Refuting Reformed Theology on "2 Corinthians 5:21"

[jcrichton]

Now the other verses that have been cited:

"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” Mark16:16

“Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” Acts22:16

“…having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Col2:12

“Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” 1Pet3:21

The Mark16 reference does not say “he who is not waterbaptized is condemned”.

The Acts22 reference — is it actually the water that washes away sins, or the “calling-on-His-name”?

”Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.” Rom10:13

“but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1Cor6:11

If it’s the water that washes away sins, do we have to keep getting waterbaptized whenever we sin? 1Jn1:8-9 says only that “if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves …if we confess our sins (repent!) He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. Isn’t it just Jesus’ name that saves, and cleanses us from sins?

Colossians2:12 — what did each of you decide on Rom6:3-4? Are we “buried-with-Him-in-WATER”, or did Paul say “immersion-into-His-DEATH” as Jesus said in Luke12:50, and in Mark10:38-39? In no sense can anyone claim Lk12:50 or Mk10:39 refers to water; on what grounds must Rom6:3-4 or Col2:12 be about water?

Peter’s words in 1:3:21 indisputably refers to water; but is water part of “appealing-to-God-for-clear-conscience”? Or is Peter saying, ”Waterbaptism saves you, if it is accompanied BY repentance”?

Cornelius and family had the Holy Spirit, could only have been “fully saved” by any definition of salvation, but had not yet been waterbapized. They called on Jesus’ name and repented and believed; what part did the water play in that?

Years ago in college my roommate was Church of Christ; who believe that “unless one actually enters the water, he/she cannot receive the Spirit or be saved”. He read these verses with interest. Where does each of your interests lead? Did Rom10:13 imply “…and-be-waterbaptized”? Are we saved differently than Cornelius & family, and the Apostles? Are Rom6:4-6 and Eph4:5 necessarily about waterbaptism, in the face of Jesus’ words from Lk12:50 and Mark10:38-39? If so — why?

I look forward to everybody’s thoughts, and am pleased NOT to fight or cause harm over this issue. As I said to “JCR” — at this point, likely everyone posting has been waterbaptized, so it’s really not an issue. But to a new believer — we tell him “you are saved as a gift of God, who then does good works through you; you don’t have to live in terror hoping to do enough good works for God to accept you!”

…and he replies, “Isn’t waterbaptism a work?”

And we say to him — what?

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…again, if water Baptism is superfluous, you have given the perfect example of when it should have been omitted: Acts 10. We find a mini Pentecost, clearly this is the one time that “progressives” should use to terminate such symbolic measures as “water” Baptism… ‘hey, Peter, what do you mean by Baptizing them, surely you are not blind; can’t you see that they are ahead of the game? These brothers and sisters are already part of the Fold; the Holy Spirit has Baptized them, so let’s not backtrack–these are spiritual people, lets not take them back to a none initiate level, what you say Peter, shall we forgo of the formalities?’

…water Baptism is not superfluous, a formality or a symbol. It is a necessary element of Fellowship in the Body of Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

Hello again Steve.

If you will tolerate me being a little bit stubborn — Rom9:8 says: “…it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”

Howdy Gadgeteer

okay, let’s look at

Rom 9:
9 I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever.a] Amen.
6 But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” …

It’s certainly talking about the people of the OT covenant.What is the point you’re trying to make

Gadgeteer:

So established is that “a child of God, is a child by adoption, it is a second birth or begottenness”. Per Heb12:7-9 especially, IF we submit to God then He regards us AS sons. But if such a once-submitted son ceases to submit, then he is not a son but illegitimate (the words “no longer” absolutely implied). The passage finishes with a choice “Shall we not rather be subject to (God), and live?” Shall we not continue in salvation?

The context is different that what you post

Heb 12:
4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons?—
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,and chastises every son whom he receives.”

*7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."

What makes one illegitimate then? God leaves one alone. No discipline from God, no punishment from God
*

Gadgeteer:

It’s echoed twice again in the same chapter; “don’t fall short of God’s grace” in verse 15, and “we shall not escape who turn away from God” in verse 25.

let’s look at that.

16 “that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears”.

Selling one’s birthright in that case, is selling one’s inheritance. One is still a son.

Gadgeteer:

Heb 12:

23 and to the assembly**(“Heb12 RSVCE - The Example of Jesus - Therefore, since - Bible Gateway”)] of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. 25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven."

Going back to discipline, top of page,

the corresponding reply to discipline from God, is obedience to that discipline…right? Do sons get disciplined and still disobey? Yes. Does it disqualify the disobedient, as sons? No.

Gadgeteer:

So, no, a person who has “left the house of God and is carousing/drunk/fornicating/etcetera” is not still a child of God. Which is what Jesus was trying to communicate with the Prodigal Son…

Again,

the corresponding reply to discipline from God, is obedience to that discipline. Sons get disciplined. Do sons disobey? Yes. Does it disqualify them as sons? No.

however here’s the warning and the consequence for disobedience

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven."

 

[James248]

James, did you see my post 269?

Do you still think Jesus was inserting a “water-baptism” clause in John3:5?

Where does “the union between believer and Jesus”, fit in?

John says in 1:5:11-13, “He who has Jesus has eternal life; you may know you have eternal life.”

What do you think he meant?

Yes He did mean baptism.

And why can’t BOTH calling on the name of Jesus and being immersed into the water save a person? Isn’t that what is done when a person is baptized?

