Search results

You don't know what you're talking about. Goodbye 👋

You have it backwards. You aren't saved until you obey and do what you're told to do. No different in the OT or NT. Re the account of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. He was told by Elisha to dip 7 times in the Jordan, to go wash and be cleansed to cure his leopracy. He questioned why, but eventually obeyed...

Agree. God does not contradict himself. Scripture agrees with scripture. What's your point?

Your response makes no sense. They are commands and commands are requirements.

Except we are required to be obedient which includes confession of belief (Romans 10:9), repentance, and baptism (Acts 2:38)

It's simple. Jesus forgave people's sins while he was alive during his earthly ministry. This included the thief. All done under the old covenant. The NT didn't begin until Jesus was dead. The criteria for salvation under the NT also wasn't in effect until after Jesus death. You could not be...

Funny that Peter says baptism saves us. Who's right, you or Peter? 1Peter 3:21 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Here's your answer to that which most people don't realize. This is a repost which has been posted many times. The thief on the cross misconceptions Post #1 Post Thu Oct 20, 2022 5:10 pm I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's...

You're not saved by faith alone, but faith is a necessary part of salvation, but also not in and of itself. Faith is cuppleled with belief, and confession of belief is necessary as is repentance and baptism. All are necessary to be saved.

??????? You get baptized, immersed in water ONCE. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19) or in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38) makes no difference because by saying "in the name of", youre really saying by the authority of. And yes, its by immersion...

Goodbye 👋 believe what you like

What is watered in that passage if you've logically and correctly so superimposed preaching the word to mean planted?

You avoided my questions to you. What does it mean that Paul planted? Then answering that by logic and assumption, what would it then be assumed to mean that Apollos watered?

When you read Acts 18, 19, and 1 Cor 1-3, it can be assumed that Apollos was a major player in spreading the word, initially only knowing the baptism of John until he was re-instructed by Aquila and Priscilla. And yes, I'm adding the word baptism but equating it to watered. If you can't do...

That's your view. When linked with 1 Cor 1:17, it means Paul planted the seed being the preacher of the word, his forte, Apollos watered meaning he baptized, and God added to the body of Christ as in Acts 2:47

You can't just "stick with the passage" for anything in scripture. If that'd be the case you wouldn't need all the gospels or the various letters etc. They all are rgere for a reason and you must look at them cumulatively.

If you're so smart what does 1 cor 3:6 mean??

You obviously think it's referring to planting tulips. Your lack of understanding is the only thing that's laughable. Hahaha 😆

To understand 1 Cor 1:17 correctly you must read further to 1 Cor 3:6 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase Paul was the great speaker, the orator. Paul preached and Apollos baptized.

Baptizo isn't translated it is transliterated into baptism, so why would you attempt to "translate" it which would only distort it's true meaning which seems to be exactly what you're suggesting???? The translators of the scriptures didn't "translate", baptizo so why would you or anyone...