WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

[mjrhealth]

I have 24 trolls in my ignore bin.

Hope you feed them...

 

[Marymog]

And name calling....

The pot calling the kettle black??

 

[mjrhealth]

The pot calling the kettle black??

Oh you read my posts yipeeeee now all you need to do is seek teh truth Hes there waitng for you :)

 

[Marymog]

Oh you read my posts yipeeeee..now all you need to do is seek teh truth Hes there waitng for you . :)

Of course I do. That is how I know about your hypocrisy.

Would you like to join my NT Church so you can stop seeking for teh Truth?

 

[mjrhealth]

Of course I do. That is how I know about your hypocrisy.

Would you like to join my NT Church so you can stop seeking for teh Truth?

Jesus is teh truth you wont find Him in your church what has He to do with a Harlot, religion.

 

[Marymog]

Jesus is teh truth you wont find Him in your church what has He to do with a Harlot, religion.

Ummmm.....if Jesus is the truth why would I listen to anything you say?

 

[mjrhealth]

Ummmm.....if Jesus is the truth why would I listen to anything you say?

Oh thats right all I do is point men to Christ, but they wont listen to Him... Yes I know its a common problem in christianity and that is why so many will be left out.

 

[marksman]

It's a non sequitur fallacy. "faux" is a French word meaning fake. If the historic Church is fake, then theological parasites are more so. "Catholic" is not a noun, it is an adjective describing one of four divine characteristics. The only existing church in the 1st century was called "Catholic". That is a historical fact denied by uneducated anti-Catholics. Fact, not opinion, not doctrinal...fact. It makes some anti-Catholics go bonkers. Ignoring, dismissing or distorting the general consensus of the Early Church Fathers is censorship, but it doesn't always work.

Wrong. The New Testament Church was known as "The Way" and it was seen as a branch of judaism.

 

[marksman]

Well at least you see the truth if if you deny it / Him. And name calling such shows how deluded you are, No burning people at teh stake was banned.

I have a tendancy to burn my steaks.

 

[Truman]

I have never defended the sins of the few; I have never claimed the sex abuse crisis didn't happen. But you constantly pretend that nothing has been done about it, that your lily white NT churches have no pedophiles. That you wallow in filth cannot be denied.

Your obsession with sex abuse in the Catholic Church is just as perverse as sex abuse itself. You are a troll. Good bye.

I'd like to say here that it is more than my opinion that proof of an out-of-control, undealt-with, carnal, or sinful, nature is evident wherever the daily cross is not commonly practiced.
The problem with pointing fingers (and I'm guilty of it too) is that we are all sinners.
The teaching that sanctification is instant when we are justified has much to do with the proliferation of sin in the body of Christ, though the root issue is that our souls are cesspools of corruption.
Until this problem is scripturally addressed, we shall continue to be a haunt for jackals, unclean spirits, etc.
The good news is the furnace of affliction we've been enduring has prepared our hearts for purging by our trustworthy and faithful heavenly Father.
I have a word He has given me to share at this time:

"Seek a reason to unwind, in this season you will find,
Give to others and it will seem, that you are living in a dream.

While you're down there on your knees, I will listen to your pleas.
When you go, I'll be with you, so others will be made brand-new.

Seek the Lord with all your heart, and I will bless you from the start.
Just before you pass away, I will save you from the grave."

 

[mjrhealth]

I have a tendancy to burn my steaks.

Always do on the BBQ

 

[Curtis]

I decided that I do want to be part of a New Testament church, so I started to build a time machine to take me back to the First Century so I could be there to be a First Century Christian. Trouble is though, I would be taking my life into my hands because Christians are being persecuted and killed back then. However, I need an essential component to make the machine work - A particle displacement activator modulation discriminator. I became flummoxed because one hasn't been invented yet, and to get one I would have to go forward in time to obtain one. But that is out of the question because I actually need one to make my machine work. So, I guess I have to give that project up, and be content with the church I am currently attending...

You just need a Delorean and a flux capacitor.

 

[Curtis]

That sounds very much like to me that repentance and baptism were part and parcel of the same thing. It does not say "Repent, and be bapitsed if you feel like it." NO, if the listeners wanted their sins remitted they had to repent and be baptised. To separate the two is to separate the truth.

Except the thief on the cross made it to paradise sans water baptism.

And in Acts 10, Peter was preaching to a crowd, heard them speak in tongues, and said, can anyone forbid water for those who have received the Holy Spirit, as we did?

Since God doesn’t give the Holy Spirit to the unsaved, it’s obvious they came to have faith listening to Peter preached, and were saved.

