Quantcast

Anyone Ever Heard of Pastor Gino Jennings?

N2Truth2

General Manager
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
2,035
Reaction score
Reactions
3,665 19 40
3,625
Alleybux
0
Hi GaryV. You broached the baptism topic when you asked if a person would be saved if they had repented and were walking across the street to be baptized and got hit by a car and killed?

So my follow up question is simple... Do you believe baptism is required for salvation?

This will all come together later. We must form a basis of understanding or some sort of common ground to start from first.

The readers of this board deserve your answer. You are the one professing your doctrine to loyal readers that believe what you say. One of us will be turned to the truth by the time this is done. If not, one of us will pay the ultimate price. We both can't be right and we both can't be saved if one of us gets the core of it wrong.

I pray you help me if I am misunderstanding. For now, let us know if you believe baptism is required for salvation. "Yes" or "No" is all we need to get started.
Although the question was asked of Gary V. I know that one does NOT have to be baptized in order to be saved OR to go to heaven when they die.
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
Hi GaryV. You broached the baptism topic when you asked if a person would be saved if they had repented and were walking across the street to be baptized and got hit by a car and killed?

So my follow up question is simple... Do you believe baptism is required for salvation?

This will all come together later. We must form a basis of understanding or some sort of common ground to start from first.

The readers of this board deserve your answer. You are the one professing your doctrine to loyal readers that believe what you say. One of us will be turned to the truth by the time this is done. If not, one of us will pay the ultimate price. We both can't be right and we both can't be saved if one of us gets the core of it wrong.

I pray you help me if I am misunderstanding. For now, let us know if you believe baptism is required for salvation. "Yes" or "No" is all we need to get started.

Baptism isn't the issue. It's not even close to the crux of the issue. The issue is whether or not Jesus is a deceiver, ventriloquist, schizophrenic. I'm not going to be sidetracked from the core issue.

Jesus' Words in Jn 17 are utter DRIVEL if He is talking to Himself.

Jesus is a deceiver if He threw His voice at His baptism and on the Mount of Transfiguration,then claimed His ministry was validated by that deception.

The Bible LIED if it says on one hand that no one has ever seen God, yet then says the 70 elders in Israel DID see Him on the Mount.

Jesus in the Garden CLEARLY demonstrated a DIFFERENT WILL (let this cup pass from Me) than that which His Father expressed........2 wills in one Person makes a schizophrenic.

Not to mention the fact that according to you He was praying to Himself, and then turned down His own request because the cup did NOT pass from Him. When you make a request of yourself, then say "no" to your own request because it's not your will to do your own will, you're schizo.

The Bible says that Jesus was WITH God and WAS God. The Greek word "with" literally means "face to face" in intimacy.How can you be face to face with yourself?

You said Jesus sits on His Own right hand. Does it ever fall asleep under Him??

Jesus clearly states in Jn 17 that He shared the Father's Glory with Him before the world began. But you say Jesus didn't exist before His incarnation. You say Jesus was just a plan in God's mind. How do you share Glory with a plan?? How do you get face to face with a plan??

The Bible clearly states that God will never share His Glory with another, but Jesus claimed He shared God's Glory before the foundation of the world. Is the Father lying in the Old Testament, or is Jesus lying in the New Testament??

Jesus is now our High Priest, ever living to intercede for us (Heb 7:25). Ummmm.....with Whom is Jesus interceding?? An intercessor is someone who stands between two parties in conflict. To Whom is Jesus praying for the Elect?? Does Jesus intercede with Himself?? How does that work exactly??

"Oh glorious Me........please keep brother Sam in My will. Blessed Me, I ask Me to build Sam up in the Holy Spirit (Me again). Oh Me, Please grant My requests."

Shoot, according to you, that BY JESUS prayer might be DENIED BY HIMSELF just like He denied His own prayer in Gethsemane.

Jesus said when He went away He would send ANOTHER comforter (paraclete), which in Greek "another" (allos) means, "another, other of the same sort", a NUMERICAL (more than one) distinction. Not "HETEROS", which would mean the SAME ONE sent again, as you claim the Holy Spirit is the same Person as Jesus, just sent again.

Jesus sent ANOTHER COMFORTER, not HIMSELF AGAIN in a different mask. If Jesus promised to send ANOTHER COMFORTER, but then just changed masks and sent Himself back, then He deceived those who heard Him promise to send ANOTHER beside Himself.

THESE are the core issues. The way Oneness' heresies make God a deceiver, a liar, a cheap Vegas ventriloquist deceiving with cheap tricks, a schizophrenic Who not only talks to Himself, He prays to Himself and then turns Himself down. Who intercedes on behalf of the Elect..........with Himself, pleading with Himself for them that they would be accepted by Himself.

Seriously??
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
This is long but please read...

Hi Iron Man and N2Truth2,

I respect your answer. N2Truth2, you say that you "believe every word written in the Bible is truly written, but not every word is a statement of truth."

How do you determine which words are not a statement of truth?

If the word was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (as you state), aren't those men therefore inspired by God? In that case, aren't those words the words of God?

Do you believe John 1:1? That the "Word was God"? How about 1 Peter 1:25 that "the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

How about 1 John 1:1-4 where John states that the apostles have seen the Word (remember with Jesus the Word became flesh) and "these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."

If you believe that to be the case, then by you determining which scripture is truth are you stating you are greater than God for if you are powerful to determine which scripture is truth then you must then be saying that the writers of the word (those who you agree are inspired by the Holy Spirit) are wrong.

Does God change? Does the word change? Does the meaning change? Does truth change? All these questions are empqhatically answered in James 1:17-18... "...Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."

In addition, there are no levels of truth. A statement is either true or it is not true. If you believe some of the word is not true, then you are basically saying that those words are not true. Since the word is written as an assertion of truth (James 1:18, John 17:17), the words you question cannot be mistakes by the apostles who wrote them. So if the words they say are truth are not truth, then (by default) they must be lies. So you are picking and choosing which piece of the book is truth and which piece is a lie.


As for baptism...

Acts 2:17 quotes Joel that God says he will pour out his spirit upon all flesh

Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 both state that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. By the way, what is the name of the Lord? Funny how that title is also not part of the trinity. Oh wait, scripture tells us what the name of the Lord is -- many times. Let's pick one -- Luke 6:46 Jesus says to his disciples, "And why call ye me Lord..." Acts 2:36 "... God hath made that same Jesus...both Lord and Christ."

So, because the Lord = Jesus, in order to be saved we must call on the name of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 reiterates that point and is the plan of salvation in its simplest of forms. Why people get cute with this scripture is mind-numbing. It is so important and basic that it bears me typing it, for it feels good to do so.

First, the context... remember, the crowd of people have seen people speaking in their own tongue (a blessing from God for all to understand the truth). Peter had to tell the crowd that these people are not drunk - it is only the 3rd hour of the day. This is the Spirit that Jesus promised. So the crowd asks in Acts 2:37, "...they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Ok, note -- they specifically asked what they can do to be saved (back to Acts 2:21). Note that 2:22 through 2:35 are all backdrop of the power of Jesus. 2:36 names Jesus as Lord and Christ. 2:37 is the question "What shall we do?" Acts 2:38 is the answer...

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you..."

Wait... Stop...

How many did Peter say need to be baptized? 1 of you? 10 of you? 35% of you? Those who feel like it? Those who want to cool off? No, EVERY ONE OF YOU.

Ok, how is EVERY one of them to be baptized? Let's continue...

"...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

Wait... Stop... Hold It...

In what name? In the name of the Father? In the name of the Son? In the name of the Holy Ghost? In the name of the Lord? In the name of the burning bush? No... in the name of JESUS CHRIST. It is specifically stated.

Now, Peter and the rest of the apostles who were there and of whom the question was asked in Acts 2:37 were also there when Jesus gave his great commission in Matthew 28. So, Matt 28:19 -- the most debated scripture in the entire Bible. Some say "Those are Jesus' words -- we must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Here is the scripture...

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Three things...

1. Jesus says emphatically to teach all nations and to baptize them. So why do you guys say I will do what Jesus says and baptize people in the titles but then you don't do what he says and baptize all nations? How can you pick and choose what is true? This scripture is further proof that baptism is required. This scripture is your calling card. It is probably hung up on your wall yet you do not listen to it.

I am not going to debate the "titles" or the "name" language. That debate has gone on for centuries and I will not change your minds on that.

2. Mark 16:15-28 is another account of the great commission. It reads...

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues..."

Wow. That scripture says a lot...

- preach to every creature
- he that believeth and is baptized in "my Name" (that was Jesus talking) shall be saved
- he that doesn't believe will be damned

3. Next, who was Jesus talking to that day? Matt 28:16 answers that -- "the eleven disciples." Ok, so the 11 were there and listened to Jesus. This is a first-person point of understanding. Those 11 heard the words directly from Jesus with no interpretation or translation. Therefore, they must know the context of Jesus' statement in Matt 28:19.

So, back to day of Pentecost.

1. Who is there? Acts 2:37 states that Peter and the rest of the apostles were there.

2. When asked by the crowd, "What shall we do?" Peter answered, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost."

Remember, Peter was there at the great commission. What did he take away from Jesus' words in Matt 28:19. He took away that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is "Jesus Christ." Not only did he say this, the other apostles that were at the day of Pentecost did not correct Peter (you know, in case he was making a mistake or lying).

In addition, Peter's words were backed up by actions. There is not a single instance in the scripture in which a person was baptized in the name of the titles... Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There are many scriptures stating baptism in Jesus name (Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27).

Further, remission or washing away of sin is a theme of the New Testament. Putting on Christ" is discussed throughout. What was Jesus' purpose? He says himself he was here to pay for us. He was here to die for us. That's why baptism is required -- to kill the old man - the sinner - and to be born clean. Paul's story is a classic example (see Acts 22:10-16).

1 Peter 3:21 -- "... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oh, how powerful is Romans 6:1-14? Please read it and I pray your eyes shall be opened. This shows the glorifying process of crucifying our old man so that our body of sin is destroyed. To be dead to sin we must be buried through baptism to receive a resurrected life of newness with Christ. Actually... I must type it and leave you with these words for these words need no interpretation. I pray you don't decide these words to be lies...

