Mr. Copeland used at least 2 dozen different experts and sources. To disagree with him is to disagree with them, and ultimately (and unfortunately for you) to disagree with God.
Please reconsider the Church of Christ position on baptism. To teach that is is not necessary is akin to teaching repentance is not necessary. I leave you with another cut and paste from post 198.
c. Since the conjunction kai "and" joins the two commands
together, what is said of one command applies to the other
1) If they were to baptized "because of" remission of sins...
2) ...then they were also to repent "because of" the
remission of sins!
d. This would present two problems
1) Where else are people told to repent "because" their
sins are already forgiven?
2) Peter would have failed to tell them what to do to
remove their guilt!
“Mr. Copeland used at least 2 dozen different experts and sources. To disagree with him is to disagree with them, and ultimately (and unfortunately for you) to disagree with God.”
Truth is never based on how many people you can find who say the same thing.
To disagree with 2 dozen hand-picked “experts” that agree with one position is not to disagree with God. It is just to disagree with the 2 dozen people the author preferred.
For the record, I also disagree with the “97% of Scientists” who bought into global warming.
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.”
- Luther, before the Diet of Worms