Gospel Confusion...
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, it appears that you're not even reading the texts and rightly dividing the word of truth, so it is what it is. I never said anything about God being a respecter of persons. You made that up out of thin air, which is nothing but a straw man argument. Why not actually deal with what was said rather than to cast all those red herrings around as decoys?
Please address what I actually said, thus dealing honestly with the statements made. This dishonest dealing you're peddling isn't impressive in the least.
MM
Please address what I actually said, thus dealing honestly with the statements made. This dishonest dealing you're peddling isn't impressive in the least.
MM
So did he say it was for show? He knows it was to get rid of his sins and he obeyed and got baptized. Why do you think he would tell others different?
BUT he did so HAVE YOU received the Holy Ghost since you have believed?
His team did the bapitizing just like JESUS he never baptized but his team did.
AMEN, in prayer and in church.
So do you think he lived one life and preached a different one?
BUT he did so HAVE YOU received the Holy Ghost since you have believed?
His team did the bapitizing just like JESUS he never baptized but his team did.
AMEN, in prayer and in church.
So do you think he lived one life and preached a different one?
Indwelling is what occurs when the Spirit places one into the body of Christ...1 Corinthians 12:13. It is a judicial placement and is nonexperiential.
The baptism with the Spirit is what Matthew 3:11 says Jesus will do. It is referred to as the promise of the Father in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5. This is also what was prophesied in Joel 2 and confirmed by Peter in Acts 2. It is very experiential and noticeable to all but misidentified by some the day of Pentecost. Its purpose is not judicial, but to seal and endue with power, and you find this occurring throughout the book of Acts.
Being filled with the Spirit is something all believers are commanded to do...Ephesians 5:18. It is contrasted with being filled with wine or being under the influence of it. Hence, being filled with the Spirit is to be under His control.
The baptism with the Spirit is what Matthew 3:11 says Jesus will do. It is referred to as the promise of the Father in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5. This is also what was prophesied in Joel 2 and confirmed by Peter in Acts 2. It is very experiential and noticeable to all but misidentified by some the day of Pentecost. Its purpose is not judicial, but to seal and endue with power, and you find this occurring throughout the book of Acts.
Being filled with the Spirit is something all believers are commanded to do...Ephesians 5:18. It is contrasted with being filled with wine or being under the influence of it. Hence, being filled with the Spirit is to be under His control.
"The Spirit places one into the body of Christ"
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
ONE SPIRIT into ONE BODY, meaning we get reborn we are all in one body.
It is very experiential and noticeable to all but misidentified by some the day of Pentecost. Its purpose is not judicial, but to seal and endue with power, and you find this occurring throughout the book of Acts.
NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THIS STUFF, experiential?? Noticeable YEP!! Misidentified?
NO IT'S BIBLE, it speaks of the future and IT HAPPEND nothing experiential it's EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:4-5
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
You are right we fill ourselves with wine, JESUS who fills us.
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Acts 2 The first to be filled, he filled them and think they were baptized in JESUS name in Act 2:41
Acts 8, Baptized first and days later JESUS filled them.
Act 10 JESUS filled them first and Peter commanded them to be baptized.
Acts 19 Baptized and Paul laid hand on them and JESUS filled them.
Has JESUS filled you with the Holy Ghost like he did in the above?
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
ONE SPIRIT into ONE BODY, meaning we get reborn we are all in one body.
It is very experiential and noticeable to all but misidentified by some the day of Pentecost. Its purpose is not judicial, but to seal and endue with power, and you find this occurring throughout the book of Acts.
NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THIS STUFF, experiential?? Noticeable YEP!! Misidentified?
NO IT'S BIBLE, it speaks of the future and IT HAPPEND nothing experiential it's EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Acts 1:4-5
4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
You are right we fill ourselves with wine, JESUS who fills us.
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Acts 2 The first to be filled, he filled them and think they were baptized in JESUS name in Act 2:41
Acts 8, Baptized first and days later JESUS filled them.
Act 10 JESUS filled them first and Peter commanded them to be baptized.
Acts 19 Baptized and Paul laid hand on them and JESUS filled them.
Has JESUS filled you with the Holy Ghost like he did in the above?
Because he realized that SB was essential and WB merely a work and way of professing faith in Christ's baptism.
Yes, I have received the HS. Have you?
Yes, his team baptized for awhile, but it was not mentioned as essential after awhile.
I am in the process of sharing what Paul preached on the TOP thread.
Yes, I have received the HS. Have you?
Yes, his team baptized for awhile, but it was not mentioned as essential after awhile.
I am in the process of sharing what Paul preached on the TOP thread.
