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

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How does that prove it originated with the RCC?

Looks like they were the first ones to introduce it to Christianity. If you have anyone earlier, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Looks like they were the first ones to introduce it to Christianity. If you have anyone earlier, I'd be interested in seeing it.

That was a quote from Ignatius...how is that proof the RCC is the source?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That was a quote from Ignatius...how is that proof the RCC is the source?

He's claimed by the RCC to be a church father. St. Theophilus, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, all claimed to be RCC church fathers and who the RCC use to justify their teaching on baptismal regeneration.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

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

I think you know we are talking about the beginning of the NT church and what the Apostles were presenting to the people. Jesus read from the scrolls, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It was the beginning and that is where we are in the discussion.

But, yes, they do. My mother claims to be Trinitarian and believes that Jesus is God. But, she believes in baptizing in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost. To me, that is not a full understanding of His message and the power of His name.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

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?

My point is that if this was such an adamant argument on the wording, Phillip and the Eunuch would have the same story and they do not. It is simply a confession of his faith before he is baptized. We don't really know, from scriptures, what is said by anyone. We do know that a person must confess to believing on Jesus Christ and then submit to baptism. It's a moot argument in my opinion and nothing to make a doctrine out of.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

He's claimed by the RCC to be a church father. St. Theophilus, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement, all claimed to be RCC church fathers and who the RCC use to justify their teaching on baptismal regeneration.

They claim Peter as their first Pope. Is that true too?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by seekerman

The blood is sufficient for redemption, it either is or it's not. In Epley's world, it's not. How about yours?

Redemption is more than just the shed blood of Jesus otherwise the whole world would be saved since Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. A person must acquire that blood and as Paul states:
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Anyone who has ever created a software program will recognize this statement as a classic "if" "then" statement. Meaning that there is a prerequisite that must be met for the "then" statement to become true. In this case we must be "buried" with Him in baptism:

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

By partaking of the prerequisite of baptism then we can be in the likeness of His resurrection.

Also, the fact that we are buried with Him in baptism intimates Jesus name baptism and the Oneness of God for we are baptized in Jesus name and not some fictional trinity otherwise we would be baptized into them, not Him.

As Peter clearly states we are baptized in Jesus name for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Anything else just gets you wet and without you die in your sins.

Yes the blood is sufficient and we acquire the forgiveness it offers through the waters of baptism. We are clothed with His righteousness upon being baptized in His name:
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They claim Peter as their first Pope. Is that true too?

I thought we were talking about the origin of baptismal regeneration in Christianity?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Redemption is more than just the shed blood of Jesus otherwise the whole world would be saved since Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. A person must acquire that blood and as Paul states:
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Anyone who has ever created a software program will recognize this statement as a classic "if" "then" statement. Meaning that there is a prerequisite that must be met for the "then" statement to become true. In this case we must be "buried" with Him in baptism:

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

By partaking of the prerequisite of baptism then we can be in the likeness of His resurrection.

Also, the fact that we are buried with Him in baptism intimates Jesus name baptism and the Oneness of God for we are baptized in Jesus name and not some fictional trinity otherwise we would be baptized into them, not Him.

As Peter clearly states we are baptized in Jesus name for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Anything else just gets you wet and without you die in your sins.

Yes the blood is sufficient and we acquire the forgiveness it offers through the waters of baptism. We are clothed with His righteousness upon being baptized in His name:
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

I can't get past this first comment of yours "Redemption is more than just the shed blood of Jesus". That's beyond amazing to me. Are you actually saying that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, shedding His redemptive blood, is insufficient for a person's redemption?

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I think you know we are talking about the beginning of the NT church and what the Apostles were presenting to the people. Jesus read from the scrolls, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." It was the beginning and that is where we are in the discussion.

But, yes, they do. My mother claims to be Trinitarian and believes that Jesus is God. But, she believes in baptizing in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost. To me, that is not a full understanding of His message and the power of His name.

I understand what you were talking about. So do you believe that your Mom is lost???