Search results

God; My son, please understand the the name of the son is not son. Ferris, is that understood?

So, Paul ended Acts 2:38? Is that what Acts is all about?

God: Ferris, listen to Peter and get baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins. I set this up 2000 years ago. There is no other way.

Omitting the name(Jesus), that all words or deeds are commanded to be done in(including baptism per Acts 2:38), is not crazy? It is okay? Fooey on the name of Jesus? Jesus will say fooey on them.

No, I misquote what the anti-baptimalists THINK Jesus meant. They actually think Jesus meant Mark 16:16 backwards. Maybe he had a speech impediment?

No, PETER turned water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ into a command per salvation. My "sect" simply agrees with Peter. Your "sect" debunks Peter. Good thing you were not there at Pentecost debunking Peter, heh?

The name of the son(Jesus) is the point. I dare you to pray for healing or cast out devils in the titles.....

Mostly non denoms. That is the rave today. Even the Baptists say you are saved by a mere confession(before baptism). Then they baptize you INTO THE BAPTIST CHURCH. Anyone that teaches(token) "baptism after salvation" is buried alive.

On the contrary, Jesus never knew or knows the Acts skippers. They are not buried nor crucified with Christ. Jesus was speaking of them here... 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many...

Amen, sometimes the battle with our flesh has to get violent per resistance.

On the contrary, you and nearly everyone on this forum have skipped Acts. They teach that after exposing a sinner to the gospels, skip the Acts 2 experience and take the sinner directly to Romans 10(Epistle to saved saints). This is mass deception at an alarming rate.

Which proves that the old man is at war with the new man daily per Paul in Romans 7.

The HS was not given to vindicate one's beliefs, but to lead them to the truth of Acts 2:38 and remission of their sins. Anti-baptismalists only see the HS outpouring in Acts 10, hitting the power brakes, and ignoring the COMMAND of Peter to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as per Acts...

So Mark 16, Jesus says he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized?

Is this an admission that Christians have both flesh and spirit battling within them?

No, Peter turned water baptism into a legal binding document into the future covenant given to Israel. You can’t skip Acts 2:38.

You have a carnal flesh man and a spirit man....you have a carnal nature and a spiritually imparted divine nature attached to your spirit man.

No he was not talking about his old life. Romans 7 was present tense. How can you not see that?

Water itself does not redeem us, but water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ redeems us. There is a difference.

Are you a spirit?