Search results

Matthew 28:19-20 Mark 16:15-16 John 3:5 Acts 2:38 Romans 6:3-5 1 Cor 1:13 Gal 3:27 Col 2:12-13 1 Pet 3:21 The above verses, plus others I could have included, when all taken at face value and in context teach the necessity of water baptism. It is those who have allowed themselves to be...

Hello, Baptists do not teach the truth on water baptism. From a post I made in another thread...there is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian for water baptism is how Christians/disciples are made per the great commission of Matt 28:19-20. Even Baptist Greek scholar AT Robertson admits...

I reject the ideas you made up out of thin air. The BIble still teaches the necessity of water baptism every time I read it.

Gill is a Calvinist and reads Calvinism INTO contexts. As I posted in another thread, proper interpretaion REQUIRES a word be accepted at its literal face value unless something in the context proves the word to be used in some figurative sense. There is NOTHING, NOT ONE THING in the context...

I posted that Rom 1 and 2 Paul concluded that all, Jew and Gentile, are under sin and those under sin are in need of justification. And Paul spends the first half of Rom 3 showing the OT law could not justify for it requires perfect flawless law keeping. Then Paul spends the last half of Rom 3...

You are NOT taking into account Heb 9:15-17 which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the thief to be an example of NT gospel salvation. Rom 10:9 is a NT requirement that the theif could not do along with Rom 6:3-6 since Christ had not died nor resurrected from the dead at the time the thief was promised...

No. Where does the Bible definitively state the thief was never baptized? It does not!!! Therefore the "thief argument" against the necessaity of water baptism fails, one reason it fails is it is based upon the ASSUMPTION the theif was never baptized. I don't believe in the idea of...

This makes no sense. You are making things up out of thin air. Everything you posted above has no Biblical basis whatsoever. You do not give one book, chapter or verse to back up anything you posted. The fact God is a Spirit does not negate in anyway the necessity of water baptism. You...

The phrase "born of water" is a reference to water baptism and that is how it was understood for centuries until perverters as John Calvin came along. "To what does the word “water” refer in John 3:5? For many centuries following the apostolic age, there was no controversy concerning the...

Hi, It's true that one cannot have faith in God without works and be saved, that means salvation is not by faith only but by faith AND obedient works. Faith is dead if it is void of obedient works in doing God's will, James 2. Faith is a work, it's an obedient work (Jn 6:27; Mark 2:1-5...

Matt 28 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. How are...

The fact water baptism is commanded is found in the Bible and the fact water baptism saves is found in the BIble and these facts are not negated with God being a Spirit. All that is happening here is you are avoiding the fact that man has a role in the new birth and is not completely passive...

You are avoiding Heb 9:16-17, Rom 3:3-6; Rom 10:9 that prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for the thief to be an example of NT salvation. Eggs and chickens have nothing to do with the issue of the thief not being under the NT law.

Romans chapter 1 Paul proves the Gentiles are sinners. Romans chapter 2 Paul proves the Jews are sinners and therfore concludes that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin. In proving that all have sinned there would be no better place for Paul to say all are born sinners than in the...

Eggs and chickens have nothing to do with the fact the thief is not an example of NT salvation. The real point here is the thief CANNOT be used to prove that water baptism is not necessary in being saved for he was not under the NT therefore not ameanable to Acts 2:38. Those that deny the...

Matt 9:6 shows Christ had been given power/authority to forgive sins while He was on earth.

What's in Genesis has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is if the thief is an example of NT salvation and Heb 9:16-17; Rom 3:3-6; Rom 10:9 prove he was not therefore not ameanable to Acts 2:38 as we today are who do live under the NT.

Those Jews belief came by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17) by Peter preaching it to them. Their belief was not something that was miraculously, unconditionally given them by God separate from their hearing the word of God. If the only way one can have faith is by GOd giving it, then GOd...

Abel was righteous by an obedient faith and not by perfect flawless law keeping. Therefore when Paul says 'none are righteous" he must be using 'righteous' in the absolute sense in that none of the Jews were able to keep the law sinlessly perfect therefore none were righteous according to that...

What Paul is writing in Romans 3 is to the Jews. From Rom 3:1-2 the Jews had been given the OT law which was an advantage to them over the Gentiles, yet that OT law could not justify the Jew because for to be justified by that OT law, that law required the Jew to keep all of it perfectly...