Ezekiel was NOT saying that H2o SAVES anyone. He is saying that Sprinkling water is just as effective as a symbolic baptism as emmersion is. Since H2o babptism is a sign for th eyes of men as a witness to them of what they need IN JOHN the baptist's time and now is an outward sign of what they have already done inwardly. H2o baptism is merely symbolic, as is the bread & the wine at communion. We should and do get baptized in water but I cannot find scripture for equality with Faith /repentance.
If as the CofC claims the H2o baptism is a work of the spirit and NOT men's works, then how can you even BE water baptized WO the Spirit? Is it Men's works or is it Spiritual works? It seems like shooting bullets witout a gun.
Does the sprinkling in Ezekiel 36:25-27 count ? God says there in Ezekiel I will sprinkle you and you shall be clean from ALL your filthyness and I will put MY Spirit within you. Looks like Ezekiel is predicting a water baptism, that results in the Holy Ghost recieved !
About 1billion souls believe that God uses baptism as a means of salvation. I guess this guy thinks that the Church of Christ and countless other bodies of believers some of which date back to the 1st century are wrong and he some how is right with his modern view of God's word. How about the good old days when everyone believed in the saving work done by God through baptism. Remember, grace through faith. The kind of faith that causes one to act. "Be baptized & wash your sins" Acts 22:16
@AccordingToScripture Who said that's water baptism in Acts 22:16? Nowhere does it say that. Why can't that be Holy Ghost baptism spoken of in Luke 3:16. There's more than just water baptism. But baptismal regenerists do NOT like to deal w/ that cause it may hurt their cause. BTW, I come from a C of Christ/1st Christian background.
@filoIII "Who said that's water baptism in Acts 22:16?" Virtually EVERY commentator, that's who - even those who argue loud and long that water baptism is not necessary. What's funny is that the OTHER side claims that the middle voice in 22: 16 = Paul saved himself. The verse means "get yourself baptized" - you can't "get yourself baptized" in the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism never was an INSTRUCTION.
@filoIII "You saying there's no such thing as being baptized by the Holy Spirit?" There WAS a baptism of the Holy Spirit - most definately. As of the timeframe of Eph 4: 4-6 (AD 60ish), Holy Spirit baptism had CEASED - or else water baptism had. You are no more baptized in the Holy Spirit than the next fellow, and even those who had Holy Spirit baptism in the first century were not obeying a COMMAND to have it.
He is way off base. The Church of Christ is the closest thing we have to the true church. Read the book of Acts. It's His church. He bought and paid for it at the cross. If Christ was baptized, then don't you think it IS necessary? Common sense and written in the book of John, chapter 3.
Satan would love for you to believe baptism is not necessary, as well as a host of many other things. Liberal Catholics and these pop up, "community churches" are just whores.
@fff1313 John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him,"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".
John 3:5 Jesus answered,"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". (New King James Version).
@Wackydoodle2 Why stop where you did. Jesus explains the water and the Spirit. John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.--the water spoken of here is amniotic fluid at childbirth. Baptismal regenerists twist it to make it seem that being dunked in water is a part of salvation.
@filoIII "Jesus explains the water and the Spirit." LOL He was talking to a JEW - one born "of the flesh" into the Jewish family. Nobody ever heard of "born of water" meaning "amnionic fluid", either in sacred or profane writings, til recently. There is ONE new birth - two elements. Explain how you experience this "born of water and the Spirit." One things for sure: you aren't "born of water" during CHILDBIRTH, then "born of the Spirit" maybe 15-20 years LATER. Such reasoning makes infidels.
@lllannallll Jesus associated the water w/ the flesh in the following sentence. You're just going down a dry sinner and coming up a wet one. Good luck w/ Acts 10
@lllannallll John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Water in the preveious verse is explained in the next verse) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ---I suggest you fit your theology to the Book and not try to crumble the Book to fit into your theology. Again, good luck w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius.
@filoIII "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " Nicodemus was a JEW, by the flesh. He was BORN a JEW, by the flesh. THAT explains THAT. But that which is born by the teaching of the Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT. I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings in which "born of water" has reference to "amnionic fluid" birth. You can't do it - so you ASSERT it.
@lllannallll Which greek do you speak of? There's all sorts of different kinds of greek dictionaries, interliners and lexicons, and they all disagree w/ on another. I speak english & just believe what I read in context.
What about Acts 2:38? Yes or no--Can the word "for" ever mean because of??
@filoIII I never mentioned GREEK, did I? I rather doubt that you teach that one repents "because of" the remission of sins in the first place. I use the American Standard Version - a version accepted by many scholars. So you're asking, "Can the word 'unto' mean 'because of'?" I don't much think so. That's the ASV translation of "eis" in Acts 2: 38. The KJV translation is "for"; the ASV translation is "unto". So "for" is equivalent to "unto", and "unto" does not mean "because of", does it?
@lllannallll " I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings"--That was from you, no?
I didn't say repent because of the remission of sins. Repent & be baptized BECAUSE OF the remission of sins. A person is saved, THEN gets dunked. So the word "for" can't mean because or because of? Let's go to the Book. 1Pet 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; FOR he careth for you.
@filoIII "" I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings"--That was from you, no?" Yeah, that was from me, and I asked you to find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings in which "born of water" EVER means natural childbirth. So far, you haven't supplied a single reference.
@filoIII "So the word "for" can't mean because or because of?" Oh, you'd LIKE me to say that, but I said the word "unto" can't mean "because of" - and you haven't denied my statement. UNTO cannot mean BECAUSE OF, yet Acts 2: 38 says ".....unto the remission of sins."
@lllannallll I'm not too concerned about the catholic based asv. You roll w/ that and I'll stick to the Book all the other modern perversions compare themselves to. It says "for" meaning "because of." Keep making the Bible fit your theology when you should be conforming your theology to the Book
@lllannallll John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)--There's more if you want. In jail I ask you what you're in for, you may say, I'm in for murder. OR, I may ask, what are you in BECAUSE OF? I'm in BECAUSE OF murder. Do you see it? Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?
@filoIII "Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?" I'm pretty much positive that you can't take "unto" and make it mean "because of." Quote the ASV (1901), itself a revision of the KJV with very little difference, and explain for all just how "unto" means "because of." "Unto" in the ASV is the equivalent of "for" in the KJV - the same meaning. So go ahead and tell us how "unto" means "because of." Oughta be most interesting.
@lllannallll In all honesty, you are ignorant of the bible version issue. ALL the modern versions come from commonly known heretical manuscripts called the Alexandrian Texts. The asv has absolutely NO relation to the AV.
@filoIII "Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?" I'm absolutely positive that NO VERSION - not even perversions - give such an absurd translation of "eis". Many render "eis" as "for" or "unto", though. Surely it's a source of embarrassment that NO ONE translates the word to "because of". And "unto" does NOT mean "because of" - not ever. Tell us: did Jesus shed his blood for many "UNTO the remission of sins" or "because of the remission of sins"?
@lllannallll never did I state "for" ALWAYS means because/because of. But for you to say it doesn't, after I gave you passages where it does, well,,,,,,I don't think I can help you. So does baptized always mean dunked in H2O? You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius. You can't. & my Ch of Christ pastor relative told me that as well. Good day.
@filoIII " But for you to say it doesn't, after I gave you passages where it does" Actually, I said "for" means "unto", and "unto" means "for", and "eis" means "unto or for." It seems that you never really mention "unto" because you can't twist the ENGLISH meaning into "because of." You "just read English" .. Well, Acts 2: 38 in the ASV is CURRENT, AMERICAN ENGLISH. Read it and tell us what it means.
@filoIII "You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius." I haven't tried. I'm waiting for you to take Acts 2: 38. Here, let me quote it for you: "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Practically identical to the KJV, and COMPLETELY identical in meaning. I asked you what "unto" means - you never answered (and I doubt you will).
@lllannallll Baptismal regeneration is no different than those who tried to mix Jesus w/ the Law saying one must also be circumcised. Dunked in water has been substituted for circumcision. Unto doesn't even make sense there.I don't know you think unto means for in that verse
unto-prep [ˈantu] an old word for `to'--preposition 1. to (in its various uses, except as the accompaniment of the infinitive). 2. until; till.
Good luck w/ your catholic-inspired "bible." We're finished.
@filoIII "So does baptized always mean dunked in H2O?" No, it does not. It always means immersed, and since there is ONE BAPTISM today, you'd need to take the ordinary, usual meaning of the word unless there is good reason to do otherwise.
@lllannallll " there is ONE BAPTISM today"-That's the most correct statement you've made yet. But, again, you've made a major error in thinking baptism only means dunked in H2O. LET'S GO TO THE BOOK! Lk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.---That's 3 different kinds of baptism in 1 verse. More????
@lllannallll 1Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea---OH, I forgot, "unto" means "for" in your beloved catholic-based asv. So it should read And were all baptized FOR Moses in the cloud and in the sea. ---You win. I've nothing else for you. G'day
@filoIII LOL @ "Catholic-based" ASV. THAT is a new one! The Roman Catholics didn't not APPROVE or TRANSLATE, nor do they USE, the ASV. Of the 101 scholars who TRANSLATED the ASV, few, if any, had a Roman Catholic background, and it was for many years the STANDARD BIBLE of most Protestant seminaries. Philip Schaaf, a non-Catholic, chaired the translation committee. A "catholic-based ASV" is a ridiculous charge - the best you can do because "unto" does not mean "because of."
@lllannallll The N.T. of all the new "bibles" are based on the alexandrian texts--siniaticus & vaticanus. This is the greek you so lovingly refer to & is different than the greek the AV comes from. Parts were found in a catholic monestary on Mt. Sinai and others found in a trash can in the library of, you guessed it, the vatican. Enjoy your catholic "bible." I will not be responding to any other statements of yours. You get the last word.
@filoIII "You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius. You can't." Sure I can - just waiting to Acts 2: 38 in the ASV. You won't deny that the ASV is an accurate translation. Most likely, you'll just ignore the question or formulate some weak-kneed "dodge" in order to not answer. The ASV is written in circa 1900 American English - you should easily be able to answer.
@filoIII "I don't think I can help you." So YOU know, the following translations render 'eis' as 'unto': American Bible Union (Baptist), ASV (1901), English Revised, and Young' Literal (to instead of unto). Charles Williams (Baptist): "that you may have your sins forgiven." NIV: "so that your sins may be forgiven." You'll have toss aside ALL of these translations, even the Baptist ones, and scream "Catholic Version." Well, they are NOT.
@filoIII "Most likely, you'll just ignore the question or formulate some weak-kneed "dodge" in order to not answer." <-- and thus you did, although I've never quite heard THAT one before. "The ASV is a CATHOLIC translation". LOL
@filoIII You need to prove your statement that "for" or "unto" in Acts 2: 38 means "because of" - that was your assertion. Is THIS it? You already steered us from the Greek (pleading inability to use a lexicon ... LOL). Now you steer us from EVERY TRANSLATION that does not render "eis" with a word such as "for" which you can twist into either a prospective or retrospective viewpoint, depending upon your fancy?
