Author Topic: Dunked in the Water  (Read 6543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12342
  • Manna: 745
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #105 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:25:03 »
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.

I am waiting for someone to answer this post.  Are there no takers? I would think that it is very important as to why Jesus was baptized.  Was it to fulfill Acts 2:38? Would it have any connection with Mark 16:16? Would it have any connection with Romans 6:3?

Hint:

I would say that it has more connection with Romans 6:3, and very close to Mark 16:16, not so much with Acts 2:38.  You boys from the coc should be very quick to answer this post.  I cannot believe that you have not even try so far.
Red it does not matter what we coc will say it will be wrong in your eyes so I for one have chose not to waste my time for you have your own mind made up and just want to pit it against us so please by all means just say what is on your mind.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #105 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:25:03 »

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #106 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:44:55 »
Wouldn't that be in direct opposition to Eph. 1:13? Paul said we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe not at baptism.

No where in scripture does it even hint that we receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

If you think this because the Holy Spirit came on Jesus when He was baptized, Jesus didn't receive the Holy Spirit to be born into the family of God, He was God.

Scripture assumes that belief and baptism are pretty much simultaneous. It is the modern church that has seperated the 2, thus leading to this dichotomy of opinion on what does what.
Agreed.

Absolutely agree. The modern dichotomy would stun the first century folks in my opinion. It would be like trying to separate pain from childbirth. When the folks in the NT accepted Christ in their hearts they pretty much simultaneously put on Christ in baptism. That's the way I looked at it. My entire faith response of belief and acceptance, repentance, confessing with my lips that he is Lord and neing baptized was my salvation experience, not experienceS. It was one continuous seemless event in my mind and in my Spirit, as I understood the salvation examples in the NT.

I'm not sure if it is a sheep and goat thing Charlie. BAAAAAA

All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.… Matt. 25:32-34

I think the bottom line is a sheep and goats thing.

Yes, and we want to be in the right herd. I'm just not so sure the issue we have been debating so long delineates our two positions as sheep and goat. I'm not prepared to say you are a goat because you and I agree on the immediacy of baptism, we just differ on the certainty of the nano-second of the conveyance of salvation. If I lead someone to Christ and you do to, and they both truly believe and repent and confess Jesus is Lord and are immediately baptized, at the end of the day is my convert any less saved because he feels baptism is one of the necessities in our faith response than yours who was taught it has nothing to do with salvation. I would not condemn your convert to a state of damnation. Would you say the same about mine?
This is where the rubber meets the road, where people are offended, and maybe more than some can endure. But we are two grown men Jaime. We can discuss this without malice. I dare say there are few I could discuss this with.
Bearing my conviction I cannot say the same for your convert. In my humble opinion your convert has received a split faith. No matter how you word it, your convert has faith for salvation in faith and baptism. I do not believe this is the faith that brings eternal life.
You have to be the first I have heard that says baptism in Christ name condemns one to hell. Just can't wrap my head around that.
If we don't understand the correct purpose for baptism we do it to ourselves.
Do you have a direct scripture for the correct purpose for baptism? Acts 2:38 is a direct scripture.
No I don't erm, and you don't either. Understanding the whole Word of God reveals the truth.
Amazing.  The Bible authors would have written down, and did write down explicitly what baptism is for -Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38. They wouldn't make us concatenate a purpose.
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:50:44 by e.r.m. »

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #107 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:53:14 »
It's not hard to see what you're doing erm. You have openly discounted the epistles of Paul to push your belief in water baptism. No one can read the epistles of Paul and come away with any idea that baptism is part of salvation.

So you deny the writings of Paul, very dangerous erm.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #107 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:53:14 »

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #108 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:56:18 »
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #108 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 13:56:18 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #109 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:01:22 »
It's not hard to see what you're doing erm. You have openly discounted the epistles of Paul to push your belief in water baptism. No one can read the epistles of Paul and come away with any idea that baptism is part of salvation.

