Really? It is much the same with us OP's. When we get a questuion we can't back up with sound scriptural references we dart off in another direction, the same way politicaticians do when asked a question they don't want to answer.
It's an art form...dunk and evade then replace the question with another question.
I'm going to set you straight, and then I'm going to leave this thread completely because it's not worth my time.
I can debate Dan or anyone else for as long as they would like, on the Biblical necessity of Baptism in the powerful only saving name of Jesus.
I can discuss it, and prove it from scripture... I can give my opinion on your "people get the Holy Ghost before being baptised, so that proves baptism isn't necessary" theology too...
But you are not the neighbour next door to me who has never heard... you are not the sinner I'm called to bring light too...
And since neither Dan nor you are the lost I've been called to win, nor are you likely to change your minds anytime soon ... it's a complete waste of my time.
Do not negate my reluctance to talk in circles over something, with not having ground to stand on. Believe me, I've done my homework. and so has my husband... and I've learned a few lessons along the way as well. And one of them, is don't waste your time and mental energy on the contentious. It's a biblical lesson as well.
I wouldn't use the strong language I just used, if you hadn't likened me to a lying politician. That inference was unprovoked and uncalled for.
Just as equating our belief on water and spirit to believing in a trinity was.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Most threesteppers are content to say they don't know why it happens in the wrong order.
But you are right, if only baptism is efficacious in remission of sins, there is a real problem with the Holy Spirit impartation to the unregenerate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
That baptism is not efficacious to remit sins that does not make the argument that water baptism is not necessary for salvation.
I have to run but I hope later I can find an article by Daniel Segraves on col 2 as part of this discussion
Prax, That seems to be part of the disconnect here. Some think it is either/or.... Either baptism alone is efficacious for remission of sin, or it is a discardable novelty...
I think not.
I would question the faith of a newly converted believer who rejects baptism. It is the most holy rite of passage for the new Christian. After all, it is the public demonstration and declaration of ones new found faith. If one rejects Christian initiation publicly, it does - by default, speak of his heart's condition.
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Prax, That seems to be part of the disconnect here. Some think it is either/or.... Either baptism alone is efficacious for remission of sin, or it is a discardable novelty...
I think not.
I would question the faith of a newly converted believer who rejects baptism. It is the most holy rite of passage for the new Christian. After all, it is the public demonstration and declaration of ones new found faith. If one rejects Christian initiation publicly it does, by default speak of his heart's condition.
Shoot Hoover.. you made me enter this thread again... but only to say this...
Two or three weeks ago at most... a young man who had attended a non-denominational church accross town faithfully for 8 years (a currently Oneness church pastored by my former UPCI pastor, so I know what I'm talking about) was baptised in our church in the name of Jesus Christ...
He started coming with his wife who had decided to get back to her roots within the last few months and had started attending a weekly Bible study...
He was shocked to learn in that study that he was to be Baptised in Jesus Name... for 8 years he faithfully went to a church who taught believe on the Lord... and had never even heard that he was supposed to be baptised.
This is an absolutely true story... as other posters from my church can attest... and I can personally attest because this man is good friends with our neighbours who we won to the Lord this year.
You can go so far, as to no longer teach or preach baptism. There's a slope and it's slippery.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
Shoot Hoover.. you made me enter this thread again... but only to say this...
Two or three weeks ago at most... a young man who had attended a non-denominational church accross town faithfully for 8 years (a currently Oneness church pastored by my former UPCI pastor, so I know what I'm talking about) was baptised in our church in the name of Jesus Christ...
He started coming with his wife who had decided to get back to her roots within the last few months and had started attending a weekly Bible study...
He was shocked to learn in that study that he was to be Baptised in Jesus Name... for 8 years he faithfully went to a church who taught believe on the Lord... and had never even heard that he was supposed to be baptised.
This is an absolutely true story... as other posters from my church can attest... and I can personally attest because this man is good friends with our neighbours who we won to the Lord this year.
You can go so far, as to no longer teach or preach baptism. There's a slope and it's slippery.
I understand sister. That would be problematic on many levels - and likely involves additional complications because of the Pastor's former affiliation.
I firmly believe in immediate baptism of new converts. This is the biblical example, and anything otherwise should be rejected. It is sound doctrine.
Now please get the supper on... and DON'T come back in this thread!
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Acts 10 indeed proves many people incorrect. But it also validates the NEED for baptism, though not in the way many think.
Peter had a vision of unclean animals whom he must "slay and eat". Peter refuses in the vision, and God rebukes him, telling him to not call "unclean" what God cleansed. Peter has no clue what God is trying to say.
So he goes with Cornelius' servants to the house and realizes THEN what the vision meant. GENTILES were considered unclean in the O.T., and God was changing all that and bringing them into the church.
Now, what would SLAY AND EAT represent, if the unclean animals represented gentiles?
Slaying is obviously a connotation of death with Christ. EATING, I think, refers to receiving the GENTILES into the BODY.
Now, God KNEW Peter would hesitate to deal with the gentiles properly. Hence, the need for the vision. Think about it. Would Peter have baptized these gentiles without the vision?
Baptism is sort of like a covenant contract. Two signatures OR SEALS are required on every contract. There is the SEAL of the Holy Ghost and the SEAL of baptism. God's signature and our own. Yes, they would have been Spirit-filled, but somehow BAPTISM is part of putting one into the BODY of the Church.
Peter had to both slay AND EAT.
...Some ramblings of my own.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Acts 10 indeed proves many people incorrect. But it also validates the NEED for baptism, though not in the way many think.
Peter had a vision of unclean animals whom he must "slay and eat". Peter refuses in the vision, and God rebukes him, telling him to not call "unclean" what God cleansed. Peter has no clue what God is trying to say.
So he goes with Cornelius' servants to the house and realizes THEN what the vision meant. GENTILES were considered unclean in the O.T., and God was changing all that and bringing them into the church.
Now, what would SLAY AND EAT represent, if the unclean animals represented gentiles?
Slaying is obviously a connotation of death with Christ. EATING, I think, refers to receiving the GENTILES into the BODY.
Now, God KNEW Peter would hesitate to deal with the gentiles properly. Hence, the need for the vision. Think about it. Would Peter have baptized these gentiles without the vision?
Baptism is sort of like a covenant contract. Two signatures OR SEALS are required on every contract. There is the SEAL of the Holy Ghost and the SEAL of baptism. God's signature and our own. Yes, they would have been Spirit-filled, but somehow BAPTISM is part of putting one into the BODY of the Church.
Peter had to both slay AND EAT.
...Some ramblings of my own.
Absolutely! I do like that!
I was also thinking of John 20:22 when Jesus breathed on the Apostles before the Upper Room experience - Confirming things to come. I think the same was with Cornelius - proof that He had accepted them - stronger than the vision. Would they have been baptized if the words were not confirmed by His Spirit?
Dan...the smoking gun will be the Truth when you accept it and stop trying to find something different by trying to use the Word of God against itself.... then and only then will you find your answers....
RevRandy, the truth is clearly shown to those who want it. The Word is not being used against itself, but against false doctrine and man-made salvation that is clearly against the precedent of scripture.
RevRandy, the truth is clearly shown to those who want it. The Word is not being used against itself, but against false doctrine and man-made salvation that is clearly against the precedent of scripture.
Bro. Price..
I agree that truth will always stand above the fray.. and the Bible DOES NOT contradict itself...but Men will always try to find something contrary to the Word.....
but only to say this...
Linear Mode