Romans 6:1-11 (empahsis is mine).

1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

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.

5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

That's it -- that last verse is it. Romans 6:11 -- that's the scripture to hang on your wall. We are not dead unto sin until we are baptized (see v4). We cannot be alive unto God through Jesus Christ unless we kill and bury the sinner first.

I pray for your understanding.

I pray you take heed, read the scripture, understand them and do not cherry-pick them and call the apostles liars.

GaryV, I have spoken enough today. You will not answer me, but your silence is your answer. I am sure you don't want to commit to an answer because you know the scripture does not support your opinion and false doctrine.

We will talk about your lack of faith in God's abilities and your lack of faith in his love another time. Jesus came to Earth for the sinners. He came to find the lost sheep and bring them to the barn. If you believe he will lead that sheep back to the barn and then cut his throat, then you have to get on your knees right now. If you really believe the Lord would kill someone that is walking across the street to be baptized, you must repent. More with you later.

Everyone, including GaryV, please repent and be baptized (each and every one of you) in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sin.
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
I'll add these two things:

a. The dying thief saw no baptism and was told he would be with Jesus in paradise. (Now, I realize that there is much more going on in that story, but I believe the sentiment holds weight).


b. I believe that the need for baptism presents a works-based salvation while the Scriptures are replete with the fact that the Gospel is faith-based.


Romans 10:9; John 3:16 (either Jesus is lying or there is no need for baptism; if we're going to use Jesus' words, we have to use all of them in concert and context).


Have a great weekend, everyone.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi Iron Man,

I briefly looked at the article you mentioned. I will read it in full later and reply.

At first glance, I see this...

-------------------------------------------------------

Baptism Verses

John 3:5, "Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

Some say that water here means baptism, but that is unlikely since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark 1:4). If that is so, then baptism is not necessary for salvation because the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.

It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had been born once -- through his mother's womb. Nicodemus responds with a statement about how he cannot enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse 6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be interpreted there to mean the natural birth process."

-------------------------------------------------------

My Lord.

Ephesians 4:4-6... "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in the hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all..."

Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16 -- Is Jesus a liar?

Is Paul a liar? Is Peter?

This article is doctrine of men. How do I know? Look at paragraph 3 above. It begins... "It is my opinion..."

Who cares about his opinion? Give me the word. Give me the truth. Give me the scripture.

Then his opinion goes off the tracks. Baptism is the water from a mother's womb? What? I'll take a side order of one scripture with that please? Does he have that on the menu? Or does he just have his opinion?

Only one thing to say about this so far... Holy Moly.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Iron Man,

You mention Romans 10:9 and John 3:16.

Paul clearly states that baptism is required for salvation. In Romans 10:9, Paul is referencing the Jews and their lack of belief in Jesus Christ and that Jesus is the path to salvation for all men, Jews and Gentiles alike (v13). The Jews had other issues with faith which is the context of this part of the letter. The Jews were still living under the law which was put away with Jesus. Paul had addressed sin and baptism earlier in the letter in 6:1-11.

John 3:16 - what is a condition of belief? See Mark 16:16 and Romans 6:8.

Iron Man, I beg you to please, please read 1 Peter 3:21. Actually, here it is...

"... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Oh Lord. How easy is that? No opinions or interpretation necessary.

What saves? Baptism.

What does not save? The putting away of the filth of the flesh.

Belief is not enough as Jesus expressly states in Mark 16:16 (empahsis mine): "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved..."

I am sorry to reference the same verses as I did in my long post above, but please read that post. All scripture is the truth and is very clear to understand.

This is the danger of taking one verse of scripture and analyzing it without knowing context. It is like hearing one side of a phone conversation and making a definitive statement on what the conversation was about.

The scripture is written for understanding but we must take the time to read it, pray on it and understand it... not cherry-pick text that fits our pre-formed ideology and false doctrine or traditions of men.
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
This is long but please read...

Hi Iron Man and N2Truth2,

I respect your answer. N2Truth2, you say that you "believe every word written in the Bible is truly written, but not every word is a statement of truth."

How do you determine which words are not a statement of truth?

If the word was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit (as you state), aren't those men therefore inspired by God? In that case, aren't those words the words of God?

Do you believe John 1:1? That the "Word was God"? How about 1 Peter 1:25 that "the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

How about 1 John 1:1-4 where John states that the apostles have seen the Word (remember with Jesus the Word became flesh) and "these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."

If you believe that to be the case, then by you determining which scripture is truth are you stating you are greater than God for if you are powerful to determine which scripture is truth then you must then be saying that the writers of the word (those who you agree are inspired by the Holy Spirit) are wrong.

Does God change? Does the word change? Does the meaning change? Does truth change? All these questions are empqhatically answered in James 1:17-18... "...Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures."

In addition, there are no levels of truth. A statement is either true or it is not true. If you believe some of the word is not true, then you are basically saying that those words are not true. Since the word is written as an assertion of truth (James 1:18, John 17:17), the words you question cannot be mistakes by the apostles who wrote them. So if the words they say are truth are not truth, then (by default) they must be lies. So you are picking and choosing which piece of the book is truth and which piece is a lie.


As for baptism...

Acts 2:17 quotes Joel that God says he will pour out his spirit upon all flesh

Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 both state that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. By the way, what is the name of the Lord? Funny how that title is also not part of the trinity. Oh wait, scripture tells us what the name of the Lord is -- many times. Let's pick one -- Luke 6:46 Jesus says to his disciples, "And why call ye me Lord..." Acts 2:36 "... God hath made that same Jesus...both Lord and Christ."

So, because the Lord = Jesus, in order to be saved we must call on the name of Jesus.

Acts 2:38 reiterates that point and is the plan of salvation in its simplest of forms. Why people get cute with this scripture is mind-numbing. It is so important and basic that it bears me typing it, for it feels good to do so.

First, the context... remember, the crowd of people have seen people speaking in their own tongue (a blessing from God for all to understand the truth). Peter had to tell the crowd that these people are not drunk - it is only the 3rd hour of the day. This is the Spirit that Jesus promised. So the crowd asks in Acts 2:37, "...they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Ok, note -- they specifically asked what they can do to be saved (back to Acts 2:21). Note that 2:22 through 2:35 are all backdrop of the power of Jesus. 2:36 names Jesus as Lord and Christ. 2:37 is the question "What shall we do?" Acts 2:38 is the answer...

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you..."

Wait... Stop...

How many did Peter say need to be baptized? 1 of you? 10 of you? 35% of you? Those who feel like it? Those who want to cool off? No, EVERY ONE OF YOU.

Ok, how is EVERY one of them to be baptized? Let's continue...

"...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ..."

Wait... Stop... Hold It...

In what name? In the name of the Father? In the name of the Son? In the name of the Holy Ghost? In the name of the Lord? In the name of the burning bush? No... in the name of JESUS CHRIST. It is specifically stated.

Now, Peter and the rest of the apostles who were there and of whom the question was asked in Acts 2:37 were also there when Jesus gave his great commission in Matthew 28. So, Matt 28:19 -- the most debated scripture in the entire Bible. Some say "Those are Jesus' words -- we must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Here is the scripture...

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Three things...

1. Jesus says emphatically to teach all nations and to baptize them. So why do you guys say I will do what Jesus says and baptize people in the titles but then you don't do what he says and baptize all nations? How can you pick and choose what is true? This scripture is further proof that baptism is required. This scripture is your calling card. It is probably hung up on your wall yet you do not listen to it.

I am not going to debate the "titles" or the "name" language. That debate has gone on for centuries and I will not change your minds on that.

2. Mark 16:15-28 is another account of the great commission. It reads...

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues..."

Wow. That scripture says a lot...

- preach to every creature
- he that believeth and is baptized in "my Name" (that was Jesus talking) shall be saved
- he that doesn't believe will be damned

3. Next, who was Jesus talking to that day? Matt 28:16 answers that -- "the eleven disciples." Ok, so the 11 were there and listened to Jesus. This is a first-person point of understanding. Those 11 heard the words directly from Jesus with no interpretation or translation. Therefore, they must know the context of Jesus' statement in Matt 28:19.

So, back to day of Pentecost.

1. Who is there? Acts 2:37 states that Peter and the rest of the apostles were there.

2. When asked by the crowd, "What shall we do?" Peter answered, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost."

Remember, Peter was there at the great commission. What did he take away from Jesus' words in Matt 28:19. He took away that the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is "Jesus Christ." Not only did he say this, the other apostles that were at the day of Pentecost did not correct Peter (you know, in case he was making a mistake or lying).

In addition, Peter's words were backed up by actions. There is not a single instance in the scripture in which a person was baptized in the name of the titles... Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There are many scriptures stating baptism in Jesus name (Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27).

Further, remission or washing away of sin is a theme of the New Testament. Putting on Christ" is discussed throughout. What was Jesus' purpose? He says himself he was here to pay for us. He was here to die for us. That's why baptism is required -- to kill the old man - the sinner - and to be born clean. Paul's story is a classic example (see Acts 22:10-16).

1 Peter 3:21 -- "... whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oh, how powerful is Romans 6:1-14? Please read it and I pray your eyes shall be opened. This shows the glorifying process of crucifying our old man so that our body of sin is destroyed. To be dead to sin we must be buried through baptism to receive a resurrected life of newness with Christ. Actually... I must type it and leave you with these words for these words need no interpretation. I pray you don't decide these words to be lies...

Romans 6:1-11 (empahsis is mine).

1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

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.

5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.

8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

That's it -- that last verse is it. Romans 6:11 -- that's the scripture to hang on your wall. We are not dead unto sin until we are baptized (see v4). We cannot be alive unto God through Jesus Christ unless we kill and bury the sinner first.

I pray for your understanding.

I pray you take heed, read the scripture, understand them and do not cherry-pick them and call the apostles liars.

GaryV, I have spoken enough today. You will not answer me, but your silence is your answer. I am sure you don't want to commit to an answer because you know the scripture does not support your opinion and false doctrine.

We will talk about your lack of faith in God's abilities and your lack of faith in his love another time. Jesus came to Earth for the sinners. He came to find the lost sheep and bring them to the barn. If you believe he will lead that sheep back to the barn and then cut his throat, then you have to get on your knees right now. If you really believe the Lord would kill someone that is walking across the street to be baptized, you must repent. More with you later.