 

[jcrichton]

In Mark10:38-39, Jesus equates “His baptism”, with “this cup” — doesn’t He? Is that not the same cup to which He referred in Gethsemane?

Where do you get that? Does anyone deny that Luke12:50 and Mark10:38-39, cannot be about “waterbaptism”?

If you perceive that from Rom6:3-4 — if “His cup” is “His baptism”, which in Lk12:50 (and Mk10:38) don’t have anything to do with water, then why does Rom6:3-4 have to be about water? Not being contentious, just trying to understand why Lk12:50, and Mk10:38-39, and Rom6:3-4 are not all talking about Jesus’ Crucifixion and Resurrection?

Huh? Which ones are not?

Ohhh – maybe I begin to understand your meaning of “not all Christians are given Christ’s cup to drink”. You take it that they would have to die physically.

I read Matt16:25:

“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”

That seems to convey a level of commitment; a willingness to die for Him. We are warned “they will hate you and persecute you for My namesake, and some of you will die.” But he who loves life more than God, is not worthy of Him.

In that we are commanded “to die”, that is spiritually to sin; as Paul says over and over (see Rom6:1) “we have died to sin”. Spiritual death is the only real death; he who is spiritually alive can never die, for to be absent from the body is to be (alive) present with Christ.

I agree that “every Christian must partake”; it is issued as a command.

Again, is it the actual water, or Jesus’ name which imparts the Spirit? I don’t see how anyone can avoid Acts10:47 “filled with the Spirit but not yet waterbaptized”. Couldn’t be a “special circumstance”. Yes waterbaptism immediately followed; but they had the Spirit before.

I agree with you that, as Peter said in 1:3:21, waterbaptism now saves us as an appeal to God for a clear conscience (if it is accompanied by repentance). I know you agree with this; that’s much more agreement than disagreement…

In the movie, “The Hiding Place”, true account of Corrie Tenboom, many of her prison sisters received Jesus; but there was no opportunity for them to be waterbaptized! Would God honor their “heart’s intent”? I’m sure every Catholic person reading this will say, “Of course”.

And they and I would be in complete agreement…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…let’s see if we can take it to a different spin…

…did the “good” thief on the cross Received water Baptism? …clearly not (this brings us to the movie you’ve mentioned); the Holy Spirit touched the man’s spirit and the man was opened to God’s Revelation; hence, without knowing the particulars the man was obedient to God’s Salvific Plan…

…it is not about water (immersion, submersion, pouring, sprinkling…); it is about Obedience (the tax collectors and the prostitutes were obedient to God’s Command while the religious Jews were not–St. Luke 17:29-30). Clearly “water” does not “Save.” And it is Jesus Himself that states that calling “Lord” does not mean that man is granted passage into Heaven… what does?: ‘doing the Will of the Father.’

…so it goes back to vocabulary… we espouse Fellowship with Christ as an all comprising experience where humble Obedience to God reigns over compartmentalized understandings and discoveries… but as Scriptures attest: One Baptism–this cannot be understood as a “symbolic” water Baptism and an actual “Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Fire.”

Baptism must mean what it does: we must go under water–it is not the amount that matters; what matters is the Obedience to God’s Command.

Once we are part of the Body, we find that there are other meanings to Baptism; yet Scriptures are very exact:

3 Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God:

(St. John 3:5)
Nicodemus find’s Christ’s Teaching confusing… how can a grown man return to his mother’s womb (if this is the “water” Baptism)? Yet, in his confusion, Jesus did not clarify: ‘hey, you have already received your Baptism of water when you were born of your mom.’

Jesus emphasized: 'unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Hello, JCR.

…again, the problem does not lie with Scriptures; it lies with man’s understanding as he concludes through exegesis or eisegesis…

You didn’t interact with the verses I cited…

…what does Scriptures say about water Baptism?:

…consider too how many times did Jesus Teach about Baptism of the Holy Spirit?–to my recollection He only Taught it once–to Nicodemus, a teacher of the Law.

Yet, it was taught elsewhere; as I noted, John-the-Baptist addressed it in Matt3:11-12. Do you and I agree that “fire” in verse 11, is explained in verse 12 to mean “punishment for sinners” (burning the chaff)?

The emphasis of Baptism other than water comes later as the Holy Spirit Unfolds the Truth Revealed by Christ; yet, not once is there ever a Revelation to repel water Baptism

No, there’s not; you are completely right.

nor that drinking Christ’s cup or Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the means to bring anyone into the Fold.

Why do you see that? I keep coming back to Luke12:50 and Mark10:38-39; we are to “be baptized with the baptism Jesus was baptized with” – every one of us.

…the One Baptism is that of water Baptism:

Peter says "baptism (water!) now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." Repentance in other words — and we’re back to John-the-Baptist’s words:

“I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me …will baptize you [fn]with the Holy Spirit.” Matt3:11

• FN — The Gr here can be translated in, with or by

Is there a “separation” John makes between “water-baptism”, and “Holy-Spirit-baptism”? Yes. The Greek simply means “immerse”; Jesus will immerse us in the Spirit. It’s a completely different event from waterbaptism. Doesn’t mean they cannot be coincident, just that they are different things.

Do you think I’m missing something?

…the Holy Spirit reaches out and uses the water of the flood to Baptize the world into Salvation. The deluge is a type of the water Baptism which the Believers must receive.

