I was obvious with answer.I gave you a honest and straight forward yes or no answer to your question.
Again, do you believe in faith alone regeneration? Yes or No?
We are saved by faith, so yes.
Thanks for being honest as well.
I was obvious with answer.I gave you a honest and straight forward yes or no answer to your question.
Again, do you believe in faith alone regeneration? Yes or No?
You too are rather dodgy.I was obvious with answer.
We are saved by faith, so yes.
Thanks for being honest as well.
Wow you need to chill, you are quite aggressive.You too are rather dodgy.
I also believe we are saved by faith but that was not the question.
You are clearly dodging the definitive in the issue. This is dishonest.
I will ask the question again.
Do you believe in faith alone regeneration?
Do you believe believe that regeneration happens at some moment in time because of faith alone?
Do not convolute the moment with such issues as degree of faith, faith rightly understood or object of faith.
You can constitute faith as you wish but is that faith the moment alone that brings the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Spirit?
Yes or No.
We cannot be saved unless our sins have been remissed (forgiven) and that only happens when we are baptised.I do not believe that the word "Jesus" must be verbally stated in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit or to receive the remission of sins. You may be confusing me with others on this forum.
I most certainly do believe that baptism is meant to be the moment we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and to obtain the remission of sins.
I personally was baptized with the following, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit".
I am not sure how this is viewed by others but I believe it is acceptable.
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned.This is clearly a red herring statement.
No one is debating the need for faith to avoid condemnation.
Here is the verse:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be condemned.
Focusing on the what condemns and turning a blind eye to what saves is dishonest.
It is a simple and straight forward sentence.
What saves?
Belief and baptism.
What condemns?
Unbelief.
If baptism is unnecessary for salvation then it would not be mentioned so clearly in the verse.
Grammatically you are attempting to use the second clause in the sentence to negate the first clause.
This is both dishonest and willful.
I find it difficult to communicate with anyone who has an obvious agenda that calls everyone who disagrees with their theology liars.I find it difficult to respond to such arrogance.
yes the word "said" did not type out and yes I did not proofread before sending. Yet I know you well enough you knew fully what I meant.no one has not to be water baptized.
Let's see what Jesus said.Do you believe believe that regeneration happens at some moment in time because of faith alone?
Do not convolute the moment with such issues as degree of faith, faith rightly understood or object of faith.
You can constitute faith as you wish but is that faith the moment alone that brings the remission of sins and the Gift of the Holy Spirit?
Yes or No.
We all have agendas, some are honest about them and others hide them.I find it difficult to communicate with anyone who has an obvious agenda that calls everyone who disagrees with their theology liars.
Can you truly not see that your statement is not what is in question???It clearly states we are saved by our faith in Jesus.
Have you truly not read my responses to you from earlier from be post you made Calli f me dishonest and me asking you for more clarification?Can you truly not see that your statement is not what is in question???
You truly didn't read what Jesus said and what Paul proclaimed.Can you truly not see that your statement is not what is in question???
There you go again!We all have agendas, some are honest about them and others hide them.
Which one are you?
View attachment 279147
I rarely answer double negatives, this is for your benefit.
Rewrite your sentence as you meant it to be and I will respond.
At what point did Quasimodo fall in love with Esmerelda, and determined to defend her to his death? Answer: In the moment that she showed her compassion toward him by offering him a drink of water.
The thief was baptized in(to) Jesus' Name as evidenced by his last words to the other thief in defense of Jesus' Christhood, and to Jesus Himself, 'remember me...' Notice that he 'asked' this by using the sentence structure of a command. Was he concerned that Jesus might forget him? No, he spoke with confidence in Jesus to keep him, and Jesus replied with His blessed assurance.
God's love is His living water.
Baptism in Jesus' name is a reference to the NT water baptism.
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Acts 10:47-48
Note all detailed NT conversion accounts involve both water baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost as a separate experience. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)
My Mother was born into a "Jesus Name" family in 1918. They were Apalachin Pentecostal. The women also practiced "The Holiness" Doctrine. No Hair Cuts for women and hair must be worn in a "Holy Bun" on top of the Head. I didnt pay attention growing up, but learned about it after getting saved. Strange Stuff.Part One:
Within some branches of some Pentecostalism and others, a movement has emerged that rejects the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. This anti-Trinity movement, often referred to as Oneness Pentecostalism, has splintered into various denominations, fellowships, and independent churches.
A central point of contention in this movement is the formula used in Christian baptism. While mainstream Christianity follows Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 28:19 to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” those in the anti-Trinity camp reject this practice. Instead, they insist baptism should be performed “in the name of Jesus only,” arguing that the Trinitarian formula is unbiblical and, in some cases, even claiming it is an anti-Christ concept.
This perspective significantly deviates from historic Christian orthodoxy, which has affirmed the Trinity as a foundational truth since the early creeds of the Church. It’s important for believers to understand where these differences come from and to engage in thoughtful, biblically grounded discussion on matters of doctrine and practice.
Understanding these movements helps us appreciate the diversity within Pentecostalism while also reaffirming the core doctrines that unite the broader body of Christ.
The “Jesus Only” View of Baptism: A Revival of an Ancient Heresy
Adherents point to Acts 2:38, where Peter declares on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” They interpret this as a divine revelation that reveals the “true” meaning behind Matthew 28:19. According to their belief, the phrase in Matthew is essentially a riddle—one that is “unlocked” by the revelation that “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This teaching is a modern expression of an ancient heresy known as Modalism, or Sabellianism—named after Sabellius, a third-century teacher. Modalism denies the distinct persons of the Trinity, claiming instead that God reveals Himself in different “modes” or roles: Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in regeneration. Oneness advocates often present this as a unique, end-time revelation from God. Yet, ironically, the belief itself is not new—it revives a doctrine the early church refuted nearly 1,800 years ago.
While sincere in their convictions, this rejection of the Trinity stands in direct opposition to historic Christian orthodoxy, which affirms the co-equal and co-eternal nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325), a foundational statement of Christian faith, was developed in part to combat such distortions of God’s nature.
The language of Scripture and the testimony of the early church both affirm a Triune God—not three gods, but one God in three persons. Understanding these theological distinctions isn’t just academic; it’s vital to preserving the integrity of the gospel and the fullness of who God has revealed Himself to be.
Your statement that the thief was baptized into Jesus when he said remember me is not accurate according to scripture. As mentioned in the previous post, scripture reveals being baptized in the name of Jesus is a reference to water baptism.There's an argument against Jesus' Godhood because He asked the rhetorical question
The verse often used in argument against Jesus' Godhood is that where Jesus employs the rhetorical question, "Why do you call Me good, only God is good?" and "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized" cannot be disproved as another possible example of such a literary device.
No, no, Cameron, the baby made a decision through it's own reasoning power and free will;That's exactly right. You, I, and everyone else did nothing to be born. The same is true when someone is born from above.