Divisions

[BreadOfLife]

No church of Christ's was built via people arguing over the internet. Lots of negativity and nasty amongst people was created though.

So YOUR problem is NOT the arguing and debating - it's the internet.
That's another issue entirely . . .

 

[Waiting on him]

Out of WHO??

Her

 

[Waiting on him]

Acts 10:44-48 KJV
[44] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, [47] Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Tecarta BibleTake a close look at this and see what takes place as the word ofGod is spoken to these unregenerate hearts.

 

[brakelite]

Before the East-West Split in the 11th century – there was ONLY the Catholic Church.
Then, in the 16th century, Protestantism spawned the perpetual splintering of tens of thousands of disjointed sects ALL teaching different doctrines and

Your church's lies, and your agreement with them, is going to come back and bite you in the butt one day. Fact of history? Are you suggesting that the millions who belonged to churches in Britain before any Roman missionary thought of going there, were not Christians because they weren't Catholic? What of the church of the East with which Catholics had no contact... Tamerlane and his Islamist murderers thought they were Christian enough to decimate them. There was a Christian church throughout the Mongolian empires for centuries before the Jesuits arrived in the 18 th century.
What of the church in India? Ethiopia?
THEY WERE NOT CATHOLIC. NONE OF THEM. BUT THEY WERE VERY DEFINITELY CHRISTIAN...
As to your contention that one must accept the trinity before being classified as a Christian, I would ask, which version of the Trinity? And how much of man's embellishments to the various formulas and creeds must one accept before Bread of Life judges him a Christian? Should we all rejoice that BoL considers us a Christian? It is a good thing that we have such a merciful and gracious saviour such as bread of life to judge whether we are Christians or not.

 

[brakelite]

It has more than one meaning. You have chosen the ONE meaning that fits your theory: Strong's Greek: 907. βαπτίζω (baptizó) -- to dip, sink

You can't provide any evidence from Scripture that people were immersed ONLY. I don't have any evidence from Scripture that says dipping, making clean with water or sprinkling is how we MUST baptize.

As you know (at least I believe you do) the translation of the word has more than one meaning therefor you can only ASSUME that when it was translated they meant "immersion". On the flip side it also allows us to assume that they didn't mean immersion so we are at a stalemate on that point.

What evidence do you have that anyone in the 1st Century were ONLY immersed or submerged when getting baptized?


Maybe @Jane_Doe22 can help you out with this one

Bible Study Mary

Well Bible study Mary, the entire point of baptism is to die and be buried. See Romans 6. I have never heard of anyone dieing and being sprinkled with dirt and people in general finding such an acceptable practice.

 

[Waiting on him]

Her

Is Christ divided???

 

[BreadOfLife]

Her

Define "her", instead of being so cowardly cryptic.

 

[marksman]

WRONG.

Show me ONE example of a Baptism in Scripture that describes the person being fully immersed in the water.
Simply because immersion is the primary method or definition doesn't mean that there aren't secondary methods or definitions.
This is true for MANY words.

Take the word "Pray".
The primary definition of this word simply means "to ask" - to petition, to supplicate.
The SECONDARY definition is "worship" - yet Protestants use this as their PRIMARY definition.

To arrive at YOUR conclusions - we must dismiss ALL the linguistic nuances of Koine Greek.
Once again - I give you the First century document, The Didache. It was written in the SAME Koine Greek as the NT, yet it makes provisions for POURING over the head - yet STILL refers to it as "Baptism".

Whether or not your like The Didache is irrelevant. It is still an historical document that provides us with the linguistic nuances regarding Baptism.

RIGHT

 

[marksman]

And how silly of YOU to assume thar Scripture is our SOLE authority - when Scripture itself refutes this heresy (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18. Luke 10:16, Johyn 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Nothing silly about that when it says Your word is truth.

 

[Waiting on him]

Define "her", instead of being so cowardly cryptic.

Wich fruit of the spirit is this?

 

[amadeus]

Of course. I readily acknowledge this. I have a friend who is a Byzantine Rite Catholic and there's a lot I admire about her faith and traditions.

On this I'm going to disagree with you.
There are non-Catholics and non-Orthodox out there who back do at least one of follow 1) do not trace their theological roots to the Protestant Reformation, 2) do not hold to Sola Scriptura, and/or 3) do not hold to Sola Fide as taught by the Protestant reformers.

And then of course there are different sets of definitions. When two people here converse and some of their definitions of words used differ, there is likely to be some misunderstanding and confusion. Communication has been a problem for a long time:

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Gen 11:1

The whole earth at one with each other but NOT apparently with God even though they spoke of reaching heaven. Did they mean drawing closer to God or becoming their own gods?

