baptism

[PJW]

Peter sinned against the Gentile believers so that Paul had to take him to task....

What was the sin?
His error was trying to live the law of God given to the Jews while preaching the freedom in Christ.
Thousands in Jerusalem were still zealous of the law.
Were they sinners too?
.

the words of Paul, describing his sin nature... his fleshly body, versus his spiritual nature.

You got part of it right.
Paul was writing of his sin nature, but it was from his days before he walked in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
Rom 7:5..."[FONT=&quot]For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
[/FONT]He was free from the law when he wrote to the Romans.
Romans 8:2..."[FONT=&quot]For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
[/FONT]He's not in the flesh anymore, and we shouldn't be either.

Both apostles still sinned, but they were covered by the forgiveness brought to us by Jesus. Human beings still sin, but we are forgiven.

I already gave the scriptures that refute your POV.
Men in Christ don't commit sin.
You are, in essence, asserting that there is sin in God.
What folly!

We cannot say we never sin, we CAN say God will not hold it against us if we confess to Him.

Not while you have no fellowship with God, you can't.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

What was the sin?
His error was trying to live the law of God given to the Jews while preaching the freedom in Christ.
Thousands in Jerusalem were still zealous of the law.
Were they sinners too?
.

You got part of it right.
Paul was writing of his sin nature, but it was from his days before he walked in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
Rom 7:5..."For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."
He was free from the law when he wrote to the Romans.
Romans 8:2..."For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
He's not in the flesh anymore, and we shouldn't be either.


I already gave the scriptures that refute your POV.
Men in Christ don't commit sin.
You are, in essence, asserting that there is sin in God.
What folly!


Not while you have no fellowship with God, you can't.

You say you do not sin. Do you ever error like Peter did?

 

[PJW]

well, anyone can quote scripture...

And those who hate God will deny the scriptures.

the devil knows the Bible better than most Christians
you write in an accusatory manner...ie, trying to tell me what I think...that's the part you hope I will argue over because we both know you have no clue what someone is thinking here. unless of course your practice witchcraft? so you hope I'll take the bait and go off down some bunny trail with you
people do not create other believers. only God grants the new birth through Christ
it seems you may have been reborn after whoever taught you the mish mash you post, instead of after the Son of God
well, if God knows those who are His, you need to stop telling people they do not belong to God
you are not God and He has not given you the keys to the kingdom
you really make no sense whatsoever

Your strawman arguments are moot.
Everyone who loves God will rejoice in the fact that Jesus has saved us from service to sin.
And everyone who wants to serve sin instead of God, will nit-pick or outright deny the scriptures that point to freedom.,
Freedom is available to all who love God above all else, and their neighbor as themselves.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

And those who hate God will deny the scriptures.


Your strawman arguments are moot.
Everyone who loves God will rejoice in the fact that Jesus has saved us from service to sin.
And everyone who wants to serve sin instead of God, will nit-pick or outright deny the scriptures that point to freedom.,
Freedom is available to all who love God above all else, and their neighbor as themselves.

this pre-recorded message brought to you by scripture mashup anon

don't be a hold out

read the Bible for yourself so confusing cherry picked verses no longer say things they were never meant to say

read the Bible for yourself so you won't waste time trying to understand trite sinism speech that collects as much truth as a sieve collects water

 

[PJW]

You say you do not sin. Do you ever error like Peter did?

No, as I was never a Jew, I have no interest in pleasing other, visiting Jews.

 

[PJW]

this pre-recorded message brought to you by scripture mashup anon
don't be a hold out
read the Bible for yourself so confusing cherry picked verses no longer say things they were never meant to say
read the Bible for yourself so you won't waste time trying to understand trite sinism speech that collects as much truth as a sieve collects water

Is this verse "truth"?
It is writte..."[FONT=&quot]Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Jesus commanded it, and then made it possible.[/FONT]

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Is this verse "truth"?
It is writte..."Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Jesus commanded it, and then made it possible.

LOL!

you don't even quote verses most of the time

you are so busy puffing yourself up in self righteousness that probably goes right over your head

you are one big flagrant advertisement for cherry picking verses, twisting them and taking scripture out of context

holiness is to be set apart...not amuse yourself believing you have somehow become beyond the need for salvation

what a deception this nonsense is!