Everyone, including GaryV, please repent and be baptized (each and every one of you) in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sin.

Are you simply incapable of reading, or are you just fixated?? I'm not silent. I have multiple postings that you haven't answered, yet you want to skip them all and jump to baptism. Baptism has NOTHING to do with the fact that Oneness makes Jesus a cheap ventriloquist, a deceiver, a liar, and a schizo.

Let's just say I was baptized however you prefer to make you happy, so we can move on to something RELEVANT.No matter HOW you were baptized, if your Jesus is a lying, deceiving schizo, the method of your dunking is irrelevant. Now answer the questions and Oneness incongruities I posted.

You may well be delusional enough to think that no one here notices your clumsy and rather pathetic attempt to change the topic. But we not only notice, we know precisely WHY you don't respond. You can't.

When you answer the ORIGINAL POSTS you called me out to see (rather than, "Oh crap, I can't answer those. Better switch the subject and hope nobody notices"), I will happily address baptism.

Tic Toc.
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
Iron Man,

You mention Romans 10:9 and John 3:16.
John 3:16 - what is a condition of belief? See Mark 16:16 and Romans 6:8.

Uh, wait, whut?


John 3:16 mentions NOTHING of baptism. NOTHING. So, to what condition are you referring?


Romans 6:8 doesn't belong in this conversation; so, I have no idea as to why you're referencing it.


Lastly, in Mark 16:16, the second clause of that scripture states that if one doesn't BELIEVE they will be condemned.

So, it stands to reason that one must BELIEVE in the deity and lordship of Jesus. Once that belief occurs, INWARDLY, then an outward manifestation of that initail belief is the water baptism. But, the water does NOT save us.

FAITH SAVES US!!


As for the website, I'll concede to your point on dude giving his opinion concerning the water reference.


Gotta go, was able to get to a computer for a hot sec.


GV, I think s/he is scared to respond to your other points. :dunno:
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Am I in the Twilight Zone here?

Iron Man - Mark 16:16 -- read it-- ALL OF IT. It's a short verse. It won't be too hard. Here it is again... "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved..." I am not sure what else to say. You can't just delete 3 words because you want to. Are you afraid of water? Don't want water up your nose? Is there something else going on here that is giving you panic and you can't see the clear words on the page? Hold your nose, man. Just be baptized in Jesus' name and let's move on.

Iron Man - you brought up John 3:16 suggesting that Jesus was lying. I addressed your thought. Belief is mentioned in John 3:16 and Mark 16:16 clearly shows what belief entails... baptism is required. How can you have faith in Jesus by not killing your old sinner and burying him with Christ to be resurrected in Christ (Romans 6:1-11). You are missing such a big part of Jesus and it's all in the scriptures. You just cannot ignore Romans 6:1-11 because it is convenient for you and then jump to Romans 10:9 and quote it as if previous text in the letter wasn't already written. Logically speaking, the readers of this letter read it from beginning to end. That means baptism was firmly established PRIOR TO 10:9. You just can't jump to 10:9 and pretend nothing before it existed. You do this because it is expedient for you. C'mon - read from beginning to end and break free from the chains of false prophets. Read all of the text as it was written and intended to be read. This is really, really amazing. It's like you guys are writing your own Bibles here.

Don't like Romans... then read Col 2:12.

GaryV...

We live in a world of labels. It is human nature not to think for ourselves but to put ourselves into someone else's pre-formed box. That is the education system. That is the political system. And, yes, it is the religious system as well.

Many people are turned off from "religion" because false prophets are so easy to see so often. Other times they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Spouting rhetoric is easy. Spewing forth opinions is gainsaying and rallies the base of non-thinking zombies that fill church pews and that form their opinion solely based on the vehement language of another man, no matter how holy or unholy he is. That becomes a game of luck. Stumble upon a holy pastor - you win. More likely than not, you find a false prophet because they are everywhere. People may like the singing, the people, how the pastor talks or the pretty girl up front. But the zombies don't even read the word for themselves to know what is going on. The Lord tells us how to identify false prophets but we don't know the scriptures well enough to even know how to save ourselves.

So here I am with you. You are dying to argue worldly labels but there is a much bigger discussion to be had first - one that sets the foundation for the argument you want to have.

As I mentioned previously, we are going to address "Trinitarian" vs. "Oneness." I don't care much for the labels and I think we can skip the argument entirely if we address the core issue first... baptism. The basis of this entire argument must be started in baptism in Jesus' name because if you agree with that then it doesn't matter if you think there is three people in the Godhead or 3 manifestations of one God. That is just man-made rhetoric that we can discuss. That issue is not salvational. What is salvational is Acts 2:38.

I have proven that baptism is required. Here's one more scripture for you: 1 Cor 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." Actually, read that whole chapter to learn.

I have also proven that we are ALL to be baptized in Jesus' name and that we are to do all in word and deed in the name of Lord Jesus (Col 3:17).

Now, unless you disagree with that, I don't care about your other statements. That's why I asked to start with baptism and Jesus' name -- that's the basis of all salvation.

Once you have that in your heart, all the rest falls into line.

You get yourself all excited to have the same old debate when you won't even acknowledge the elephant in the room.

I promise I will answer your questions. You initially brought up baptism by asking me if I thought someone would be saved if they were walking across the street to be baptized and got hit by a car. I am following up on that first.

For the scripture says nothing about "oneness" or "trinitarian." Nobody in scripture is referenced as such so arguing the labels is futile. Let's discuss the salvational point.

I have not offered opinion. I have offered 100% scripture.

So, three questions. Answer these and we will move on to the argument you want to have. That one is easy to defeat as well.

Please answer these...

1. Have I quoted the scriptures accurately in this entire discussion?
2. Do you agree that baptism is required?
3. If so, do you agree that baptism (and all other words and deeds) are to be done in Jesus' name?

Three yes or no questions. Answer them and we will have some more fun with your other argument - I promise.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Gary V, having faith that you will answer the three questions posed above, let's get started with the other debate. I will answer all of your questions but we need to start from the beginning...

"Godhead" is the trinitarian code word. What is the Godhead?
 

Some Chick

<span style="font-style: italic;text-decoration: u
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
554
Reaction score
Reactions
1,486 4
1,486
Alleybux
0
Chile -- sitting under that pastor seems dangerous. If the person was baptized in the name of Jesus separately and finally then, technically, the act of baptism is fulfilled. The problem is that baptism does not send someone to the kingdom of God by itself. Repentance is of the heart and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is based on that. If the pastor preaches false doctrine then the Lord may not even know him or those that sit under him if their hearts follow the pastor and not the scripture (Matt 7:22-24). I would say that if someone was "double-dunked" then the baptism of the heart is not true and repentance has not truly occurred. We must do all in word and deed in the name of Lord Jesus (Col 3:17). Covering all your bases is not an option and is Pharisee-ical in mentality. We cannot be bold (as we are commanded) if our heart is confused.

Those people should study the scripture, believe in Jesus, love Him and be baptized in Jesus' name and Jesus' name only, with all boldness and conviction of heart.

GaryV and I agree on one thing for sure -- Know the scriptures for yourself. To do that we must read them. How many of us actually do? How can we know God if we are not with God. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God (John 1:1). Blindly believing in men (whether it be me, GaryV, Pastor Jennings or any other man) without questioning that man based on the word of God is being careless with your soul.

I knew he was dangerous when I first met him. I would go because my friends would ask every once in a while. He was a character and I will leave it at that.

I have definitely studied the scriptures for myself and that is why I reject anything religious. In addition to understanding and appreciating textual criticism of the scriptures; friends, ministers and family unhealthy and toxic relationships to religion and total disregard to what they preach have turned me away.

I have never understood the hypocrisy of the christian community. Even when I was a child, I saw the discrepancies and malfeasance. It is pitiful. They tell you to take your eyes off man and stay focused on god in one breath and then in another breath they tell you to see the god in them.

What kind of schizophrenic mess is that?
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
Gary V, having faith that you will answer the three questions posed above, let's get started with the other debate. I will answer all of your questions but we need to start from the beginning...

"Godhead" is the trinitarian code word. What is the Godhead?

How did you get to lead this discussion?

Answer the questions posed to you, first.

While you're at it answer this:

Were the Apostles and the 120 in the Upper Room saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE or AFTER they were baptized in Jesus' Name?


Lastly, you make too many assumptions about people on a message board. Stop it.


ETA: Upon further reflection, I do have a couple of questions:

Why would Jesus need to be baptized? (Matthew 3: 16-17)

Why would the disciples continue to baptize repentant sinners? (John 3:22; John 4:1-2)

Could it be that baptism is a part of the process of sanctification as opposed to being a requirement for salvation?
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi Iron Man - I apologize if I have upset you. I will tone down the rhetoric and just quote the scriptures, for that is enough. The scriptures don't lie.

As for the apostles being baptized. Easy answer - we don't know when they were baptized and we don't know for sure that they were. Here's what we do know...

John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Wow - how powerful. You see, there is always more scripture to back up the truth. Here is another powerful statement from Jesus telling you to be baptized -- that it is specifically required for salvation.

John 3:22 - "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." So, did Jesus baptize the disciples there? Don't know, so we can't say he did. What we do know is that he was in Judea and baptizing with his disciples.

John 3:26 - "...behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." -- People had gone to John the Baptist to tell John that Jesus was baptizing all men. The people thought a "turf war" was going on. John the Baptist set them straight, of course. Again, we are not told that the apostles were baptized. We are told that Jesus was baptizing all men that came to him.

John 4:1-2 - "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized moe disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)"

So, we know Jesus said baptism was required, he authorized his disciples to baptize and many men came to Him to be baptized... so many men, in fact, that Jesus (through the disciples) baptized more men than John the Baptist. So can we assume that if Jesus authorized his disciples to baptize others that they, too, were baptized. I think that's a safe assumption. Therefore the apostles were likely baptized in that period of time. BUT, nowhere is that expressly stated in scripture so I cannot say any more than I just have -- for they are the only facts we know.

