Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[Illuminator]

There is no hostility towards you personally. I am only in strong disagreement with the RCC because of it’s dark practices.

Then have the courage to formulate "dark practices" into a question, word, or topic provided in the link in my signature. Citing the source, quote the "dark practices" and refute it with scripture. Then, I will consider your refutations, and respond back, using reason. That's called a discussion. Baseless off topic insults is not.

But your not really explaining how 1 John 2:27 does not mean what it says.
Please give me a word for word commentary and give me the context.

I already explained it. It doesn't mean any believer is a teacher, because "no man" can possibly originate divinely revealed truths. It's impossible.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/a150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/

When the Bible was completed, there was no more need for any new writings or teachings.

As the historic Church agrees, PUBLIC revelation ceased, it's not the same as PRIVATE revelation. Development of doctrine does not introduce new teachings. The Bible itself is a good example of development of doctrine, since it took over 3 centuries to come into full bloom. Sola scriptura and sola fide remains locked in 16th century politics, not divinely revealed but CONSTRUCTED, and cannot be classed as PUBLIC revelation. But that won't stop you from basing everything on a premise that isn't explicitly found in the Bible ANYWHERE.

There is no other separate line of so-called teachings (like oral traditions). Why would they do that? Oral traditions would just be be changed over time unless they written them down like Scripture. Oh wait. You guys did eventually write your traditions down but your claim that they were passed orally is just silly. No form of communication truly lasts well by that method.

That's because you adhere to a false definition of Tradition. Your false definition is a tradition in itself. The authority of Scripture itself is a Tradition. You won't put "Tradition" in the link provided in my signature because you might discover you've been LIED TO. In that sense, you display a fear of the truth.

This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:
1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to learn the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.
And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.
But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth.

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

I gave verses to defend what I believe the Bible plainly teaches. Why are you not helped out by that?
It’s because it does not agree with your oversized holy club. No offense of course. That’s just how I view it.

Your stupid baseless insults are offensive, you do it automatically without thinking. It fits a pattern. Your final list of 8 misrepresentations tells me a lot about where you got your information from. Your invisible teachers are so familiar it's getting boring.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then have the courage to formulate "dark practices" into a question, word, or topic provided in the link in my signature. Citing the source, quote the "dark practices" and refute it with scripture. Then, I will consider your refutations, and respond back, using reason. That's called a discussion. Baseless off topic insults is not.

I already explained it. It doesn't mean any believer is a teacher, because "no man" can possibly originate divinely revealed truths. It's impossible.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/misc/a150-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/

As the historic Church agrees, PUBLIC revelation ceased, it's not the same as PRIVATE revelation. Development of doctrine does not introduce new teachings. The Bible itself is a good example of development of doctrine, since it took over 3 centuries to come into full bloom. Sola scriptura and sola fide remains locked in 16th century politics, not divinely revealed but CONSTRUCTED, and cannot be classed as PUBLIC revelation. But that won't stop you from basing everything on a premise that isn't explicitly found in the Bible ANYWHERE.


That's because you adhere to a false definition of Tradition. Your false definition is a tradition in itself. The authority of Scripture itself is a Tradition. You won't put "Tradition" in the link provided in my signature because you might discover you've been LIED TO. In that sense, you display a fear of the truth.

This fear may be analyzed on three different levels:
1) that the truth would impose unwanted moral responsibilities on them;
2) that any association with the truth would occasion an air of pretentiousness;
3) that any claim to the truth might expose them to being wrong.

They prefer freedom from moral responsibility, absence of any “holier than thou” attitude and exemption from the possible embarrassment of being in error. Their fears, however, take them from the very light and meaning they long for, and plunge them into a dark void were they are trapped by a misery of their own making. Their flight from the truth is also an entrance into a world of gloom.

These three fears are ill fated, as well as ill founded. First of all, truth is our only avenue to real freedom. “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” John 8:32

Ignorance may at times be blissful, but it is never illuminating. St. Augustine once remarked that he had met many people who had been deceived, but never met anyone who wanted to be deceived.

