All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[Praxeas]

Church is usec in different ways in the nt. To refer to local congrgations and globally to the one body of believers

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, having given us this again, tell us about Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch. How does the scripture show the Eunuch calling on the name of the Lord?

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'll be glad to discuss Phillip and the eunuch. But first, why not keep focus on Ananinas baptizing Paul and determine which one calls upon the Lord by looking at the greek? Epley made an ignorant and unlearned statement when he suggested that the middle voice of of the greek word "epikalesamenos" indicates that Ananias was the person calling on the name of the Lord in the passage instead of Paul.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Epley's word for it, search it for yourself.
After that we'll certainly discuss Philip and the eunuch.

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

"Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by some Christian denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism"

Who are you quoting?

Btw my other point is associating a doctrine with the RCC does not mean that doctrine is wrong

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Who are you quoting?

Wikipedia

Btw my other point is associating a doctrine with the RCC does not mean that doctrine is wrong

Right, I agree. It's just the source of it.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

Sister Pressing-On, Don't even Baptist believe on the Name of Jesus.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Wikipedia
Right, I agree. It's just the source of it.

Please prove the RCC was the source

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, let's look at both of them. It doesn't matter, in that instance, if Ananias is speaking or Paul. Paul, in my opinion, is a whole different story since he first rejected Jesus Christ's doctrine dragging people out of their homes, was holding Stephen's coat while he was being stoned, and just a fearful man to the Christians.

What matters is that they have made a confession of their faith. That is tantamount for the NT church - Do you believe on the name of Jesus? If not, then they will die in their sins.

I think you are taking the one passage too far to prove something you cannot.

The claim was made that it was not the baptizee (Paul) being instructed to call on the name of the Lord but was the baptizor (Ananias) who was to call on the name of the Lord. Who is doing what to whom in the passage is important, giving an illustration of the baptism process that Paul himself followed. You've not given your view on the language of the passage. Was it Ananias calling on the name of the Lord or was it Paul?

When we determine that, we'll move on to the eunuch. Why attempt to dismiss the passage without determining what is being taught in the passage?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Please prove the RCC was the source

"In AD 107, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to the Church at Ephesus, while being escorted by Roman soldiers to Rome to be martyred. In that letter he writes:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 18)

This notion that Christ purified the waters is found in other Church Fathers as well, but this is the earliest record we have of the statement. Christ was not purified by being baptized, since Christ was already pure. Rather, in His baptism, the waters were purified for our sake, that when we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we are purified, not by the removal of dirt from the body, but by the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Life of God within us."

If you wish to read more, here's the Roman Catholic website.....

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...-regeneration/

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

"In AD 107, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to the Church at Ephesus, while being escorted by Roman soldiers to Rome to be martyred. In that letter he writes:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water. (Epistle to the Ephesians, 18)

This notion that Christ purified the waters is found in other Church Fathers as well, but this is the earliest record we have of the statement. Christ was not purified by being baptized, since Christ was already pure. Rather, in His baptism, the waters were purified for our sake, that when we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we are purified, not by the removal of dirt from the body, but by the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Life of God within us."

If you wish to read more, here's the Roman Catholic website.....

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/201...-regeneration/

How does that prove it originated with the RCC?