This will be one of my points later on in this debate. The scriptures don't give us all the answers. So we can assume things or make arguments out of thin air based on how we want to fill in the gaps, but that is just tradition of men. Doing so is dangerous. Take the scriptures we have, learn from them and have faith in the rest.

As for your other questions and why Jesus was baptized, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he was an example. See John 13:1-16 - Jesus washed the disciple's feet. Peter questioned why Jesus was washing their feet. Jesus said, "What I do thou knowest not now; but thalt shall know hereafter" (John 13:7).

In John 13:14-16, Jesus continues...

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

1 Timothy 2:21-25. Here is v21-22 - "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth"

You inquire if baptism is not a requirement for salvation. I have shown you Jesus' words, Paul's words, Mark's words, John's words and Peter's words. You are not fighting me - you are fighting Jesus (who is God) and the holiest of all men in the history of the world. Has it not yet become 100% evident that baptism is indeed required? I understand this scripture may have rocked the foundations your current understanding. Thank God for that. I pray you take heed and re-read those scriptures for wisdom.

May God bless you.
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
Hi Iron Man - I apologize if I have upset you. I will tone down the rhetoric and just quote the scriptures, for that is enough. The scriptures don't lie.

As for the apostles being baptized. Easy answer - we don't know when they were baptized and we don't know for sure that they were. Here's what we do know...

John 3:5 - "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Wow - how powerful. You see, there is always more scripture to back up the truth. Here is another powerful statement from Jesus telling you to be baptized -- that it is specifically required for salvation.

John 3:22 - "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." So, did Jesus baptize the disciples there? Don't know, so we can't say he did. What we do know is that he was in Judea and baptizing with his disciples.

John 3:26 - "...behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." -- People had gone to John the Baptist to tell John that Jesus was baptizing all men. The people thought a "turf war" was going on. John the Baptist set them straight, of course. Again, we are not told that the apostles were baptized. We are told that Jesus was baptizing all men that came to him.

John 4:1-2 - "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized moe disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)"

So, we know Jesus said baptism was required, he authorized his disciples to baptize and many men came to Him to be baptized... so many men, in fact, that Jesus (through the disciples) baptized more men than John the Baptist. So can we assume that if Jesus authorized his disciples to baptize others that they, too, were baptized. I think that's a safe assumption. Therefore the apostles were likely baptized in that period of time. BUT, nowhere is that expressly stated in scripture so I cannot say any more than I just have -- for they are the only facts we know.

This will be one of my points later on in this debate. The scriptures don't give us all the answers. So we can assume things or make arguments out of thin air based on how we want to fill in the gaps, but that is just tradition of men. Doing so is dangerous. Take the scriptures we have, learn from them and have faith in the rest.

As for your other questions and why Jesus was baptized, Jesus repeatedly told his disciples that he was an example. See John 13:1-16 - Jesus washed the disciple's feet. Peter questioned why Jesus was washing their feet. Jesus said, "What I do thou knowest not now; but thalt shall know hereafter" (John 13:7).

In John 13:14-16, Jesus continues...

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."

1 Timothy 2:21-25. Here is v21-22 - "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth"

You inquire if baptism is not a requirement for salvation. I have shown you Jesus' words, Paul's words, Mark's words, John's words and Peter's words. You are not fighting me - you are fighting Jesus (who is God) and the holiest of all men in the history of the world. Has it not yet become 100% evident that baptism is indeed required? I understand this scripture may have rocked the foundations your current understanding. Thank God for that. I pray you take heed and re-read those scriptures for wisdom.

May God bless you.

I believe you have shown that baptism is a necessity. I agree that Jesus was baptized as an example to those of us who believe. No argument there. We agree that folks should be baptized.

What makes you think I'm upset? It takes a lot more than someone who, erroneously, thinks things about folks, in general, or me specifically. Note my disposition, I stay amused.

As to whether or not baptism is a requirement for salvation in light of John 3:16 and Romans 10:9 and even Mark 16:16 is where we differ (the second part of that scripture says if they don't believe they "are condemned"; why the condemnation since they are baptized and posses the Holy Spirit according to you?). Also in light of those who believe in their hearts and, as GaryV illustrated, get struck before they can get to the water.

Also, do you believe that children who are not baptized and die are not going to Heaven?

The simple reason for the disagreement, I suspect, is because there is no assurance that when a person is baptized that they are saved UNLESS THEY BELIEVE IN THEIR HEARTS. I believe that to be the crux of the issue.

Less a person goes down an unrepentant sinner and simply comes up a wet unrepentant sinner. One can't make disciples unless they first believe and WANT to be taught; and are taught (Matthew 28:18-20)

There's a process.


Now, this conversation reads like "iron sharpening iron".
 

Scorpiocutie

Starter
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
279
Reaction score
Reactions
318
318
Alleybux
0
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."

Unfortunately, Nabuchodonosor (variant spelling of Nebuchanezzar) wasn't king of the Assyrians, he was king of the Babylonians.


Nineveh (n&#301;n`&#601;v&#601;), ancient city, capital of the Assyrian Empire, on the Tigris River opposite the site of modern Mosul, Iraq. A shaft dug at Nineveh has yielded a pottery sequence that can be equated with the earliest cultural development in N Mesopotamia. The old capital, Assur, was replaced by Calah, which seems to have been replaced by Nineveh. Nineveh was thereafter generally the capital, although Sargon built Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad) as his capital. Nineveh reached its full glory under Sennacherib Sennacherib (s&#277;n&#259;k`&#601;r&#301;b) or Senherib, d. 681 B.C., king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.).
..... Click the link for more information. and Assurbanipal Assurbanipal (ä's
..... Click the link for more information. . It continued to be the leader of the ancient world until it fell to a coalition of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians in 612 B.C. and the Assyrian Empire came to an end. Excavations, begun in the middle of the 19th cent., have revealed an Assyrian city wall with a perimeter of c.7.5 mi (12 km). The palaces of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal, containing magnificent sculptures, have been discovered, as well as Assurbanipal's library, including over 20,000 cuneiform tablets. The city is mentioned often in the Bible.
Ninive definition of Ninive in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
Nebuchadnezzar II was the eldest son, and successor, of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabopolassar"]Nabopolassar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Crown_-_Pahlavi_Crown_8a_-_edited.png" class="image"><img alt="Stub icon" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Crown_-_Pahlavi_Crown_8a_-_edited.png/30px-Crown_-_Pahlavi_Crown_8a_-_edited.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/61/Crown_-_Pahlavi_Crown_8a_-_edited.png/30px-Crown_-_Pahlavi_Crown_8a_-_edited.png[/ame], who delivered Babylon from its dependence on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria"]Assyria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Amarnamap.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Amarnamap.png/300px-Amarnamap.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/78/Amarnamap.png/300px-Amarnamap.png[/ame] and laid [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh"]Nineveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:pergamonmuseum_-_Vorderasiatisches_Museum_067.JPG" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Pergamonmuseum_-_Vorderasiatisches_Museum_067.JPG/220px-Pergamonmuseum_-_Vorderasiatisches_Museum_067.JPG"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/94/Pergamonmuseum_-_Vorderasiatisches_Museum_067.JPG/220px-Pergamonmuseum_-_Vorderasiatisches_Museum_067.JPG[/ame] in ruins.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II"]Nebuchadnezzar II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Nebukadnessar_II.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Nebukadnessar_II.jpg/200px-Nebukadnessar_II.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5f/Nebukadnessar_II.jpg/200px-Nebukadnessar_II.jpg[/ame]
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi Iron Man,

I agree that belief and faith is certainly the first step to salvation. That's why Peter said "Repent and be baptized..." in Acts 2:38. He led off with repentance. However, James 2:20 clearly states that "faith without works is dead."

I agree that a wet sinner is the same as a dry sinner. Baptism is a deed that Jesus showed was required and was later expressed as to be required by disciples and apostles. If that is the case, then shouldn't we just do it?

I also agree that your heart is the core of the matter. If your heart is righteous then you seek truth and holiness. You seek the word and you want to walk in Christ in all ways. Sure we all fall short at times - we are just men. The difference between the holy and the people "playing church" is that a pure heart is broken when we fall short whereas the posers just vainly believe sin is ok because Jesus died for our sins.

So, you and I agree on a lot and we have some solid common ground.

As for your question about children, baptism is required to wash away sin following acknowledgement and true sorrow / repentance for that sin. That old man, the sinner, is buried and then resurrected with Christ. All that said, do children sin?

One more question, you say you agree that baptism is a necessity. A necessity for what?
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
Hi Iron Man,

I agree that belief and faith is certainly the first step to salvation. That's why Peter said "Repent and be baptized..." in Acts 2:38. He led off with repentance. However, James 2:20 clearly states that "faith without works is dead."

I agree that a wet sinner is the same as a dry sinner. Baptism is a deed that Jesus showed was required and was later expressed as to be required by disciples and apostles. If that is the case, then shouldn't we just do it?

I also agree that your heart is the core of the matter. If your heart is righteous then you seek truth and holiness. You seek the word and you want to walk in Christ in all ways. Sure we all fall short at times - we are just men. The difference between the holy and the people "playing church" is that a pure heart is broken when we fall short whereas the posers just vainly believe sin is ok because Jesus died for our sins.

So, you and I agree on a lot and we have some solid common ground.

As for your question about children, baptism is required to wash away sin following acknowledgement and true sorrow / repentance for that sin. That old man, the sinner, is buried and then resurrected with Christ. All that said, do children sin?

One more question, you say you agree that baptism is a necessity. A necessity for what?

If one lies, is that a sin?

If the answer to that is an unequivocal, 'yes', then children sin when they lie about spilling milk, washing their hands before dinner, etc. Little things? Yes. But, again, they are lies and thus (is one's answer is 'yes') sins.


Again, I believe that baptism is a part of the sanctification process we go through as we continue on our Christian journey.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
You say belief is all that is needed for salvation. You use child sin as an example to disprove the need for baptism as a salvational requirement. If belief is all that is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, then how can children be accepted? Do they believe? Is their heart mature enough to choose righteousness and turn from evil? Scripture answers those questions. More on children below. Sancitfication, first...

