to the fact that you and Sea Perch ADD to faith for salvation (water) and water immersion has nothing to DO with biblical salvation based upon faith dia grace...Baptism is a WORK of righteousness and WORKS do not save.....SO....you guys teach a gospel of a different kind which has NO POWER to save as YOU add to faith which makes VOID the word of God....better pay attention to your own argument here friend!

 

[dcontroversal]

You read only what you want (three words) lift them out of context and completely change the meaning and say someone else "fails to acknowledge".

"but the hour cometh" future tense,
"and now is" present meaning it is in the works but not yet in force,
"when the true worshipers" future tense.
"shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" future tense
"for the Father seeketh such to worship him." past perfect progressive tense

the N.T. was being taught, but was not yet in force until his death Hebrews 9:16-17

I suggest you come out of the water and put your glasses on as JESUS was teaching that HIS worship and the worship of the disciples in the present context was ACCEPTABLE unto the FATHER and if you say otherwise you are blind to the fact and STATING that the WORSHIP of the SON and HIS FIRST CHURCH was unacceptable!

 

[posthuman]

Jesus was alive (had not died yet) when he forgave the sins of the woman in Simons house :

Luke 7:48 (NKJV)
48 Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."


Like the thief, as well this woman, the N.T. had not yet come into force, if it had been in force for either, He would not be just in putting them into a saved state, He would be going against his own word bypassing the requirement for one example baptism (Mark 16:16), but because his word was not yet in effect, he could save anyone he wanted subject to his Fathers will.

After the cross, he could not save either unless they obeyed His gospel.

what is it then, some kind of "middle covenant" when Christ in the flesh forgave sin?
it's certainly not an example of being justified by the law of Moses (i.e. 'under the old covenant')
if you're not comfortable calling it the 'new covenant' we should coin a new term.

many times in the gospel accounts, the thief on the cross included, Jesus forgave sin by faith.
none of those instances, like the woman at Simon's house, involved a blood sacrifice for atonement - as the law required. (except, if we would hear it, the sacrifice of Jesus)

but the writer to the Hebrews says there is no forgiveness of sin without blood! (Hebrews 9:22)
how can this be? where was blood shed for the woman at Simon's house, or for the thief, who was condemned and crucified by the law?

my brothers and sisters, the blood was shed at the cross!!

if it is 'sblood then, call it "middle covenant" or "new covenant" or whatever you will, but these are not examples of mercy attained by following the law of Moses.
they are examples of forgiveness of sin through faith, by the mercy of God, by His very Word.

 

[dcontroversal]

what is it then, some kind of "middle covenant" when Christ in the flesh forgave sin?
it's certainly not an example of being justified by the law of Moses (i.e. 'under the old covenant')
if you're not comfortable calling it the 'new covenant' we should coin a new term.

many times in the gospel accounts, the thief on the cross included, Jesus forgave sin by faith.
none of those instances, like the woman at Simon's house, involved a blood sacrifice for atonement - as the law required. (except, if we would hear it, the sacrifice of Jesus)

but the writer to the Hebrews says there is no forgiveness of sin without blood! (Hebrews 9:22)
how can this be? where was blood shed for the woman at Simon's house, or for the thief, who was condemned and crucified by the law?

my brothers and sisters, the blood was shed at the cross!!

if it is 'sblood then, call it "middle covenant" or "new covenant" or whatever you will, but these are not examples of mercy attained by following the law of Moses.
they are examples of forgiveness of sin through faith, by the mercy of God, by His very Word.

I agree with this and will add that the blood began to flow when he took a beating beyond recognition, had his back plowed like a field (they made long their furrows upon my back) and when the crown of thorns were crammed down on his head!