We have a natural hunger for the truth of things. No one ever asks for the wrong time. It is always the “right” time and the truth about things we want to learn.

Untruth is not helpful, but truth is like a beacon that shows us the way. This is why the Pope titled his great encyclical on the freeing function of truth as Veritas Splendor (Truth’s Splendor).

When we are lost we want to learn the truth about our situation so that we can be liberated from our confusion. The truth makes us free; untruth binds us to bewilderment. The truth about ourselves awakens us to our moral responsibilities, but we need this awakening in order to become whom we truly are, to advance toward our destiny, to build a meaningful life.

We should welcome the truth that illuminates our moral responsibilities with the same enthusiasm that a person who is lost in the woods and welcomes a compass and a map.

Secondly, the fear that any discovery of truth would make us pretentious is also counterproductive. Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.
And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

Thirdly, there is the rather spineless fear that in perusing the truth, we might fall into the embarrassing predicament of being wrong. Again, there is nothing wrong that can reasonably justify this anxiety. We all make mistakes. Not to try something for fear of making a mistake is akin to a paralyzing neurosis that would discourage one from trying anything.

Some people avoid marriage because they fear divorce. Others avoid friendship because they fear rejection. The pursuit of truth presupposes a certain amount of courage. If nothing is ventured, as the maxim goes, nothing is gained.

The fact that truth is indispensable for a meaningful life does not mean that it is always agreeable. Mounting the bathroom scale can be a breathless ascent, because the anxious weight-watcher knows that this simple piece of machinery tells the truth.
But he disconcerting truth that one is overweight may be exactly what one needs if exercising and dieting are to follow. The freedom that health offers may need to be preceded by the disagreeable truth that one is too fat.

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth.

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

Your stupid baseless insults are offensive, you do it automatically without thinking. It fits a pattern. Your final list of 8 misrepresentations tells me a lot about where you got your information from. Your invisible teachers are so familiar it's getting boring.

Nothing in here about baptism. Looks like you want to talk about something else besides the baptism issue involving Scripture.

Have a great day, and may God bless you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Most translations say "...water with the word". You make a separation, I make a unity.

In Ephesians 5:26: If we were to look at the different translations that say, “the washing of water with the word” (ESV) (NASB) (LSB) (AMP) (ASV) and we compare it with the King James Bible that says, “the washing of water by the word,” (KJB), we learn that they are saying the same thing. There is no difference in meaning here as you suggest. It reads the same way.

The point here that you are ignoring is that the Word (Scripture) is compared to water.
In fact, I made several parallels between the Communicated Word and water in the Bible.
Did you miss this?

Ephesians 5:25-27 does not cancel out wet, physical water.

Nowhere did I say that water baptism is not later required as a part of the faith.
Again, you see water baptism as the initial point of contact of saving faith.
I see the Scriptures teach how we are saved first by believing the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) (Acts 10:34-48) (Romans 4) (Romans 11:6). The second step is God having chosen us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (Which is a call of the gospel - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

You are adding to the Bible what isn't there, by trying to have a waterless baptism, which is stupid and absurd. A waterless baptism is a recent invention, less than 10 years old. Jesus in John 3:5 did not say, "Unless a man be born of the word of God and the spirit...", you are trying to correct Jesus and make a fool of yourself.

Well, first, I gave you Scripture proving that there are three kinds of spiritual baptisms.
You’re denying such truths in Scripture does not make them magically go away. If you disagree with my interpretation on those verses, then the burden of proof is on you to prove they say something else. But you didn’t bother to do that.

Second, the proof that one is born of water = being born of God’s Word (like Scripture) is by Peter himself.
If you were to read 1 Peter 1:23-25, and 1 Peter 2:2 It is unmistakable that the incorruptible seed we are born again by is Scripture or the Communicated Word of God.