Well, waterbaptism is constructive. In the Flood, water was destructive. This reminds me — I mentioned that in my book I have a section on “Pre-Trib-Rapture”. The book series “LeftBehind” by Jerry Jenkins and the late Tim LaHaye get the theology wrong; very plainly stated Jesus’ coming will be the SAME as when the flood took and DESTROYED the wicked — Jesus will TAKE one man in the field and the other will be left behind. (Matt24:40-41) But in the parallel passage Luke17:35-37 the taken ones are thrown to vultures! It is the LEFTBEHIND that are the righteous!

They produced bumper-stickers, “DON’T BE LEFTBEHIND!”

Oh yeah? The wicked are taken, the righteous are left behind; what are you SAYING???

(Jerry once tried to debate me about this on the “Leftbehind Message Board”, but could not answer Lk17!)

…again, Scriptural Revelation is not a format which binds God (as the various constructs of pagan mystical gods); God can and has acted outside of the “prescribed” methodology (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Genesis 40+; Revelation 12):

So you believe Acts10:47 (and 8:16) are exceptions?

If I may impose a tiny bit more upon your patience (and I am very grateful for the time you’ve spent on me!) — Peter said Cornelius & company were filled with the Spirit the SAME as they-apostles had been, after believing. Why would that be a “special circumstance”, making our recruitment different even from the Apostles?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

:tiphat:
(…some day maybe I’ll have the nerve to use the curtsy smilie…)

…again, if water Baptism is superfluous,No one said “superfluous”! I’m struggling to balance what part waterbaptism (a work!) has, in a gospel that says “not by works”!

you have given the perfect example of when it should have been omitted: Acts 10. We find a mini Pentecost, clearly this is the one time that “progressives” should use to terminate such symbolic measures as “water” Baptism… ‘hey, Peter, what do you mean by Baptizing them, surely you are not blind; can’t you see that they are ahead of the game? These brothers and sisters are already part of the Fold; the Holy Spirit has Baptized them, so let’s not backtrack–these are spiritual people, lets not take them back to a none initiate level, what you say Peter, shall we forgo of the formalities?’

Where did waterbaptism come from? It was a much older tradition; it was practiced in ancient Greece, in pagan traditions, and many others. Jewish culture had “ceremonial washings”. It was clearly not a new concept when John-the-Baptist began dunking people in the river.

Jesus said:

Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.
But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”
But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted Him. Matt3:13-15

“To fulfill all righteousness”.

…water Baptism is not superfluous, a formality or a symbol.

I’m not trying to change anyone; only — now others here understand why I perceive it as a “symbol”. That fits Cornelius and family who were fully saved and Spirit-filled before the water, “filled the same as the Apostles were”. It fits Jesus’ words in Luke12 and Mark10 that “The Baptism is His death, and not water” — the water being a reflection of becoming immersed into Him.

It is a necessary element of Fellowship in the Body of Christ!

Agreed — but to me it is much more than that. It brings home to the new believer the reality of becoming buried with Jesus in His death, and raised “new creations”. It makes more real the idea of “you-were-washed”. Although we were washed by His BLOOD, the water is the symbol of how His blood washed us clean.

And now you know how I perceive “waterbaptism”. Of course we’re not going to come to complete agreement. You and I belong to Jesus, we both have been waterbaptized (I was by immersion!), so it’s not an issue between us!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Howdy Gadgeteer

okay, let’s look at

Rom 9:
…It’s certainly talking about the people of the OT covenant.What is the point you’re trying to make

Romans 9 (contrary to Reformed Theolgians!), is teaching “ALSO GENTILES”. That being a child of God is not simply because one is descended from Abraham; but a child of the Promise, even if one is a GENTILE, is regarded as a “child of God”. All belong to God, Abraham’s offspring or Gentiles, by adoption!

The context is different that what you post

Heb 12:
4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons?—
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,and chastises every son whom he receives.”

*7 It is for discipline that you have to endure.
*The King James better renders the conditional, "IF you endure chastening (discipline), God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline

? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

Note well the change – “all (of us!) were subject, but if you are now without then you are not sons but illegitimate!”

How can “you-are-not-sons”, ever become “you-are-still-a-son”?

9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."

What makes one illegitimate then?* God leaves one alone. No discipline from God, no punishment from God
*

Steve, I don’t see anything of God “deciding discipline”; but rather, “submit therefore to God” (James4:7). And the consequence, “if we do not, then we are not sons”. And the choice, “SHALL we not therefore (continue to) be subject to God, and live?”

let’s look at that.

16 “that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears”.

Selling one’s birthright in that case, is selling one’s inheritance. One is still a son.

Going back to discipline, top of page,

the corresponding reply to discipline from God, is obedience to that discipline…right? Do sons get disciplined and still disobey? Yes. Does it disqualify the disobedient, as sons? No.

With full respect and kindness to you, brother, how can “you-are-not-sons”, become “you-remain-sons”? Where do you think I’m misunderstanding?

Again,

the corresponding reply to discipline from God, is obedience to that discipline. Sons get disciplined. Do sons disobey? Yes. Does it disqualify them as sons? No.

however here’s the warning and the consequence for disobedience

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven."

And better, “shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (I left the King James translation on…)

Make a choice — continue to submit to God’s discipline, and He regards us as sons; but though we WERE SUBJECT, if we now are not then we are not sons but (have become!) illegitimate.

If this passage really teaches that a saved person can cease BEING an adopted son, then it’s a very powerful tool against Reformed Theology! They would have no defense!!!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Yes He did mean baptism.