 

[7seasrekeyed]

No, as I was never a Jew, I have no interest in pleasing other, visiting Jews.

right

Jesus came to His own, the Jews (a race God called out and called chosen by Him)

oops

now comes righteous indignation, correct?

 

[Endoscopy]

Good grief. You just keep pounding away at the wrong meaning of baptism. You are totally brainwashed....

If Jesus and the apostles had MEANT that baptism was a "cleansing ritual", they would have used the Greek word for that cleansing ritual.

When Jesus and the apostles used the Greek word baptizo, they were signifying an IMMERSION, because that's what that word means. Baptism is not MEANT to be a cleansing, it is meant to be an appeal to God, and a representation of the burial and resurrection of Jesus, signifying the death of the "old man" and the birth of the "new man".

In fact, Peter even taught CLEARLY that baptism is NOT a "cleansing"... you have seen this scripture, have you not?



You can keep hammering away, trying to teach baptism by dipping, pouring, wiping down, whatever, but there is NO scriptural basis for that teaching, and NO scriptural evidence that baptism was anything but complete immersion.

and it was not to represent a "cleansing".... It represents a new birth... You have missed the concept, and the intent.

Again you don't want to understand what I am saying. Why is that? You have absolutely no evidence in the Bible about the method of baptism. If you do give book, chapter and verses in context. Been there done that. The only thing is the meaning of the root word for baptism and that requires the immersion like the sinking of a ship. Therefore proponents of immersion cling tightly to that word as the root. You then put words in my mouth about what I said about the other word. I never said baptism was cleansing the person of sin. What I stated was the washing of feet cleaning the dirt from the foot showed the symbolism of the blood of Jesus washing away our sins. Baptism is a public admission that we accept Jesus as our savior with his blood washing away our sins. What is so hard to understand the symbolism of washing dirt from feet being symbolically similar to our sins being washed from us with Christ's blood? You seem to be deliberately obtuse.

 

[Endoscopy]

As an elder in Calvinist denominations I have wrestled with this issue. I come from a Baptist background and had to study carefully and long with this concept. I read ever verse related to baptism and studied where the root word came from. I spent a lot of time studying it. What I found is nothing states the method of baptism and the root word is extremely likely to be washing of the feet. So give Biblical evidence of where I went astray. Book, chapter, and verses in context.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

seems John the Baptist did a little more than ask people to dunk their tootsies in the Jordan

that sounds more like a pedicure

 

[hornetguy]

As an elder in Calvinist denominations I have wrestled with this issue. I come from a Baptist background and had to study carefully and long with this concept. I read ever verse related to baptism and studied where the root word came from. I spent a lot of time studying it. What I found is nothing states the method of baptism and the root word is extremely likely to be washing of the feet. So give Biblical evidence of where I went astray. Book, chapter, and verses in context.

It sounds more like you were studying long and hard to prove your preconceived notion that baptism is not what the Greek word says it is.... immersion.

That's called eisigesis.... exigesis is what we should use when studying.

 

[IamWhoIam]

It sounds more like you were studying long and hard to prove your preconceived notion that baptism is not what the Greek word says it is.... immersion.

That's called eisigesis.... exigesis is what we should use when studying.

Interesting, I enjoy when someone inspires me to look up the words,

 

[Endoscopy]

It sounds more like you were studying long and hard to prove your preconceived notion that baptism is not what the Greek word says it is.... immersion.

That's called eisigesis.... exigesis is what we should use when studying.

Again you are choosing to ignore the possible root word. You ignored my challenge to list book, chapter and verses giving the method of baptism. That Greek word has bias built in by the authors preconceived concept of the meaning of the word. You have to go back to when the word was created not modern Greek. That word didn't exist in 1 AD. We are talking about Biblical Greek not modern Greek.

I am very familiar with exigesis and have used it. Especially in this context. Remember I started out as immersion only and my exegesis forced me into rejecting that. You seem to be using eisigesis yourself since you try so hard to put words in my mouth I never stated.