Scrolls of Scripture were written on either vellum (flesh/animal skins) or papyri (reeds, i.e., grass). In the Old Testament: The Israelite scribes knew they had to keep making copies to preserve God’s words because the scrolls of the Scriptures they had would get old and decay and perish. So the flesh of the animal skins and the grass used to write Scripture would eventually pass away. Peter says, “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever…” (1 Peter 1:24-25). So even though old copies would die out, new ones would replace them, preserving the words of the Lord forever. So the context here is the words of the Lord. This is the seed by which we are born again by.

For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

Now you contradict yourself. Water is always used in baptism or its not baptism. Above, you claim water is secondary or invisible to baptism. You don't make sense.

So you are saying that Luke 12:50 is a reference to water baptism?

Jesus said, “But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:50).

You keep emphasizing "Word of God". It appears 54 times in the KJV.

49 times according to Pure King James Search.

King James Pure Bible Search WebChannel Server

webchannel.purebiblesearch.com

I can't find any usage of the phrase, to mean the written word of God alone. It always refers to the spoken word of God. Maybe if you look hard enough, you might find ONE. But you won't do that because it requires reading something that conflicts with your agenda.

Mark 10:17, and John 10:35 are clearly talking about the Written Word.
The point is that when Revelation closed, we are not to add any new words (Unless we want the plagues to be added unto us).
Spoken words of God would not be kept preserved unless they were written down, and clearly the written Word of God (Scripture) would be preserved for us today. The chances of audible spoken words of God being preserved through time is a lot less likely unless they were written down (Which would then be Scripture). To defend the idea of some kind of oral only tradition is silly. Such a thing could not accurately survive through time until today.

We would not know about the faith if it wasn’t for the Bible.
The Bible is where we get our faith from.
Jesus quoted Scripture many times and He even quoted the Scriptures to defeat the devil.

Anyways, we know about baptism because of the Holy Bible.
This is where we must derive our understanding on baptism, and not some group of men (wearing holy garments).

 

[Illuminator]

In Ephesians 5:26: If we were to look at the different translations that say, “the washing of water with the word” (ESV) (NASB) (LSB) (AMP) (ASV) and we compare it with the King James Bible that says, “the washing of water by the word,” (KJB), we learn that they are saying the same thing. There is no difference in meaning here as you suggest. It reads the same way.

The point here that you are ignoring is that the Word (Scripture) is compared to water.
In fact, I made several parallels between the Communicated Word and water in the Bible.
Did you miss this?

Jesus never compares water with the word. John 3:5 is not a comparison, not either/or. You keep missing it.

Nowhere did I say that water baptism is not later required as a part of the faith.
Again, you see water baptism as the initial point of contact of saving faith.

"saving faith" is not in the Bible. We agree that without faith, we cannot please God, but "saving faith" is putting the cart before the horse. I see water baptism as a sacrament, a visible sign of inward grace, a sacrament of initiation. If you think about it, so does every body else who baptizes with proper form and intent. The Apostles were given proper form in Matthew 28:19. That's what "liturgical form" means. Acts 2:38 does not give proper form. Peter is just saying we must be baptized, he was not baptizing anyone when he said that. Furthermore, why would Peter disobey Matthew 28:19 by altering the instructions given by Jesus Himself???

I see the Scriptures teach how we are saved first by believing the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) (Acts 10:34-48) (Romans 4) (Romans 11:6). The second step is God having chosen us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (Which is a call of the gospel - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

OK. Why does Paul say, "our gospel" in verse 14, not "my gospel? Who is "our"???

Well, first, I gave you Scripture proving that there are three kinds of spiritual baptisms.
You’re denying such truths in Scripture does not make them magically go away. If you disagree with my interpretation on those verses, then the burden of proof is on you to prove they say something else. But you didn’t bother to do that.

Post # please. We past 987 posts so I'm not going to search through this torrent of a thread to find another one of your errors.
Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. not three.

Second, the proof that one is born of water = being born of God’s Word (like Scripture) is by Peter himself.
If you were to read 1 Peter 1:23-25, and 1 Peter 2:2 It is unmistakable that the incorruptible seed we are born again by is Scripture or the Communicated Word of God.

