BAPTISM

marksman said:

All very nice but I prefer to stick with what the bibles teaches which is baptism by immersion.

Click to expand...

Where does the Bible teach this??
Where does the Bible get into the different linguistic nuances of the word "Baptism"??

I eagerly await your response . . .

marksman said:

I never base a doctrine on the exception.

Click to expand...

Ezek. 36:25-27 is NOT an "exception". It is a PROPHECY about Baptism.
BIG difference . . .

In John 3, Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus who asked Him HOW a man is reborn.
Jesus answered him:
John 3:5
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the SPIRIT he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Here is the Prophecy from Ezekiel 36 . . .
Ezek. 36:25-27
I will sprinkle clean WATER on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new SPIRIT in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my SPIRIT in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Couldn't be ANY clearer - and it says NOTHING about immersion being the "only" method.
"Sprinkling" is what is spoken of here.

Better to not base doctrine on your opinions . . .

marksman said:

And where is your heart as the thief on the cross could not experience sprinkling let alone immersion, so did he go to hell if baptism can save you?

Click to expand...

I'm glad you asked.

I believe that baptism in water can be a point of contact (like the handkerchiefs that they took from Paul when he was working) for faith.

Now, obviously, there are scriptures that speak of salvation by faith, even apart from baptism. So I say that baptism is not necessary.

However, it is potent and capable, of accomplishing salvation in a man.

Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39 speaks of a conditional promise, given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The condition is repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth for the remission of sins;

The promise is the Holy Ghost.

Rom 8:30, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

There is something about the faith of the operation of God in the followng:

Col 2:11, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Col 2:12, Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13, And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14, Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Of course, here the picture is immersion; however the point is that it is faith in baptism as a point of contact that makes us risen with Christ.

It is a promise of scripture (in Ezekiel 36:25-27) that He will give us a new heart and a new spirit, and will cause us to walk in His statutes and in His judgments, when He has sprinkled clean water on us. Therefore sprinkling is not invalid. Of course immersion is better; as it is the picture that is given in so many New Testament passages, as:

Rom 6:1, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2, God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3, Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4, Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Walking in newness of life, therefore, is provided for through baptism in water. Is this not practical salvation?

Dave L said:

Do you believe that unless a person is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and speaks in tongues, they are not saved?

Click to expand...

you have asked me that before. so why again?

PICJAG.

101G said:

you have asked me that before. so why again?

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Because if I'm right about you, you do not think any are saved except those who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and Speak in tongues. Is this true?

Dave L said:

Because if I'm right about you, you do not think any are saved except those who were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and Speak in tongues. Is this true?

Click to expand...

find my response to your question... lol.. and see what I said...

PICJAG.

H. Richard said:

If that is what you believe its okay with me but I disagree. Peter did not know the Gentiles were included on the day of Pentecost. See Acts 10.

Some day you will realize that the writings in the 4 gospels, and some of Acts, is on covenant grounds and not grace. The covenants were only given to the nation of Israel (the Jews).

Click to expand...

first thanks for the reply, second GOD did, as clearly shown in Acts 10. so when Peter spoke in chapter 2 it was God speaking in him.

third, the covenant was "FIRST" preached in Jerusalem and onto all the world.

PICJAG.

101G said:

find my response to your question... lol.. and see what I said...

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

How about a straight answer? Must people be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and speak in tongues to be saved?

Dave L said:

How about a straight answer? Must people be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and speak in tongues to be saved?

Click to expand...

gave it, it's in one of these baptizing topic... (smile), you find it....

PICJAG.

101G said:

gave it, it's in one of these baptizing topic... (smile), you find it....

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Are you United Pentecostal? And believe baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

Dave L said:

Are you United Pentecostal? And believe baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation?

Click to expand...

LOL, LOL, LOL, I have told you that too, so go and find that answer also...

101G said:

LOL, LOL, LOL, I have told you that too, so go and find that answer also...

Click to expand...

How about posting it for all to read?

Enoch111 said:

So you are suggesting that the Gospels were only for the Jews, but that is incorrect. The Gospels were primarily for the Church, and secondarily for the whole world. Luke wrote his Gospel specifically for Theophilus (lover of God), who may have been a Gentile of high rank. And John makes it clear that he wrote his Gospel for the whole world.

The four Gospels present Christ in four aspects, which also correspond to the four faces of the Cherubim. The lion represents Christ as King (Matthew), the man represents Christ as fully human (Luke) , the ox represents Christ as the Servant of Jehovah (Mark), and the eagle represents Christ as God (John).

Click to expand...

I disagree. As I stated, my opinion is based on the fact that Peter did not know the Gentiles would be included according to Acts 10.

In my opinion, the 4 gospels are a history of what happened when Jesus came to give the Jews a promised kingdom on this earth. They were meant to show the Jews who Jesus is. There is nothing in them about a gospel of grace. Nor is there anything about being "IN CHRIST" as the body of Christ. Common sense tells me that what the 12 were trying to do was getting the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King.

My common sense also tells me that only Paul taught that faith in the work of Jesus, (His shed blood), that paid for man's sins on the cross will save a person, not law keeping. Jesus and the 12 never taught that trying to keep the Law of Moses does not save anyone.

But you can believe what ever you wish. I have said all I need to say and do not see that I can change your mind. so I do not see that any more writing on my part will accomplish anything other than give you a chance to post what you wish to post so go ahead and do it.

101G said:

first thanks for the reply, second GOD did, as clearly shown in Acts 10. so when Peter spoke in chapter 2 it was God speaking in him.

third, the covenant was "FIRST" preached in Jerusalem and onto all the world.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Very religious reply to get around the truth. So God was talking through Peter, Peter just wasn't listening, RIGHT?

H. Richard said:

Very religious reply to get around the truth. So God was talking through Peter, Peter just wasn't listening, RIGHT?

Click to expand...

ERROR, there is only one PREACHER in the church of God and that him, God. when Peter preached on Pentecost it was God in him who gave peter the words to speak. we as ambassadors for christ speak not our own mind but the mind of he who sends us.

understand something, Christ is the ONLY Pastor in his church, for Pastoring is a gift and not an office held by men. and it's not the men (male or female) who speaks, but Christ himself speakth through them.

understand us now?.

marksman said:

As I said, I don't base a doctrine on one verse of scripture and ignore every other verse n the topic.

Click to expand...

That's why I gave you TWO verses.

101G said:

ERROR, there is only one PREACHER in the church of God and that him, God. when Peter preached on Pentecost it was God in him who gave peter the words to speak. we as ambassadors for christ speak not our own mind but the mind of he who sends us.

understand something, Christ is the ONLY Pastor in his church, for Pastoring is a gift and not an office held by men. and it's not the men (male or female) who speaks, but Christ himself speakth through them.

understand us now?.

Click to expand...

Who is us?