@lllannallll Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.." Did the men of Nineveh repent "for" Jonah to preach? Or, did the men repent "because" of his preaching?
The internal washing of the HS is necessary for salvation...not the external. People that trust in external baptism make the same mistake as the Jews placing faith in external circumcision.
@crownofthorns99 " Did the men of Nineveh repent "for" Jonah to preach? Or, did the men repent "because" of his preaching?" They repented unto or into the preaching of Jonah, according to this verse. They also repented "because of" Jonah's preaching, although the verse doesn't say it. The reason is that "eis" does not mean "because of": it is not a retrospective preposition. The same goes for Matt 3: 11.
As a believer in Jesus Christ, can you tell me what part of my sins were not atoned for by the blood of Christ? Or what part of my sins do I atone for by having my body dunked in a tub of water? Either Christ did it ALL, or part of my atonement is based on my works.
Abraham was justified at the moment he believed, so are you and I declared righteous when we believe... at that moment we are baptized with the HS and the inner man is cleaned of all unrigheousness.
@crownofthorns99 "Either Christ did it ALL, or part of my atonement is based on my works." Look at your "reasoning." "Christ did it ALL", you emphatically said. Well, in that case, there's NOTHING you can do, is there? Not one thing. What place does your argument leave for repentance? NONE What place do you leave for your turning from disbelief to belief? NONE In fact, what place do you leave for loving God? NONE.
The bible tells us that all we need to do is believe (pisteuo)... in the Greek, it means more than a mental ascent... there is a conviction in us that compels us to turn or repent. Action is implied when the bible tells us to believe. Eph 2:8 tells us that this faith is also a gift... so it is ALL God. The bible tells me that until I'm saved, I can do no righteous work. If baptism is a righteous work, how can I perform it if I'm not saved until after it is complete?
@crownofthorns99 "The bible tells us that all we need to do is believe" Then there you have it! YOU have to DO something, don't you? You spouted, "Christ did it ALL" and capitalized "ALL". So, see, you are saying that one MUST DO something. DOING SOMETHING is a WORK.
Eph 2:8-9 Makes it clear that even our faith is a gift... Paul said if I do something for my salvation, then I have something to boast about. I am saved only because Christ intervened in my life... I didn't go after him, he came after me and gave me the faith to believe. If faith was given to me, then I did nothing! It was ALL him... and I certainly don't want to be the one who steals some of the glory that belongs to Jesus Christ.
@crownofthorns99 "I am saved only because Christ intervened in my life" Oh, ok ... I misunderstood. The word of God - the Bible - wasn't quite enough for you. You required some kind of miracle for conversion. And he forced faith upon you, for we may presume you were unwilling. Had you been "willing," the Bible might have been sufficient for you - just as it is for the rest of us. So God directly came after you, made you believe, then saved you? Ummm ... that's interesting.
Yes, that is what it means for salvation to be of God... not of my doing, else I would have something to boast.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is NONE that seeks after God. (I guess you're the exception to that, huh?
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you... obviously you did it alone)
@crownofthorns99 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you... obviously you did it alone)" And you conclude that the "drawing" is some kind a miraculous intervention? What if God simply draws men by the WORD? Maybe the WORD - not some mysterious "drawing" - is the sword of the Spirit.
@crownofthorns99 "Any divine act of God, by definition, is miraculous!" No, it's not. God causes the trees to grow, but He does so by NATURAL LAW. The FIRST tree was miraculous in CREATION, but PRO-CREATION isn't a miracle at all. And that's a poor dodge - not worth two cents - because God draws us today by non-miraculous means. To say otherwise is to imply that the Word of God is somehow lacking, somehow insufficient, somehow does not thoroughly furnish us.
@crownofthorns99 "If God didn't draw us, no one would come." I SAID that God draws us, but He doesn't do so DIRECTLY. He uses means ... the spoken or written Word, the beauty of the heavens, the birth of a child. Those are MEANS. You, on the other hand, think NOTHING will avail unless God intervenes directly. You see, you believe that you can't read the Bible or hear the Word, and respond favorably without a miracle. Either (1) the Word is lacking or (2) you are either real bad or real stupid.
God working through the word is miraculous... I gave you scriptures showing that man can't understand the word of God without the spirit revealing it's truth to us. And I contend now, that this may be the very reason you don't see the spiritual meaning of the word of God.
@crownofthorns99 "And I contend now, that this may be the very reason you don't see the spiritual meaning of the word of God." Well, I guess I can't "win" against someone who claims inspiration, can I? Nope, for to whatever degree the Spirit enlightens and illuminates that old dead, confused, poorly written, contradictory Word of God - to that degree, you claim inspiration. Then prance around telling everyone that you have some "special enlightenment" that allows you to "see clearly." Hmmmm
@crownofthorns99 (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you" One 'smart' respone deserves another. God draws men, but how? through the word. "Receive .. the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." My question is: which is inadequate, YOU or the word? Is the word so CONFUSING, so INADEQUATE to you that you needed "extra help" from above, or were you just too dumb to understand it on your own?
1 Cor 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Understanding God's word requires His Spirit! This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word.
@crownofthorns99 "Understanding God's word requires His Spirit! This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word." Nope, but it explains this much: you think God was "bright" enough to supply us with a written Word, but wrote it in such a way that WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT without something ELSE! That's your position: no wonder you assert this and that - you think the Lord is guiding you directly, and you feel no guilt about any lack of proof of your positions.
@crownofthorns99 "I am inadequate without the spirit to guide me!" So am I and everyone else, so the Spirit ever guides us into all truth through the written Word. You can't escape that! If the written, confirmed Word is inerrant and sufficient, then WHY can't you understand it with some sorta mysterious divine intervention to illuminate it for you? Did God make it so DARK the first time that He must "enlighten" is own Word just for lil ole you?
I give all the credit to Jesus Christ, my Lord and my Savior. He has revealed the spiritual truth of his word... I take no credit for myself. If it wasn't for him acting on me, I would not be saved. If I'm guilty of giving too much credit to God, then so be it... better than thinking of myself as something more than what his word has revealed about me. If you want to boast and be prideful, go right ahead, but I'm not going to take glory from God.
@crownofthorns99 "If I'm guilty of giving too much credit to God, then so be it..." <-- I doubt that you're guilty, actually. The implication is that God deserves credit for inspiring/authoring a "Word" that is so hazy, so cloudy, so poorly written that basic ideas are not even conveyed. And you think that believing THAT somehow gives glory to God? Why, it's an insult to God! God gave us the written word in understandable form, although you deny it.
I can tell you are really bitter, but don't put words in my mouth.
1 Cor 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teaches
I'm sorry that the scripture doesn't speak to you, but the HS living in us is what reveals the truth of his word to us, not any special revelation!
@crownofthorns99 "I'm sorry that the scripture doesn't speak to you, but the HS living in us is what reveals the truth of his word to us, not any special revelation!" Im not bitter - evidently YOU are. About the time a verse or passage or doctrine "catches up" with you - you jump around to another one. You still say "faith" is the "gift of God"? You said you could prove it by the Greek, but you haven't.
I'm sorry, but If I recall, I only questioned you regarding your erroneous teaching that a man needs water baptism before he is saved... Since we've proved that it is not necessary, you have chosen to change the subject and argue about other things which you don't understand.
@crownofthorns99 "Since we've proved that it is not necessary, you have chosen to change the subject and argue about other things which you don't understand." You never proved that - you ASSERT that you proved something. Do you remember the silly meaning you assigned to Acts 2: 38? "Repent and be baptized by the Holy Spirit ... and ye shall receive ... what? ... amazingly ... the GIFT of the Spirit." That makes NO sense - but such is your position.
@crownofthorns99 "I only questioned you regarding your erroneous teaching that a man needs water baptism before he is saved." Certainly you did. And you ran everywhere from an obedient believer like Abraham - which doesn't fit your doctrine - to Cornelius .... and proved nothing!
@crownofthorns99 ""But your church holds to the doctrine of water baptism by a CoC elder today for salvation!" LOL no, it doesn't. It didn't in the 1st century - and doesn't today - and never has. If you think it does, then, like all the rest of your assertions, PROVE IT!" <-- I don't think that's an unreasonable request, but you've not seen fit to "illuminate" us with an answer.
Until HE makes us alive spiritually, we can not understand it's spiritual meaning.... Again, I let His Word speak.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Take it up with God if you don't like what His word says.
@crownofthorns99 "Take it up with God if you don't like what His word says." And you quote 1 Cor 2: 14: the "natural" (unconverted) man "recieves not" (does not accept, i. e. rejects) the things (teachings) of the Spirit of God." And where are the teachings of the Spirit of God? How do we receive them? They are IN the written word, and we receive them through the word. You think God (the Spirit) inspired the entire Bible in such a way that it's lacking, falls short, in some way.
@crownofthorns99 "The Word of God is not lacking.... man's spiritual understanding is." If the word of God cannot GIVE us spiritual understanding, then something ELSE is required, and the word of God is not sufficient. THAT is your position. My position is that we are quickened by the word - that God was smart enough to provide us with written words that the average man can understand.
You're lack of understanding the whole water baptism issue makes a strong argument for the truth of 1 Cor 2:14... You think you understand, but you've missed it's spiritual meaning and proper place in our relationship with God. The real meaning is in God's word, but you haven't seen the truth yet... and people have tried, but you still reject it. The spirit has to reveal it too you... until he does, all I can do is pray for you.
@crownofthorns99 Your main argument - when all is said and done - runs about like this: "I know it because I feel it, and I feel it because the Spirit "told" me apart from the written word." I repeat: the only difference between you and Joseph Smith and Ellen White is the DEGREE of trouble caused. The THEORY and defense of it is the SAME. Of course, Ellen had to take a trip to heaven, while you sat here on earth.
@crownofthorns99 "The spirit has to reveal it too you... until he does, all I can do is pray for you." Like the Spirit did for you. Like when you're asked pointed and simple questions, such as "Explain Eph 4: 4-6 in light of the fact that you teach contrary to the passage", you roll right along as if you actually feigned an answer. Then pray for ME to receive some kinda answer that you failed to give? Hmmm....well....I'll pray that you take the Bible alone and leave your feelings aside.
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it" Did you observe the Passover again? "Pass right over it"? Go right ahead - use some miraculous understanding and provide an answer." Umm, I'm sorry, no you didn't answer that - and you won't.
@crownofthorns99 "This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word." It sure doesn't go far in explaining why all these folks who have the same "enlightenment" - or make the claim - that you do are "Spirit-led" off into Mormonism, Christian Science, Pentecostalism, Catholicism, and a hundred other places. Is the "Spirit" that's leading all of y'all that badly mixed up? The "Spirit" led ole Joe Smith, Mary Baker, Ellen White, and YOU. Hmmmmm.....okkkkkkkkkkk
You're not arguing with me, your arguing with the word of God. Read the verses I gave you earlier... the spirit reveals the truth of God's word to us.