 

[hornetguy]

Again you are choosing to ignore the possible root word. You ignored my challenge to list book, chapter and verses giving the method of baptism. That Greek word has bias built in by the authors preconceived concept of the meaning of the word. You have to go back to when the word was created not modern Greek. That word didn't exist in 1 AD. We are talking about Biblical Greek not modern Greek.

I am very familiar with exigesis and have used it. Especially in this context. Remember I started out as immersion only and my exegesis forced me into rejecting that. You seem to be using eisigesis yourself since you try so hard to put words in my mouth I never stated.

when studying scripture, people don't normally try to discover some obscure, possible root word, based on the fact that both words happen to deal with water. The word the inspired authors of the books wrote is easy enough to understand.

It is your own search to "disprove" immersion as the correct method of baptism that leads you to look for "possible" root words.

YOU completely ignore the fact that if the writers wanted to talk about foot washing and all kinds of "possible" symbolism, they would have USED the Greek word for that. They would NOT have used a commonly known Greek word that means exactly what it says.... to immerse.

Any attempt to minimize, change, or alter that meaning is purely a man-made desire to have the word say what YOU want it to say....

Much like the JW's did with John 1:1..... just re-write it the way you want it....

 

[hornetguy]

That word didn't exist in 1 AD. We are talking about Biblical Greek not modern Greek.

Really?

From the blue letter Bible, showing Strong's Greek words... baptizo was used in two different ways, in discussing the making of pickles.... in 200 BC....

Not to be confused with 907, baptizo. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

 

[LittleGirl]

Again you don't want to understand what I am saying. Why is that? You have absolutely no evidence in the Bible about the method of baptism. If you do give book, chapter and verses in context. Been there done that. The only thing is the meaning of the root word for baptism and that requires the immersion like the sinking of a ship. Therefore proponents of immersion cling tightly to that word as the root. You then put words in my mouth about what I said about the other word. I never said baptism was cleansing the person of sin. What I stated was the washing of feet cleaning the dirt from the foot showed the symbolism of the blood of Jesus washing away our sins. Baptism is a public admission that we accept Jesus as our savior with his blood washing away our sins. What is so hard to understand the symbolism of washing dirt from feet being symbolically similar to our sins being washed from us with Christ's blood? You seem to be deliberately obtuse.

Sorry, I got here late.
Sounds like you're discussing John 13:10
"Jesus said to them, He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean".
NASB

The person that is born again is already all clean. Jesus has washed him.
Only the feet need to be cleaned is referring to sin after baptism and the born again experience.
Then it is necessary to only ask for forgiveness: it's not necessary to be born again repeatedly.

Sorry if this was already said.

 

[hornetguy]

Sorry, I got here late.
Sounds like you're discussing John 13:10
"Jesus said to them, He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean".
NASB

The person that is born again is already all clean. Jesus has washed him.
Only the feet need to be cleaned is referring to sin after baptism and the born again experience.
Then it is necessary to only ask for forgiveness: it's not necessary to be born again repeatedly.

Sorry if this was already said.

no... it has not been said....

very good clarification of that scripture.

 

[PJW]

LOL!
you don't even quote verses most of the time

The fact is, that I am, here...and have on many other occasions.
The fact that they counter your defenses of sin is what really troubles you.

you are so busy puffing yourself up in self righteousness that probably goes right over your head

As I am aware that scripture provides the way to be "perfect", (2 Tim 3:17), it must be you having trouble adhering to the truth...which can set you free from service to sin. (John 8:32-34)

you are one big flagrant advertisement for cherry picking verses, twisting them and taking scripture out of context

Your opinion is as valuable as mine.

holiness is to be set apart...not amuse yourself believing you have somehow become beyond the need for salvation

Beyond the need"?
Hardly, as my salvation won't be assured till I endure till the end.

what a deception this nonsense is!

If obedience to God seems like a false doctrine, deception, it would seem you serve a god who desires your destruction instead of your salvation.

God has made a way to live without sin, and the way is available to all who despise sin.

 

[PJW]

right
Jesus came to His own, the Jews (a race God called out and called chosen by Him)
oops
now comes righteous indignation, correct?

Don't know where you are going with this, but wasn't that the reason Peter disconnected with the Gentiles?
The reason, you assert, Peter sinned?