So you deny the writings of Paul, very dangerous erm.
If you feel that it's coming from me and not from scripture, then show a passage that gives the correct purpose of baptism. That's the standard. Show me a passage that says what you say.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #109 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:01:22 »



Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #110 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:04:20 »
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #110 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:04:20 »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #111 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:07:28 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #112 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:13:40 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #113 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:14:55 »
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."
I agree with Jaime.

And the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm,     Never said baptism's purpose is a public display of faith. So again what are you following when you say baptism's purpose is a public display of faith?
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:33:08 by e.r.m. »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #113 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:14:55 »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #114 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:15:09 »
Matthew 3:13-17

Mark 1:9-11

Luke 3:21-23


13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized by thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

9. And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan. 10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water, he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

21. And it happened, that, while all the people were being baptized,  when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily appearance, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased. 23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.


Let me ask some this question: "Why was Jesus Baptized"?  Please do not just say~for thus it became him to fulfill all righteousness. It is much more extensive, than to leave it with those words, for one has not really explained the purpose of Jesus' baptism by only saying those words.  Was Jesus' baptism for a different purpose than ours?  Or, the same? Waiting for some answers.

I am waiting for someone to answer this post.  Are there no takers? I would think that it is very important as to why Jesus was baptized.  Was it to fulfill Acts 2:38? Would it have any connection with Mark 16:16? Would it have any connection with Romans 6:3?

Hint:

I would say that it has more connection with Romans 6:3, and very close to Mark 16:16, not so much with Acts 2:38.  You boys from the coc should be very quick to answer this post.  I cannot believe that you have not even try so far. 

Red,

Jesus' baptism to me has nothing to do with why we get baptized per se', but I have found it interesting that Jesus did no miracles prior to the Spirit lighting on him as a dove at his baptism. He later scolded the Pharisees for accusing him of doing miracles by the power of Beelzebub, telling them basically that blaspheming the son is one thing, but Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another. Clearly indicating that he did his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Patterning for us the power that lies available to us if we only allowed it and trusted in it.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #115 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:22:56 »
I used to be a decision counselor at a Christian Church.   This is a distant cousin to the Churches of Christ and I say "distant" because the Christian Church, also a Restoration Movement group, is often considered to be "too evangelical."   Anyway, I very distinctly remember a young couple that had come forward to join the church.   It was my duty to council with them, which I did.  While I was counseling with them I began to describe the meaning of baptism and how it related to all of the things that Christ had done to save her.   She began to bawl and almost uncontrollably.   That greatly affected me too.   You see, she had recognized Who Christ is and What He had done for her.   He became her savior not the impending act of immersion in water.
No, she was simply cut/pricked to the heart as in Acts 2:37. A contrite heart is exactly what one should have before being baptized. It's not the sign that someone has been saved. Otherwise Peter would have declared the crowd saved on the spot and not instructed them to be baptized in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of their sins.

Quote
A Church of Christ poster here said that it drives him nuts when people say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.   It drives me nuts when people make this a religious issue, a works issue.
Baptism Acts 2:38 in and of itself is not a works issue unless a person approaches it without heart and faith.

Quote
They fail to recognize the Savior described in Isaiah 53. They fail to see that the Scriptures proclaim Him to be All-Sufficient (I did not say Sufficient for All, so don't go there).   They believe that they must not admit that God has done everything needed to save us.   This is the same wrong belief they have about faith.   They deny that the Holy Spirit has a part in salvation as that would interfere with our free will.   They let this same wrong intellectual conclusion interfere with their understanding of the symbolic beauty of baptism and turn it into a "see what I've done" show.   They all need to repent.
Neither do I deny the Holy Spirit played a part in a person getting saved, nor have I ever seen baptism as a "see what I've done" show. Baptism is what it is -Acts 2:38. Using the term symbolic beauty of baptism doesn't make it Biblical.
But is a public display of your faith. Only Gods knows from within you what your purpose of baptism is. Eternal life is about faith, more specifically, where that faith is placed.
For the purpose of baptism to have been a public display of faith, the Bible would have had to have said so. If you're not following the Word of God on this matter, then what are you following?
I'm following the one who wrote almost 1/3 or the NT, the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm."
I agree with Jaime.