@crownofthorns99 "You're not arguing with me, your arguing with the word of God. Read the verses I gave you earlier... the spirit reveals the truth of God's word to us." The Spirit reveals God's truth THROUGH the Word - not in addition to it. All the "truth" is contained IN the Word.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth... I have never claimed any truth but that found in the Word of God. All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word.
Slow down and read my posts more carefully next time, before you misspeak and misrepresent what I'm saying.
@crownofthorns99 "All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word." Blah. You'll evidently just talk in circles: alright, the Spirit of God inspired an inerrant and complete written testimony - but wrote it in such a way that you can't develop any "spiritual understanding" without divine intervention in addition to and separate from the written word.
Yup... divine intervention is necessary to understand the written word... that's what 1 Cor 2:10-14 is saying!
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.....
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
@crownofthorns99 "I will just continue to pray for you!" You'll pray for, lemme guess: the Spirit of God to swoop down and "illuminate" me and "quicken" me because I'm "blind" enough to stand upon the Bible and the Bible alone? In other words, what good does it do quote a scripture to someone who hasn't gotten the "illumination" yet? Can the person understand it without some miracle? As per you, "No, they can't."
@crownofthorns99 "All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word. Slow down and read my posts more carefully next time" Yes, but the Spirit gives us spiritual understanding THROUGH the word - not separate and distinct from it. That's the difference. You want one reason I know this? Because you can't name ONE thing that the Holy Spirit does for you - not ONE - here, now, on earth, but what the SAME THING is done by the word of God.
The Spirit gives us spiritual understanding OF and THROUGH his words... The natural man reads it and can't understand it because the HS is needed in the man before he can receive the spiritual truth. I'm sorry that you're still missing that point.
@crownofthorns99 "I can tell you are really bitter, but don't put words in my mouth." Nahh, but if you claim to have some kinda special "spiritaul disernment", then to THAT DEGREE - whatever it is - you claim inspiration. Then when someone questions your statement that the "Greek" teaches that the "gift of God" is "faith" - and asks you about it maybe FIVE times - one might get the idea that you simply blurt things out then can't prove them. Go right ahead if you can.
I can only give you the spiritual meaning of a passage in God's Word, but you can't see it if you're still a natural man... and only God can change that. I'll keep you in my prayers though!
@crownofthorns99 "I can only give you the spiritual meaning of a passage in God's Word, but you can't see it if you're still a natural man" I'm not so sure you give THAT. But look at your assertion: you have "the Spirit", so even though you assign ridiculous meanings to passages and you do not answer specific questions (like the one on Eph 4: 4-6 which you consistently ignore), the fact that you ASSERT that you have the Spirit supposedly TRUMPS anyone who disagrees with you. How convenient!
@crownofthorns99 "Again, you are putting words in my mouth... I have never claimed any truth but that found in the Word of God." I repeat, you claim some special, miraculous, directly infused so-called "spiritual understanding" - shot directly from the Spirit to you - IN ORDER TO understand the words and thoughts conveyed in the Bible. Is that not true? And if it IS, then you're saying that the Bible alone is INSUFFICIENT in supply "spiritual understanding". I see no way around it.
@crownofthorns99 Anyway, you get busy and answer those simply little questions - only maybe five or six of them. You need to copy/paste the question, and provide us a REAL answer. Want me to RE-ASK them for maybe the fifth time? Your rambling about a special spiritual disernment of this n that kinda looks odd when you jump around and do not answer. I'll be happy to re-copy them in order and number them so you'll be sure not to miss them again.
I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions... never accepting the spiritual truth taught in those scriptures.. You're spiritual understanding of His Word is lacking... reminding me of how a Mormon interprets God's Word.
We have shown that water baptism is not necessary for a man to be saved... but a man must be washed internally by the HS if he is to clean. You can place some of your faith in WB if you like, but not I.
@crownofthorns99 "I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions" Then humor me or us - no one can seem to recall your "answer" to Eph 4: 4-6. It is very important to point out that you teach two or more baptisms in effect today. That's why you foul up on so many verses. So you go right ahead and answer. You haven't. Shoot, if you HAVE, then copy and paste it for all to see.
You need to read my posts from yesterday... I'm not surprised that you don't understand, for the natural man received not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned.
You're only interested in arguing, and you're not seeking Truth. Until you are made alive spiritually, you will not see. I will continue to pray that your eyes are opened.
@crownofthorns99 "You need to read my posts from yesterday... I'm not surprised that you don't understand, for the natural man received not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned." Lemme guess: you can't explain a gnat's eyelash worth of difference between (1) your miraculously-received, 'shot down direct from God' spiritual understanding and (2) inspiration. No, sir, how do you know you're right? Why, God told you - separate and distinct from the word.
I'm not here to argue with a man that can't understand the spiritual nature of God's Word... your in a natural state and see it through your flesh. Until God reveals the Truth of his Word, you won't understand. If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted.
@crownofthorns99 "If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted." Sir, scriptures alone won't explain such a thing as your assertion on the Greek: that "it is the gift of God" refers to "faith." You'll have to go to a Greek testament. Or else tell us that, like other things, you simply "spiritually discerned" a meaning unknown to Greek grammarians. You'll also have to explain Eph 4: 4-6 in your own words. You haven't done so yet - and you won't.
@crownofthorns99 "If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted." Ummm....I did, and I've read them many times. They do NOT teach a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in any form, especially separate and distinct from the written word. "You're only interested in arguing, and you're not seeking Truth." I have tried to answer every point you've made. It's hard to discuss the Bible with Joe Smith, Ellen White, and Father Divine - God speaks directly to all of them.
@crownofthorns99 "So you need to step and explain that "grammar" of ".....and that not of yourselves." You said you knew it, so post it - 4th time I've asked." <-- Make it 5 times. Won't do it, will ya?
@crownofthorns99 "He worshipped God, sacrificed to God, believed in God, trusted in God, prayed to God, and OBEYED GOD alllllllllllll prior to your favorite OT verse, Gen 15: 6. And I challenge you to deny it. Oh, tell us Abraham's status prior to Gen 15! Was he a believer? Was he an obedient believer? Was he an unbeliever? If he was an obedient believer prior to Gen 15: 6, what drag him up as an example - and a poor one - of salvation by "faith only" without obediece. Tell us!
@crownofthorns99 Eph 2: 8: "And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistiv (feminine) or to xariv (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex umwn, out of you) in men, but from God." A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures. See? The GENDER of the pronoun (that) won't let you have "faith" as the antecedent. It (that not of yourselves) refers to salvation - not faith.
@crownofthorns99 "Eph 2:8 tells us that this faith is also a gift... so it is ALL God. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." You think the "it" is "faith"? That makes no sense. Faith is not the gift of God at all - salvation is the gift of God. Salvation would be "not of yourselves" - you didn't earn it, even though you teach that you must do SOME WORK - something - in order to receive the gift.
The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8 is what is the gift. If you don't like that one, read Rom 12:3 and Phil 1;29... two more verses that show that our faith is a gift.
@crownofthorns99 'The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8" Well, I just quoted one authority, A. T. Robertson, who said "the gift" is "salvation." Faith is, in a sense, a gift in that God has graciously given us his Word - the written word, and "faith comes by hearing." It isn't infused directly. Anyway, if you think you can take the Koine Greek on Eph 2: 8 and make "the gift" refer to "faith", then do so. For now, I'll take Robertson and the rest.
@crownofthorns99 "The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8 is what is the gift." Then I'd like you to really dig in and show us all what the Greek says. I assume you that "and that not of yourselves" cannot refer to "faith." The genders do not match. And Greek scholar after Greek scholar will tell you that. Anyway, proceed along with your Greek analysis.
@crownofthorns99 "it means more than a mental ascent... there is a conviction in us that compels us to turn or repent." Yep, and I'd like to know, from you, whether you teach that there is SOMETHING ELSE, namely repentance, that you must do prior to salvation. If so, and repentance is most definately a good work, then I'd like to know whether an impenitent believer is saved. Acts 2: 38 seems to teach otherwise.
The salvation & baptism is Acts 2:38 comes as a result of a man's repentance.It's not saying that salvation comes as a result of baptism. If as you say, that salvation comes as a result of water baptism, then Acts 2:38 is in direct contradiction with Acts 10:43 & Acts 11:15-17 which says they were baptized with the HS because they believed... again, we see salvation prior to water baptism. Is there contradiction in God's word, or could you be holding the wrong reading of Acts 2:38?
@crownofthorns99 "If baptism is a righteous work, how can I perform it if I'm not saved until after it is complete?" The same way repentance is a "righteous work." The same way that going from probably "indifference" concerning God to loving God is a "righteous work." The same way that going from denying Christ to confessing Christ is a "righteous work."
@crownofthorns99 ""I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions" Well, we can only remember that you ASSERTED that the Greek "proves" your position that "the gift of God" is "faith." We referred to Dr. Robertson - and can refer to 50 more scholars - who will tell you that "the gift of God" refers to "salvation." So we asked you to proceed on to prove your assertion. You haven't.
You still didn't answer my questions... so what part of my sins were atoned for by being dunked under water? What part of my sins were not atoned for by Jesus on the cross?
@crownofthorns99 'You are still dodging the direct questions!!" Nope, I answer that ALL of your past sins were forgiven by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ when you DID what he SAID to DO in order to have them forgiven. That's plain enough - not evasive (or just plain silly) like your lack of response to Eph 4: 4-6, your lexigraphal definition of pistis, your lack of scriptural proof regarding the "inseparable linkage" of repentance and baptism, etc.
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins? When Christ died, all of MY sins were still future sins." Yes, and "but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." That sentence was written to Christians. Of course, you think the conditional phrase "if we walk ..." is meaningless - that the blood will cleanse you no matter what.
@crownofthorns99 And you be sure to plant your feet and give us your own explanation (inspired, I'm sure) of how there is ONE baptism, yet you parade around telling people there are two or more. I've yet to see you even attempt it.
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins?" The sufficiency of the blood of Christ does NOT imply that appropriating the cleansing "power of the blood" is unconditional. It is CONDITIONAL, either prior to forgiveness of all past sins or after it. You never did, by the way, explain the grammar of "not of works, it is the gift of God", did you? You assured us that the grammar proved your point, but you gave NO PROOF. So go ahead. I'd like to see it.
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins?" You're not confused - you seek to cloud up the question. The question is the CONDITIONS upon which Jesus atones your past sins and the CONDITIONS upon which Jesus atones for your future sins. Nobody said a word about you "atoning" for your own sins, and you know it.
@crownofthorns99 "My obedience to him is just my reasonable service to him (Rom12:1)" That's true - so? Your faith is an act - a mental act - in obedience to the will of God. You implied that God pretty much forced it on you. If not, you made your own decision pro or con - and I doubt you'll take that position. So you need to step and explain that "grammar" of ".....and that not of yourselves." You said you knew it, so post it - 4th time I've asked.
