Posted on 06/04/2017 12:29:15 PM PDT by ealgeone
Matt. 28:19
Mark 16:15.16
The argument can be made that Luke 24:47, even without the Lord mentioning baptism, for that command was first obeyed in Acts 2/38.
The correlation between those, and the command found in John 3:5 look suspiciously familiar.
John 20:23 shows Jesus Christ commanding the disciples to remits sins. Where is the first place that they institute that order? Acts 2:38.
Think, that in John 3:5, water is referring to natural birth? Where in the Word is your second witness?
Would say more, but 18 wheels are needing to turn shortly.
So how much do you believe in Jesus Christ? Just what you want to in order to meet your minimal muscle movement guidelines.
Do do you ride the “believing” train all the way to end, or do you get off before the “commands” from the Lord get on board?
I’ve already shown how Abraham had to keep being proved physically by the Lord. And I pointed out several times that those epistles references were written to people that already knew how to be born again, showing cases of their conversions in Acts, or the reminders in the epistles of that experience that they’d already had.
Gotta roll!
True.
Good point.
Nevertheless, baptism is something it’s good for a believer to do.
If Jesus meant baptism, why didn't He use the word and instead couch it in vague terms?
The word *Baptism* was in use then and Jesus Himself had been baptized. He knew what it was and could have used the word for it. He didn't.
And it makes no sense for Him to switch in the middle of a conversation about physical birth to talking about baptism and then switching back to physical birth and not even mention it.
You proved no such thing.
The phrase *Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness* appears in scripture several times.
Paul explains it here that Abraham was counted righteous BEFORE he did any works.
Romans 4:1-25 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
>
Arguing with the mod tends to reduce your electrical resistance by like 95 percent.
‘Are you still so dull?’ Your answer is found in James! But you cannot see past the misuse Catholicism makes of James. IF you have saving faith the life you live will reflect that presence of God’s parenting. If there is no evidence (as in your idiotic example of continuously, willfully sinning) of faith in the transforming Presence then the person does not have ‘saving faith’. These posts from Catholics are exposing the dead soul bias due to catholiciism’s chaotic non=Christian religion.
Backed into a corner?
No. I post Scripture to back myself up.
But would you care to provide some links to the alleged snarkiness?
This is probably your most asinine statement I've ever seen you make.
Really....
I don't think the RM agrees. See post 532. It WAS you that the RM directed that too.
No, it's been around for years.
Still, to accuse the RM of playing favorites or picking on someone is ..... foolish, shall we say?
Do you jump out of airplanes without a parachute, too?
It sure didn't end well for the last person I remember seeing do it.
The RM does a great job and it is not something I would do if you paid me.
So for someone who seems to have a thankless job..... Thank You, RM.
Psalm 106 is an OT-testament to the GOD who ACTS! Apart from works? Yeah, IN SPITE OF works! Bad works. Really bad works.
So what is the problem in accepting this is who God IS?
“...they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
—Romans 9
How can we read the words of Jesus and delude ourselves into thinking we can produce that kind of Life for God and THEN be accepted? Talk about upping the ante! He turned the Law up to ELEVEN and people STILL trip over Him!
We need to fall ON Him and be broken to pieces. How horrible to have Him fall on us and be crushed!
Like I said where is your second (or even third) witness?
You like to quote Romans 4:3. That’s fine. It is from Gen. 15:6 in my KJV bible. It must be at the start of Gen. chapter 12 in yours.
Right after being promised seed (for the third time), Abraham asks for sign, and is told to build an altar, place a chopped up sacrifice on it, and wait (fighting off hungry birds for quite a spell). Then he is given the sign and answer.
Abraham didn’t deserve to be called. That’s grace. God is calling for people that hear these sayings of his and doeth them. Not those that hear those sayings and choose to be selective on doing them, or won’t do them at all.
Did you expect Paul to retell the detailed stories of Abraham in those letters, when they already had the OT (or whatever they called it back then)? That’s what they had to study and confirm what the evangelist told them (”searched the scriptures to see if those things were so”).
Paul specifically spells out the end of circumcision and keeping the law. He does not pronounce an end to God’s ordained plan found in Acts 2:38.
“So it doesn’t exist. You made up a rule and applied it only to me. hmmm...
“It’s a good practice in an informal setting to post references if you’re quoting someone or attributing something to an individual. It’s hardly a requirement to include footnotes with ever post on an informal discussion forum.
...............
It’s been a rule for as long as I’ve been on FR.
You don’t get a free pass.
Maybe, instead of arguing with the Religion Moderator, you should post evidence that what you say is true...
..............
For example, if I write, Joseph Smith was a con man, as proved in a real court trial, and then follow it up with proof that such a court trial took place, I would be meeting the requirement.
If I actually quoted the material from the link, I am being very accurate and it is definite proof that my claim of Smith being a con-man as sworn in court, is based on more than my opinion - in fact, an actual court trial ...
“Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed.
“Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?
“Yes.
“Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?
“Yes.
“Did you dig?
“Yes.
“Did you find any money?
“No.
“Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?
“No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!
“How do you know it was there?
“Smith said it was!
“Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not.
“Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, “to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living.”
“Here, then, we have his own confession, that he was a vile, dishonest impostor.
“As regards the testimony of Josiah Stowell, it needs no comment. He swears positively that Smith did not lie to him. So much for a Mormon witness.”
Evangelical Magazine & Gospel Advocate Utica, N. Y., April 9, 1831.
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm
Fair enough. And yet...
“Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”—Romans 9
Many PURSUE it as if by works to this day—whether through the front door or the back door—their Doctrinal Statement notwithstanding. They DO frustrate the grace of God by mixing what CANNOT be mixed.
They stumble over the stumbling stone, despite His turning the Law up to ELEVEN. They are that hostile to a free gift, yes. Those who aren’t settled on the security GOD provides—BEFORE one has ever given God a second thought—should not be preaching and teaching. They cannot confidently proclaim eternal life, only Probation.
And THAT frustrates the grace of God!
Your post is personal and mindreading, which is considered personal.
I do not argue or debate with posters, but there are actions that can be taken.
Do not post on this thread again.
Luircin: Of course not.
metmom: YES!!!!!
Well, which is it? This, by the way, is why I asked the question. I often get different answers and I want to afford you the curtesy of understanding what you actually believe before I respond.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.