1 Peter 1:23-25 doesn't say we are born again by scripture alone. Scripture or the Communicated Word of God in its entirety INCLUDES water for baptism. Water and spirit are never separated in scripture. Do you reject the Nicene Creed too???

Scrolls of Scripture were written on either vellum (flesh/animal skins) or papyri (reeds, i.e., grass). In the Old Testament: The Israelite scribes knew they had to keep making copies to preserve God’s words because the scrolls of the Scriptures they had would get old and decay and perish. So the flesh of the animal skins and the grass used to write Scripture would eventually pass away. Peter says, “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever…” (1 Peter 1:24-25). So even though old copies would die out, new ones would replace them, preserving the words of the Lord forever. So the context here is the words of the Lord. This is the seed by which we are born again by.

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever CANNOT MEAN TEXT ALONE!!!

For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

I totally agree. We have been hearing the written word in public liturgy long before the printing press was invented; long before 97% of the population couldn't read.

So you are saying that Luke 12:50 is a reference to water baptism?

Jesus said, “But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:50).

No, because water baptism represents the baptism Jesus speaks of: death and resurrection.

Mark 10:17, and John 10:35 are clearly talking about the Written Word.

So what. We don't deny the material sufficiency of scripture.

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position) and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things -- Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium -- are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.​

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/sola-scriptura/material-vs-formal-sufficiency-of-scripture-by-mark-shea/

The point is that when Revelation closed, we are not to add any new words (Unless we want the plagues to be added unto us).
Spoken words of God would not be kept preserved unless they were written down, and clearly the written Word of God (Scripture) would be preserved for us today. The chances of audible spoken words of God being preserved through time is a lot less likely unless they were written down (Which would then be Scripture). To defend the idea of some kind of oral only tradition is silly. Such a thing could not accurately survive through time until today.

Already addressed. "word of God" is not used to refer to the written word alone.

We would not know about the faith if it wasn’t for the Bible.
The Bible is where we get our faith from.
Jesus quoted Scripture many times and He even quoted the Scriptures to defeat the devil.

Anyways, we know about baptism because of the Holy Bible.
This is where we must derive our understanding on baptism, and not some group of men (wearing holy garments).

You have it backwards. What you are saying here is the church is the fruit if the Bible, it's the other way around.

​

 

[CadyandZoe]

You might be interested in "A New New Testament, a Bible for the Twenty-First Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Texts". It is available in paperback and on Kindle (and perhaps elsewhere). It contains "books" that are not in the standard canon, but are relevant to understand the beliefs and practices of the early Christ people.

Another book of interest is "After Jesus Before Christianity: A Historical Exploration of the First Two Centuries of Jesus Movements" by Eric Vearncombe. It is a real eye-opener, based on excellent research, that demonstrates how the early believers lived their lives and practiced their faith.

Personally, I believe there is a lot to be learned about the lives, thinking, and practices of the early Christ followers. The present NT canon was decided by a group of men, not by God. There were many different groups in different locations who were disciples of Christ, for example the Coptic (Egyptian) Christians, that have no mention in the standard canon. The present-day church has constructed a religion that is not the complete picture of how Christianity was practiced by the early adherents.

Perhaps I should start a new thread to discuss this...

Thank you Jim for your suggested reading. And I appreciate your "likes."

 

[Marymog]

Any teaching that agrees with the Bible, and doesn't add to it nor subtract from it, is scriptural. Clearly, the teaching (and theatre) of the Catholic denomination goes way beyond Scripture.

Hey Jim B,

Any teaching that agrees with the Bible according to WHO's interpretation?

Protestant denominations teach MULTIPLE different interpretations of the same passages from scripture. According to your theory that "clearly" would be "theatre" also.....

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

a) You are in a discussion forum. If you want to have a private conversation then do so -- privately.

You believe the teachings of the Catholic denomination, which in many situations, disregards Scripture in favor of the interpretations of certain men.

Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Okay, let's look at this...