@crownofthorns99 "People that trust in external baptism make the same mistake as the Jews placing faith in external circumcision." Oh, no, I do not "trust" in "external baptism." I trust in the words of Jesus, Paul, and Peter. You are trusting in .... well .... a Greek preposition in one verse (Luke 11: 32), then trying to apply that assumed and erroneous meaning to another verse, when not a single Bible translation renders it as such. "Unto the remission of your sins." (ASV, 1901)
I am trusting that God is cleansing my internal man by the baptism of the Holy Spirit... not in my cleansing myself by being dunked in a tub of water to wash my outer man. You incorrectly assume that anytime the word baptism is used that it is referring to water baptism. It is the baptism of the HS that Jesus clearly distinguished as being superior to the water baptism of John. (Acts 11:16) it's impossible to be saved without the HS baptism. The water is only symbolic.
@crownofthorns99 " not in my cleansing myself by being dunked in a tub of water to wash my outer man. You incorrectly assume that anytime the word baptism is used that it is referring to water baptism." Who said water baptism is to cleanse your "outer man". Peter explicitly said otherwise: "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". Some translations read "dirt from the body." And you STILL are talking about at least two baptisms being in effect today, when there is ONE.
@lllannallll 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Who does the baptism that brings us into the body? It is the Spirit... not man.
@crownofthorns99 "it's impossible to be saved without the HS baptism." Then you have the BELIEVERS in Acts 19 LOST, don't you? Holy Spirit baptism - total immersion in the Spirit - was never designed to EFFECT salvation. And the Bible never says that water baptism is "only symbolic", as you say.
The men in Acts 12 received the Holy Spirit the moment their faith was placed in Jesus Christ.
Did you not read the verses I provided earlier? Some believers had already received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water. Are you saying that these people could have the Holy Spirit living in them but not be saved?
@crownofthorns99 'The men in Acts 12 received the Holy Spirit the moment their faith was placed in Jesus Christ." You'll need to point out for me which men in Acts 12 you are talking about - because I do not see any.
@crownofthorns99 "Are you saying that these people could have the Holy Spirit living in them but not be saved?" I never said anything about the Spirit LIVING in them, but yes, the Spirit of God could and did work through unsaved people to accomplish His purpose. Cornelius is a poor example because no one can prove he even had faith at that point: the manifestation of the Spirit was not to prove salvation at all. It was to prove to those Jews that the Gentiles were fit subjects of the gospel.
The context of Acts 10:47 indicates that they were already saved.Tt doesn't indicate that the HS was just working in them. It clearly states that the HS had already been received. You have to intentionally take the scripture out of context to say that they weren't saved. I think you know that since you couldn't give me a straight yes or no answer on it. Obviously, you are letting your personal beliefs interpret scripture, rather then letting the word determine your beliefs.
@crownofthorns99 "The context of Acts 10:47 indicates that they were already saved.Tt doesn't indicate that the HS was just working in them." Oh, what you THINK is that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit as some kind of evidence of salvation prior to baptism. I repeat: the Holy Spirit acting upon or through someone is NOT evidence of salvation. And in the case of Cornelius, you'll quickly have Cornelius saved prior to faith.
If you don't like that one, Acts 11:15-17 says that they were baptized by the HS as Peter began to speak...but I guess to you, baptism of the HS doesn't indicate salvation, right?
@crownofthorns99 "If you don't like that one, Acts 11:15-17 says that they were baptized by the HS as Peter began to speak...but I guess to you, baptism of the HS doesn't indicate salvation, right?" In the first place, not ONE VERSE ever says Cornelius was baptized in the Spirit - not a one. He received a "like gift" - why? To confirm his fitness as a gospel subject to suspicious Jews. You're right that Cornelius spake in tongues "as Peter began to speak."
@crownofthorns99 "Receiving the HS is being baptized into the HS... We are immersed in the HS when he comes to live in us." That's absurd, especially given your position on Acts 2: 38. Here your rendering: Repent ye, and be baptized in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." You have them repenting and receiving Holy Spirit baptism in order to what? Receive the gift of the Spirit?
@crownofthorns99 Acts 2: 38, 39 is parallel to Mark 16: 16-20. And Mark 16 refers to water baptism because IT stands alongside Matt 28: 19. DISCIPLES were to do the baptizing, and disciples can't baptize in the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism isn't "in the name of Jesus Christ" nor "into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit" either. Water baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ", and is FOLLOWED BY reception of the gift of the Spirit. Wanna try Acts 2: 38 again for us?
Acts 10:47 doesn't say the HS was "acting" on Cornelius. It says he had "received" the HS...very big difference. In fact, they were even speaking in tongues before the water baptism. Cornelius was saved when he believed in his heart... God knows when he believed and he shows us in the passage that it was before he was baptized in water.
@crownofthorns99 "In fact, they were even speaking in tongues before the water baptism. Cornelius was saved when he believed in his heart." Ver well. You obviously are forced to conclude that Cornelius believed and repented just as Peter began to speak. That'd be a hard pill to swallow (well nigh impossible), but you being the doctor, we'll have to take the medicine you prescribe.
@crownofthorns99 "God knows when he believed and he shows us in the passage that it was before he was baptized in water." Of course Cornelius believed before he was baptized. No one disputes that. Your problem is this: you erroneously ASSUME that every believer from Pentecost on down to 2011 is BAPTIZED in the Spirit. THAT is the mistake. You do not have the baptism of the Spirit, nor do I, nor does anyone else today.
@crownofthorns99 "Some believers had already received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water." Your attempt to "time" salvation by the reception of the Spirit in the 1st century will turn on you. You'd like to have believers saved and in possession of the Holy Spirit at the POINT of belief, but, of course, there are too many exceptions to that. Acts 2: 38 places reception of the Spirit after baptism as does Acts 19.
I challenge you to show me where one had received the HS into his life and was not saved!
The mark of a true believer is that the HS is living in them. We are sealed by the Spirit... 2Cor 1:21-22. Again in Eph 1:13-14 "In whom also AFTER THAT YOU BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise,Which is the earnest of our inheritance." - No WB
Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is flawed & does not conform with the rest of scripture as a whole, which has no contradictions.
@crownofthorns99 "I challenge you to show me where one had received the HS into his life and was not saved!" Do you challenge me to find the Holy Spirit operating upon someone who wasn't saved. I'd be careful about that.
I do challenge you to show me where a man has received the Holy Spirit and not been saved... You told me to be careful about that, so I assume you must have an answer for me. Let's see what you got!!
Also, I noticed you have tried to change receiving the HS into the HS simply "operating" on them... Nice try, but the men in Acts had received the HS. Show me someone receiving the HS in that sense and not being saved.
@crownofthorns99 "I do challenge you to show me where a man has received the Holy Spirit and not been saved" I'll answer that - and anything else. ONE of us should answer things, right? King Saul received the Spirit and was given a new heart, yet he ultimately rejected God, was cut off from his people, became an enemy of God, and committed suicide. I'll leave it to you as to King Saul's salvation - but I'd say he either was once saved, then lost or maybe never saved to start with.
1 Sam 28:19 "Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and tomorrow shall you and thy sons be with me..."
Samuel was speaking to Saul here with the witch at Endor. If we take that Samuel was in Abraham's bosom, this verse seems to be saying that Saul will die and be where Samuel is on the morrow.
@crownofthorns99 "Samuel was speaking to Saul here with the witch at Endor. If we take that Samuel was in Abraham's bosom" Yeah, well, Samuel isn't the judge, so most likely he means that old wicked Saul and his sons would "be with him" simply as residents of the Hadean world, with their bodies in the grave. By the way, the Spirit LEFT Saul - so you have a fella without the Spirit headed straight to Abraham's bosom. Oh, wait, you say the Spirit CANNOT DEPART, don't you?
@crownofthorns99 'If you can lose your salvation as the CoC teaches, Hebrews 6:4-6 makes it impossible to come back." Well, we can discuss that, but I asked about a DIFFERENT 4-6: Eph 4: 4-6, and you're still as silent as the grave. Explain to us how there is ONE BAPTISM, either you are forever yapping about two or more in operation today. I'd like to see that explanation.
I've already answered your question, but you don't pay attention.
1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all BAPTIZED into ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but HE SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST
Please note that it is the HS that baptizes us into the one body.
@crownofthorns99 Me: "Explain to us how there is ONE BAPTISM, either you are forever yapping about two or more in operation today. I'd like to see that explanation." You: (amazingly) "I've already answered your question, but you don't pay attention." LOL No, you haven't. You have not so much as MENTIONED Eph 4: 4-6, which teaches "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" - you just move right along assertion two or three or twenty. Go ahead and explain it.
@crownofthorns99 "If the written, confirmed Word is inerrant and sufficient, then WHY can't you understand it with some sorta mysterious divine intervention to spiritually illuminate it for you? Did God make it so DARK the first time that He must "enlighten" is own Word just for lil ole you?" <-- Oh, most of these are "yes" or "no", and they aren't copyrighted. Get with it and answer." I assume you'd have to say "yes": you stand right with Joe Smith, Ellen White, Mary B. Eddy, and the rest.
That's right... "lil ole me" is dependent on the HS to teach me the spiritual meaning of His Word. And "know-it-all you" can lean on your own understanding if you so choose... just one more indicator that you're still in your natural state, and all the more reason to keep you in my prayers.
God obviously gave men the gift of teaching (Eph 4:11) because men need guidance in understanding... not exactly sure why you would want to deny that He uses His Spirit to help guide men in understanding His Word.
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it
@crownofthorns99 ..... and you have the nerve to say that I dodge questions! Sir, I'll answer them, and if I don't, point it out, and I assure you I will. You, rarely acknowledge a question, even though some of them are asked 3, 4 or 5 times. You sure oughta be able to answer since you have the direct "illumination" or "enlightenment." I do not know what to do with someone who claims "enlightenment", then simply asserts this or that - and rarely feigns to answer anything.
Again, God's word tells us that the Spirit of God living in us reveals the spiritual meaning of His Word to us... I have no truth other than His Word.
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it" Did you observe the Passover again? "Pass right over it"? Go right ahead - use some miraculous understanding and provide an answer.
Garbage...
meathead530 6 months ago
Ezekiel was NOT saying that H2o SAVES anyone. He is saying that Sprinkling water is just as effective as a symbolic baptism as emmersion is. Since H2o babptism is a sign for th eyes of men as a witness to them of what they need IN JOHN the baptist's time and now is an outward sign of what they have already done inwardly. H2o baptism is merely symbolic, as is the bread & the wine at communion. We should and do get baptized in water but I cannot find scripture for equality with Faith /repentance.
ydnar0591 7 months ago
the COC worships the COC
Christianpreaching 7 months ago
Comment removed
ydnar0591 7 months ago
If as the CofC claims the H2o baptism is a work of the spirit and NOT men's works, then how can you even BE water baptized WO the Spirit? Is it Men's works or is it Spiritual works? It seems like shooting bullets witout a gun.