And the one who was given the revelation of the NT, the one who says we are saved by grace through faith. The one who said we are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we believe, the one who gave up everything the world had to offer and willingly became a slave of Jesus Christ that "I might know HIm,     Never said baptism's purpose is a public display of faith. So again dhat are you following when you say baptism's purpose is a public display of faith?
If you can't see the ceremony of baptism as a public display of faith erm, then no explanation by man can reveal it to you.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #116 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:41:19 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #117 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:48:44 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #118 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:51:53 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12342
  • Manna: 745
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #119 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 14:58:50 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
::amen!:: Brother we have to use all scripture and harmonize them together not pit them against the other. Paul, Peter, Jesus, and all the rest taught the same thing.

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12342
  • Manna: 745
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #120 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:00:36 »
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #121 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:03:24 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #122 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:05:11 »
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #123 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:09:05 »
Charlie, Paul either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12342
  • Manna: 745
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #124 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:14:39 »
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #125 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:17:32 »
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #126 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:36:07 »
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Yogi I understand why you believe this. But whether or not Paul is speaking of water in Rom. 6, let's drop that right now.
Paul tells us exactly what salvation means, exactly how to obtain it, and the glory of it. Never one time in all this does he say baptism is part of our salvation, but continuously tells us salvation is by grace through faith. He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned. Do you honestly believe Paul expects us combine what he says with previous scripture, and never even mention it to us?

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #127 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:37:49 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
::amen!:: Brother we have to use all scripture and harmonize them together not pit them against the other. Paul, Peter, Jesus, and all the rest taught the same thing.
Well said.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #128 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:40:36 »
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Hope you feel better.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #129 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:45:02 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Charlie with all due respect not to be mean but in hopes to get you to see I think you are reading your thoughts into what Paul teaches rather than actually hearing what Paul is saying.
Explain your reasoning Yogi.
Charlie it will take a long time to rehash all we have been showing you but for starters we will look ate Romans 6:3ff

Here we see Paul teaching what the baptism in Christ name is about and does for mankind. It is in direct connection to that of Acts 2:38 It is a water and spirit baptism and Paul explains how.

You say it is not that of Acts 2 and not of water but you have not proven that that is what Paul says. Therefore it is my opinion you are misunderstanding just what Paul is trying to tell you because you have been trained to see it in a different way and will not even give any thought that you may have been mislead.

That is just a touching of what I feel you are not seeing eye to eye with Paul on we could go on but I have to go to the doctors office right now so if need be will get back with you on this.
Hope you feel better.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #130 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 15:49:43 »
Paul's writings were not included to nullify the other parts of the NT. His writings are perfectly congruent with the rest in my view.
From day one on this site I have never denied any scripture you guys present for baptism. From day one I have said you have misunderstood these scriptures. I believe I have proven that through the epistles of Paul.
I've seen this throughout my life, the denying of Pauls writings to bear false witness of salvation.

Except I don't deny Paul's writings. I am saying they are perfectly congruent with the rest of the NT.
It is impossible to agree with the Gospel that Paul preached and place other imposed salvation scriptures in precedence over it, or combine these scriptures with Pauls which clearly oppose one another.

Unless you demand that Paul's writings are in contradiction of other NT writings. I do not. It IS impossible unless you take the NT cumulatively, one precept upon another. If you only take what Paul said to the exclusion of other NT scripture, you do run into problems. I do not believe the NT is divided up into 2 different gospels.
This is where I disagree. I believe Paul preached the whole Gospel, he explained it very well whereas no one else did.
I cannot and will not combine scripture well knowing this is not what the Revelator taught.
Isn't this what Paul spoke about?
1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #131 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:02:05 »
Yes it is. But who did Christ give the revelation to?

