Search results

You have a wacky way of looking at things. I gave you the scriptures clearly showing John's baptism being of water and Jesus' baptism being with the Holy Spirit, which alone establishes the fact that water baptism remains only symbolic. I got that from the scriptures. According to you...I...

CLEARLY you are not taking into account Peter's clarification about water baptism, wherein he refers to what it means or symbolizes rather than the act itself. Indeed, we should do as Jesus said to do. But we should only do so with understanding...which is, that we understand that He "baptizes...

That is backwards. "My words are spirit" according to Christ. Returning, therefore, to the written word after receiving Him of whom the promises were written is akin to Israel preferring the law over Christ. What you are doing, is the very thing the Pharisees did. But I have warned you quite...

No, the church age has seen more miracles than the apostles saw. It is faith that has diminished, not gifts, and not miracles. Indeed, Paul even wrote of many returning to "the beggarly elements" after knowing God, but not fully receiving and embracing the Holy Spirit...for which I am now also...

1 Corinthians 14:3 comes within the context of "order in the church." It is not a stand alone definition of prophecy, but does constitute evidence of prophecy for the entire church age. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the role of prophets has changed, but simply that it should be orderly...

The symbolic water baptism does give a person a sense of commitment and also makes a public announcement. Yes, "according to Jesus" is correct. But it was first announced by John, which makes Jesus' fulfillment of it a matter of things foretold.

In the New Testament scriptures, regarding the Church.

But... That would make the first part of what you said...and Dave [wrong]. Or do you think Paul was wrong to insinuate that there would rightfully be prophets in the church? Or do you think he only meant that the entire New Testament was only for that generation...and then all bets were off...

Terrific. But that says nothing of the others included in God's many gifts and the multitudes involved in Him pouring out His spirit upon "all" flesh.

Water baptism was symbolic leading up to the coming of Christ (and still is symbolic). After Christ "saving" baptism is by Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (according to John the baptist). Before Christ being baptized in the Holy Spirit was not possible, only after and by Christ. Baptism...

That is a contradiction in terms...and apparently something you just made up. The gifts of the Spirit are many and to the whole body, not just those living among the apostles.

I was not saying a symbol washes away sin, just the opposite. That is the point, John baptized with water which was for Israel alone, of whom Christ was the Last. Now, and all others, must be baptized with the Holy Spirit, which is sent by Christ. So, the tradition has remained, but the type of...

You are going in circles, wavering. There is no "end" stated of the outpouring of the spirit of God upon all flesh (except when the door of the bridegroom is closed). Not by Paul, not by John, and not in the scriptures. You are adding it and cannot quote any passage of it.

I like it... But you are putting too much emphasis on water baptism. Not because one should not do it, but because it is the baptism of John and only symbolic of the baptism of Christ, which is of the Holy Spirit.

@Dave L Dave, You and I are not debating here. I am speaking to you as a brother...by the Holy Spirit. But you yourself have established that your position is based upon the book of Revelation, which places you under the curse therein for adding a limit that is not listed there. This is me...

Like I said before...No I do not have to prove anything. Because God Himself has already proven it Himself. But me quoting Him, saying "upon all flesh" rather than the limits you have placed on Him, you have not acknowledged.

None of that says (as you claim) that the gifts end. John simply warns those who might add or take away from that particular revelation. I say "that particular revelation", because you yourself are convinced that Paul and John are speaking of that same particular revelation. But it does not say...

That is just you talking again. Give exact scriptures, or you have no business claiming it. But, that is just me being kind. I know you cannot produce the scriptures...and really, you are just speaking against God's own word with your own dogma. :(

That is not what the scriptures say. You can't even quote anything to support your claim - that is just you talking your own dogma. On the contrary, I have given you the scriptural evidence proving what you say is not true.

No...I just gave you the scriptures (again for the upteenth time). "Pouring out His spirit upon all flesh" is scriptural and biblical, but your limited interpretation is not scriptural or biblical. You cannot even quote the scriptures. Instead of this tug-a-war of you making claims that do not...