Does the sprinkling in Ezekiel 36:25-27 count ? God says there in Ezekiel I will sprinkle you and you shall be clean from ALL your filthyness and I will put MY Spirit within you. Looks like Ezekiel is predicting a water baptism, that results in the Holy Ghost recieved !
ydnar0591 7 months ago
About 1billion souls believe that God uses baptism as a means of salvation. I guess this guy thinks that the Church of Christ and countless other bodies of believers some of which date back to the 1st century are wrong and he some how is right with his modern view of God's word. How about the good old days when everyone believed in the saving work done by God through baptism. Remember, grace through faith. The kind of faith that causes one to act. "Be baptized & wash your sins" Acts 22:16
AccordingToScripture 9 months ago
@AccordingToScripture Who said that's water baptism in Acts 22:16? Nowhere does it say that. Why can't that be Holy Ghost baptism spoken of in Luke 3:16. There's more than just water baptism. But baptismal regenerists do NOT like to deal w/ that cause it may hurt their cause. BTW, I come from a C of Christ/1st Christian background.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "Who said that's water baptism in Acts 22:16?" Virtually EVERY commentator, that's who - even those who argue loud and long that water baptism is not necessary. What's funny is that the OTHER side claims that the middle voice in 22: 16 = Paul saved himself. The verse means "get yourself baptized" - you can't "get yourself baptized" in the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism never was an INSTRUCTION.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll You saying there's no such thing as being baptized by the Holy Spirit?
filoIII 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filoIII "You saying there's no such thing as being baptized by the Holy Spirit?" There WAS a baptism of the Holy Spirit - most definately. As of the timeframe of Eph 4: 4-6 (AD 60ish), Holy Spirit baptism had CEASED - or else water baptism had. You are no more baptized in the Holy Spirit than the next fellow, and even those who had Holy Spirit baptism in the first century were not obeying a COMMAND to have it.
lllannallll 9 months ago
He is way off base. The Church of Christ is the closest thing we have to the true church. Read the book of Acts. It's His church. He bought and paid for it at the cross. If Christ was baptized, then don't you think it IS necessary? Common sense and written in the book of John, chapter 3.
Satan would love for you to believe baptism is not necessary, as well as a host of many other things. Liberal Catholics and these pop up, "community churches" are just whores.
jc37015 9 months ago
Water Baptism does not save you! Knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior does! Baptism confirms your new life with the lord!!!
fff1313 10 months ago
@fff1313 John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him,"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God".
John 3:5 Jesus answered,"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God". (New King James Version).
Wackydoodle2 10 months ago
@Wackydoodle2 Why stop where you did. Jesus explains the water and the Spirit. John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.--the water spoken of here is amniotic fluid at childbirth. Baptismal regenerists twist it to make it seem that being dunked in water is a part of salvation.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "Jesus explains the water and the Spirit." LOL He was talking to a JEW - one born "of the flesh" into the Jewish family. Nobody ever heard of "born of water" meaning "amnionic fluid", either in sacred or profane writings, til recently. There is ONE new birth - two elements. Explain how you experience this "born of water and the Spirit." One things for sure: you aren't "born of water" during CHILDBIRTH, then "born of the Spirit" maybe 15-20 years LATER. Such reasoning makes infidels.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll Jesus associated the water w/ the flesh in the following sentence. You're just going down a dry sinner and coming up a wet one. Good luck w/ Acts 10
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "Jesus associated the water w/ the flesh in the following sentence." LOL WHAT sentence?
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll John 3:5-6 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Water in the preveious verse is explained in the next verse) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. ---I suggest you fit your theology to the Book and not try to crumble the Book to fit into your theology. Again, good luck w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "good luck w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius." Good luck with Acts 2: 38.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@filoIII "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. " Nicodemus was a JEW, by the flesh. He was BORN a JEW, by the flesh. THAT explains THAT. But that which is born by the teaching of the Holy Spirit is the SPIRIT. I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings in which "born of water" has reference to "amnionic fluid" birth. You can't do it - so you ASSERT it.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll Which greek do you speak of? There's all sorts of different kinds of greek dictionaries, interliners and lexicons, and they all disagree w/ on another. I speak english & just believe what I read in context.
What about Acts 2:38? Yes or no--Can the word "for" ever mean because of??
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII I never mentioned GREEK, did I? I rather doubt that you teach that one repents "because of" the remission of sins in the first place. I use the American Standard Version - a version accepted by many scholars. So you're asking, "Can the word 'unto' mean 'because of'?" I don't much think so. That's the ASV translation of "eis" in Acts 2: 38. The KJV translation is "for"; the ASV translation is "unto". So "for" is equivalent to "unto", and "unto" does not mean "because of", does it?
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll " I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings"--That was from you, no?
I didn't say repent because of the remission of sins. Repent & be baptized BECAUSE OF the remission of sins. A person is saved, THEN gets dunked. So the word "for" can't mean because or because of? Let's go to the Book. 1Pet 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; FOR he careth for you.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "" I'd suggest you find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings"--That was from you, no?" Yeah, that was from me, and I asked you to find ONE place in either sacred or profane Greek writings in which "born of water" EVER means natural childbirth. So far, you haven't supplied a single reference.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@filoIII "So the word "for" can't mean because or because of?" Oh, you'd LIKE me to say that, but I said the word "unto" can't mean "because of" - and you haven't denied my statement. UNTO cannot mean BECAUSE OF, yet Acts 2: 38 says ".....unto the remission of sins."
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll I'm not too concerned about the catholic based asv. You roll w/ that and I'll stick to the Book all the other modern perversions compare themselves to. It says "for" meaning "because of." Keep making the Bible fit your theology when you should be conforming your theology to the Book
filoIII 9 months ago
@lllannallll John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)--There's more if you want. In jail I ask you what you're in for, you may say, I'm in for murder. OR, I may ask, what are you in BECAUSE OF? I'm in BECAUSE OF murder. Do you see it? Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?" I'm pretty much positive that you can't take "unto" and make it mean "because of." Quote the ASV (1901), itself a revision of the KJV with very little difference, and explain for all just how "unto" means "because of." "Unto" in the ASV is the equivalent of "for" in the KJV - the same meaning. So go ahead and tell us how "unto" means "because of." Oughta be most interesting.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll In all honesty, you are ignorant of the bible version issue. ALL the modern versions come from commonly known heretical manuscripts called the Alexandrian Texts. The asv has absolutely NO relation to the AV.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "Are you absolutely sure "for" can't mean because of?" I'm absolutely positive that NO VERSION - not even perversions - give such an absurd translation of "eis". Many render "eis" as "for" or "unto", though. Surely it's a source of embarrassment that NO ONE translates the word to "because of". And "unto" does NOT mean "because of" - not ever. Tell us: did Jesus shed his blood for many "UNTO the remission of sins" or "because of the remission of sins"?
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll never did I state "for" ALWAYS means because/because of. But for you to say it doesn't, after I gave you passages where it does, well,,,,,,I don't think I can help you. So does baptized always mean dunked in H2O? You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius. You can't. & my Ch of Christ pastor relative told me that as well. Good day.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII " But for you to say it doesn't, after I gave you passages where it does" Actually, I said "for" means "unto", and "unto" means "for", and "eis" means "unto or for." It seems that you never really mention "unto" because you can't twist the ENGLISH meaning into "because of." You "just read English" .. Well, Acts 2: 38 in the ASV is CURRENT, AMERICAN ENGLISH. Read it and tell us what it means.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@filoIII "You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius." I haven't tried. I'm waiting for you to take Acts 2: 38. Here, let me quote it for you: "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Practically identical to the KJV, and COMPLETELY identical in meaning. I asked you what "unto" means - you never answered (and I doubt you will).
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll Baptismal regeneration is no different than those who tried to mix Jesus w/ the Law saying one must also be circumcised. Dunked in water has been substituted for circumcision. Unto doesn't even make sense there.I don't know you think unto means for in that verse
unto-prep [ˈantu] an old word for `to'--preposition 1. to (in its various uses, except as the accompaniment of the infinitive). 2. until; till.
Good luck w/ your catholic-inspired "bible." We're finished.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "So does baptized always mean dunked in H2O?" No, it does not. It always means immersed, and since there is ONE BAPTISM today, you'd need to take the ordinary, usual meaning of the word unless there is good reason to do otherwise.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll " there is ONE BAPTISM today"-That's the most correct statement you've made yet. But, again, you've made a major error in thinking baptism only means dunked in H2O. LET'S GO TO THE BOOK! Lk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.---That's 3 different kinds of baptism in 1 verse. More????
filoIII 9 months ago
@lllannallll 1Cor 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea---OH, I forgot, "unto" means "for" in your beloved catholic-based asv. So it should read And were all baptized FOR Moses in the cloud and in the sea. ---You win. I've nothing else for you. G'day
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII LOL @ "Catholic-based" ASV. THAT is a new one! The Roman Catholics didn't not APPROVE or TRANSLATE, nor do they USE, the ASV. Of the 101 scholars who TRANSLATED the ASV, few, if any, had a Roman Catholic background, and it was for many years the STANDARD BIBLE of most Protestant seminaries. Philip Schaaf, a non-Catholic, chaired the translation committee. A "catholic-based ASV" is a ridiculous charge - the best you can do because "unto" does not mean "because of."
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll The N.T. of all the new "bibles" are based on the alexandrian texts--siniaticus & vaticanus. This is the greek you so lovingly refer to & is different than the greek the AV comes from. Parts were found in a catholic monestary on Mt. Sinai and others found in a trash can in the library of, you guessed it, the vatican. Enjoy your catholic "bible." I will not be responding to any other statements of yours. You get the last word.
filoIII 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filoIII "You still haven't dealt w/ Acts 10 and Cornelius. You can't." Sure I can - just waiting to Acts 2: 38 in the ASV. You won't deny that the ASV is an accurate translation. Most likely, you'll just ignore the question or formulate some weak-kneed "dodge" in order to not answer. The ASV is written in circa 1900 American English - you should easily be able to answer.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@lllannallll So you know, modern english is considered from 1450 a.d. to the present. G'day.
filoIII 9 months ago
@filoIII "I don't think I can help you." So YOU know, the following translations render 'eis' as 'unto': American Bible Union (Baptist), ASV (1901), English Revised, and Young' Literal (to instead of unto). Charles Williams (Baptist): "that you may have your sins forgiven." NIV: "so that your sins may be forgiven." You'll have toss aside ALL of these translations, even the Baptist ones, and scream "Catholic Version." Well, they are NOT.
lllannallll 9 months ago
@filoIII "Most likely, you'll just ignore the question or formulate some weak-kneed "dodge" in order to not answer." <-- and thus you did, although I've never quite heard THAT one before. "The ASV is a CATHOLIC translation". LOL
lllannallll 9 months ago
@filoIII You need to prove your statement that "for" or "unto" in Acts 2: 38 means "because of" - that was your assertion. Is THIS it? You already steered us from the Greek (pleading inability to use a lexicon ... LOL). Now you steer us from EVERY TRANSLATION that does not render "eis" with a word such as "for" which you can twist into either a prospective or retrospective viewpoint, depending upon your fancy?
lllannallll 9 months ago
Comment removed
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@lllannallll Luke 11:32 The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.." Did the men of Nineveh repent "for" Jonah to preach? Or, did the men repent "because" of his preaching?
