Search results

Romans 6 and Colossians 2 are the same as Acts 2:38. Galatians 5 is similar. 1 Corinthians 12 is something different altogether. It is the same as Acts 2:4, 10:44 and all the occurrences of the laying on of hands of the apostles such as with Peter and John Acts 8:17, etc. The first group...

What do you think it is?

Well yes, that would be stupid, but I don't do that. And what is stupid is your thinking I do. Again, you can't read.

That is a big AMEN !!!

There is nothing wrong or improper about the double negative. It is used sometimes for emphasis. The problem with the double negative arises when someone uses it improperly and ends up actually saying just the opposite of what was intended. But you didn't know that did you. That only again...

It is offensive because you are trying to tell me what I said and in doing so, you lie. I didn't say what you claim I said. That is why I said it is stupid. I have not claimed you have said something you didn't. I have only disagreed with your terribly faulty soteriology. If you cannot handle...

The Bible cult.

First of all, there are none in hell yet. That comes after Jesus returns and all have stood before Bema, the judgment seat of Jesus. But that is probably best held for another topic discussion. Second, any who have died and have not been saved by grace through faith have not been saved because...

That you need an explanation for that perfectly good and valid double negative illustrates quite nicely how your soteriology has gone so far awry.

That is not only a stupid statement, it is terribly offensive. I don't make that claim. In fact, I claim just the opposite.

Well I guess you have shown that here in your questioning the NT gospel. There can be no question whatsoever, that Acts 2:38 speaks of baptism in water.

No one here has said we are saved by water. You are not any better at reading what is posted here than you are at reading the Bible.

Which of course says nothing about whether or not you can choose to no longer continue to believe. One does not lose his free will once he has been saved.

Says the one who denies the clear apostolic teaching of baptism in water. It is not up to you to either question the faith of another. Doing so, particularly when it comes only from disagreeing with your faulty understanding of scripture, is sheer egotism.

I have dug deeper and what I see is your Zwingliism.

Oh really, and what specifically did you see?

Perhaps it never occurred to Paul that you would think that baptism was anything other that water baptism. One baptism, in water, two results, namely, the forgiveness of sin and the receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Peter agree.

You are asking why God would place any requirements upon those He will save., Why did God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden and then tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of that tree? In the OT, what was the significance of killing animals? Why would God require...

You just have. No more than you.

You looked deeply into their eyes to see their very soul. That is rather hilarious.