Search results

What exactly is spirit baptism???

When you're baptized into Christ

Those who are unsaved are doomed, be they ignorant, smart, dumb, black, white, purple, green, good, bad etc.

Dah! Read it s l o w l y. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS WHICH IS WHY I BELIEVE IT 1 Peter 3:20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure...

What does the OT criteria have to do with NT baptismal criteria? Nothing. And 1st Peter 3:20-21 plainly says baptism does now save. Period. The rest of the scripture doesn't negate that and does not explain it away, it simply means that it has nothing to do with water washing dirty flesh, but as...

Just for clarification for you, you are not and cannot be saved prior to baptism. What are you being saved from? It's your past sins and those are removed at the time of baptism, not before. So, if you're still in sin at the point of your belief, you're NOT saved. 1st Peter 3:20-21 20Which...

No. Those who believed then were obedient to the gospel and were ultimately baptized into Christ. Belief alone is useless.

What exactly am I making up as a personal doctrine?

You are not understanding the thief on the cross event. Jesus was yet alive when he forgave the thief on the cross and made him the promise, no different than others Jesus forgave while alive. This is significant because, while Jesus was alive, the OT was still in effect and baptism as an...

No such thing as death bed conversions without baptism. Last minute fear of dying does not negate God’s word nor is a free pass around it.

"In the name of" simply means 'by the authority of', such as 'in the name of the queen or king', as is commonly used today, so, there is no conflict between Matthew and Acts 2:38. There can't be scriptural conflict.

At the point of baptism into Christ

No, it's salvation by scripture

Doesn't say that nor does it infer that since it makes no sense and is redundant. If you don't believe, why else would anything more be necessary to be said? If you believe you'll be obedient; if not, that's it.

I've responded to this same statement many times, which is based on a misunderstanding of the period defined. Simply put, Jesus was still alive at the time of his crucifixion when he made the promise to the thief on the cross, meaning the OT was still in effect not the NT. Baptism didn't become...

Think what you like

I think this conversation is about done and I think I've made my point. Goodbye

"Extra-biblical" and "opinions" are both meaningless in my view when it comes to scripture and the understanding of it; I'm not interested in either one. If it's "extra-biblical", its unscriptural and of no value, and similarly, if it's someone's opinion, it's of no value scripturally since it's...

I am NOT catholic

'katholikos' is not in the bible. And the apostle's creed is a writing created after scripture and not part of it although it may simply restate what is in scripture with other subtle inferences intended. Citing or reciting a statement or phrase repetitively is of no value, no different than...