The internal washing of the HS is necessary for salvation...not the external. People that trust in external baptism make the same mistake as the Jews placing faith in external circumcision.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 " Did the men of Nineveh repent "for" Jonah to preach? Or, did the men repent "because" of his preaching?" They repented unto or into the preaching of Jonah, according to this verse. They also repented "because of" Jonah's preaching, although the verse doesn't say it. The reason is that "eis" does not mean "because of": it is not a retrospective preposition. The same goes for Matt 3: 11.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
As a believer in Jesus Christ, can you tell me what part of my sins were not atoned for by the blood of Christ? Or what part of my sins do I atone for by having my body dunked in a tub of water? Either Christ did it ALL, or part of my atonement is based on my works.
Abraham was justified at the moment he believed, so are you and I declared righteous when we believe... at that moment we are baptized with the HS and the inner man is cleaned of all unrigheousness.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Either Christ did it ALL, or part of my atonement is based on my works." Look at your "reasoning." "Christ did it ALL", you emphatically said. Well, in that case, there's NOTHING you can do, is there? Not one thing. What place does your argument leave for repentance? NONE What place do you leave for your turning from disbelief to belief? NONE In fact, what place do you leave for loving God? NONE.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The bible tells us that all we need to do is believe (pisteuo)... in the Greek, it means more than a mental ascent... there is a conviction in us that compels us to turn or repent. Action is implied when the bible tells us to believe. Eph 2:8 tells us that this faith is also a gift... so it is ALL God. The bible tells me that until I'm saved, I can do no righteous work. If baptism is a righteous work, how can I perform it if I'm not saved until after it is complete?
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "The bible tells us that all we need to do is believe" Then there you have it! YOU have to DO something, don't you? You spouted, "Christ did it ALL" and capitalized "ALL". So, see, you are saying that one MUST DO something. DOING SOMETHING is a WORK.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Eph 2:8-9 Makes it clear that even our faith is a gift... Paul said if I do something for my salvation, then I have something to boast about. I am saved only because Christ intervened in my life... I didn't go after him, he came after me and gave me the faith to believe. If faith was given to me, then I did nothing! It was ALL him... and I certainly don't want to be the one who steals some of the glory that belongs to Jesus Christ.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I am saved only because Christ intervened in my life" Oh, ok ... I misunderstood. The word of God - the Bible - wasn't quite enough for you. You required some kind of miracle for conversion. And he forced faith upon you, for we may presume you were unwilling. Had you been "willing," the Bible might have been sufficient for you - just as it is for the rest of us. So God directly came after you, made you believe, then saved you? Ummm ... that's interesting.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Yes, that is what it means for salvation to be of God... not of my doing, else I would have something to boast.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is NONE that seeks after God. (I guess you're the exception to that, huh?
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you... obviously you did it alone)
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you... obviously you did it alone)" And you conclude that the "drawing" is some kind a miraculous intervention? What if God simply draws men by the WORD? Maybe the WORD - not some mysterious "drawing" - is the sword of the Spirit.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Any divine act of God, by definition, is miraculous!
If God didn't draw us, no one would come.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Any divine act of God, by definition, is miraculous!" No, it's not. God causes the trees to grow, but He does so by NATURAL LAW. The FIRST tree was miraculous in CREATION, but PRO-CREATION isn't a miracle at all. And that's a poor dodge - not worth two cents - because God draws us today by non-miraculous means. To say otherwise is to imply that the Word of God is somehow lacking, somehow insufficient, somehow does not thoroughly furnish us.
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll
Read Websters dictionary if you don't believe me!
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "If God didn't draw us, no one would come." I SAID that God draws us, but He doesn't do so DIRECTLY. He uses means ... the spoken or written Word, the beauty of the heavens, the birth of a child. Those are MEANS. You, on the other hand, think NOTHING will avail unless God intervenes directly. You see, you believe that you can't read the Bible or hear the Word, and respond favorably without a miracle. Either (1) the Word is lacking or (2) you are either real bad or real stupid.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
God working through the word is miraculous... I gave you scriptures showing that man can't understand the word of God without the spirit revealing it's truth to us. And I contend now, that this may be the very reason you don't see the spiritual meaning of the word of God.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "And I contend now, that this may be the very reason you don't see the spiritual meaning of the word of God." Well, I guess I can't "win" against someone who claims inspiration, can I? Nope, for to whatever degree the Spirit enlightens and illuminates that old dead, confused, poorly written, contradictory Word of God - to that degree, you claim inspiration. Then prance around telling everyone that you have some "special enlightenment" that allows you to "see clearly." Hmmmm
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 (Since you sought after God on your own, I guess God was wrong to say that NO MAN can come without his working in you" One 'smart' respone deserves another. God draws men, but how? through the word. "Receive .. the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." My question is: which is inadequate, YOU or the word? Is the word so CONFUSING, so INADEQUATE to you that you needed "extra help" from above, or were you just too dumb to understand it on your own?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I am inadequate without the spirit to guide me!
1 Cor 2:11-12 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Understanding God's word requires His Spirit! This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Understanding God's word requires His Spirit! This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word." Nope, but it explains this much: you think God was "bright" enough to supply us with a written Word, but wrote it in such a way that WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT without something ELSE! That's your position: no wonder you assert this and that - you think the Lord is guiding you directly, and you feel no guilt about any lack of proof of your positions.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I am inadequate without the spirit to guide me!" So am I and everyone else, so the Spirit ever guides us into all truth through the written Word. You can't escape that! If the written, confirmed Word is inerrant and sufficient, then WHY can't you understand it with some sorta mysterious divine intervention to illuminate it for you? Did God make it so DARK the first time that He must "enlighten" is own Word just for lil ole you?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I give all the credit to Jesus Christ, my Lord and my Savior. He has revealed the spiritual truth of his word... I take no credit for myself. If it wasn't for him acting on me, I would not be saved. If I'm guilty of giving too much credit to God, then so be it... better than thinking of myself as something more than what his word has revealed about me. If you want to boast and be prideful, go right ahead, but I'm not going to take glory from God.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "If I'm guilty of giving too much credit to God, then so be it..." <-- I doubt that you're guilty, actually. The implication is that God deserves credit for inspiring/authoring a "Word" that is so hazy, so cloudy, so poorly written that basic ideas are not even conveyed. And you think that believing THAT somehow gives glory to God? Why, it's an insult to God! God gave us the written word in understandable form, although you deny it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I can tell you are really bitter, but don't put words in my mouth.
1 Cor 2:12-13 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teaches
I'm sorry that the scripture doesn't speak to you, but the HS living in us is what reveals the truth of his word to us, not any special revelation!
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I'm sorry that the scripture doesn't speak to you, but the HS living in us is what reveals the truth of his word to us, not any special revelation!" Im not bitter - evidently YOU are. About the time a verse or passage or doctrine "catches up" with you - you jump around to another one. You still say "faith" is the "gift of God"? You said you could prove it by the Greek, but you haven't.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I'm sorry, but If I recall, I only questioned you regarding your erroneous teaching that a man needs water baptism before he is saved... Since we've proved that it is not necessary, you have chosen to change the subject and argue about other things which you don't understand.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "Since we've proved that it is not necessary, you have chosen to change the subject and argue about other things which you don't understand." You never proved that - you ASSERT that you proved something. Do you remember the silly meaning you assigned to Acts 2: 38? "Repent and be baptized by the Holy Spirit ... and ye shall receive ... what? ... amazingly ... the GIFT of the Spirit." That makes NO sense - but such is your position.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I only questioned you regarding your erroneous teaching that a man needs water baptism before he is saved." Certainly you did. And you ran everywhere from an obedient believer like Abraham - which doesn't fit your doctrine - to Cornelius .... and proved nothing!
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 ""But your church holds to the doctrine of water baptism by a CoC elder today for salvation!" LOL no, it doesn't. It didn't in the 1st century - and doesn't today - and never has. If you think it does, then, like all the rest of your assertions, PROVE IT!" <-- I don't think that's an unreasonable request, but you've not seen fit to "illuminate" us with an answer.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Until HE makes us alive spiritually, we can not understand it's spiritual meaning.... Again, I let His Word speak.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Take it up with God if you don't like what His word says.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Take it up with God if you don't like what His word says." And you quote 1 Cor 2: 14: the "natural" (unconverted) man "recieves not" (does not accept, i. e. rejects) the things (teachings) of the Spirit of God." And where are the teachings of the Spirit of God? How do we receive them? They are IN the written word, and we receive them through the word. You think God (the Spirit) inspired the entire Bible in such a way that it's lacking, falls short, in some way.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The Word of God is not lacking.... man's spiritual understanding is.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "The Word of God is not lacking.... man's spiritual understanding is." If the word of God cannot GIVE us spiritual understanding, then something ELSE is required, and the word of God is not sufficient. THAT is your position. My position is that we are quickened by the word - that God was smart enough to provide us with written words that the average man can understand.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
You're lack of understanding the whole water baptism issue makes a strong argument for the truth of 1 Cor 2:14... You think you understand, but you've missed it's spiritual meaning and proper place in our relationship with God. The real meaning is in God's word, but you haven't seen the truth yet... and people have tried, but you still reject it. The spirit has to reveal it too you... until he does, all I can do is pray for you.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 Your main argument - when all is said and done - runs about like this: "I know it because I feel it, and I feel it because the Spirit "told" me apart from the written word." I repeat: the only difference between you and Joseph Smith and Ellen White is the DEGREE of trouble caused. The THEORY and defense of it is the SAME. Of course, Ellen had to take a trip to heaven, while you sat here on earth.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "The spirit has to reveal it too you... until he does, all I can do is pray for you." Like the Spirit did for you. Like when you're asked pointed and simple questions, such as "Explain Eph 4: 4-6 in light of the fact that you teach contrary to the passage", you roll right along as if you actually feigned an answer. Then pray for ME to receive some kinda answer that you failed to give? Hmmm....well....I'll pray that you take the Bible alone and leave your feelings aside.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it" Did you observe the Passover again? "Pass right over it"? Go right ahead - use some miraculous understanding and provide an answer." Umm, I'm sorry, no you didn't answer that - and you won't.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "This might explain why you don't see the spiritual significance in the Word." It sure doesn't go far in explaining why all these folks who have the same "enlightenment" - or make the claim - that you do are "Spirit-led" off into Mormonism, Christian Science, Pentecostalism, Catholicism, and a hundred other places. Is the "Spirit" that's leading all of y'all that badly mixed up? The "Spirit" led ole Joe Smith, Mary Baker, Ellen White, and YOU. Hmmmmm.....okkkkkkkkkkk
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
You're not arguing with me, your arguing with the word of God. Read the verses I gave you earlier... the spirit reveals the truth of God's word to us.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "You're not arguing with me, your arguing with the word of God. Read the verses I gave you earlier... the spirit reveals the truth of God's word to us." The Spirit reveals God's truth THROUGH the Word - not in addition to it. All the "truth" is contained IN the Word.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Again, you are putting words in my mouth... I have never claimed any truth but that found in the Word of God. All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word.