What is sanctification? It is the process of becoming holy, separated from the world unto God through understanding of the truth (John 17:14-19). That is required for salvation. How are we separated? How did Jesus offer that separation? He offered it through blood so that we could attain it through water.

Again, Jesus words in John 3:5 - "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Why get cute with this? Aren't Jesus' words clear? In Acts 2:38, aren't Peter's words clear? We get caught up on what we are taught in bible school or in church or from the pulpits of false prophets. Read the book. What did the angel tell John in Revelation... He said to take the book and eat it. John said give me the book. Umm, wrong answer. You must want it, take it and eat it. It is bitter because it goes against our understanding and worldliness. Eat the book, all of it.

I'm telling you... you won't get any pudding if you don't eat your meat. Ok, quoting Pink Floyd there but you get the point.

So, if sanctification is required for salvation and baptism is part of the sanctification process, as you state, then baptism must be required for salvation.

Again, everyone reading this, read Acts 2:38 and do it. It is all about faith and works. Please be baptized in Jesus' name and work your tail off to seek the Holy Spirit, repenting with a true heart when you fall down.


On to the topic of sinful children...

Isaiah 7:16 -- "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good,..."

1 Cor 14:20 -- "Brethren, be not children in your understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."

Heb 5:12-14 -- "...and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

1 Cor 3:1-2 -- "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it..."

1 Peter 2:2 -- "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby"

So, children are unable to choose good and refuse evil. At what point does that change? Scriptures don't say but certainly you would not say a child is stupid because they touched a hot stove anymore than you would call them a sinner for lying to parents. Repentance is necessary for salvation. A child needs to be able to choose righteousness. Do small children that tell a lie know what that is? We are told from the scriptures above that children have an understanding. It is apparent it is not a good one considering we are told by Paul not to be children in our understanding, but rather to be men.

We are splitting hairs here and there is no need to discuss children further. Children can not be used in our debate because children can neither choose belief nor baptism. Therefore, neither of our viewpoints can be supported through this topic.

Acts 2:38
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
OK, children aside.........

Were the Apostles and the 120 in the Upper Room saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE or AFTER they were baptized in Jesus' Name??

Actually, we don't have a single WORD in the NT about the Apostles EVER being baptized, but there is NO DOUBT that they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and saved in the Upper Room WITHOUT BAPTISM.How does that happen if water baptism saves??

Also, in Acts 10,Cornelius and his family were saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit BEFORE being water baptized, while Peter was still preaching. How does that happen if water baptism saves??

Are you suggesting that God fills unrepentant sinners with the Holy Spirit, and gives gifts such as tongues to unrepentant sinners?? Are you suggesting that the Apostles in the Upper Room, who had never been baptized, were also unsaved??

All that is required to disprove a universal assertion (such as "Everyone must first be baptized before salvation") is to provide instances in Scripture where such a universal assertion is disproven. We have 2 witnesses from Holy Writ just as Scripture Itself requires.

Therefore, you are left upon the horns of a dilemma from which you cannot extricate yourself without denying what you have been claiming here for several pages. To whit......

You have claimed that baptism must be administered BEFORE Salvation. If you retain that assertion, in order to be consistent with your own statements, you MUST now believe that the Apostles were NOT saved in the Upper Room, because they had not yet been baptized. Are you prepared to state that here?? You MUST in order to be consistent with your stated beliefs.

You must ALSO maintain, in order to be consistent with your own stated beliefs, that God gives the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues to the UNSAVED, since the Apostles were ALSO given that gift BEFORE baptism, which in your theology means they were not saved. This is a particular problem for you, since you also maintain that speaking in tongues IS EVIDENCE of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

You then also MUST believe that neither Cornelius nor his household were saved in Acts 10 when they were speaking in tongues, because they ALSO were given that gift of the Spirit BEFORE baptism. Are you prepared to state here that God gives the Holy Spirit to the unsaved, and that He gives the gift of tongues to the unsaved as well?? You MUST in order to be consistent with your own stated beliefs.

So here's where we stand.....in order to be consistent with your claim that Salvation requires baptism to be true, you must believe that....

The Apostles were unsaved in the Upper Room and when they were preaching Christ to those outside.

That in fact the Apostles were NEVER saved because the Bible never refers a SINGLE TIME to ANY of the Apostles who walked with Christ being baptized after His Resurrection In HIS or ANY OTHER name.

That God gives the Holy Spirit to the unsaved, since He gave the Holy Spirit according to Scripture to the Apostles and Cornelius and his household BEFORE baptism (which you claim means they were unsaved).

And that the gift of tongues, rather than being the evidence of the Salvation of the sinner as you claim, is ACTUALLY something that God gives to the UNSAVED..... because Scripture PLAINLY states that the Apostles and Cornelius' household were ALL speaking in tongues BEFORE BAPTISM (which according to all you've written means they were given the gift of tongues while they were still unsaved).

So, either you contradict the Scriptures by claiming that salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit only come AFTER baptism...........

OR the Bible contradicts ITSELF (according to you) by teaching on one hand that Salvation and the gift of the Spirit only come after baptism, then on the other hand teaching just the opposite by showing multiple examples where Salvation AND the gift of the Spirit BOTH come BEFORE baptism.

The third option?? Your theology contradicts Scripture and is blatantly wrong.You have misapplied and misinterpreted Scripture. Guess which way I'm leaning??

Your theology is self contradictory, and contradicts Scripture. And contradiction is the sign of a failed argument (or theology).

You BEGGED us to talk about baptism. Well, there ya go. Now can we finally address the other points I've written?? Because thus far you haven't done so.
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
Nineveh (n&#301;n`&#601;v&#601;), ancient city, capital of the Assyrian Empire, on the Tigris River opposite the site of modern Mosul, Iraq. A shaft dug at Nineveh has yielded a pottery sequence that can be equated with the earliest cultural development in N Mesopotamia. The old capital, Assur, was replaced by Calah, which seems to have been replaced by Nineveh. Nineveh was thereafter generally the capital, although Sargon built Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad) as his capital. Nineveh reached its full glory under Sennacherib Sennacherib (s&#277;n&#259;k`&#601;r&#301;b) or Senherib, d. 681 B.C., king of Assyria (705–681 B.C.).
..... Click the link for more information. and Assurbanipal Assurbanipal (ä's
..... Click the link for more information. . It continued to be the leader of the ancient world until it fell to a coalition of Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians in 612 B.C. and the Assyrian Empire came to an end. Excavations, begun in the middle of the 19th cent., have revealed an Assyrian city wall with a perimeter of c.7.5 mi (12 km). The palaces of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal, containing magnificent sculptures, have been discovered, as well as Assurbanipal's library, including over 20,000 cuneiform tablets. The city is mentioned often in the Bible.
Ninive definition of Ninive in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
Nebuchadnezzar II was the eldest son, and successor, of Nabopolassar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in ruins.
Nebuchadnezzar II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point here?? Nebuchadnezzar was NOT the king of Assyria. He was the king of Babylon, as I stated earlier. There's not a historic citation, a stone tablet,or anything else in either secular or Biblical history that states otherwise.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi GaryV,

Please read my post about the apostles being baptized. You are right that there is no direct evidence that they were baptized, but scriptures specifically state they spent a lot of time baptizing. I don't get into stating opinions so I will let you determine if you think they were baptized, considering that Jesus was baptized and he (through his disciples) baptized more men than John the Baptist (John 4:1-2). I say much more on this topic earlier in this thread so you can read it there.

You mention Cornelius. That is a good story. Glad you brought it up. What was the central message of that story? It was that the Word was for all man, not just the Jews. Here is the scripture (empahsis mine):

Acts 10:44-48... "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, because that on Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

Thank you for pointing this event to us to show that baptism is not only required but that baptism in the name of Jesus is required. I have shown a multitude of times previously in this thread that the Lord's name is Jesus.

God works in great ways. He showed the Jews, who led a lifetime of separatism, that all men were included in the new covenant. What better way to get the point across then for the Lord to show the Jews directly. Therefore, there was no Jewish backlash for the Gentiles to be baptized (which likely would have been the case without the pouring out of the spirit first). The Lord made Peter's job easy in dealing with this situation. The Lord had spoken and the Jews in attendance clearly saw the second covenant replacing the first.

Isn't it awesome? We don't make the rules... God does. If he wants to bless someone with His spirit before baptism, so be it. We still need to be baptized, as the story you use as an example shows.

GaryV, you seem to think God's power has limits. God does what He wants. Wants to create Earth... done. Wants to create man... done. Wants to destroy man... done. Wants to heal blindness... done. Wants to raise the dead... done. Wants to establish a new covenant... done. Wants to make himself flesh... done.

So, you don't think he can pour out his spirit out on someone before they are baptized? You challenge His authority?

How many times in scripture do we need to be told that not all things are revealed to us... Deut 29:29... "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God" or read almost the entire book of Ecclesiastes.

Some things don't have answers. To try to guess, to fill in blanks or answer the unanswerable for yourself is perilous and is the wisdom of fools.

Somehow you think I have contradicted the scripture whereas the very story you provide as an example underscores the point that Acts 2:38 is the key to salvation...

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Isn't it interesting that Peter's words there were then backed up by his actions in the Cornelius story? That just strengthens the message as Peter is both talking the talk and walking the walk. There is no gray area there. He said one thing and then executed the deeds in two separate instances. That is powerful and irrefutable evidence by one of the holiest men in world history. You get cute with that?

Where has this gone off the tracks with your argument.

Are you stating that if the scriptures didn't say the apostles were baptized then they weren't? Did the scriptures say that the apostles went to the bathroom? They don't. So, according to you, they didn't pee or poop, right? Now that is a miracle.

And your point about Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles is that he received the Holy Ghost before baptism so that makes baptism not required somehow? If so, why were they baptized immediately thereafter. That scripture says the Holy Ghost fell on all of them that heard the word, so that included Jew and Gentile alike. Those who weren't baptized before were immediately baptized thereafter. The act of killing the sinner and resurrection in life with Jesus was complete at that point.

My points in this debate revolve around quoted scripture. Yours revolve around opinions and assumptions and implying meanings of text that isn't there. And you are happy about that?