And why can’t BOTH calling on the name of Jesus and being immersed into the water save a person? Isn’t that what is done when a person is baptized?

You are completely, and totally, RIGHT. They usually are coincident.

To me, Peter’s words in 1:3:21, “waterbaptism now saves you, (if it is) as an appeal to God for a clear conscience…”

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…let’s see if we can take it to a different spin…

(Do you have a “fidgit spinner” yet???)

…did the “good” thief on the cross Received water Baptism? …clearly not

…I dunno, someone said it was RAINING…

(this brings us to the movie you’ve mentioned); the Holy Spirit touched the man’s spirit and the man was opened to God’s Revelation; hence, without knowing the particulars the man was obedient to God’s Salvific Plan…

…it is not about water (immersion, submersion, pouring, sprinkling…); it is about Obedience (the tax collectors and the prostitutes were obedient to God’s Command while the religious Jews were not–St. Luke 17:29-30). Clearly “water” does not “Save.” And it is Jesus Himself that states that calling “Lord” does not mean that man is granted passage into Heaven… what does?: ‘doing the Will of the Father.’

Agreed. And I know you agree with how I perceive Matt7:16-18, those who are “good trees” (who truly intimately know Jesus and the Father and the Spirit), therefore do His will…

…so it goes back to vocabulary… we espouse Fellowship with Christ as an all comprising experience where humble Obedience to God reigns over compartmentalized understandings and discoveries… but as Scriptures attest: One Baptism–this cannot be understood as a “symbolic” water Baptism and an actual “Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Fire.”

“One Baptism” — Are you able …to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" Mk10:38

Baptism must mean what it does: we must go under water–it is not the amount that matters; what matters is the Obedience to God’s Command.

Clearly it is a command.

Once we are part of the Body, we find that there are other meanings to Baptism; yet Scriptures are very exact:

Nicodemus finds Christ’s Teaching confusing… how can a grown man return to his mother’s womb (if this is the “water” Baptism)? Yet, in his confusion, Jesus did not clarify: ‘hey, you have already received your Baptism of water when you were born of your mom.’

Jesus emphasized: 'unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom!

I’m just not understanding why verse 6 doesn’t repeat verse 5, just as it also repeats verse 3?

 

[jcrichton]

hello, jcr.

You didn’t interact with the verses i cited…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

I have a very old computer… When it gets heated up i try to answer as many posts as i can–to avert the crash; i also tend to remove the focus, when possible, as an attempt to redirect… It does not always work.

yet, it was taught elsewhere; as i noted, john-the-baptist addressed it in matt3:11-12. Do you and i agree that “fire” in verse 11, is explained in verse 12 to mean “punishment for sinners”

(burning the chaff)?
The point I was attempting to convey is that Jesus Taught this only once, to Nicodemus… and while we Know from Scriptures about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire, the one Baptism that Jesus continued to speak on was that of water Baptism.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit would not take place until Pentecost.

…as I’ve stated before, I’m quite pedestrian–I do not know what the Church’s understanding of this passage is… personally, I make a different connection: Spirit and Fire:

7 These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

(1 St. Peter 1:7)
…and in light of:

15 For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing.

(2 Corinthians 2 15)
…yet, I can see how your interpretation could also fit.

why do you see that? I keep coming back to luke12:50 and mark10:38-39; we are to “be baptized with the baptism jesus was baptized with” – every one of us.

Let’s take a bigger chunk of St. Luke’s 12:

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law

.”
…now let’s throw in St. Mark’s 10:

38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,

Note that St. Luke’s 12:49 has a direct correlation with 51-53 and St. Luke’s 12:50 with St. Mark’s 10:38-39?

Yet, there’s a distinction of form:

1. Jesus and the Church will in deed go through that Sacrificial Baptism
2. The world and the Believers will be set upon by a Consuming Fire that will divide/separate even the familial bonds… it is, in essence, the Actual Coming of the Kingdom of God onto the world!

So while all of man kind will experience the shifting of the wheat and the removing of the shaft, the whole world will not experience Christ’s Cup.

While Jesus and the Apostles and their successors will undergo Jesus Baptism (persecution, rejection, death and martyrdom), the whole world will not be subject to Jesus’s Baptism…

Yet, all Christians are Called to be open to partaking in Christ’s Baptism/His Cup (St. John 15:12-14); still, only those who find themselves on the Frontlines will partake of this particular experience. …the rest of us… just common clogs…

…just got a “text limit” notice–must be continued…]

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

peter says "baptism (water!) now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to god for a clear conscience." repentance in other words — and we’re back to john-the-baptist’s words:

“i baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me …will baptize you [fn]with the holy spirit.” matt3:11

• fn — the gr here can be translated in, with or by

is there a “separation” john makes between “water-baptism”, and “holy-spirit-baptism”? Yes. The greek simply means “immerse”; jesus will immerse us in the spirit. it’s a completely different event from waterbaptism. Doesn’t mean they cannot be coincident, just that they are different things.

Do you think i’m missing something?

part ii

Yes, Jesus’ Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire is completely different and distinct from water Baptism!

…what you seem to be missing is the “distinct” portion.

After the water Baptism were the Believers Commanded to Receive a second Baptism or were the people Baptized twice: a) water, then b) Holy Spirit and Fire (or vise versa)?

