I took 1 Cor 1:12,13 straight from the bible, not Catholics or Campbell.
You have no refutation I see.
The MOST CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT MADE
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- 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.
I took 1 Cor 1:12,13 straight from the bible, not Catholics or Campbell.
You have no refutation I see.
I KNOW for a 100% fact (for myself) baptism doesn't save, nor is it necessary for salvation. When I first started to accept this whole "Jesus thing", I went down for an alter call. I said the sinners prayer and was declared saved. A few week later I was baptized. All good, I was going to heaven now. Years later and living in continuous sin and thinking I was saved, I had tragedy hit. I never turned my back on or stopped "liking" Jesus, but I was confused bad. Well long story short once my pride died fully, God picked me back up and saved me, revealing Himself to me and changing me from the inside. I KNOW I am saved now, not a doubt in my mind or heart, and I haven't been baptized again yet (I do plan to though). So I know from self experience that I was dunked under water and not saved, and have not been in the water again since I was saved. Just my testimony on this subject.
Changing the meaning of the Greek word eis cause impossibilities.
Heb 9:22 says "...and without shedding of blood is no remission."
By changing the meaning of eis one has sins remitted BEFORE shedding of Christ's blood.
( And I did not get any of this from Campbell but from the bible.)
What does murder have to do with the thief?
What verse say the thief could not have been baptized earlier in his life before he turned to a life of crime?
Other than all the verses that teach against the heresy you spread in light of a few sets of verses where you reject words and context? You bet...keep trusting your Campbellistic water and see where it gets you!
By your own doctrine the thief would have been lost if he did the things he was being crucified for....SO....I guess ho lost his salvation and if he had to regain salvation he would have had to be re-immersed......your theology lacks credence for sure....so try again Sea Campbell!
E
elf3
Guest
I trust in 1 Cor 1:12,13 that prove the necessity of water baptism, two verses you have yet to be able to refute.
The thief is NOT an example of NT salvation so it makes no difference to me if he was baptized or not.
I suggest you read Acts as you will find that there are those who re-immersed!
They were not re-immersed. John and Peter laid hands and the Holy Spirit filled them. They were not "re-dunked".
Another proof that you are out of your mind......as the N.T was in force and he acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus and Jesus acknowledge his faith....what a joke you are!....BLIND for sure!
E
Ella85
Guest
Are you for real!!!???
Jesus said you will be with me in paradise.
why would God have 2 theives on the cross next to Jesus if it was not meant to be an example!
Wow....I suppose every other example in the bible is not from God??? You know better I'm sure.
E
elf3
Guest
Funny..."makes no difference to me if he was baptized or not"...but he sure will argue that he wasn't part of the NT but under the OT.
11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
The people at the time were following after them, not Christ. Paul was trying to tell them not to do that, and so he had made that statement because if he would had Baptize all of them, it would have been a lot harder for them to stop following after him. Elvis have had a lot of disciples and still has, but just imagine that if he would of Baptize them.
No doubt while arguing that you have to be baptized to be saved....His fallacy is seen in the following truths...
1. The LAW and PROPHETS were UNTIL JOHN
2. The saved, immersed disciples had been called out by JESUS and called a church at least twice in present context
3. The thief acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus
4. Jesus acknowledged his faith
The truth is simple...if he acknowledges the truth of the thief's salvation then his heretical doctrine is out the window so in PRIDE he will end up cooking because he cannot submit to the truth that baptism is not necessary for salvation
Same thing with his use of PETER to justify salvation by water...totally ignores the fact that the word saved by water is only translated ONE TIME and the word has nothing at all to do with soul salvation while rejecting the use of the word SOZO as opposed to diasozo.....because the end result is the same....acknowledge the truth and his heretical Campbellite doctrine is out the window as false.....
Oh...sorry wrong part of Acts I was at. Sorry.
Yes, however, realize they had not been baptized in the name of Christ. There is a difference.