Thus in Acts 10 they were saved and then water baptized.

You have to examine all scripture on a topic, not just selective portions, and when you do that regarding salvation, you find scriptures showing repentance for forgiveness of sins, absent water baptism - making it obvious that it’s the repentance that results in sin forgiveness, and not the water baptism.

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

Note that Paul said he was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It seems obvious that if water baptism was for salvation, it would be included in preaching the gospel, and Paul would therefore have been sent by Christ to do both.

 

[marksman]

Except the thief on the cross made it to paradise sans water baptism.

And in Acts 10, Peter was preaching to a crowd, heard them speak in tongues, and said, can anyone forbid water for those who have received the Holy Spirit, as we did?

Since God doesn’t give the Holy Spirit to the unsaved, it’s obvious they came to have faith listening to Peter preached, and were saved.

Thus in Acts 10 they were saved and then water baptized.

You have to examine all scripture on a topic, not just selective portions, and when you do that regarding salvation, you find scriptures showing repentance for forgiveness of sins, absent water baptism - making it obvious that it’s the repentance that results in sin forgiveness, and not the water baptism.

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

Note that Paul said he was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It seems obvious that if water baptism was for salvation, it would be included in preaching the gospel, and Paul would therefore have been sent by Christ to do both.

The thief on the cross is always trotted out by those who want to discount baptism for salvation. Only one flaw in doing that. You NEVER base a doctrine on one verse of scripture. NEVER.

And why did Paul say he wasn't sent to baptise? I have yet to see anyone who quotes that verse to give an adequate exegesis of it. They just pluck it out of thin air and say "There you are, that proves my point"when in fact it doesn't.

As for your last comment, it was included in the first sermon preached on the day of Pentecost. Repent and be BAPTISED for the remissioinn of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. What do people not understand about that?

 

[marksman]

Except the thief on the cross made it to paradise sans water baptism.

And in Acts 10, Peter was preaching to a crowd, heard them speak in tongues, and said, can anyone forbid water for those who have received the Holy Spirit, as we did?

Since God doesn’t give the Holy Spirit to the unsaved, it’s obvious they came to have faith listening to Peter preached, and were saved.

Thus in Acts 10 they were saved and then water baptized.

You have to examine all scripture on a topic, not just selective portions, and when you do that regarding salvation, you find scriptures showing repentance for forgiveness of sins, absent water baptism - making it obvious that it’s the repentance that results in sin forgiveness, and not the water baptism.

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

Note that Paul said he was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

It seems obvious that if water baptism was for salvation, it would be included in preaching the gospel, and Paul would therefore have been sent by Christ to do both.

As far as Acts 10 goes, it does not say that baptism is not neccesary. It is clear that their salvation came without baptism in water because of ignorance, so the first that happened was they were batised in water to ensure the complete experience of salvation. One way or the other they were going to baptised in water. If it wasn't done in the perfect order, it did not stop it being done.

As for your rather insulting comment that you have to examine all scriptures on the subject, being autistic, one of my traits is that I examine ALL scriptures pertaining to a topic before I will make any comment of any kind.

If I haven't done that, I will not enter a discussion as I am not interested in opinion. Mine or anyone else's.

 

[Brakelite]

The OT provides the example for the way to salvation. The sacrifice... The shedding of blood... Is but the first step as depicted in the sanctuary service. This took place "outside the gate"...
KJV Hebrews 13:12-13
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

However, this action by Jesus constituted our justification, even for all. But the blood needed to be taken into the sanctuary, and in type, the application of the blood to the horns of the altar, the holy place and the furniture within, constituted our sanctification... An essential component of our Salvation.
KJV 1 Timothy 4:5
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
... The word of God in type seen in the Bread of Life... The prayer in type seen in the altar of incense.
KJV Hebrews 10:10-12
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Yes, sanctified by the sacrifice... Sanctified by the whole process. From Calvary to the present ministry by our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Not one part was disposable.
Including the laver. The washing. After the sacrifice, but as essential to the process as any other component.
And every single indispensable component an act of God. On our part, belief and surrender. Trust. Faith. On God's part, everything else.

 

[Curtis]

The thief on the cross is always trotted out by those who want to discount baptism for salvation. Only one flaw in doing that. You NEVER base a doctrine on one verse of scripture. NEVER.

And why did Paul say he wasn't sent to baptise? I have yet to see anyone who quotes that verse to give an adequate exegesis of it. They just pluck it out of thin air and say "There you are, that proves my point"when in fact it doesn't.