…here’s what Christ says about the Holy Spirit:

7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

(St. John 16:7)

12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. 14 He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. 15 All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. (St. John 16:12-15)

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:7-8)
Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire has not taken place–Jesus Himself will not be performing the actual Transference… as with the water Baptism, His Apostles will be Delegated to Baptize in the Holy Spirit:

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

(Acts 8:14-17)

Well, waterbaptism is constructive. In the flood, water was destructive… This reminds me — i mentioned that in my book i have a section on “pre-trib-rapture”. . (matt24:40-41) but in the parallel passage luke17:35-37 the taken ones are thrown to vultures!

it is the leftbehind that are the righteous!

They produced bumper-stickers, “don’t be leftbehind!”

oh yeah? The wicked are taken, the righteous are left behind; what are you saying???

(jerry once tried to debate me about this on the “leftbehind message board”, but could not answer lk17!)
…that’s comparative; but not quite my understanding… yes the deluge is destructive… but what transpired was a cleansing… these spirits were ignorant and the Baptism was figuratively… St. Peter connects them not through the destruction the water caused but the cleansing of the earth… he further Reveals how Christ Jesus, in the Spirit, visited those who had died in ignorance of God’s Salvific Plan in Jesus–how He Preached to them that were imprisoned to bring them the Good News of our Salvation (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16).

so you believe acts10:47 (and 8:16) are exceptions?

Yes; otherwise every time that there are Baptisms or a grouping of initiates taking place we must experience a Pentecost or a mini Pentecost.

The point is that it is God Who determines what happens and when–the best we can do is go with the form, without making the form our objective–the Objective must remain: Christ!

if i may impose a tiny bit more upon your patience (and i am very

grateful for the time you’ve spent on me!) — peter said cornelius & company were filled with the spirit the same as they-apostles had been, after believing. why would that be a “special circumstance”, making our recruitment different even from the apostles?


This goes to what was transpiring at the moment… it was the Immergence of the Church; the Epistles and the Gospels were in transition or not even put into ink; there were a lot of changes taking place; the Jew Converts had began to retain a discipline (convert to Judaism then to Christianity); and some (if not many) of the Jews saw themselves as more spiritual than the pagans/gentiles… look at what Cephas experienced:

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

(Acts 10:14)
In the mind of many Jews the Pagans were unclean… since the Holy Spirit came upon them prior to their water Baptism Christ is demonstrating that He has Called the Gentiles/Pagans as well!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

:Agreed — but to me it is much more than that. It brings home to the new believer the reality of becoming buried with Jesus in His death, and raised “new creations”. It makes more real the idea of “you-were-washed”. Although we were washed by His BLOOD, the water is the symbol of how His blood washed us clean.

And now you know how I perceive “waterbaptism”. Of course we’re not going to come to complete agreement. You and I belong to Jesus, we both have been waterbaptized (I was by immersion!), so it’s not an issue between us!

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…I do not know exactly how the Church words it… but it is my understanding that what you’ve expressed above is exactly what we Believe.

…the problem lies in vocabulary…

Baptism regenerates and initiates… it cleanses and it purifies… it leaves and indelible mark on the Candidates… it joins the Believers to Christ’s Passion, Death, and Crucifixion… because of it we can then join Christ in His Resurrection–we become full coheirs with Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

(Do you have a “fidgit spinner” yet???)

…I dunno, someone said it was RAINING…


Agreed. And I know you agree with how I perceive Matt7:16-18, those who are “good trees” (who truly intimately know Jesus and the Father and the Spirit), therefore do His will…

Hi!

…yes; it’s St. John 15:1-10! Abiding in Christ–not claiming to know Christ and not claiming the Word: if you Love Me Obey what I Command!

“One Baptism” — Are you able …to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" Mk10:38

…but clearly, not all Believers will have to drink of Christ’s Cup–we are Called to be Ready to Stand: to drink His Cup.

Christians who live under such regimes as the Islamic are faced with Christ’s Cup on a daily basis–there are thousands, if not millions, who have lost their possessions and even their lives because they refuse to reject Jesus… these are in deed the unsung martyrs… the ones whose robes are washed by the Blood of the Lamb!

…here in the US we barely taste the Cup–yet, there might come a time when the full fury will be upon us… woe to the North American Christian… we are so soft and so pretentious… we have sold our Lord over and over for mere trinkets… for “feel good” moments… for empty libertine theologies… (sorry for the heavy–I tried to stay away but I seemed to have cornered myself) :blackeye::blackeye::blackeye:

I’m just not understanding why verse 6 doesn’t repeat verse 5, just as it also repeats verse 3?

3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again

, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man **be born again of water and the Holy **Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. (St. John 3:3-6)

• unless a man be born again
• How can a man be born when he is old
• be born again of water and the Holy

These are the three thesis or propositions:

1. unless man is born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of God
2. how can a grown man be born again (back in his mom’s womb)?
3. man must be born again of water and Spirit

The exchange does not change Christ’s definition: in order to enter into the Kingdom of God, man has to be born again. When the ruler of the Jews reflects upon Jesus’ Demands he places himself in the only realm possible to him, the human understanding of being born. So he queries, can a grown man return to his mother’s womb?

Jesus insists that unless a man is born again… this time He qualifies it: born again of water and Spirit… the man, a doctor of the Law seems confused… Christ further qualifies… ‘what you are thinking is wrong, you are limiting God:’ “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit.”

Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus that man must be born of God (St. John 1:10-13); the flesh must surrender to the Spirit… the Spiritual is God’s Realm and nothing is impossible with God (St. Matthew 19:26). Man’s rebirth, through water and Spirit, makes him eligible to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[steve_b]

Romans 9 (contrary to Reformed Theolgians!), is teaching “ALSO GENTILES”. That being a child of God is not simply because one is descended from Abraham; but a child of the Promise, even if one is a GENTILE, is regarded as a “child of God”. All belong to God, Abraham’s offspring or Gentiles, by adoption!

The King James better renders the conditional, "IF you endure chastening (discipline), God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

Note well the change – “all (of us!) were subject, but if you are now without then you are not sons but illegitimate!”

How can “you-are-not-sons”, ever become “you-are-still-a-son”?

Steve, I don’t see anything of God “deciding discipline”; but rather, “submit therefore to God” (James4:7). And the consequence, “if we do not, then we are not sons”. And the choice, “SHALL we not therefore (continue to) be subject to God, and live?”

With full respect and kindness to you, brother, how can “you-are-not-sons”, become “you-remain-sons”? Where do you think I’m misunderstanding?

And better, “shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (I left the King James translation on…)

Make a choice — continue to submit to God’s discipline, and He regards us as sons; but though we WERE SUBJECT, if we now are not then we are not sons but (have become!) illegitimate.

If this passage really teaches that a saved person can cease BEING an adopted son, then it’s a very powerful tool against Reformed Theology! They would have no defense!!!

Gadgeteer,

This also goes against Reformed theology.

I think I gave you a link to the CCC on Baptism
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Look at the first entry

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

Also

Baptism is a permanent sacrament. People can be total screw ups in life, and go to hell for it, but their baptismal sign remains. The grace of that sacrament isn’t permanent, it can be lost. Those who die that way, are the ones who go to hell. Baptismal grace can be regained again through sacramental reconciliation. But even though grace is lost through deadly (mortal) sin, and a person doesn’t take advantage of sacramental reconciliation, the sacramental sign of their baptism remains on their soul, it is a permanent sign. Meaning, they are a lousy son, and they might be in hell when they die, but they are a son none the less.

The CCC puts it this way
**
1280** Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).

So Gadgeteer,

Reformed theology can be refuted in many ways

This CCC answer, was from the Church Jesus Himself established in the first century. #27 ] and by His own word, will be here for all time. How can I not BELIEVE…THAT

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

The point I was attempting to convey is that Jesus Taught this only once, to Nicodemus… and while we Know from Scriptures about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire, the one Baptism that Jesus continued to speak on was that of water Baptism.

Do you disagree that “fire” in both verses of Matt3:11-12, is “burning-the-chaff”?

How did Jesus “continue to speak on waterbaptism”, in the face of Lk12:50 and Mk10:38-39? Those aren’t about water.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit would not take place until Pentecost.

…as I’ve stated before, I’m quite pedestrian–I do not know what the Church’s understanding of this passage is… personally, I make a different connection: Spirit and Fire:

…and in light of:
(citation 1Pet1:7 “refined by fire”)
…yet, I can see how your interpretation could also fit.

How is it an “interpretation”? The word “interpretation” only exists when more than one meaning is possible. The entire text I wrote addresses all 56 “verses thought to support Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, and then the four “foundational (primary) verses thought to support”. Each of those verses is shown to have only one meaning in context, therefore they can NOT be “interpreted to support Reformed Theology”.

My text addresses Universalism, the verses that Universalists like Carlton Pearson use do not teach “every person will go to Heaven”. It addresses “Pre-Trib-Rapture”, each verse there does not teach “comfortable escape”, but plenty of verses warn “be prepared for great tribulation”.

And all of the other ideas — if Scriptures cannot be shown to solidly express clear teachings, how can we “exhort with sound doctrine and refute those who contradict”?

Scripture often uses “repetitive narrative”; how is Matt3:12 not repeating verse 11? Doesn’t “refined-by-fire” in 1Pet reflect “fire of trials” in James1:12?

Let’s take a bigger chunk of St. Luke’s 12:

He’s still talking about His Crucifixion; He was already waterbaptized and did not get waterbaptized a second time.

…now let’s throw in St. Mark’s 10:

Note that St. Luke’s 12:49 has a direct correlation with 51-53 and St. Luke’s 12:50 with St. Mark’s 10:38-39?

The “fire of trials which tests us” (1Cor3:13-15) is not the “fire Jesus wishes to kindle upon the Earth”, and it is not “the fire that burns the chaff”. Three fires are in view; how can that be “just one (of several) interpretations”?

Yet, there’s a distinction of form:

1. Jesus and the Church will indeed go through that Sacrificial Baptism
2. The world and the Believers will be set upon by a Consuming Fire that will divide/separate even the familial bonds… it is, in essence, the Actual Coming of the Kingdom of God onto the world!

So while all of mankind will experience the shifting of the wheat and the removing of the chaff, the whole world will not experience Christ’s Cup.

How is “His cup”, not being “united through baptism-into-death” (not “baptism-into-WATER-into-His-death”) spoken of in Rom6:1-4? We have DIED — “united in the likeness of His death”.

What do you think I’m missing?