So, I am confused in why you are happy with yourself when you put bullets in my gun. And, really, I don't care who is right or wrong here. One of us clearly is one or the other, however (unless both of us are wrong). I just care that the truth is told so that the readers of this thread know the scripture. Then, you or I will have to personally accept the truth. I don't care if I am right and I don't care if you are right. I am just a guy trying to find the holy path. I have no interest in anything other than that. I just want the truth and the truth is found in scripture, not opinion.

Now to answer your other questions... a little at a time, so we can eat this up nice and slow and get all the juices going.

Question 1: In Gethsemane, you asked if I thought Jesus was schizophrenic because he was praying to himself. No, our savior is not schizophrenic. Question... Why was Jesus upset that Peter, John and James fell asleep?

Question 2: You mentioned the right hand of God. What is the right hand?

I debate in peace.

Funny how the world will be like Mike and will "Just Do It" but we won't be like Jesus.

Acts 2:38 -- just do it
 

Inquiring Mind

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
8,108
Reaction score
Reactions
16,038 1 2
16,036
Alleybux
550
What is sanctification? It is the process of becoming holy, separated from the world unto God through understanding of the truth (John 17:14-19). That is required for salvation. How are we separated? How did Jesus offer that separation? He offered it through blood so that we could attain it through water.

We agree with the portion in bold. At the same time, sanctification is not a requirement for salvation lest it not be a gift.

One need not do anything to receive a free gift. It's free.


As for Baptism, it is merely a command from Jesus and is part and parcel of the Christian walk. But, it is not a requirement for salvation lest salvation not be a gift. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Additionally, seeing as how one's bodily functions are a nature of the human body, it is implied that they used the restroom in some form. No need to use strawman arguments to try to make a point; this isn't the movie, 'A Few Good Men'. :laugh:

Salvation is from Christ through our faith, by His grace. We, of course, are commanded to obey and be baptized, but again baptism does in no way contribute to our salvation.
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi Iron Man,

We earn the gift of salvation. Jesus' sacrifice will not save everyone because not everyone chooses God. Epehsians 2:8-9 does not say that baptism is optional. Faith earns a gift from God. Faith is manifest in words and deeds. That is clear from numerous scriptures I have already quoted. Eph 2:9 just simply states that deeds alone will not save you. You can't work your way into heaven because nobody is worthy on deeds alone. We need the Lord. Paul makes that clear repeatedly.

I agree that faith/belief is required for salvation. You and I are going round and round on this one but we agree on that. Where we separate is the recognition that baptism is shown throughout scripture to be part of the faith process. See previous posts in this thread for the scriptural references.

You say...

We, of course, are commanded to obey and be baptized, but again baptism does in no way contribute to our salvation.

I don't understand. Baptism is commanded but in no way contributes to salvation? If we are commanded to be baptized but it is not part of the salvation process, why are we commanded to do it? Scripture please.

You acknowledge that baptism is "a command from Jesus" and we agree again... baptism is indeed a command from Jesus. That means we should do it - isn't that what a commandment is? Isn't he the boss? Jesus also commands us to love him with all our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Are they merely commands from Jesus that are optional, too?

How do you choose which commandments from Jesus are optional? Please provide scripture.

I debate in peace.

Acts 2:38 -- just do it
 

Vaughn

General Manager
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
2,673
Reaction score
Reactions
5,318 1 2
5,316
Alleybux
590
Hi Iron Man,

We earn the gift of salvation. Jesus' sacrifice will not save everyone because not everyone chooses God. Epehsians 2:8-9 does not say that baptism is optional. Faith earns a gift from God. Faith is manifest in words and deeds. That is clear from numerous scriptures I have already quoted. Eph 2:9 just simply states that deeds alone will not save you. You can't work your way into heaven because nobody is worthy on deeds alone. We need the Lord. Paul makes that clear repeatedly.

I agree that faith/belief is required for salvation. You and I are going round and round on this one but we agree on that. Where we separate is the recognition that baptism is shown throughout scripture to be part of the faith process. See previous posts in this thread for the scriptural references.

You acknowledge that baptism is "a command from Jesus" and we agree again... baptism is indeed a command from Jesus. That means we should do it - isn't that what a commandment is? Isn't he the boss? Jesus also commands us to love him with all our heart, soul and mind, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Are they merely commands from Jesus that are optional, too?

How do you choose which commandments from Jesus are optional? Please provide scripture.

I debate in peace.

Acts 2:38 -- just do it

When we are hid in Christ can you please tell me how we earn salvation? The finished works of Calvary + what we do? = nothing or better said absolutely nothing.

We qualify due to our acceptance of the free gift, while reciprocating that love consequently because of what was done on our behalf by way of the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus, b.k.a. The Gospel.

Don't get caught off into that Lord, Lord crowd that presents their resume's to The Lord as if it was all them minus the relationship. Who say....

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


We love Him because He first loved us, and on our best day our righteousness is as filthy rags, please don't have me explain that!
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi Vaughn,

No, I agree with the scriptures you present. I don't mean we earn it through deeds or physical works. As I stated in the post, we cannot do enough deeds alone to get into heaven. We can't buy it, we can't go to church enough. We are completely unworthy based on our actions. We need Jesus but we must submit ourselves to Him for his gift to be redeemed. He has paid for us, but most of us don't want to go home with Him. The gift is not enough - we must accept it.

Jesus tells us he was here for the sinners, not for the holy. He died for the sinners as well. That doesn't mean the sinners accept Him, love Him or glorify Him.

The free gift Jesus offers is not accepted by everyone. To accept it we must do what he says; we must earn it through love/charity and faith. Accepting the gift requires us to turn from the world unto the Lord. We all know how hard that is... that makes it earned.

I think we agree on this but my terminology may have been vague.

Acts 2:38 -- just do it
 

default

Rookie
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
26
Reaction score
Reactions
5
5
Alleybux
0
I hope this debate isn't over. I registered and waited for the activation just so I can tell you how much this fascinates me.

I watch Jennings the way I watch the Simpsons---as a sitcom. The man is a lunatic.

Watching Jennings and watching all of you go back and forth over these fairy tales has been equal parts hilarious and frightening. I can't believe that you can't see that all your bickering has done is prove how full of nonsense and self-contradiction god and the bible really is. But don't mind me, please proceed. Just beware, winning this debate is like winning a wwe title---not an actual win, because NONE OF THIS IS REAL.
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
Hi GaryV,

Please read my post about the apostles being baptized. You are right that there is no direct evidence that they were baptized, but scriptures specifically state they spent a lot of time baptizing. I don't get into stating opinions so I will let you determine if you think they were baptized, considering that Jesus was baptized and he (through his disciples) baptized more men than John the Baptist (John 4:1-2). I say much more on this topic earlier in this thread so you can read it there.

No, now you're leaving Scripture and stating opinion. I thought you didn't like that?? There is no Biblical support that any of the Apostles were ever baptized. Period.


You mention Cornelius. That is a good story. Glad you brought it up. What was the central message of that story? It was that the Word was for all man, not just the Jews. Here is the scripture (empahsis mine):

Acts 10:44-48... "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, because that on Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

Thank you for pointing this event to us to show that baptism is not only required but that baptism in the name of Jesus is required. I have shown a multitude of times previously in this thread that the Lord's name is Jesus.

No again. Seeing a pattern here?? YOU stated MULTIPLE TIMES that baptism was necessary for Salvation and receiving the Holy Ghost. NOW you want to FORGET that (conveniently) and say "Well, they were baptized RIGHT AFTERWARD.

SO WHAT?? The ENTIRE POINT is that they were BOTH SAVED AND GIVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHOUT BAPTISM.

Game, set, match.

If water baptism was a requirement BEFORE Salvation and the Holy Spirit, then either YOU are wrong or THE BIBLE is wrong because THE BIBLE plainly states multiple times that BOTH Salvation AND the gifts of the Spirit came BEFORE water baptism for ALL those in Cornelius' household AND for the 120 in the upper room. That's at least 122 instances where God saved and filled with the Spirit WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM.


YOU said that this is IMPOSSIBLE. So, you're wrong.

God works in great ways. He showed the Jews, who led a lifetime of separatism, that all men were included in the new covenant. What better way to get the point across then for the Lord to show the Jews directly. Therefore, there was no Jewish backlash for the Gentiles to be baptized (which likely would have been the case without the pouring out of the spirit first). The Lord made Peter's job easy in dealing with this situation. The Lord had spoken and the Jews in attendance clearly saw the second covenant replacing the first.

Agreed. THAT is why tongues was given. To give irrefutable evidence that the Gospel went to the Jews, Gentiles, and the Samaritans. Period.

But YOU said that CANNOT happen without baptism. But it DID. repeatedly. Why are you tossing aside Scripture now??

DID the 120 in the Upper Room get Saved and Filled BEFORE BAPTISM or NOT??

DID Cornelius and his entire household get Saved and Filled BEFORE BAPTISM or NOT??

Yes they did. Therefore to claim that baptism MUST PRECEDE Salvation and the gift of the Spirit is to contradict Scripture. Why do you persist in your error when refuted by Scripture??


Isn't it awesome? We don't make the rules... God does. If he wants to bless someone with His spirit before baptism, so be it. We still need to be baptized, as the story you use as an example shows.

WRONG. The stories I related prove that baptism is NOT required BEFORE Salvation and the gifts of the Spirit. We have OVER 120 examples. But you just want to gloss over that which points out your errors and try to change the subject. Why??


GaryV, you seem to think God's power has limits. God does what He wants. Wants to create Earth... done. Wants to create man... done. Wants to destroy man... done. Wants to heal blindness... done. Wants to raise the dead... done. Wants to establish a new covenant... done. Wants to make himself flesh... done.

So, you don't think he can pour out his spirit out on someone before they are baptized? You challenge His authority?

No.........that is PERFECTLY IN KEEPING with my theology. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO is saying that baptism MUST come before Salvation and The Spirit. YOU are challenging God's authority. God is perfectly able to do as He pleases in MY theology, but you keep insisting that He CANNOT save or fill BEFORE baptism when He PLAINLY did BOTH over 120 times in the Bible. Who's putting God in a box here??

God was free to do as He wished BEFORE today, but TODAY He violates His own Scriptural examples by ONLY saving AFTER baptism??

