Born Again Speaking in Tongues

well hello no one

Sadly there are a few “no ones” in here

I agree, but it can't mean "He did" either. It's just not there so you don't get to build on what's not there. If it's not in the text then you don't get to wield it as a fact to bash the people you disagree with. Of course share what you believe and we should hear you out, but you were wording as if it was written clearly in the text, and "if" anyone was interpreting in that crowd it wasn't recorded in what we read. Honestly I agree with how the guy that everyone jumped on to "teach", the text clear does say that each person heard in in their own tongue, the only thing I disagreed with was the way he worded it as if this way all of what tongues was period. But assumed interpreters, in my opinion, is a much hard case to defend because it's not there at all "you" have to "add" it. How am I wrong here?

this one self identifies

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the word “baptism” missing from this passage?

It says Jesus came by water and blood. Did He speak of baptism? Or was it speaking of the water and blood which poured out of his body when the roman pierced his side with a sword (proving he was dead?)

you are saying that Jesus' sacrifice was not enough

by adding water baptism as part of salvation and mistakenly teaching that water washes away sin...while the Bible states ONLY the blood of Christ washes away sin...you are creating an error that makes Jesus sacrifice insufficient

you say one thing and then create half a dozen posts stating if you are not baptized, you are not saved

you are saying two different things and who do you think you are fooling here?

The way I see it is that Jesus' sacrifice paid the penalty for all of mankind's sin. I believe this is why Jesus said "it is finished" just before dying on the cross. The bible says the gospel includes Jesus' burial and resurrection too. Jesus burial and resurrection speak to His being the first fruit of the spirit rebirth.
I believe that in water baptism and spirit infilling a person has the work of Jesus applied to them personally. (Rom 6-4; 10:16; Col 2:12)

Your putting water baptism equal with Jesus death and burial. Which was her point to begin with.. And 2 of those passages speak nothing of water baptism. They speak of SPIRIT baptism.

The bible shows that God designed water baptism. Jesus and His disciples commanded it be done. Whether the scriptures pertain to water or Spirit baptism is an ongoing debate. I personally see them as relating to water baptism.

The truth of my belief actually goes back to the apostolic era. Water baptism was a consistent component seen in the beginnings of the NT church. Catholicism is where the use of the titles of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost during water baptism began. Those who would not accept the "new" way of baptizing were persecuted. Unfortunately, now it is a commonly held tradition wherein many comply.

See, You just proved my point

Your equating water baptism by the hands of men, as equal to spirit baptism by the hands of God.

still, you will not answer the question ' Is a person baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; in water a valid baptism?

answer the question, Y or N ?

LOL you can't paste a context, the question you failed to answer is the point. please don't dance.
I asked you this :
If Baptism in the Name of Jesus is as essential as you say the Apostles made it, why would one be filled with the Holy Spirit and not be saved?

God created the concept of water baptism not man.

I leave you with this adage: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

You are entitled to what you believe as I am.

This question is different than the past one.
I don't think so. But God is the judge.

I answered this question previously. I said the sequence in which one repents, gets water baptized in Jesus' name and receives the infilling of the Holy Ghost is not what is relevant. What is relevant is obedience to all three things as instructed and seen in the bible.

I don't know how to more clearly answer your question.

I never said otherwise. So stop with your nonsense.

He also created the concept of circumcision and many other worls. NON OF WHICH have ANYTHING to do with salvation.

Your holding water baptism ABOVE these works. And EQUAL with the works of Christ.

Thats YOUR ISSUE. And you need to bring that up with God. Not me


While your correct.

It goes far deeper than this. The one that is wrong will have eternal consequences.

You wanna lead people like horses to water, thats on you (and you will be resisted) As paul resisted the jews who tried to add works to the gospel)

Me, and most other people in this chatroom, We will lead people to Christ. Who promises to give the rivers of LIVING water leading to eternal life.

Water baptism is a NT mandate. Whereas circumcision was an OT mandate. There is a big difference.

Paul's reprimand was always about Christians being draw away by people trying to add OT responsibilities to NT ones.

The one that is wrong will have eternal consequences.

Me, and most other people in this chatroom, We will lead people to Christ. Who promises to give the rivers of LIVING water leading to eternal life.

The way I see it is that Jesus' sacrifice paid the penalty for all of mankind's sin. I believe this is why Jesus said "it is finished" just before dying on the cross. The bible says the gospel includes Jesus' burial and resurrection too. Jesus burial and resurrection speak to His being the first fruit of the spirit rebirth.
I believe that in water baptism and spirit infilling a person has the work of Jesus applied to them personally. (Rom 6-4; 10:16; Col 2:12)

it is relevant because the Holy Spirit does not empower the one who is not saved, and the very Book of Acts shows us those who were empowered with the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized and after they were water baptized.

Which would be in direct refute of the requirement of being baptized in the Name of Jesus "Only" to be saved.

Those like you say on one hand "yes you do need to be baptized in Jesus name ONLY to BE saved " Then as a coward says in the same breath " Let God be the Judge".

Your own doctrine you don't even have enough integrity to answer truthfully.

LOL, what a joke.

Yes, you do need to be baptized in Jesus name only But God is the judge? really? FYI if you said YES!!! you do need to be baptized in the Name of Jesus ONLY to be saved Guess what, YOU did in fact, Judge.

it is very sad that you would put a false narrative while attacking the Holy Spirit and those who are saved by what you think and not what the word of God says. You removed the words of Jesus and replaced them with a TERM THAT IS NOT EVEN SAID IN THE WORD OF GOD. You must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY is never said. NEVER.

then try to tell me that the teaching of initial evidence is not in the word of God. There is more proof by what the Holy Spirit than what you can say those have to be baptized in ONLY to be saved.

I think he already has me on ignore..because I did the same thing you are..