Ferd
I remember you saying somewhere that a son-in-law was the most miserable creature on the face of the earth. [or some such statement ] I would tell your MIL [ if I knew her ] that her daughter is very blessed to have you as her protector. [Her Petulant Chevalier ] [That almost sounds like a car! ]
Raven
whew! close call... I did in fact say that.
I also told a fellow with 3 daughters that he deserved 3 son in laws! LOL!
I do my best to live up to the code of the son-in-law.....
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Water baptism is a must for salvation. That baptism has to be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
Can anyone show where the water baptism in the name of Jesus only is optional?
It just can't be done, the baptism was to fulfill all righteousness. Sins are washed away, and repentance is part of our growth towards maturity. Those men at Jerusalem weren't repenting of dipping, drinking, they were repenting of killing the Messiah, those who were pagan had to repent of their false religions and brake off from those practices. The plan is pretty simple and the Bible makes it plain.
The sad issue is that most who have been in Apostolic faith and then have reconsidered their stand on water baptism in the name of Jesus being a must, were never really convinced in the first place. Meaning that the research was never properly done.
Water baptism by full submersion in the name of Jesus Christ only is a Biblical fact, if you can't find a the proper historian to back up the Bible, then I would tell you to keep digging, but just keep in mind that the Bible is correct.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Water baptism is a must for salvation. That baptism has to be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
Can anyone show where the water baptism in the name of Jesus only is optional?
It just can't be done, the baptism was to fulfill all righteousness. Sins are washed away, and repentance is part of our growth towards maturity. Those men at Jerusalem weren't repenting of dipping, drinking, they were repenting of killing the Messiah, those who were pagan had to repent of their false religions and brake off from those practices. The plan is pretty simple and the Bible makes it plain.
The sad issue is that most who have been in Apostolic faith and then have reconsidered their stand on water baptism in the name of Jesus being a must, were never really convinced in the first place. Meaning that the research was never properly done.
Water baptism by full submersion in the name of Jesus Christ only is a Biblical fact, if you can't find a the proper historian to back up the Bible, then I would tell you to keep digging, but just keep in mind that the Bible is correct.
Water baptism is a must for salvation. That baptism has to be performed in the name of Jesus Christ.
Can anyone show where the water baptism in the name of Jesus only is optional?
It just can't be done, the baptism was to fulfill all righteousness. Sins are washed away, and repentance is part of our growth towards maturity. Those men at Jerusalem weren't repenting of dipping, drinking, they were repenting of killing the Messiah, those who were pagan had to repent of their false religions and brake off from those practices. The plan is pretty simple and the Bible makes it plain.
The sad issue is that most who have been in Apostolic faith and then have reconsidered their stand on water baptism in the name of Jesus being a must, were never really convinced in the first place. Meaning that the research was never properly done.
Water baptism by full submersion in the name of Jesus Christ only is a Biblical fact, if you can't find a the proper historian to back up the Bible, then I would tell you to keep digging, but just keep in mind that the Bible is correct.
I'm beginning to wonder if this is "arm chair" soul winning. Argue that obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't a necessity and then suddenly hundreds of millions of Christians can be classified as being saved! All in a day's work.
C'mon brethren...don't compromise a clear command of Scripture for expediency. Jesus commanded it. If we don't have to obey him regarding baptism...we don't have to obey him regarding anything.
Question baptism today...and question strict hetersexual morality tomorrow. It unravels the entire message if we deny just a portion of it.
It doesn't matter what Augustine or anyone else has written...Jesus trumps them all.
i think there might be some here who want to do that, but the folks posting in this tHread i dont think fit that bill.
the PCI view as i understand it, that the old timers believe was far from that.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I don't understand your question. Jesus name baptism is NOT optional. It is a Bible practice. Please let me know what you were trying to say.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”
(Mark 16:16).
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .”
(Acts 2:38).
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the
name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48).
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of
the Lord” (Acts 22:16).
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore
we are buried with him by baptism into death”
(Romans 6:3-4).
“But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11).
“For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
buried with him in baptism . . .” (Colossians 2:11-12).
“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also
now save us” (I Peter 3:20-21).
Yes sir, you are right on with this one! The bible says it plainly enough... I am wondering why some are questioning the very Word of God! jmo
Because this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Mizpeh, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of both Raven and Pelathias.
I suspect that both would be quite interested in finding some historical record that supports any form of Oness Doctrine.
Pelathias has not suggested that it could never have happened, just that the work in question that makes that argument fails the test of scrutany.
Likewise Raven has not suggested only that the record to date, does not support the idea, and the work mentioned by several here is at best problematic.
I didn't say they wouldn't be interested in finding some historical data. I'm sure we all would.
I believe Pelathais has suggested that no one followed Acts 2:38 completely because of the complete lack of historical evidence when he compared it to the likelyhood of finding a full grown African elephant in a glove compartment.
Maybe they are both open to concede that there may be the possibility of finding evidence that some folks did obey Acts 2:38 in the past 2000 years. Perhaps they will do that when there are icicles on the devil's pitchfork!
Sorry, Ferd, that's my opinion from discussing this with Pelathais many, many times. He wants conclusive proof. I believe God's truth endures to all generations by faith and that God is able to not only preserver his truth but find folks who will believe and obey it in every generation. So whether or not I have historical recorded proof is not important to me. It would be nice to have historical proof of someone obeying Acts 2:38 and understanding the Oneness of God but the lack of it doesn't affect what I believe. And even if there is no proof, I won't catagorically deny that it isn't possible that there may have been someone who did obey Acts 2:38 in the past 2000 years. That is folly in my mind and an argument from silence.
__________________
His banner over me is LOVE.... My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?
To be a servant of God, it will cost us our total commitment to God, and God alone. His burden must be our burden... Sis Alvear
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
