Friend worries Wife not SAVED

Tnoldman

[Kevmo]

1cor12

12 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues.[b] 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

Unity and Diversity in the Body
12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

***Now you’re just throwing out verses that happen to mention baptism. It has no bearing one way or the other about whether baptism is necessary for salvation. This is a classic whataboutism.

[Philsworld]

....when a while ago you were shown at length the same answer? Just what is the problem with clicking on a link and thereby in a moment see the answer but the reasons for it?

....and thereby not only see the NO, but the substantiation for it?

---

This may come as a shock to you, but I rarely read anything you post, unless it’s to the point, which it usually isn’t.

It looks like your answer is “NO”. You could have just said that from the beginning.

[ScottfromNJ]

“If you’re gonna BUILD an entire edifice of false doctrine starting with the most controversial missing manuscript evidence in christianity”

Are you referring to Mark 16:9–20? That was ADSUM’s post, I only quoted it.

[sevinufnine]

I humbly thank you brother. Take care!

[Ken Regis]

Wow!

Your post reminded me of dissecting a reptile in the eighth grade.
Bit by bit, piece by piece, taking apart something that’s dead!

Organized, classified, cataloged, inventoried, and finally, completely destroyed.

Good work!

[TNoldman]

Thank you FReeper Friends for your comments.

My Wife and I will not let this friend’s concern bother us in any way.

We are solid together as we review all the Comments.

[TNoldman]

Thank you FReeper Friends for your comments.

My Wife and I will not let this friend’s concern bother us in any way.

We are solid together as we review all the Comments.

[daniel1212]

"This may come as a shock to you, but I rarely read anything you post, unless it’s to the point, which it usually isn’t."

Yikes! An honest reply which renders you unfit for actual attempts at reasonable substantiated debate , since as with so many Catholics, much labor (esp. with my typo stiff arthritic fingers) of refutation is simply routinely conveniently usually ignored, then you chastise me for not giving a simple answer when to someone who does the same, yet who was provided that answer in substantiation, while you were already given the same one and now excuse by confessing you rarely read anything I post!

Therefore do not even try to respond, as it you who actually deserves to be ignored.

[daniel1212]

"Thank you FReeper Friends for your comments. My Wife and I will not let this friend’s concern bother us in any way. We are solid together as we review all the Comments."

But look what you started!😅

[Kevmo]

Thanks. May the Lord bless you and yours.

[Philsworld]

...since as with so many Catholics, much labor (esp. with my typo stiff arthritic fingers) of refutation is simply routinely conveniently usually ignored...

---

I suggest getting to the point early, be direct, and stop writing novels (describing the length only) with more links than necessary. As Murphslaw stated, it does make you appear as a “tap dancing, scripture contortionist” and very difficult to follow at times. That’s all I’m saying.

[MurphsLaw]

I’m sorry, but I get the impression that you think your questions are going to somehow convince me that your religion is right and my faith is wrong.

On my end, I see no issues with our dialogue, and find it interesting – as the topic should be of interest to all. Though I would kindly remind you- that it was YOU who engaged me- proudly telling me that it was I whon had “erred” (#165). I replied to you showing you mischaracterized what I was saying- and as well, noting that I agreed with you on what you were saying.
I would never say your "faith" is wrong- rather the fundamental underpinning doctrines are implausibly wrong.
While there is partial truth in most faith beliefs – most all fall short of the fullness of truth we all should strive for.
As with you, if someone dismisses my Sacramental Christian faith as something false, “un-biblcal”, whatever I’m not gonna let that go unchallenged. Especially when the object of that attempted ridicule is trying to sell an ideal like we can impenitently sin as we wish, and still think we can abide in Christ- while at the same time with some kind of sin immunity - Well yes, Ken , I’m gonna have lotsa questions about that.
sin is what separates us, and keeps us, from God.
For the wages of sin is Death.

And of such, why would you invoke John 1:9 to me in some way – and at the same time ignore John 1:6,7 AND 8?? It is confounding to me…
Christ’s Baptism did ni fact- scripturally- sanctify those waters of Baptism for all.. for a purification- not a cleansing.
What you dismiss as Traditions "perverting" God's word - are often the very core elements of Christ’s Incarnation for us.

Be done with me as you say… but my hope is that you think beyond the limitations you place upon yourself. And yes, we all agree… we all err in our lives. No one is immune to that…

[Elsie]

"This may come as a shock to you, but I rarely read anything you post, unless it’s to the point, which it usually isn’t."

[daniel1212]

Which requires reading to know if it is not to the point.

[Philsworld]

Fortunately for me, I learned long ago that your looooooooooooong, voluminous, drawn-out posts, with links scattered everywhere, like mines in a minefield, are tedious reading, and do NOT come to the point quickly enough, or at all. Been there, done that. Lesson learned for me. I treat them as “DNR” (do not read). On the other hand, I’ve “read” SOME of your shorter posts that ARE direct and to the point. Good job there. Maybe it’s that I already know that we don’t agree on much in the first place and that READING something so long would be pointless for me anyway? Could be. (BTW, good job on bringing out the Catholic origins of futurism. I read all of that....wasn’t too long, it was direct and to the point, and the subject was stated at the beginning of your post...easy to follow...I have also posted that information multiple times, even knowing that most people could care less and totally deny the origins of their sacred Pre Trip Rapture.) And just for future reference, cryptic/hidden messages and points not referenced in previous posts, are not for me either (Elsie?)

[Elsie]

You noticed that too; eh?

[Elsie]

And just for future reference, cryptic/hidden messages and points not referenced in previous posts, are not for me either (Elsie?)

[daniel1212]

"Fortunately for me, I learned long ago that your looooooooooooong, voluminous, drawn-out posts, with links scattered everywhere, like mines in a minefield, are tedious reading, and do NOT come to the point quickly enough, or at all. Been there, done that. Lesson learned for me. I treat them as “DNR” (do not read). On the other hand, I’ve “read” SOME of your shorter posts that ARE direct and to the point. Good job there. Maybe it’s that I already know that we don’t agree on much in the first place and that READING something so long would be pointless for me anyway? Could be. (BTW, good job on bringing out the Catholic origins of futurism. I read all of that....wasn’t too long, it was direct and to the point, and the subject was stated at the beginning of your post...easy to follow...I have also posted that information multiple times, even knowing that most people could care less and totally deny the origins of their sacred Pre Trip Rapture.) And just for future reference, cryptic/hidden messages and points not referenced in previous posts, are not for me either (Elsie?)"

Your 188 word paragraph was hard to take in, but I did read and comprehend it, while one of the reasons for my voluminous posts is due to anticipating counter arguments and or accusations of lack of substantiation. Saves typing in the long run.