As for your last comment, it was included in the first sermon preached on the day of Pentecost. Repent and be BAPTISED for the remissioinn of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. What do people not understand about that?

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

If water baptism is for salvation, instead of a symbolic rite, then Jesus was baptized for salvation by John the Baptist. And Johns baptism was for those who repented - so by that logic, Jesus was a sinner who was saved by repentance and baptism.

Other scriptures make clear that it’s the repentance and calling on the name of the lord that saves us, not the water baptism which accompanies faith and repentance.

Acts 3:19, repentance is what gets our sins forgiven, not repentance and water.

That takes care of the acts 2:38 proof text.

Repentance is what saves us, the water baptism that follows is symbolic of our inner washing and regeneration.

Acts 16 the jailer was told that belief is how to be saved, then was water baptized- he was not told that baptism that followed was part of being saved.

Paul was told:

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

That’s used to prove water baptism is part of salvation, but in Romans 10:13 we find that it’s the calling on the name of the lord that saves us, no water mentioned.

In fact Romans 10:8-13 is where Paul states what they, the apostles, teach on how to be saved, and
water baptism is missing in action as being part of salvation.

We are saved by believing in our heart and confessing with our mouth, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, FOR with the heart, we BELIEVE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the MOUTH confession is made UNTO SALVATION, and whosoever CALLS UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, SHALL BE SAVED.

No water required in Romans 10:8-13 where Paul iterates how to be saved.

And that’s what I mean when I say all scriptures must be considered on salvation.

When I do that, it’s clear that just because a few scriptures tack water baptism, which is a symbolic ritual that we’re indeed supposed to do, onto a statement about salvation - that doesn’t prove that the water baptism is for salvation - that’s because it’s a ritual for those saved by faith and repentance, and not part of how we get saved,

Shalom.

 

[Brakelite]

Water baptism is the symbolic washing of the flesh, that represents the inward washing of regeneration done by the Holy Spirit:

Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

If water baptism was truly necessary for salvation, it would be a work of righteousness - but the above verse says we are saved apart from works of righteousness, by internal washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit- not by outer washing of the flesh.

If water baptism is for salvation, instead of a symbolic rite of an outward washing that can be seen, representing the inward cleansing from repentance that can’t be seen, then Jesus was baptized for salvation by John the Baptist. And Johns baptism was for those who repented - so by that logic, Jesus was a sinner who was saved by repentance and baptism.

Other scriptures make clear that it’s the repentance and calling on the name of the lord that saves us, not the water baptism which accompanies faith and repentance.

Acts 3:19, repentance is what gets our sins forgiven, not repentance and water.

That takes care of the acts 2:38 proof text.

Repentance is what saves us, the water baptism that follows is symbolic of our inner washing and regeneration.

Acts 16 the jailer was told that belief is how to be saved, then was water baptized- he was not told that baptism that followed was part of being saved.

Paul was told:

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

That’s used to prove water baptism is part of salvation, but in Romans 10:13 we find that it’s the calling on the name of the lord that saves us, no water mentioned.

In fact Romans 10:8-13 is where Paul states what they, the apostles, teach on how to be saved, and
water baptism is missing in action as being part of salvation.

We are saved by believing in our heart and confessing with our mouth, that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, FOR with the heart, we BELIEVE UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the MOUTH confession is made UNTO REPENTANCE SALVATION, and whosoever CALLS UPON THE NAME OF TGE LORD, SHALL BE SAVED.

No water required.

And that’s what I mean when I say all scriptures must be considered on salvation.

When I do that, it’s clear that just because a few scriptures tack water baptism, which is a symbolic ritual that we’re indeed supposed to do, onto a statement about salvation - that doesn’t prove that the water baptism is for salvation - that’s because it’s a ritual for those saved by faith and repentance, and not part of how we get saved,

Shalom.

Scripture, aka God, says be baptized. I don't think you would suggest surely that obedience isn't necessary for Salvation?

 

[Curtis]

Scripture, aka God, says be baptized. I don't think you would suggest surely that obedience isn't necessary for Salvation?

See my post #597 for the answer.

Pay particular attention to Romans 10:8-13 where Paul says, THIS is what we apostles teach on HOW TO BE SAVED, and see if you find water baptism in it anywhere.

 

[Curtis]

Sanctified by the whole process. From Calvary to the present ministry by our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Not one part was disposable.
Including the laver. The washing. After the sacrifice, but as essential to the process as any other component.

The passages about Jesus our high priest and how He obtained salvation for us, say nothing about His washing with water in any way.