J4 we'll get to your defence later. There are two issues, your wacky views, your dishonest ways. I'll address the challenge for proof, then back to your dishonesty.
We'll get to that John/uk
Back to J4's challenge for proof
Point #6 J4 admits they weren't told how
Proof 10/26/13 12:11 page16
UPS ASKED What verse do you see the Lord teaching his disciples that they would baptize people with the Holy Spirit?
J4 responded There are none. Just as there are none of Him teaching them to baptize in water either.
I can't tell you how much of a big deal J4 made over this point against water baptism, yet here he is admitting -
For point 4 (Jn3:22/23)
J4's theology had, when Jesus found out the disciples were baptising, He pouted and left town. But J4 was corrected, so J4 had an epiphany & left town.
10/4/13 9:14pm page17 What did Jesus have to say about baptism in those verses? That's right! Nothing. For another thing, it clearly says Jesus baptized not, but His disciples
10/5/13 4:25am page17 There is never a case in scripture where Jesus either baptized people in water directly or commanded for it to be done. When He hears what his disciples are doing He departs to Samaria
J4 My issue was not to "debate" our interpretations on baptism. We will, in time! Your interpretations are wacky and will come out as we go along anyways. But for now, i am not primarily debating your view. You can even change your view.
My issue with you is that you are dishonest. You will decieve and twist when you need to, to get your kooky beliefs accross.
You asked for proof. For what? To imply that you hadn't said it? Then go on to prove each one biblical?
Here it is- There's a difference between "recall" & "realize". One is memory/rememfrance & other is to be aware that it took place.
To work your baptism of Holy Spirit into 1Cor1:16, you had to state that Paul did not always REALIZE he was baptizing.
No matter. You said something, take your pick!
CV wrote -
9) Mat28 wasn't for all Christians anyways. Not even for Paul. 10) 'Though Paul did baptise. 11) Sometimes he didn't even know he was doing it.
J4 challenges me to show where he said it, (& then defends it also!) -
10) Paul did baptize. You do understand that, right? 11) Paul didn't recall if he had baptized anyone else.
1ST proof 8/28/13 5:51AM page20 2) I don't believe it strange of Paul to say because he may not have known if someone was baptized without him realizing it.
LIdough wrote: Mohler said this just the other day that the churches lack of doctrine in these two areas alone has enabled other sins such as same sex marriage. Later this year the SBC is hosting a marriage conference to finally nail down their divorce and remarriage doctrines.
After we re-arrange the chairs on the Titanic, we shouldn't allow queers and gays on the promenade deck. Only the Evanjellyfishes should be allowd to waltz around RE-defining marriage.
How dare the queers? OH the nerv! Only Christians should be allowed to change the bible
(SteveR doe's stand up for the Roman Catholics. And unfortunatelly, the Roman Catholism as well. Sometimes we swing too wildly at both.)
UPS wrote: "You still have to give him credit for being civil in his discussion of the matter"
If it was just a matter of a different view, you would have had a point. Every view under the sun has made it's rouns before.
My beef is the dishonest way this scammer works.
Look at this, he's called for date/time to give the appearance that he's caught me out - called for proof! Why call for it if he knows what I posted is true? Because he want's to look good here and knows that later it will be forgotten!
We're not arguing bible interpretations, he's good at that game. We're laying out what he said. His posts are on record. Not much wriggle room here.
He called me to prove. Then he went on to explain rather then onject to what I said. In all that, the best escape hole he found was that he was "corrected". Actually, he was stumped and left town for a while.
Now UPS, I'll provide the proof.
He hasn't objected to what i have said. He can't. He will give more tripe to smooth it over.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) Okay, let's see the date and time.
John for JESUS wrote: John's baptism in water is in the past (John "baptized" in the past tense)
I want to show what a crackpot you are. I will get to baptism later. But first, I want to show the dishonest way you arrive at your theology. I will be referencing your very own posts, but because of space, I'll leave out the date/time unless you ask
Before we leave baptism - This crackpot believes that there's no water baptism - 'John baptIZED' is in the past tense. Not that just us Christians got it wrong, but the apostles too. In fact, when Jesus was with the apostles & found out that they were baptising back then, He ditched them & left town.