Having the revelation from Christ, Paul said in 1Cor. 11:1,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #132 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:21:47 »
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

"His gospel" implies there was another. There isn't two gospels. Yes, he set Peter and James straight on the circumcision issue and the mystery of the gentile inclusion, but there was never any further refutation of anything else. He didn't by any stretch undo everything Peter taught. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have given Peter and others faulty information on the entire salvation issue. Apparently Peter and James and others made their own leap on the circumcision issue, and had to be corrected by the Spirit in Peter's vision and the Cornelius incident.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian (inclusive of Paul's teachings), and not JUST a Pauline Christian.
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:25:39 by Jaime »

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #133 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 16:30:17 »
He either was contradicting earlier scripture or he was building upon earlier scripture. I choose the latter. Otherwise he was preaching a different gospel. If he was preaching a different gospel, I think that would have been abundantly clear in the text that everything prior to Paul was a mistake. I don't think the Holy Spirit made a mistake or intended to stealthily correct any earlier scripture but to perfectly harmonize with earlier scripture.

But I agree we disagree.
Paul was not building on earlier scripture. He said himself he received the revelation directly from Christ. Therefore he built his Gospel on the direct words from Christ.

It was Paul that set the church straight at Jerusalem. He confronted Peter and James, correcting them through the revelation given to him by Christ. They saw the error of their way and accepted the truth from Paul. Peter praises Paul for the wisdom given him by Christ through his epistles.

"His gospel" implies there was another. There isn't two gospels. Yes, he set Peter and James straight on the circumcision issue and the mystery of the gentile inclusion, but there was never any further refutation of anything else. He didn't by any stretch undo everything Peter taught. I wouldn't expect the Holy Spirit to have given Peter and others faulty information on the entire salvation issue. Apparently Peter and James and others made their own leap on the circumcision issue, and had to be corrected by the Spirit in Peter's vision and the Cornelius incident.

I consider myself a New Testament Christian (inclusive of Paul's teachings), and not JUST a Pauline Christian.
There was no problem with baptism in their day. The problem with baptism came some 300-400 years later when the RCC declared baptism necessary for salvation. It began with infant baptism (which is not scriptural) and later resulted in what they teach today. It has spread through the ranks of Christianity and now we face a problem Paul never encountered.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #134 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:00:51 »
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #135 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:05:01 »
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I see no difference.

Offline soterion

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5255
  • Manna: 252
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #136 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:09:16 »
Charlie24,

On and on you go saying that Paul never once said that baptism is part of our salvation, but you continue to be mistaken. He did say it. The passages have been provided and explained. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean they are not there or that they don't say what they say.

I pointed out earlier about your self contradictions, and this you also fail to see. You did it again here:

Quote
He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned.

If you've changed your mind about confession of Jesus with the mouth being required for salvation, as stated by Paul in Romans 10, and are now saying "no" to that, then maybe you're not as inconsistent with yourself as I am claiming. However, if Romans 10:9-10 is still something you believe is necessary for salvation, then you contradict yourself and you pit Paul against himself. Paul would not say "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" in one place, and then in another combine belief and confession and say that confession is for salvation. As it is, Paul never says "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" or anything else like those, in his writings.

This focus on Paul is somewhat troubling, but only because you seem to lift him up above the other writers. All scripture should be given equal importance. Your desire to have Paul trump other writers and their scriptures has gone to the point that you are not getting the whole picture of salvation. Your claim that Paul says, "all you have to do is believe" (although he never says that) is proof of this. All scripture on any issue should be given equal weight and studied so as to gain a more proper perspective.

In addition, your constant requirement for some passages to be worded a certain way, or else you cannot accept a certain truth, is particularly troubling. For example, you said in the quote above that baptism is not mentioned in certain passages that do mention belief, and therefore baptism is not necessary. This is why others here have been haranguing you about looking at all scripture, not just certain ones that say what you want and leave out the things you don't want to accept.

Remember the point about Titus 3:4-7? It doesn't mention faith. If I was to use your method of biblical interpretation, I could say that faith is not a requirement for salvation. Your proper response would have to be that I look at other scriptures to see the necessity of faith, right? That is what you need to do regarding baptism.

Another example is your need to have Mark 16:16 be worded a certain way, because the way it is worded is not good enough for you to accept what it simply says. You may not believe it, but Paul agrees completely with Jesus there. Paul explains and emphasizes what Jesus said. Paul gives the how and why that baptism is for salvation from sin.