While Jesus and the Apostles and their successors will undergo Jesus’ Baptism (persecution, rejection, death and martyrdom), the whole world will not be subject to Jesus’s Baptism…

If we have DIED (and only if!), then we shall also live with Him. 2Tim2:11-13…

Yet, all Christians are Called to be open to partaking in Christ’s Baptism/His Cup (St. John 15:12-14); still, only those who find themselves on the Frontlines will partake of this particular experience. …the rest of us… just common clogs…

…just got a “text limit” notice–must be continued…]

I look forward to your thoughts on ideas like Rom6:1-7 “we are united in the likeness of His death, and …in His resurrection we walk in newness of life”. And your thoughts on how Matt3:12 is not simply repeating verse 11.

 

[Gadgeteer]

part ii

Yes, Jesus’ Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire is completely different and distinct from water Baptism!

“Are” distinct; I’ve still not heard anything to deny “baptized-by-fire” in Matt3:11, is not the same fire in the next verse (same breath!) “burn-the-chaff-with-unquenchable-fire”.

…what you seem to be missing is the “distinct” portion.

After the water Baptism were the Believers Commanded to Receive a second Baptism or were the people Baptized twice: a) water, then b) Holy Spirit and Fire (or vise versa)?

Yes. In Acts10:47 “they were to be waterbaptized because they had clearly already been baptized by the Spirit”.

In Acts8:16 they were to be baptized by the Spirit because they had only been waterbaptized and had not yet RECEIVED the Spirit.

We’re left with trying to explain how these were “exceptions” and different from us (we’re not saved the same way, even though Peter says “they same as us-Apostles”), or we can accept that Cornelius’ company, and Philip’s audience, were saved the same way as we are.

…here’s what Christ says about the Holy Spirit:

Baptism of the Holy Spirit and Fire has not taken place–Jesus Himself will not be performing the actual Transference… as with the water Baptism, His Apostles will be Delegated to Baptize in the Holy Spirit:

The Pentecost (when the Spirit was “poured out upon the Earth”), was in Acts2; Acts8 and 10 are in the same place as we are.

They were saved “the same as Peter and the Apostles were, after believing” — the same as we are.

…that’s comparative; but not quite my understanding… yes the deluge is destructive… but what transpired was a cleansing… these spirits were ignorant and the Baptism was figuratively… St. Peter connects them not through the destruction the water caused but the cleansing of the earth… he further Reveals how Christ Jesus, in the Spirit, visited those who had died in ignorance of God’s Salvific Plan in Jesus–how He Preached to them that were imprisoned to bring them the Good News of our Salvation (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16).

That is one of the verses Universalists use where “no one knows what Peter was saying”. Our being united with Christ through “immersion-into-His-death”, is the same “not-by-water” as Lk12:50 and Mk10:38-39. It’s the same as Acts10:47. Yes “united with Him” often happens at waterbaptism, as Peter said 1:3:21; but it didn’t in Acts8:16, nor in Acts10:47.

I’m not meaning to be argumentative; if Corenlius’ group, and Philip’s audience were “exceptions different from us”, why would Peter say “the SAME as us”?

so you believe acts10:47 (and 8:16) are exceptions?

Yes; otherwise every time that there are Baptisms or a grouping of initiates taking place we must experience a Pentecost or a mini Pentecost.

“God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ…” Acts11:17

God gave them the same gift of the Spirit (Acts11:15), as He also gave to US-APOSTLES, after believing; not “after believing and being waterbaptized”.

I’m only trying to understand how you read “the-same-as-us”, and perceive “they-were-exceptions”?

The point is that it is God Who determines what happens and when–the best we can do is go with the form, without making the form our objective–the Objective must remain: Christ!

Yes. Yet, the principle remains – Philip’s audience received the Spirit days after being waterbaptized; and Cornelius’ group received the Spirit before being waterbaptized. I don’t see how we can say “the Spirit is only received through water”?

This goes to what was transpiring at the moment… it was the Immergence of the Church; the Epistles and the Gospels were in transition or not even put into ink; there were a lot of changes taking place; the Jew Converts had began to retain a discipline (convert to Judaism then to Christianity); and some (if not many) of the Jews saw themselves as more spiritual than the pagans/gentiles…

Sorry to be stubborn – they received the Spirit apart from the water, in both places; Peter said “the same as we did”, clearly acknowledging “receiving the Spirit” separate from water.

How can “the-same-as-us”, now become “we-are-different-from-them”?

look at what Cephas experienced:

In the mind of many Jews the Pagans were unclean… since the Holy Spirit came upon them prior to their water Baptism Christ is demonstrating that He has Called the Gentiles/Pagans as well!

We still have not resolved why Rom6:1-7 (especially 3-4) is not using “united-with-Him-in-the-likeness-of-His-death”, must mean physical water, rather than “immersed-in-His-DEATH”.

Lk12:50 Jesus was already waterbaptized, but still had a major baptism to undergo. His death was the second baptism!

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadget:

Agreed — but to me it is much more than that. It brings home to the new believer the reality of becoming buried with Jesus in His death, and raised “new creations”. It makes more real the idea of “you-were-washed”. Although we were washed by His BLOOD, the water is the symbol of how His blood washed us clean.

And now you know how I perceive “waterbaptism”. Of course we’re not going to come to complete agreement. You and I belong to Jesus, we both have been waterbaptized (I was by immersion!), so it’s not an issue between us!

…I do not know exactly how the Church words it… but it is my understanding that what you’ve expressed above is exactly what we Believe.

No, you don’t view it as a “symbol”, but as the actual necessary door to “receiving the Spirit” and “washing-away-sins”. Which confuses me about how one does not need to be rewaterbaptized if he’s apostate and returns to belief.