Jesus said that He is the truth. Not the teachings of some men who refer to themselves as clergy. He is the truth!

Then He said, No one comes to the Father except through me." It doesn't say that people come to the Father through the Pope (an unScriptural office) or a cardinal or a bishop or a priest. It says through Christ!

I follow Christ, not other men. I read the Bible, I pray, and I am guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus said would guide believers into all truth.

You require some kind of human structure -- a self-appointed clergy that claims to have all the answers -- yet you fail to recognize that they are all just men. You believe in some sort of religious hierarchy that, more than anything else, resembles the Old Testament priesthood. But 1st Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." He wrote a few verses earlier, "...like living stones let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

Continue on believing Catholic propaganda as your source of truth if that "floats your boat" but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible. As for me, I believe what God has spoken through His word and continues to speak through His Holy Spirit.

Hi Jim B,

I have no problem with your interjection. But when you interject yourself into a conversation that presents a question, shouldn't you answer the question? You failed to do that in your interjection.

If the Catholic Church disregards Scripture in favor of the interpretations of certain men then according to your statement don't YOU disregard Scripture also when you (a man) interpret Scripture? Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

YOU 'read the Bible, pray, and are guided by the Holy Spirit' but the men of the Catholic Church don't "'read the Bible, pray, and are guided by the Holy Spirit"? Therefore YOU are able to properly interpret Scripture to ascertain the Truth and not them? Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

Jesus did not say that he will guide ALL believers into the Truth. If you notice in that passage he was talking to the Apostles and the Apostles only. Your theory suggest that the billions of Christians who have lived for the last 2,000 years have been guided to the truth. HOWEVER, for the last 500 years your Protestant men have multiple truths from the same passage. Can you not see how trivial and illogical your theory is?

Continue on believing Protestant propaganda as your source of truth if that "floats your boat" but it has nothing to do with the clear teachings of the Bible.

Keeping it logical....Mary

 

[Marymog]

This is total nonsense (and full of grammatical errors).

When you say "The Churches [sic] teaching is unscriptural" are you referring to the Catholic denomination? If you are, you're spiritually blind, as the Catholic denomination is not the church.

The Bible is God's word. If any teaching adheres to what the Bible says, then it is Scriptural.

YOU are the one who said in post #761 that I follow the "unScriptural teachings of the Pope" and that "The Catholic church has lied to you and you are the one who has fallen for the unScriptural teachings." YOU are the one who referred to The Catholic Church.

So I ask you again to back up your theory:

You have decided that The Churches teaching is unscriptural. Since you KNOW that what The Church teaches is unscriptural then you must KNOW who's teaching is not unscriptural?

Please tell me: Who's teaching is Scriptural?

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

You are correct! I believe what the Lord has shown me to be true, not what some unScriptural hierarchy of paid priests has told me is true.

In your list of "WHO's" interpretation -- World Health Organization? -- you forgot to include the Catholic denomination. Gee, I wonder why!

BTW, you are in a discussion forum. If you want to have a discussion with Titus then PM him.

Got it. So you belive that the Lord has spoken to you and given you the truth but "paid priests" are not spoken to and given the truth....

I never said I wanted to have a discussion with Titus and Titus only. YOU are the one who interjected yourself into our conversation of which I don't mind you doing and I have never said I mind you doing. If you are going to interject yourself into a conversation that has questions in it then answer the questions instead of presenting illogical theories that are circular.

 

[MatthewG]

I don’t believe splashing or going under the water means anything.

Sure it can be done as an outward expression of faith.

But baptism of water is not salvation,

Being born again from above is salvation, which is being baptized by the Holy Spirit and fire as John the baptized proclaimed that Jesus would bring forth.

 

[Marymog]

I don’t believe splashing or going under the water means anything.

Sure it can be done as an outward expression of faith.

But baptism of water is not salvation,

Being born again from above is salvation, which is being baptized by the Holy Spirit and fire as John the baptized proclaimed that Jesus would bring forth.

hey matthewG,

If water baptism doesn't mean anything, then why did Jesus do it and tell us to do it when he said baptize all?