My point, simply put, is that you are too inconsistent with the scriptures and with your own arguments. These inconsistencies make you appear unable to provide valid points for others to seriously consider. If you keep posting the same arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be scripturally incorrect, then I and others will keep posting the scriptural reasons why those arguments fail to prove your point.

And round and round we will go  ::rolling:: , for as long as you want.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36140
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #137 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:12:10 »
No I think the problem came with the Reformers. I agree with very little of Catholic teaching, especially infant baptism.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I see no difference.

No, the reformers like Zwingli were the first to try and repudiate baptism as a means of grace and claim it is only a sign of grace. Their repudiation of infant baptism and other Catholic teachings was correct. The Catholic church to my understanding taught that the act of baptism alone saves as well they claimed the sacrament of the Eucharist did. I certainly don't.
« Last Edit: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:14:34 by Jaime »

Offline Charlie24

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3036
  • Manna: 37
  • Gender: Male
  • For by grace through faith you are saved!
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #138 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:21:51 »
Charlie24,

On and on you go saying that Paul never once said that baptism is part of our salvation, but you continue to be mistaken. He did say it. The passages have been provided and explained. Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't mean they are not there or that they don't say what they say.

I pointed out earlier about your self contradictions, and this you also fail to see. You did it again here:

Quote
He even tells us the exact moment of salvation, when we believe, and baptism is never mentioned.

If you've changed your mind about confession of Jesus with the mouth being required for salvation, as stated by Paul in Romans 10, and are now saying "no" to that, then maybe you're not as inconsistent with yourself as I am claiming. However, if Romans 10:9-10 is still something you believe is necessary for salvation, then you contradict yourself and you pit Paul against himself. Paul would not say "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" in one place, and then in another combine belief and confession and say that confession is for salvation. As it is, Paul never says "only believe" or "at the exact moment of belief" or anything else like those, in his writings.

This focus on Paul is somewhat troubling, but only because you seem to lift him up above the other writers. All scripture should be given equal importance. Your desire to have Paul trump other writers and their scriptures has gone to the point that you are not getting the whole picture of salvation. Your claim that Paul says, "all you have to do is believe" (although he never says that) is proof of this. All scripture on any issue should be given equal weight and studied so as to gain a more proper perspective.

In addition, your constant requirement for some passages to be worded a certain way, or else you cannot accept a certain truth, is particularly troubling. For example, you said in the quote above that baptism is not mentioned in certain passages that do mention belief, and therefore baptism is not necessary. This is why others here have been haranguing you about looking at all scripture, not just certain ones that say what you want and leave out the things you don't want to accept.

Remember the point about Titus 3:4-7? It doesn't mention faith. If I was to use your method of biblical interpretation, I could say that faith is not a requirement for salvation. Your proper response would have to be that I look at other scriptures to see the necessity of faith, right? That is what you need to do regarding baptism.

Another example is your need to have Mark 16:16 be worded a certain way, because the way it is worded is not good enough for you to accept what it simply says. You may not believe it, but Paul agrees completely with Jesus there. Paul explains and emphasizes what Jesus said. Paul gives the how and why that baptism is for salvation from sin.

My point, simply put, is that you are too inconsistent with the scriptures and with your own arguments. These inconsistencies make you appear unable to provide valid points for others to seriously consider. If you keep posting the same arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be scripturally incorrect, then I and others will keep posting the scriptural reasons why those arguments fail to prove your point.

And round and round we will go  ::rolling:: , for as long as you want.
It will always be round and round we go, no doubt about that.

It's not only a matter of scripture interpretation, it's also a matter of where our faith is placed. This is the most important part for me.

If the Lord returns or I go through the grave, either way the Lord will find no slack in my faith. It's all at Calvary where I was freed from sin, became a child of God, and received the promise. I can give no credit to anything else.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6699
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dunked in the Water
« Reply #139 on: Thu Jul 17, 2014 - 17:46:53 »
Yes it is. But who did Christ give the revelation to?

Having the revelation from Christ, Paul said in 1Cor. 11:1,

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
But Paul didn't say to the exclusion of others.