Tell me, when did God change His mind?? You state that God can do as He pleases, then you say He CANNOT do any longer what the Bible clearly REPORTS HE DID.


How many times in scripture do we need to be told that not all things are revealed to us... Deut 29:29... "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God" or read almost the entire book of Ecclesiastes.

Some things don't have answers. To try to guess, to fill in blanks or answer the unanswerable for yourself is perilous and is the wisdom of fools.

LOL!! Unbelievable. When Scripture contradicts you, it's just a mystery, right??

So THIS is your answer??
"Gee Gary,I don't know why God saved all those folks and filled them with the Spirit BEFORE baptism, BUT HE CAN'T DO IT ANY MORE. Now He only can do it AFTER BAPTISM. Why?? It's a mystery. Can I provide any Biblical evidence?? NOPE. That's a mystery too."

Somehow you think I have contradicted the scripture whereas the very story you provide as an example underscores the point that Acts 2:38 is the key to salvation...

"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Yes, but the evidence that this is not the ordo salutis (order of Salvation) is the fact that GOD PROVED YOU WRONG OVER ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TIMES.

Don't try to change now..........the debate is over YOUR assertion that Salvation and the Spirit can ONLY come AFTER baptism. These very verses you just cited PROVE YOU WRONG because Salvation and the Spirit came BEFORE BAPTISM.

THAT is the debate.......and your transparent attempts to dodge the issue aren't fooling anyone.


Isn't it interesting that Peter's words there were then backed up by his actions in the Cornelius story? That just strengthens the message as Peter is both talking the talk and walking the walk. There is no gray area there. He said one thing and then executed the deeds in two separate instances. That is powerful and irrefutable evidence by one of the holiest men in world history. You get cute with that?

WHAT?? Hilarious!! How does the fact that Peter, one of the holiest men in world history, BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY declared IN SCRIPTURE that the entire household of Cornelius as well as the 120 in the Upper Room were ALL SAVED AND FILLED WITHOUT BAPTISM (whch YOU said cannot happen??)?? He proves MY POINT by declaring them all saved and filled with the Spirit WITHOUT BAPTISM........he DISPUTES YOU because YOU claim that CANNOT HAPPEN.

Really dude........you seem rather delusional at this point. Peter proves you wrong.


Where has this gone off the tracks with your argument.

Yeah.........I'M off the tracks. Delusion is an ugly thing.

Are you stating that if the scriptures didn't say the apostles were baptized then they weren't? Did the scriptures say that the apostles went to the bathroom? They don't. So, according to you, they didn't pee or poop, right? Now that is a miracle.

No, you keep saying that we're not following Scripture. I'm taking your criteria and applying it to you.

How are you following Scripture when Scripture never records them being baptized , and further when Scripture records over 120 instances of folks being saved and filled WITHOUT baptism, attested to by no less than the Apostle Peter himself, you just conveniently ignore that too. Is that following Scripture??

I am following Scripture, because Scripture records precisely what I have been stating for pages. Salvation and the gift of the Spirit are recorded over 120 times in Scripture as coming BEFORE baptism in water. Get it now??


And your point about Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles is that he received the Holy Ghost before baptism so that makes baptism not required somehow?

It makes baptism not required BEFORE SALVATION and the gift of the Spirit because it PLAINLY STATES AS MUCH. Should believers be baptized?? Sure. Does Salvation and infilling only come AFTER baptism as you claim?? NOOOOOOOOO. Scripture is clear that it comes BEFORE BAPTISM as over 120 Biblical witnesses attest.

Oh, I forgot. Whenever you contradict Scripture, you're not REALLY contradicting Scripture because "It's a mystery" why Scripture contradicts you.

If so, why were they baptized immediately thereafter.

YES!!! HALLELUJAH!!! He said it!! They were baptized in water AFTER they were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit.........Not BEFORE, which you have been saying ad nauseum they MUST BE BAPTIZED BEFORE.

Don't you feel better now that you've admitted they were saved and filled BEFORE baptism?? I know you do.


That scripture says the Holy Ghost fell on all of them that heard the word, so that included Jew and Gentile alike. Those who weren't baptized before were immediately baptized thereafter. The act of killing the sinner and resurrection in life with Jesus was complete at that point.

HE SAID IT AGAIN!! They were saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE BAPTISM!! Tell me, what does Oneness theology SAY was the evidence that Salvation is complete?? Tongues, right?? But NOW, rather than simply admit you're wrong, you want to say that God fills folks with the Holy Spirit BEFORE Salvation is completed.

So, are you telling us that God gives the Holy Spirit and His gifts to those NOT YET fully saved?? That's not what you've been saying before. What happened?? BEFORE tongues was evidence OF Salvation.........but NOW God gives tongues to folks who aren't even fully saved yet?? Care to give us some Scripture for that??


My points in this debate revolve around quoted scripture. Yours revolve around opinions and assumptions and implying meanings of text that isn't there. And you are happy about that?

I'm happy that QUOTED SCRIPTURE in ACTS 2 and ACTS 10 clearly state that God both saved and filled over 120 folks WITHOUT BAPTISM, as even PETER HIMSELF testifies.

And thus far, you haven't dealt with any of it. Where did I imply meanings that weren't there?? I posted the Scriptures in both chapters that state CLEARLY that those folks were saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE BAPTISM. Even YOU ADMITTED that they were baptized AFTER SALVATION and the gifts of the Spirit were given.

GAME..........SET..........MATCH. Our entire DEBATE was on THAT POINT. And you conceded that folks were saved and filled BEFORE BAPTISM, precisely as I said and completely opposite of everything you've been nattering on about here.

YOU are the one who can't answer, and resorts to "I don't know why Scripture contradicts me.........it's a mystery." Well, it's no mystery to us.


So, I am confused in why you are happy with yourself when you put bullets in my gun.

Well, when you point that loaded gun at your own head and pull the trigger by admitting that over 120 people were saved and given the Spirit BEFORE BAPTISM, which you said CANNOT HAPPEN , yeah, I get a little thrill. I would get downright giddy if you would simply be man enough to admit you have been proven wrong too.

And, really, I don't care who is right or wrong here.

Then why did you call me out by name and ask for this debate?? Why don't you admit your claim that baptism MUST come BEFORE Salvation and infilling is WRONG then, since you don't care??

Frankly, I DO CARE. Heresy is an ugly thing.


One of us clearly is one or the other, however (unless both of us are wrong). I just care that the truth is told so that the readers of this thread know the scripture.

Fine. Tell us all about Acts 2 and Acts 10. I'm still waiting, and "It's a mystery" won't cut it.

Then, you or I will have to personally accept the truth. I don't care if I am right and I don't care if you are right. I am just a guy trying to find the holy path. I have no interest in anything other than that. I just want the truth and the truth is found in scripture, not opinion.

Again........Scripture, at least mine, contains Acts 2 and Acts 10, both of which prove that Salvation and infilling come BEFORE baptism over 120 times (which is 40 to 60 times more witnesses than Scripture mandates to establish Truth).

Now to answer your other questions... a little at a time, so we can eat this up nice and slow and get all the juices going.

Question 1: In Gethsemane, you asked if I thought Jesus was schizophrenic because he was praying to himself. No, our savior is not schizophrenic. Question... Why was Jesus upset that Peter, John and James fell asleep?

Question 2: You mentioned the right hand of God. What is the right hand?

I debate in peace.

Funny how the world will be like Mike and will "Just Do It" but we won't be like Jesus.

Acts 2:38 -- just do it

First, finish the topic at hand which you INSISTED we debate first. Then we can deal with the rest of Scripture's refutation of your positions.
.
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
I hope this debate isn't over. I registered and waited for the activation just so I can tell you how much this fascinates me.

I watch Jennings the way I watch the Simpsons---as a sitcom. The man is a lunatic.

Watching Jennings and watching all of you go back and forth over these fairy tales has been equal parts hilarious and frightening. I can't believe that you can't see that all your bickering has done is prove how full of nonsense and self-contradiction god and the bible really is. But don't mind me, please proceed. Just beware, winning this debate is like winning a wwe title---not an actual win, because NONE OF THIS IS REAL.

Nice logic.............debate and opposing arguments means it's not real. Does that count for science, politics, interpersonal relationships, etc too??

Not captain of your debate team I take it??
 

default

Rookie
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
26
Reaction score
Reactions
5
5
Alleybux
0
That's not what my logic was. Not even close.

But like I said, I enjoy your debates about Santa Christ so ignore me.
 

default

Rookie
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
26
Reaction score
Reactions
5
5
Alleybux
0
Not ignoring my post to tell me how easy it is to ignore my post = Fail
 

default

Rookie
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
26
Reaction score
Reactions
5
5
Alleybux
0
Can you prove we aren't an experiment created by an ancient alien race? Can you prove I'm not god or sent by god to test how you defend your faith? See how idiotic that "can you prove he doesn't exist" logic actually is?
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Hi GaryV,


1. Apostles Baptism -- I stated repeatedly that there is no direct proof in scripture that the apostles were baptized. I ask you to read scripture and determine for yourself if they were, considering that Jesus was baptized, that "all men" that came to see him were baptized and that the disciples baptized more men than John the Baptist. Also, consider that Jesus told the apostles that He was an example (John 13:15-17). I will type this one out again because I have a feeling that you and I are going to discuss this scripture a lot in the near future.

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."

So Jesus was baptized, disciples were baptized, disciples performed baptism on a lot of people (John 3:26, 4:1-2) and Jesus commanded the apostles to use Him as an example and do what He did. You make the determination on whether you think they were baptized.

2. There is no direct indication that the 120 received the Holy Spirit and that 120 were even in the upper room. The beginning of verse 15 states "In those days..." This is after the people have gathered in the upper room. Which indicates that this was later. That gathering of 120 was specified as to be discussing the appointment of the 12th apostle (Acts 1:15-26). Then another time break is given in Acts 2:1 ("When the day of Pentecost was fully come"). So, again, a break in time indicated. Plus the day of Pentecost is 50 days after the Sabbath following passover week. Jesus rose the day after that Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus ascended 41 days after that Sabbath, leaving 9 days left. That fits with what I am saying, as a "sabbath day's journey" (Acts 1:12) is less than a mile so the people would be in the upper room as you suggest on day 41. That is 9 days early.