J4 says in Mat28:16, Jesus said to baptise with the Holy Spirit, not water. J4 admits they weren't told how. They laid hands but they stopped, also thru preaching. But nobody baptises now. God does it now. Mat28 wasn't for all Christians anyways. Not even for Paul. 'Though Paul did baptise. Sometimes he didn't even know he was doing it.
J4 your theology has to takes some pretty stupid hops at critical junctures to make it work. But you're good at lying and smoothing it over. This is what we will look at
ACTS 10 "27Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: â€śYou are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean." Then Peter began to speak: â€śI now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation.. 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The Jewish believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 47Peter said,â€śSurely no one can stand in the way of their being BAPTIZED WITH WATER. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.â€ť
GSTexas In Acts11:16-17 Peter recalls our Lords promise of the Holy Spirit. but the gentiles too recieve the Holy Spirit. Read V:17
Acts 11:17 "If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?â€ť
Acts 11:16 is NOT an admission of error by Peter. It is recollection of Jesus's promise.
J4 loves these twisted games. Stick around J4, you'll soon shed the woolies & be howling again. stay
John for JESUS wrote: 3) Faith doesn't bring knowledge about baptism,God's Word does
No dodo In the Calv'st position, it's regeneration before faith. Faith is a gift.
But your man of fath already has knowledge of baptism. His faith came about as a result of a lot of work. He has had the gospel preached. He was enlightened and armed with knowledge before he 'freely chose' to have faith.
So quit making stupid points to trip people. You know what T.R meant. And drop that 'faith is not works.' We'll dispose that in time too.
What would you say about a kid whose got his face and hand stuffed with cookies and the other hand in the jar, all the while denying taking any? And what of an adult over more serious matters?
Your positions are built on a method. You start with a lie that you know will take some finessing to draw out. Buys you time until caught. Then you're forced to make an admission. But then right back to it. So why the admission then?
You strength is to to draw something out long with clever twists so nothing can be pinned. Your best is to be able to go back to hold a lie with a 'straight face' after you've been caught. You are a phethetic deciever. This last we'll look at. Then we'll debate baptism and your sinless man.
John for JESUS wrote: 1) Jesus was baptized with John's baptism to fulfill ..God's command for Israel to be baptized
J4 Before we deal with your nonsense against water baptism..
Re: Gov. Perry' s water baptism, His politics not withstanding, for I am clueless on current American politics, but good on Gov. Perry for acting on his faith. Who cares what you or the Reformers think on baptism. We only care what Jesus calls for. And He calls for WATER BAPTISM(immersion).
You do not need a truckload of theology or to flog yourself in repentance. A simple realisation of your need for a saviour sufficeth. Like the Ethiopian eunuch, God creates in us a desire to seek Him in truth. Our knowledge and understanding grows out our desire for Gods simple truth.
What I detest is wolves like you that have no spiritual pulse but use intellectual prowess to erect contrary doctrines that are an obstacle and upset people's faith.
You are so egotistical. You stand contrary to every single historical Christian essentials just so you can stand out. To believe what you believe, everyone will have to submit verses only to you for parsing
John for JESUS wrote: He isn't going to be in better standing with God for having taken an extra bath that day. If he is truly saved, baptism occurred at the moment of faith once and for all by the Holy Spirit. There is no need for an extra ceremony.
Our Lord was baptised, (I know it was a mystical Jewish ritual right), and He commissioned us to do water baptism.
But if it's a bath, you could use it the most. Along with rest of your stinking theology, don't you believe that Adams sin was not reckoned to us?
Why, you were born sinless just like Christ. And it was quite a horse race until you blew it. Just think, had your homemade Arminian will not failed you there, I would have been praying to you today. Up to that very point, you were sinless and immortal, but you became a slave to your free will, and fell.
On the issue of water baptism, you were slithering around with no hole to escape into - the last time we engaged.