"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Gen 11:4

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Gen 11:6-7

That was at Babel a place, as God understood it, of confusion!

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Gen 11:9

Should we suppose that Genesis 11 is a type of shadow of what people today sometimes call the Protestant Reformation?

 

[amadeus]

Of course there are.
However - we are talking about CHRISTIANS.

There are ONLY 3 types of Christians:
- Catholics
- Orthodox
- Protestants

ALL others are quasi-Christian sects - Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, etc.

A Christian by definition is a Trinitarian.
I didn't make up that rule - CHRIST did (Matt. 28:19).

Of course you are using Catholic definitions, which you already know differ at times from the definitions used by others.

 

[amadeus]

Only the people who attend “nondenominational” meetings call themselves that because they think it makes them better than all the “other” Christians who go to a Church.

Or perhaps some of them simply were not around during the Reformation known as Protestant and have made decisions or drawn conclusions or have had revealed by God a direction to go without even considering the reasons for that event or series of events in history. Why would be important to understand it correctly if we know Jesus?

 

[amadeus]

But God did show us in that His death was not partial but fully. As His resurrection was also not partial, but fully complete. Same as our death in Him is not partial; neither is our resurrection unto Life in Him partial.

Luke 12:49-50
[49] I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? [50] But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The focus is not John’s baptism but the one baptism that is shown in His death and resurrection...completely and fully.

Even so, not partially but fully. It relates, I believe, to what Apostle Paul wrote here:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

The baptism in water is one of those types of shadows of the real thing. Being sprinkled by water, rather than being immersed/submerged in water, is hardly an evil thing, but as seeing "through a glass darkly" it is an incomplete image of the final reality of that "face to face" image. Once we have been fully immersed in the Holy Spirit [if we really have] why would there be a need to go back and be sprinkled or even immersed in H2O? There are types and shadows throughout the OT to help us begin to see what would or could be ahead for us. Once, however, we see the real thing, why should we return to the type or the shadow found in the ritual at all?

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:24-26

 

[Waiting on him]

And then of course there are different sets of definitions. When two people here converse and some of their definitions of words used differ, there is likely to be some misunderstanding and confusion. Communication has been a problem for a long time:

"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Gen 11:1

The whole earth at one with each other but NOT apparently with God even though they spoke of reaching heaven. Did they mean drawing closer to God or becoming their own gods?

"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Gen 11:4

"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Gen 11:6-7

That was at Babel a place, as God understood it, of confusion!

"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." Gen 11:9

Should we suppose that Genesis 11 is a type of shadow of what people today sometimes call the Protestant Reformation?

Interesting, they built this tower in a valley. Possibly the valley of the shadow of death?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Even so, not partially but fully. It relates, I believe, to what Apostle Paul wrote here:

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

The baptism in water is one of those types of shadows of the real thing. Being sprinkled by water, rather than being immersed/submerged in water, is hardly an evil thing, but as seeing "through a glass darkly" it is an incomplete image of the final reality of that "face to face" image. Once we have been fully immersed in the Holy Spirit [if we really have] why would there be a need to go back and be sprinkled or even immersed in H2O? There are types and shadows throughout the OT to help us begin to see what would or could be ahead for us. Once, however, we see the real thing, why should we return to the type or the shadow found in the ritual at all?

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:24-26

No maybe you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say. It doesn’t matter if one is ‘dipped’ ‘sprinkled’ or ‘submerged’. We debated over something insignificant (imo). It is inwardly whether a person is fully submerged in His death and resurrection. Not partially for Christ but fully. That could happen anywhere at anytime. Nothing wrong that I see with the outward show to others but it is heart.

 

[BreadOfLife]

RIGHT

Soooooo, that's the entirety of your response?
Well - I guess the evidence is quite overwhelming . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course you are using Catholic definitions, which you already know differ at times from the definitions used by others.

ALL Christians believe in the Trinity.

The definition of "Christian" is not up for grabs.
The Christians in the NT who were first called "Christians" in Antioch (Acts 11:26) were Trinitarians.

So, by claiming these to be "Catholic" Traditions - you have just conceded that the NT Church was Catholic . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wich fruit of the spirit is this?

Which fruit of the Spirit causes one to be cryptic and unwilling to share the Gospel??

 

[Waiting on him]

Which fruit of the Spirit causes one to be cryptic and unwilling to share the Gospel??

I can’t help but notice that the image on your post of the man holding the biscuit, has dividing marks on it. Is your biscuit divided?