Even Jesus tells the apostles in Acts 1:5 that they will be filled with the spirit "not many days hence."

So the premise that 120 were in the upper room and receive the Holy Spirit the day of the ascension is weak and doesn't hold up to simple math.

Therefore, you do not have 120 examples of baptism not being necessary. But, for chuckles, let's say I am wrong here and the 120 did receive the Holy Spirit as you suggest. Do you know that they were not baptized previously? Please provide scripture.

As for the larger issue, receiving of the Holy Spirit, the apostles were likely baptized long before this (see #1 above) but we don't know for sure.

3. Cornelius -- I explain this completely in my previous post. God can do what he wants. He clearly blessed them with his Spirit before water baptism. Peter immediately baptized them after the blessing of the Spirit and the Jews that were present saw that the new testament was confirmed.

If water baptism was not necessary, why did Peter do it?


4. I have only said that baptism is required for salvation. I pound the table on Acts 2:38. That's all I say. Whether or not God pours out His spirit on you before you are baptized is up to Him. That's where you and I differ. God can do what he wants. He struck down the tenets of the law and he can strike down whatever else he wants. Scripture clearly mandates baptism. I've laid out the scripture repeatedly and don't need to do it again. If you want to take a chance and not be baptized, thinking that you are blessed with the Spirit, then that is Russian roulette with your soul. The Cornelius story was a very special event - one of the biggest events in the entire scripture. I am not sure I would classify that as "rule of thumb" but you are free to do as you will.

Hypothetical situation... Let's say you are blessed with the Holy Spirit right now and have not been baptized. Scripture shows that it is indeed possible to receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. But please read further. Scripture DOES NOT show (anywhere) that baptism is not required to be saved. Please read Acts 10:47. This is simple. You can't just stop the Cornelius story at verse 46 or where ever else you want. You are smarter than this; I know you are.


5. Gotta run right now, but will come back tomorrow. I want to address one more point you raise.

You attack me for asking me a question that I cannot answer factually. I reply with an "I don't know; some things are a mystery" and that is a basis for attack? Is that wisdom? You really need to read or re-read Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

What do you want me to say when you ask a question that can't answered using scripture? I don't make things up just to debate you.

How did God make the world? I don't know - it's a mystery.
How old is the world? I don't know - it's a mystery.
What day was Jesus born? When is he coming back? What does Jesus look like? How did Noah get all those animals on the ark? Red Sea? Manna? I don't know any of it. God does what he wants.

So why did God offer his Spirit to Cornelius and his household before baptism? I don't know. Scriptures don't say. What they do say is that they were baptized immediately thereafter. Peter's words in Acts 2:38 are confirmed by his actions in Acts 10:47 as well as other places in scripture (see the numerous scriptural references previously posted in this thread).

You know, I am the only one providing the scripture here. You throw haymakers and bombs and criticize me for not having answers that are not in the book. I won't guess just to win a debate. How about if you quote some scripture that includes the full context?

So let's play your game... Why did Peter baptize Cornelius and his crew? Please provide scripture or say "I don't know." There are only 2 options. No opinion needed for this answer; just 100% scripture.

Actually, from now on, let's agree to leave opinion aside and provide scripture to support all statements. If specific scripture does not exist, the point is moot. If you are blessed with some other wisdom that is not in the book, please specify that blessing and how it was relayed to you.

Last thought for today... I think I understand the root difference in our viewpoints.

Please answer these two questions:

1. Can God pour out his Spirit on someone and then take it away?

2. When does someone receive salvation?

Your answer to these questions will likely answer your question regarding the Cornelius event.

And don't forget about this... Why did Peter baptize Cornelius and his household?

3 easy questions for you.

I will also read and reply to the rest of your previous post next time I am on the board.

I debate in peace.

Acts 2:38 - just do it
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
Actually, I just read the rest of your post and you really rely on the upper room, that there were 120 in the upper room and that all received the Holy Spirit as indicated in Acts 2:4.

You also mention Acts 2 a lot and that Acts 2 proves your argument. You know, verse 38 is in that chapter. How do you explain that?

That's a 4th question.

So, basic math has cast serious doubt on the 120 claim. Regardless, there is no indication that those disciples were not baptized previously. The only reference we have is that the 120 were indeed disciples (Acts 2:15) and that many disciples were baptized and that disciples performed baptisms (John 4:1-2). Acts 3:26 states that "all men" go to Jesus for baptism instead of John the Baptist.

That's not to say for certain that the 120 were baptized. I cannot make that claim for sure. At the same time, you cannot claim those 120 were not baptized either.

The only fact we have through scripture is that a whole lot of disciples were baptized and were baptizing.

Despite all the scripture I presented, your core argument against a baptismal requirement is Cornelius and the 120. I have addressed Cornelius and have asked you the 3 questions that I think will resolve that issue one way or the other. You claim that there are also 120 examples that prove me a heretic. I have presented you 2 separate pieces of hard evidence that break your core argument and show there are not 120 examples.

Please reply with answers to these 2 topics I present along with answers to the 4 questions shown below.

1. Why did Peter baptize Cornelius and his household?
2. Can God pour out his Spirit on someone and then take it away?
3. When does someone receive salvation?
4. What does Acts 2:38 mean?

Please quote direct scripture as much as possible.

I debate in peace.

Acts 2:38 - just do it
 

Holy Moly

Bench Warmer
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
Reactions
2
2
Alleybux
0
A little more.

This gets real easy at the end.

You say...

It makes baptism not required BEFORE SALVATION and the gift of the Spirit because it PLAINLY STATES AS MUCH. Should believers be baptized?? Sure. Does Salvation and infilling only come AFTER baptism as you claim?? NOOOOOOOOO. Scripture is clear that it comes BEFORE BAPTISM as over 120 Biblical witnesses attest.

Oh, I forgot. Whenever you contradict Scripture, you're not REALLY contradicting Scripture because "It's a mystery" why Scripture contradicts you.

If so, why were they baptized immediately thereafter.

YES!!! HALLELUJAH!!! He said it!! They were baptized in water AFTER they were saved and filled with the Holy Spirit.........Not BEFORE, which you have been saying ad nauseum they MUST BE BAPTIZED BEFORE.

Don't you feel better now that you've admitted they were saved and filled BEFORE baptism?? I know you do.


That scripture says the Holy Ghost fell on all of them that heard the word, so that included Jew and Gentile alike. Those who weren't baptized before were immediately baptized thereafter. The act of killing the sinner and resurrection in life with Jesus was complete at that point.

HE SAID IT AGAIN!! They were saved and filled with the Spirit BEFORE BAPTISM!! Tell me, what does Oneness theology SAY was the evidence that Salvation is complete?? Tongues, right?? But NOW, rather than simply admit you're wrong, you want to say that God fills folks with the Holy Spirit BEFORE Salvation is completed.

So, are you telling us that God gives the Holy Spirit and His gifts to those NOT YET fully saved?? That's not what you've been saying before. What happened?? BEFORE tongues was evidence OF Salvation.........bu t NOW God gives tongues to folks who aren't even fully saved yet?? Care to give us some Scripture for that??



Ok,

1. When did I say baptism is required before the pouring out of the Holy Spirit?

2. When did I say salvation happens when one speaks in tongues?

All I have repeatedly said is that baptism is required for salvation. So there is the core of the debate... finally.

What is salvation? When does it happen?

You mention Oneness theology. I don't subscribe to any theology so throw away whatever perceived rulebook you have and don't make those assumptions. I don't follow a man, religion or theology.

I have constantly been saying we must be baptized. That's it. And in your victory lap, what did you say...

Should believers be baptized?? Sure.

And that's a quote... from you.

Baptism issue is settled. We both agree we need to do it. If we don't need to do it for salvation then let me know why we need to do it. Let's discuss salvation to wrap that up. Please answer the 4 questions I presented in my previous post and we can knock that out quickly.

Then we can discuss how we are to be baptized which will lead us directly into 1 god or 3 gods.

I debate in peace.

Acts 2:38 - just do it
 

GaryV

Team Owner
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
6,499
Reaction score
Reactions
13,730 3
13,727
Alleybux
60
Good grief............all THAT simply to avoid the question?? Why not simply be a man and face Scripture. Let's make this simple rather than writing competing books.

You dispute the 120?? Fine. We don't need them. Not in the slightest, because Scripture PLAINLY states, as you admit, that the Apostles AT LEAST were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit, Saved, and spoke in tongues WITHOUT being baptized in Jesus' Name.

That is simple fact. That ALONE destroys your entire premise that one must FIRST be baptized to be saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. We're done at this point without another witness. But we DO have another.

In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household ALL began speaking in tongues (which is impossible without the Holy Spirit) AND were Saved (which is required before receiving the Holy Spirit) WITHOUT baptism.

EVEN YOU ADMIT that they were only baptized AFTER ALREADY being both saved AND filled with the Spirit. Your former post is simply a rather lame and error-filled attempt to try to obfuscate the fact that Scripture makes it crystal clear that both Salvation and the indwelling Spirit are given BEFORE BAPTISM, which YOU claim is impossible.

If they were baptized AFTER, then it wasn't required for Salvation BEFORE. See how simple it is when you're not trying to shovel dung over your errors??

Game. Set. Match.

You claim that ALL you say is that baptism is required before Salvation......well, these verses find you in error.

UNLESS...........you are willing now to claim that God gives the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Spirit to the unsaved? Does God do that?? How?? Can you verify that with Scripture??

Scripture would require 2 or 3 witnesses (as I have provided to substantiate my position) which tell us that God gives the Holy Spirit and tongues to the unsaved. Because in order to hold your position, you yourself admit you must have this.

No more of this "it's a mystery" crap every time Scripture contradicts you,please. You wouldn't accept that from anyone as a valid argument, and I'm sure not going to either.

Oh, and BTW........I said Christians SHOULD be baptized , not that they MUST be baptized to be saved. Notice that CHRISTIANS should be baptized, which clearly states that one is a Christian BEFORE BAPTISM, not AFTER.
 

Similar Threads

News Alley

The Lounge

General Alley

Top Bottom