The mystery was this:
Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Grafting in is of secondary importance to the fact that salvation had come directly to Gentiles as opposed to Gentiles having to become Jews to be saved and join in the promises of Abraham. Why? Simply this:
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Additionally, your continued harangue at the exclusion of the facts through quotes only emphasizes your tactics of antagonism and straw man argumentation. It goes nowhere. You seem to think that you win by default when your antagonism, baiting and endless demands that others present proof and quotes, it's of no avail when you self-defeat your case by denial and repetitive nonsense of trying to turn the table through deceptive means and slight of hand gyration.
That may work against the more juvenile mind, but you are clearly outclassed here.
MM
Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Grafting in is of secondary importance to the fact that salvation had come directly to Gentiles as opposed to Gentiles having to become Jews to be saved and join in the promises of Abraham. Why? Simply this:
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Additionally, your continued harangue at the exclusion of the facts through quotes only emphasizes your tactics of antagonism and straw man argumentation. It goes nowhere. You seem to think that you win by default when your antagonism, baiting and endless demands that others present proof and quotes, it's of no avail when you self-defeat your case by denial and repetitive nonsense of trying to turn the table through deceptive means and slight of hand gyration.
That may work against the more juvenile mind, but you are clearly outclassed here.
MM
Thanks for the reply.....
Reading this in context, though, it's pretty plain that he is responding to an issue in the Corinthian church, or body of believers. Some of the believers were trying to say they were "better" than the others because of who baptized them.... "I was baptized by Paul".... "I'm with Appollos"..... he even TELLS us why he is glad he didn't baptize more of them...
"13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name!"
It has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism, only that it not become a point of division in the church. Baptism is not a work.... it is obedience to Jesus' instruction...
To the best of my knowledge, Paul NEVER downplayed the necessity of baptism. It was the very first thing he did after regaining his sight. He always instructed believers to be baptized. It was, and is, necessary to be in true obedience to God.
Reading this in context, though, it's pretty plain that he is responding to an issue in the Corinthian church, or body of believers. Some of the believers were trying to say they were "better" than the others because of who baptized them.... "I was baptized by Paul".... "I'm with Appollos"..... he even TELLS us why he is glad he didn't baptize more of them...
"13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name!"
It has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism, only that it not become a point of division in the church. Baptism is not a work.... it is obedience to Jesus' instruction...
To the best of my knowledge, Paul NEVER downplayed the necessity of baptism. It was the very first thing he did after regaining his sight. He always instructed believers to be baptized. It was, and is, necessary to be in true obedience to God.
I hope you know that I like WB and everyone in my family is WB, but it is apparent and quite logical IMO that Paul would not teach
salvation via faith rather than via circumcision in Romans and then contradict himself by teaching that baptism is required in addition to faith in the other epistles. It is also obvious that if WB were essential then Jesus would have said so in John 13:35, which can be harmonized with Matt. 28:19 by viewing WB as a work signifying SB just as the Lord's Supper also signifies Christ's atonement.
salvation via faith rather than via circumcision in Romans and then contradict himself by teaching that baptism is required in addition to faith in the other epistles. It is also obvious that if WB were essential then Jesus would have said so in John 13:35, which can be harmonized with Matt. 28:19 by viewing WB as a work signifying SB just as the Lord's Supper also signifies Christ's atonement.
"salvation via faith rather than via circumcision"
You are trying to make this say what you want it to say.... Paul is talking to Jews that thought that their "Jewishness" was enough for salvation.... He was saying that their Jewishness was not sufficient for salvation, that faith is necessary... it had nothing to do with baptism, unless you wish to connect the dots that tell us that if we have faith, we will be in obedience, which includes baptism...
"contradict himself by teaching that baptism is required in addition to faith in the other epistles."
When did Paul teach that baptism was NOT necessary? Leaving a part out of a discussion does not mean it is not still there. If that part was not meant to be there, then it would not have been allowed to be in ANY discussion of salvation... but there are numerous references and examples that show the necessity of it.
John 13:35 has no bearing in this discussion at all "35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another.” Perhaps you mistyped the scripture you meant to reference?
You are trying to make this say what you want it to say.... Paul is talking to Jews that thought that their "Jewishness" was enough for salvation.... He was saying that their Jewishness was not sufficient for salvation, that faith is necessary... it had nothing to do with baptism, unless you wish to connect the dots that tell us that if we have faith, we will be in obedience, which includes baptism...
"contradict himself by teaching that baptism is required in addition to faith in the other epistles."
When did Paul teach that baptism was NOT necessary? Leaving a part out of a discussion does not mean it is not still there. If that part was not meant to be there, then it would not have been allowed to be in ANY discussion of salvation... but there are numerous references and examples that show the necessity of it.
John 13:35 has no bearing in this discussion at all "35 By this all people will know that you are My disciples: if you have love for one another.” Perhaps you mistyped the scripture you meant to reference?