Slow down and read my posts more carefully next time, before you misspeak and misrepresent what I'm saying.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word." Blah. You'll evidently just talk in circles: alright, the Spirit of God inspired an inerrant and complete written testimony - but wrote it in such a way that you can't develop any "spiritual understanding" without divine intervention in addition to and separate from the written word.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Yup... divine intervention is necessary to understand the written word... that's what 1 Cor 2:10-14 is saying!
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.....
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I will just continue to pray for you!
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I will just continue to pray for you!" You'll pray for, lemme guess: the Spirit of God to swoop down and "illuminate" me and "quicken" me because I'm "blind" enough to stand upon the Bible and the Bible alone? In other words, what good does it do quote a scripture to someone who hasn't gotten the "illumination" yet? Can the person understand it without some miracle? As per you, "No, they can't."
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "All I have said is that the Spirit of God gives us the spiritual understanding of His Word. Slow down and read my posts more carefully next time" Yes, but the Spirit gives us spiritual understanding THROUGH the word - not separate and distinct from it. That's the difference. You want one reason I know this? Because you can't name ONE thing that the Holy Spirit does for you - not ONE - here, now, on earth, but what the SAME THING is done by the word of God.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The Spirit gives us spiritual understanding OF and THROUGH his words... The natural man reads it and can't understand it because the HS is needed in the man before he can receive the spiritual truth. I'm sorry that you're still missing that point.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I can tell you are really bitter, but don't put words in my mouth." Nahh, but if you claim to have some kinda special "spiritaul disernment", then to THAT DEGREE - whatever it is - you claim inspiration. Then when someone questions your statement that the "Greek" teaches that the "gift of God" is "faith" - and asks you about it maybe FIVE times - one might get the idea that you simply blurt things out then can't prove them. Go right ahead if you can.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I can only give you the spiritual meaning of a passage in God's Word, but you can't see it if you're still a natural man... and only God can change that. I'll keep you in my prayers though!
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I can only give you the spiritual meaning of a passage in God's Word, but you can't see it if you're still a natural man" I'm not so sure you give THAT. But look at your assertion: you have "the Spirit", so even though you assign ridiculous meanings to passages and you do not answer specific questions (like the one on Eph 4: 4-6 which you consistently ignore), the fact that you ASSERT that you have the Spirit supposedly TRUMPS anyone who disagrees with you. How convenient!
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Again, you are putting words in my mouth... I have never claimed any truth but that found in the Word of God." I repeat, you claim some special, miraculous, directly infused so-called "spiritual understanding" - shot directly from the Spirit to you - IN ORDER TO understand the words and thoughts conveyed in the Bible. Is that not true? And if it IS, then you're saying that the Bible alone is INSUFFICIENT in supply "spiritual understanding". I see no way around it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I have not doubt that you can't "see any way around it"... 1 Cor 2:14
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 Anyway, you get busy and answer those simply little questions - only maybe five or six of them. You need to copy/paste the question, and provide us a REAL answer. Want me to RE-ASK them for maybe the fifth time? Your rambling about a special spiritual disernment of this n that kinda looks odd when you jump around and do not answer. I'll be happy to re-copy them in order and number them so you'll be sure not to miss them again.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions... never accepting the spiritual truth taught in those scriptures.. You're spiritual understanding of His Word is lacking... reminding me of how a Mormon interprets God's Word.
We have shown that water baptism is not necessary for a man to be saved... but a man must be washed internally by the HS if he is to clean. You can place some of your faith in WB if you like, but not I.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions" Then humor me or us - no one can seem to recall your "answer" to Eph 4: 4-6. It is very important to point out that you teach two or more baptisms in effect today. That's why you foul up on so many verses. So you go right ahead and answer. You haven't. Shoot, if you HAVE, then copy and paste it for all to see.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
You need to read my posts from yesterday... I'm not surprised that you don't understand, for the natural man received not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned.
You're only interested in arguing, and you're not seeking Truth. Until you are made alive spiritually, you will not see. I will continue to pray that your eyes are opened.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "You need to read my posts from yesterday... I'm not surprised that you don't understand, for the natural man received not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned." Lemme guess: you can't explain a gnat's eyelash worth of difference between (1) your miraculously-received, 'shot down direct from God' spiritual understanding and (2) inspiration. No, sir, how do you know you're right? Why, God told you - separate and distinct from the word.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I'm not here to argue with a man that can't understand the spiritual nature of God's Word... your in a natural state and see it through your flesh. Until God reveals the Truth of his Word, you won't understand. If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted." Sir, scriptures alone won't explain such a thing as your assertion on the Greek: that "it is the gift of God" refers to "faith." You'll have to go to a Greek testament. Or else tell us that, like other things, you simply "spiritually discerned" a meaning unknown to Greek grammarians. You'll also have to explain Eph 4: 4-6 in your own words. You haven't done so yet - and you won't.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "If you want answers, read the scriptures I have already posted." Ummm....I did, and I've read them many times. They do NOT teach a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in any form, especially separate and distinct from the written word. "You're only interested in arguing, and you're not seeking Truth." I have tried to answer every point you've made. It's hard to discuss the Bible with Joe Smith, Ellen White, and Father Divine - God speaks directly to all of them.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "So you need to step and explain that "grammar" of ".....and that not of yourselves." You said you knew it, so post it - 4th time I've asked." <-- Make it 5 times. Won't do it, will ya?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "He worshipped God, sacrificed to God, believed in God, trusted in God, prayed to God, and OBEYED GOD alllllllllllll prior to your favorite OT verse, Gen 15: 6. And I challenge you to deny it. Oh, tell us Abraham's status prior to Gen 15! Was he a believer? Was he an obedient believer? Was he an unbeliever? If he was an obedient believer prior to Gen 15: 6, what drag him up as an example - and a poor one - of salvation by "faith only" without obediece. Tell us!
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 Eph 2: 8: "And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tauth, and so refers not to pistiv (feminine) or to xariv (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex umwn, out of you) in men, but from God." A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures. See? The GENDER of the pronoun (that) won't let you have "faith" as the antecedent. It (that not of yourselves) refers to salvation - not faith.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Eph 2:8 tells us that this faith is also a gift... so it is ALL God. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." You think the "it" is "faith"? That makes no sense. Faith is not the gift of God at all - salvation is the gift of God. Salvation would be "not of yourselves" - you didn't earn it, even though you teach that you must do SOME WORK - something - in order to receive the gift.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8 is what is the gift. If you don't like that one, read Rom 12:3 and Phil 1;29... two more verses that show that our faith is a gift.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 'The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8" Well, I just quoted one authority, A. T. Robertson, who said "the gift" is "salvation." Faith is, in a sense, a gift in that God has graciously given us his Word - the written word, and "faith comes by hearing." It isn't infused directly. Anyway, if you think you can take the Koine Greek on Eph 2: 8 and make "the gift" refer to "faith", then do so. For now, I'll take Robertson and the rest.
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "The proper rendering of the original Greek text shows that the faith in Eph 2:8 is what is the gift." Then I'd like you to really dig in and show us all what the Greek says. I assume you that "and that not of yourselves" cannot refer to "faith." The genders do not match. And Greek scholar after Greek scholar will tell you that. Anyway, proceed along with your Greek analysis.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "it means more than a mental ascent... there is a conviction in us that compels us to turn or repent." Yep, and I'd like to know, from you, whether you teach that there is SOMETHING ELSE, namely repentance, that you must do prior to salvation. If so, and repentance is most definately a good work, then I'd like to know whether an impenitent believer is saved. Acts 2: 38 seems to teach otherwise.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The salvation & baptism is Acts 2:38 comes as a result of a man's repentance.It's not saying that salvation comes as a result of baptism. If as you say, that salvation comes as a result of water baptism, then Acts 2:38 is in direct contradiction with Acts 10:43 & Acts 11:15-17 which says they were baptized with the HS because they believed... again, we see salvation prior to water baptism. Is there contradiction in God's word, or could you be holding the wrong reading of Acts 2:38?
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "If baptism is a righteous work, how can I perform it if I'm not saved until after it is complete?" The same way repentance is a "righteous work." The same way that going from probably "indifference" concerning God to loving God is a "righteous work." The same way that going from denying Christ to confessing Christ is a "righteous work."
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 ""I have answered your questions with God's Word, but you only move on to other questions" Well, we can only remember that you ASSERTED that the Greek "proves" your position that "the gift of God" is "faith." We referred to Dr. Robertson - and can refer to 50 more scholars - who will tell you that "the gift of God" refers to "salvation." So we asked you to proceed on to prove your assertion. You haven't.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
You still didn't answer my questions... so what part of my sins were atoned for by being dunked under water? What part of my sins were not atoned for by Jesus on the cross?
You are still dodging the direct questions!!