Not that I am always on topic, but on the RC bashing we do, nobody thinks that there aren't people within RC that love Jesus or that they are less beloved of our Lord. But all that seek Him find their way out of Rome, as they would out of Hinduism.
These are loved by my Lord. The difference between you and most of us here is that we recognise Rome for the phoney monster that it is. And you present a ready defence for that Harlot.
In all our duels, it's Rome that I despise, not the Roman Catholics that Jesus came for and is coming again for.
Don't forget the free will of the mentally retarded or those in a vegetative state. The Arminian position, unless it is willing to concede that this group of people get a free pass which would make them some sort of 'elect', would have to accept that they too have the full capacity to respond. Even babies too. Possible I suppose.
Armins say that we are not robots. God does not force anyone. Man is free to make a decision. I can never understand how then some Armins believe in perseverance. At least those who believe in losing your salvation are consistent to maintain their freedom to choose. Armins who say they cannot lose their salvation are half baked. Is mans will the guarantor that it will never fail God again? Nope! Armins rely on Calvinism to bail them out here. God so worketh that man is irresistible drawn to him, removing the 'choice' to fail --something for which they opposed Calvinism for. Ultimately, all Armins are good Calvinists when they get to heaven, Robots forced against their will. There wil be NO FREE WILL CHOICE to fail again.
Jim Lincoln wrote: By the way, I hope by now everyone has by now agreed that "Easter,:" is a pagan, Catholic term? Have a good Resurrection Sunday!
happy Passover, I think Resurrection Week and Passover coincide this year. The reason they don't every year is because of Romish/Orthodox Church.
For what it's worth Jim, I believe in a Wednesday crucifixion. I believe in literal 3 days/nights. But it's hard to fight tradition. This is Romes doing. Of Rome it is said in the bible that it shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws. 'Easter' is pagan as is Friday crucifixion
Jesus was crucified as the Passover lamb
'AFTER 3 days / nights'! If this is not literal, is Jonah also only a metaphorical preachers story? You have no leg to stand on when some Romie questions the Genesis account. For Rome accommodates millions of years of evolution.
When I addressed the divorce issue, I ran up against why the KJV, Luther and some perceived established church traditions couldn't all be wrong. Much like paedos.
Strat wrote: What I am saying is that God is God,he has told us he knows all things and has commanded us to do certain things,if you are asking me how to figure God out and reconcile it with what he commands us to do you will have to find a better man than me to do it.
There are mysteries indeed, for we have an infinite God.
But what you've bought into is man made. Free will, by definition, must allow man the sole and sovereign right to a decision.
Charles Taze Russell thought that the idea of hell made God look bad. So CT came up with his own theology & started a new cult - the JW's- with their re-write of the bible.
It is a dangerous thing to lean on mans own understanding to explain that which belongs in the hands of God alone.
From eternity past, God has always existed. In eternity past, before the foundations of the world, God made the plan and ordained the Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation and Resurrection, and the Salvation of His people - FOR HIS GLORY. We don't understand that fully. What we do understand fully is that God is absolutely just and loving, and that no wrong can be found in Him.
But the Arminian man is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He knows the secrets of the universe and without his rationale understanding and will, nobody goes to heaven or hell. Fischer says that what God ordained in eternity past gives him a bad image. So he writes a book to give the image a makeover, and restores the glory where it belongs - to the man. But Fischer's real claim to fame is that he dissed the 'C' word. Armin's are rushing to him because - he hates Calvinism.
Armin's don't want to admit being called Armin's. But they are all too eager to call the DOG Calvinism.
Strat wrote: You are presenting an unbalanced and therefore unchristian view of the matter and as is typical of a feminist/Christian/feminist you don't like being called on it....I can go find all kinds of things on the internet about lying conniving two timing females and I'm sure you would call me on that.....don't care if you engage or not it is the sorry state of the church today.
The real issue is submission. God calls men to spiritual headship. To be conformed to the image of Christ, to be more Christlike. It's the man that WILL NOT submit! Therein lies the problem.