All Trinitarians are Lost!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You better read Jesus again and believe what He says about His Father and God.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You're not the ruler or head of the church as much as you seem to wish to self proclaim that and have folks follow you believing that. Not a single scripture you referenced agrees with your boast that you are the head of the church. For example, you posted a snipped of a verse in your failed attempt to justify your boast that you're the head of the church, a pope-like figure of the Romanist system.

1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

That's the scripture in it's entirety, not just pulling out a couple of words to promote your idea that you're some sort pope-like figure, ruling and reigning over the church of Jesus Christ. You're head over heels in the Romanist system.

I understand not only was Abraham and Jacob Romanists for paying tithes now Paul & Peter are Romanists for teaching elders do have rule over laity.
Paul did write a letter to the Romans and it lloks like he died at Rome so I guess in that sense he was a Romanist?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by seekerman

It's a Romanist system. Folks like Epley believe that a person's salvation hinges on the words spoken by them as they're immersing someone, yet another attempt to place themselves between an individual and God. Pure Romanist teachings.

Arise "be baptize having his name invoked is in the MIDDLE voice." No such thing as self baptism. Now Annias is a Romanist.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by navygoat1998

I have seen Pastors when they Baptize say because of the confession of the Faith in Jesus Christ and in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy-ghost.

Lost as 2 boys kissing.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Yet another preacher who rejects the sufficiency of the blood of the Lamb of God. And this yahoo thinks he some sort of head of some sort of 'church'? Heaven help us.

And Moses thought he was the leader of the church in the wilderness...
Baptism is for the remission/forgiveness of sins period.

Most who deny baptism seek refuge in the "sufficiency of the blood". Then state something similar to the blood being shed for all yet can't seem to see that just because Christ shed His blood for the whole world does not mean the whole world is saved. A person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Then they receive the Holy Ghost but not necessarily in that order. A person must be born again.

The irony here is the fighting against something Christ commanded. Sooo... They seek refuge in Christ while denying the commands of Christ. The apostle John had some strong words for this mindset:
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Pliny

And Moses thought he was the leader of the church in the wilderness...
Baptism is for the remission/forgiveness of sins period.

Most who deny baptism seek refuge in the "sufficiency of the blood". Then state something similar to the blood being shed for all yet can't seem to see that just because Christ shed His blood for the whole world does not mean the whole world is saved. A person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the remission/forgiveness of sins. Then they receive the Holy Ghost but not necessarily in that order. A person must be born again.

The irony here is the fighting against something Christ commanded. Sooo... They seek refuge in Christ while denying the commands of Christ. The apostle John had some strong words for this mindset:
1Jn 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

ONLY through His shed blood can a man have remission of sins and that takes place when the penitent is immersed in water having the Name of Jesus Christ invoked over him. Whe you reject that you reject the blood.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

ONLY through His shed blood can a man have remission of sins and that takes place when the penitent is immersed in water having the Name of Jesus Christ invoked over him. Whe you reject that you reject the blood.

Amen!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Arise "be baptize having his name invoked is in the MIDDLE voice." No such thing as self baptism. Now Annias is a Romanist.

You've pointed this out before and I had hoped that you'd had realized your original error by now. You still haven't learned what the MIDDLE voice "epikalesamenos" means in this passage. It means that the person who is the subject of the action is doing the action. Paul, who is being baptized in this instance, is the one calling on the name of the Lord thus "epikalesamenos" is used.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

ONLY through His shed blood can a man have remission of sins and that takes place when the penitent is immersed in water having the Name of Jesus Christ invoked over him. Whe you reject that you reject the blood.

Pure hogwash. Nothing in scripture teaches such a thing. Bunk.

Even if you believed that, and I guess you do, you have a tremendous problem with reconciling that with the idea that a person who is redeemed by the blood is going to hell because they haven't spoken in tongues. Thus your dilemma in preaching the insufficiency of the blood of the Lamb message

Your theology is a perfect example of error birthing error which births even more error. And you claim you're the head of the church

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Lost as 2 boys kissing.