Search results

If you really think he is an apostate or heretic, I don't think you're allowed to either greet him or wish peace on him. Matthew 10 13If the house is worthy, see that your blessing of peace comes upon it. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace. 2 John 1 9[a]Anyone who goes...

What about when Paul mentions "having been buried with him in baptism" in Colossians 2 and "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death" in Romans 6? Is it possible he doesn't mean "baptism was the instrument" but "it was a figure reflective of what was spiritually going on"?

I really wish I understood this better. Jesus died for our sins. But if we don't put forth effort and live in a way that pleases God we won't be saved. Therefore, what difference does it make that Jesus forgives our sins if we don't obey--therefore, what difference does it make that He forgave...

There is a serious problem for the ones who hold to baptismal regeneration in Acts 10, though, because the Spirit fell on the Gentiles while Peter was preaching (which would be "justification by faith in Christ plus nothing"), and Galatians 3-4 teach that God only sends the Spirit into our...

I personally do not know much about baptismal regeneration but I am glad to hear what everyone thinks.

"Salvation by faith alone" ("saved" being un-Biblicallly defined as "definitely going to heaven") is often argued, based Romans 3:19 - Romans 5:1; what about Romans 14:23 which teaches that sin has the power to compromise justification (even if temporarily)? Romans 14 23But the one who doubts...

@Illuminator here is a link to my new thread on Baptismal Regeneration.

I would like to discuss Baptismal Regeneration here.

@Illuminator I haven't heard the arguments for and against "regenerative water baptism", but that idea appears frequently in Scripture, though it has a conspicuous exception/aberration in Acts 10. Maybe you can open a thread and link me to it so we can discuss that (though I'd prefer not to...

I read the article (I skipped the last part though--got sick of reading the sloppy material) and I still don't understand where you're coming from. What is this article supposed to indicate the word "water" (in John 3's "water and Spirit") means?

...not relevant : the point was the same principle applied in other cases not just the one. So, you agree "water" refers to "the Word of God", you just deny it's an exclusive definition (you think it also refers to water baptism). Interesting. THE DISCUSSION IS NOT "PROTESTANTISM VS CATHOLICISM".

I don't take John 3 "water and Spirit" as referring to "baptism", so this is not even relevant.

Weren't you the one who just argued "it's not one or the other it's both"? You said "recent man made tradition"--obviously a "Catholicism is right" statement. Everything you say has that slant to it. Leave that out of it. Just argue your position without raising that issue. That's not the topic.

I guess he's thinking, "The 'water' in 'water and Spirit' refers to 'baptism', so if anyone denies 'water' refers to 'literal water', they're saying 'baptism' can happen 'waterlessly'." LOL

He's not even in this conversation, he's stuck in "Protestantism versus Catholicism" mode.

Are you saying you agree the word "water" (in "water and Spirit") refers to "the Word"?

Please do not refer to "Protestantism" or "Catholicism", just present your argument for how to define "water" in the passage from texts everyone can agree upon. Stop trying to commandeer the thread.

No, because the discussion is just on John 3--the meaning of the word "water" there--not "waterless baptism", which is a "Protestantism versus Catholicism" issue.

I shared it in the initial reply which you responded to.

It's hard when we have these people literally on Rome's payroll (eg, BOL, possibly also Illuminator) here leading the conversation in that direction.