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 'You are still dodging the direct questions!!" Nope, I answer that ALL of your past sins were forgiven by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ when you DID what he SAID to DO in order to have them forgiven. That's plain enough - not evasive (or just plain silly) like your lack of response to Eph 4: 4-6, your lexigraphal definition of pistis, your lack of scriptural proof regarding the "inseparable linkage" of repentance and baptism, etc.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins? When Christ died, all of MY sins were still future sins.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God;
My righteousness in only through Christ's obedience. My obedience to him is just my reasonable service to him (Rom12:1)
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins? When Christ died, all of MY sins were still future sins." Yes, and "but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." That sentence was written to Christians. Of course, you think the conditional phrase "if we walk ..." is meaningless - that the blood will cleanse you no matter what.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 And you be sure to plant your feet and give us your own explanation (inspired, I'm sure) of how there is ONE baptism, yet you parade around telling people there are two or more. I've yet to see you even attempt it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins?" The sufficiency of the blood of Christ does NOT imply that appropriating the cleansing "power of the blood" is unconditional. It is CONDITIONAL, either prior to forgiveness of all past sins or after it. You never did, by the way, explain the grammar of "not of works, it is the gift of God", did you? You assured us that the grammar proved your point, but you gave NO PROOF. So go ahead. I'd like to see it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "He only atoned for my PAST sins? So I must atone for my future sins?" You're not confused - you seek to cloud up the question. The question is the CONDITIONS upon which Jesus atones your past sins and the CONDITIONS upon which Jesus atones for your future sins. Nobody said a word about you "atoning" for your own sins, and you know it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "My obedience to him is just my reasonable service to him (Rom12:1)" That's true - so? Your faith is an act - a mental act - in obedience to the will of God. You implied that God pretty much forced it on you. If not, you made your own decision pro or con - and I doubt you'll take that position. So you need to step and explain that "grammar" of ".....and that not of yourselves." You said you knew it, so post it - 4th time I've asked.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "People that trust in external baptism make the same mistake as the Jews placing faith in external circumcision." Oh, no, I do not "trust" in "external baptism." I trust in the words of Jesus, Paul, and Peter. You are trusting in .... well .... a Greek preposition in one verse (Luke 11: 32), then trying to apply that assumed and erroneous meaning to another verse, when not a single Bible translation renders it as such. "Unto the remission of your sins." (ASV, 1901)
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I am trusting that God is cleansing my internal man by the baptism of the Holy Spirit... not in my cleansing myself by being dunked in a tub of water to wash my outer man. You incorrectly assume that anytime the word baptism is used that it is referring to water baptism. It is the baptism of the HS that Jesus clearly distinguished as being superior to the water baptism of John. (Acts 11:16) it's impossible to be saved without the HS baptism. The water is only symbolic.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 " not in my cleansing myself by being dunked in a tub of water to wash my outer man. You incorrectly assume that anytime the word baptism is used that it is referring to water baptism." Who said water baptism is to cleanse your "outer man". Peter explicitly said otherwise: "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh". Some translations read "dirt from the body." And you STILL are talking about at least two baptisms being in effect today, when there is ONE.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Who does the baptism that brings us into the body? It is the Spirit... not man.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "it's impossible to be saved without the HS baptism." Then you have the BELIEVERS in Acts 19 LOST, don't you? Holy Spirit baptism - total immersion in the Spirit - was never designed to EFFECT salvation. And the Bible never says that water baptism is "only symbolic", as you say.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The men in Acts 12 received the Holy Spirit the moment their faith was placed in Jesus Christ.
Did you not read the verses I provided earlier? Some believers had already received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water. Are you saying that these people could have the Holy Spirit living in them but not be saved?
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 'The men in Acts 12 received the Holy Spirit the moment their faith was placed in Jesus Christ." You'll need to point out for me which men in Acts 12 you are talking about - because I do not see any.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Are you saying that these people could have the Holy Spirit living in them but not be saved?" I never said anything about the Spirit LIVING in them, but yes, the Spirit of God could and did work through unsaved people to accomplish His purpose. Cornelius is a poor example because no one can prove he even had faith at that point: the manifestation of the Spirit was not to prove salvation at all. It was to prove to those Jews that the Gentiles were fit subjects of the gospel.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
The context of Acts 10:47 indicates that they were already saved.Tt doesn't indicate that the HS was just working in them. It clearly states that the HS had already been received. You have to intentionally take the scripture out of context to say that they weren't saved. I think you know that since you couldn't give me a straight yes or no answer on it. Obviously, you are letting your personal beliefs interpret scripture, rather then letting the word determine your beliefs.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "The context of Acts 10:47 indicates that they were already saved.Tt doesn't indicate that the HS was just working in them." Oh, what you THINK is that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit as some kind of evidence of salvation prior to baptism. I repeat: the Holy Spirit acting upon or through someone is NOT evidence of salvation. And in the case of Cornelius, you'll quickly have Cornelius saved prior to faith.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
If you don't like that one, Acts 11:15-17 says that they were baptized by the HS as Peter began to speak...but I guess to you, baptism of the HS doesn't indicate salvation, right?
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "If you don't like that one, Acts 11:15-17 says that they were baptized by the HS as Peter began to speak...but I guess to you, baptism of the HS doesn't indicate salvation, right?" In the first place, not ONE VERSE ever says Cornelius was baptized in the Spirit - not a one. He received a "like gift" - why? To confirm his fitness as a gospel subject to suspicious Jews. You're right that Cornelius spake in tongues "as Peter began to speak."
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Receiving the HS is being baptized into the HS... We are immersed in the HS when he comes to live in us.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "Receiving the HS is being baptized into the HS... We are immersed in the HS when he comes to live in us." That's absurd, especially given your position on Acts 2: 38. Here your rendering: Repent ye, and be baptized in the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." You have them repenting and receiving Holy Spirit baptism in order to what? Receive the gift of the Spirit?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 Acts 2: 38, 39 is parallel to Mark 16: 16-20. And Mark 16 refers to water baptism because IT stands alongside Matt 28: 19. DISCIPLES were to do the baptizing, and disciples can't baptize in the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit baptism isn't "in the name of Jesus Christ" nor "into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit" either. Water baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ", and is FOLLOWED BY reception of the gift of the Spirit. Wanna try Acts 2: 38 again for us?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Acts 10:47 doesn't say the HS was "acting" on Cornelius. It says he had "received" the HS...very big difference. In fact, they were even speaking in tongues before the water baptism. Cornelius was saved when he believed in his heart... God knows when he believed and he shows us in the passage that it was before he was baptized in water.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "In fact, they were even speaking in tongues before the water baptism. Cornelius was saved when he believed in his heart." Ver well. You obviously are forced to conclude that Cornelius believed and repented just as Peter began to speak. That'd be a hard pill to swallow (well nigh impossible), but you being the doctor, we'll have to take the medicine you prescribe.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "God knows when he believed and he shows us in the passage that it was before he was baptized in water." Of course Cornelius believed before he was baptized. No one disputes that. Your problem is this: you erroneously ASSUME that every believer from Pentecost on down to 2011 is BAPTIZED in the Spirit. THAT is the mistake. You do not have the baptism of the Spirit, nor do I, nor does anyone else today.
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 "Some believers had already received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized in water." Your attempt to "time" salvation by the reception of the Spirit in the 1st century will turn on you. You'd like to have believers saved and in possession of the Holy Spirit at the POINT of belief, but, of course, there are too many exceptions to that. Acts 2: 38 places reception of the Spirit after baptism as does Acts 19.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I challenge you to show me where one had received the HS into his life and was not saved!
The mark of a true believer is that the HS is living in them. We are sealed by the Spirit... 2Cor 1:21-22. Again in Eph 1:13-14 "In whom also AFTER THAT YOU BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED with that holy Spirit of promise,Which is the earnest of our inheritance." - No WB
Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is flawed & does not conform with the rest of scripture as a whole, which has no contradictions.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I challenge you to show me where one had received the HS into his life and was not saved!" Do you challenge me to find the Holy Spirit operating upon someone who wasn't saved. I'd be careful about that.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I do challenge you to show me where a man has received the Holy Spirit and not been saved... You told me to be careful about that, so I assume you must have an answer for me. Let's see what you got!!
Also, I noticed you have tried to change receiving the HS into the HS simply "operating" on them... Nice try, but the men in Acts had received the HS. Show me someone receiving the HS in that sense and not being saved.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "I do challenge you to show me where a man has received the Holy Spirit and not been saved" I'll answer that - and anything else. ONE of us should answer things, right? King Saul received the Spirit and was given a new heart, yet he ultimately rejected God, was cut off from his people, became an enemy of God, and committed suicide. I'll leave it to you as to King Saul's salvation - but I'd say he either was once saved, then lost or maybe never saved to start with.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
1 Sam 28:19 "Moreover the LORD will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: and tomorrow shall you and thy sons be with me..."
Samuel was speaking to Saul here with the witch at Endor. If we take that Samuel was in Abraham's bosom, this verse seems to be saying that Saul will die and be where Samuel is on the morrow.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "Samuel was speaking to Saul here with the witch at Endor. If we take that Samuel was in Abraham's bosom" Yeah, well, Samuel isn't the judge, so most likely he means that old wicked Saul and his sons would "be with him" simply as residents of the Hadean world, with their bodies in the grave. By the way, the Spirit LEFT Saul - so you have a fella without the Spirit headed straight to Abraham's bosom. Oh, wait, you say the Spirit CANNOT DEPART, don't you?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
If you can lose your salvation as the CoC teaches, Hebrews 6:4-6 makes it impossible to come back.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 'If you can lose your salvation as the CoC teaches, Hebrews 6:4-6 makes it impossible to come back." Well, we can discuss that, but I asked about a DIFFERENT 4-6: Eph 4: 4-6, and you're still as silent as the grave. Explain to us how there is ONE BAPTISM, either you are forever yapping about two or more in operation today. I'd like to see that explanation.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
I've already answered your question, but you don't pay attention.
1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all BAPTIZED into ONE BODY, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT
Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but HE SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST
Please note that it is the HS that baptizes us into the one body.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 Me: "Explain to us how there is ONE BAPTISM, either you are forever yapping about two or more in operation today. I'd like to see that explanation." You: (amazingly) "I've already answered your question, but you don't pay attention." LOL No, you haven't. You have not so much as MENTIONED Eph 4: 4-6, which teaches "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" - you just move right along assertion two or three or twenty. Go ahead and explain it.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Read yesterday's post regarding Eph 4... the scripture I posted make it clear what the baptism is. (1 Cor 12:13)
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 "If the written, confirmed Word is inerrant and sufficient, then WHY can't you understand it with some sorta mysterious divine intervention to spiritually illuminate it for you? Did God make it so DARK the first time that He must "enlighten" is own Word just for lil ole you?" <-- Oh, most of these are "yes" or "no", and they aren't copyrighted. Get with it and answer." I assume you'd have to say "yes": you stand right with Joe Smith, Ellen White, Mary B. Eddy, and the rest.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
That's right... "lil ole me" is dependent on the HS to teach me the spiritual meaning of His Word. And "know-it-all you" can lean on your own understanding if you so choose... just one more indicator that you're still in your natural state, and all the more reason to keep you in my prayers.
Isa 11:2, John 16:13, John 14:26, 1 Cor 2:10, 1 John 2:27
And on a side note, you might want to be careful making assumptions... it's already gotten you all mixed up with God's Word.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@lllannallll
God obviously gave men the gift of teaching (Eph 4:11) because men need guidance in understanding... not exactly sure why you would want to deny that He uses His Spirit to help guide men in understanding His Word.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it
lllannallll 5 months ago
@crownofthorns99 ..... and you have the nerve to say that I dodge questions! Sir, I'll answer them, and if I don't, point it out, and I assure you I will. You, rarely acknowledge a question, even though some of them are asked 3, 4 or 5 times. You sure oughta be able to answer since you have the direct "illumination" or "enlightenment." I do not know what to do with someone who claims "enlightenment", then simply asserts this or that - and rarely feigns to answer anything.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll
Again, God's word tells us that the Spirit of God living in us reveals the spiritual meaning of His Word to us... I have no truth other than His Word.
crownofthorns99 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crownofthorns99 ""Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him." (I Sam 16: 14). Your position is that a man in that condition was "once saved, always saved", "once saved, then lost", or "just never saved."?" <-- answer it" Did you observe the Passover again? "Pass right over it"? Go right ahead - use some miraculous understanding and provide an answer.
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show