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. You say, " baptism of water is not salvation". Who is right? You or Scripture?

 

[MatthewG]

hey matthewG,

If water baptism doesn't mean anything, then why did Jesus do it and tell us to do it when he said baptize all?

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. You say, " baptism of water is not salvation". Who is right? You or Scripture?

I don’t believe he is talking to you, neither is Peter.

 

[Marymog]

Catholics and the Church of Christ believe you must be water baptized as that Initial Act of saving faith.
They love to use Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 to make their case. But verses cannot be read in a vacuum. One has to look at the whole counsel of God’s Word on the subject to get a more comprehensive picture of a particular topic.

Acts 10:34-48 is a crucial text showing how Gentile Christians are saved today.
Peter preached the gospel message to Cornelius. Cornelius and his household merely heard the gospel message (basically the same one by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) in that Christ was hanged on a tree (cross), and God raised Him on the third day. While hearing this message from Peter, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit (the downpayment of their inheritance). Meaning, they were saved. Then afterwards, Peter water baptized them. This means that they were first saved before they were water baptized. They were saved by God’s grace, and not a work.

Hey Bible Highlighter,

If baptism in/with water was not necessary, then why did Peter water baptize Cornelius and his family? Did Peter do something that was unnecessary?

It is apparent to Peter that Cornelius has received the Holy Spirit but has not received the sacrament of baptism in an ordinary manner. Peter baptized Cornelius and his family as evidence of how serious the Apostles considered the reception of the sacrament of water baptism to be.

You can't look at Scripture in a vacuum. Peter also said "even baptism doth also now save us"! The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

For anyone to claim that baptism is unimportant would seem to contradict the meaning behind Cornelius and his companions actually becoming baptized......... in the very next verse.

 

[Marymog]

I don’t believe he is talking to you, neither is Peter.

Huh??? That makes no sense. Can you better articulate your position?

 

[MatthewG]

Huh??? That makes no sense. Can you better articulate your position?

What doesn’t make sense?

Jesus was not talking directly to you.
The letter Peter wrote was not directly to you.

 

[Behold]

h

1 Peter 3:21 says baptism now saves you. You say, " baptism of water is not salvation". Who is right? You or Scripture?

If water saved you, then Jesus didn't need to die for you on the Cross.

So, taking a verse out of context to try to prove that WATER is the Savior, is an insult to the Cross of Christ.

Listen, if water died on the Cross for your sin, then keep worshiping water on the Forum.
NP.

 

[Marymog]

What doesn’t make sense?

Jesus was not talking directly to you.
The letter Peter wrote was not directly to you.

That still makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that Peter's statement ("baptism now saves you") to the people that were standing in front of him 2,000 years ago only applies to them? And that Jesus instructions to baptize all was only to the people that were watching him rise into heaven?

Help me out here.....

 

[MatthewG]

That still makes no sense.

Are you suggesting that Peter's statement ("baptism now saves you") to the people that were standing in front of him 2,000 years ago only applies to them? And that Jesus instructions to baptize all was only to the people that were watching him rise into heaven?

Help me out here.....

What did John the Baptist say?


John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Now answer your question. What is the baptism that leads to salvation to deliverance spiritual baptism?

Not water.

But who is it found in?

By and through Christ.

 

[MatthewG]

It’s not good to use scripture just to prove a point on water when John empathizes the baptism in the death of Christ and rising again.

“who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah — an ark being preparing — in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; also to which an antitype doth now save us — baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven — messengers, and authorities, and powers, having been subjected to him.”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬-‭22‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

1 Peter 3:21 also to which an antitype doth now save us — baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ | Young's Literal Translation 1898 (YLT98)

also to which an antitype doth now save us — baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ

bible.com

 

[MatthewG]

Save through water

Purifier

Spiritually, reborn Christ is now in you

God works on your heart and mind as you allow him and seek him and faith and reading, studying the Bible.

It helps hold the flesh back. Renews the mind and heart,