If it is “the door”, then yes he needs to be dipped again…

…the problem lies in vocabulary…

Baptism regenerates and initiates… it cleanses and it purifies… it leaves and indelible mark on the Candidates… it joins the Believers to Christ’s Passion, Death, and Crucifixion… because of it we can then join Christ in His Resurrection–we become full coheirs with Christ!

Titus3:5-6 says “washing OF REGENERATION” – not, “washing-of-WATER-and-then-regeneration”.

Rom6 says “united/immersed-in-the-likeness-of-His-death”, not “united/immersed-through-WATER-in-the-likeness-of-His-death”. How isn’t “water” complete add-ins in both passages?

Again, thank you for your patience with me, not meaning to be combative but to see through your eyes…

 

[Gadgeteer]

…yes; it’s St. John 15:1-10! Abiding in Christ–not claiming to know Christ and not claiming the Word: if you Love Me Obey what I Command!

…but clearly, not all Believers will have to drink of Christ’s Cup–we are Called to be Ready to Stand: to drink His Cup.

Christians who live under such regimes as the Islamic are faced with Christ’s Cup on a daily basis–there are thousands, if not millions, who have lost their possessions and even their lives because they refuse to reject Jesus… these are indeed the unsung martyrs… the ones whose robes are washed by the Blood of the Lamb!

Why is “His cup”, physical death, and not Rom6 “united in the likeness of His death”?

2Tim2 “if we have died, then we shall also live with Him”.

Have we died, or not?

…here in the US we barely taste the Cup–yet, there might come a time when the full fury will be upon us… woe to the North American Christian… we are so soft and so pretentious… we have sold our Lord over and over for mere trinkets… for “feel good” moments… for empty libertine theologies… (sorry for the heavy–I tried to stay away but I seemed to have cornered myself)

No, you are right. Many who think themselves “Christian”, have bought into a soft easy believism. That’s not what Jesus brought…

• unless a man be born again

• How can a man be born when he is old

• be born again of water and the Holy

These are the three thesis or propositions:

1. unless man is born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of God
2. how can a grown man be born again (back in his mom’s womb)?
3. man must be born again of water and Spirit

You changed it, and aren’t aware of the change; you associated “again” with water.

“Unless one is born-of-the-Spirit, and born-of-the-Spirit…
That which is flesh …and that which is spirit…”

Water-baptism in your view is 100% when one is “born-of-the-Spirit”. Why does that make sense more than this?

“Unless one is born-of-water/flesh, and (also!) born-of-the-Spirit…
That which is flesh …and that which is spirit…”

Why wasn’t Jesus saying “You are born physically, you must also be born spiritually”?
(…in BOTH verses?)

The exchange does not change Christ’s definition: in order to enter into the Kingdom of God, man has to be born again. When the ruler of the Jews reflects upon Jesus’ Demands he places himself in the only realm possible to him, the human understanding of being born. So he queries, can a grown man return to his mother’s womb?

Jesus insists that unless a man is born again… this time He qualifies it: born again of water and Spirit… the man, a doctor of the Law seems confused… Christ further qualifies… ‘what you are thinking is wrong, you are limiting God:’ “That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit.”

No, you are not saying “Christ-further-qualifies-it” — you are separating “born-of-the-Spirit and born-of-the-Spirit”, from “born-physically-AND-ALSO-born-spiritually”.

Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus that man must be born of God (St. John 1:10-13); the flesh must surrender to the Spirit… the Spiritual is God’s Realm and nothing is impossible with God (St. Matthew 19:26). Man’s rebirth, through water and Spirit, makes him eligible to enter into the Kingdom of God.

Okay — yet I still don’t know how we can insert “born-again-of-water” in Jesus’ discussion, rather than accept what he said “born-of-water and born-of-the-Spirit”.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadgeteer,

This also goes against Reformed theology.

I think I gave you a link to the CCC on Baptism
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Look at the first entry

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

Steve, neither you nor I can approach Reformed Theologians with “ours is the true church, that’s why your doctrine is wrong”. We have to meet people where they are; they do accept the Bible (perhaps the one with six less books than yours), we have to be able to show them from what they recognize.

…and we can do that, their verses do NOT teach what they think…

Also

Baptism is a permanent sacrament. People can be total screw ups in life, and go to hell for it, but their baptismal sign remains. The grace of that sacrament isn’t permanent, it can be lost. Those who die that way, are the ones who go to hell. Baptismal grace can be regained again through sacramental reconciliation. But even though grace is lost through deadly (mortal) sin, and a person doesn’t take advantage of sacramental reconciliation, the sacramental sign of their baptism remains on their soul, it is a permanent sign. Meaning, they are a lousy son, and they might be in hell when they die, but they are a son none the less.

I hope you can understand the question I just asked above — if “waterbaptism is the door where one is actually cleansed and receives the Spirit”, then why wouldn’t a returning apostate have to be dipped again?

(or — why wouldn’t we have to be rewaterbaptized each time we repent?)

The CCC puts it this way
**
1280** Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624).

So Gadgeteer,

Reformed theology can be refuted in many ways

It has to be refuted to them, in ways that they will accept. Their arms are filled with approximately FORTY VERSES; one by one we take each verse and examine it in context, and one by one their arms are emptied.

…when their arms are COMPLETELY empty, then they have no choice but to question their cherished doctrine! Well, maybe after we fill their arms up again, this time with all the verses warning “do not fall away from God by disobedience and unbelief”!

This CCC answer, was from the Church Jesus Himself established in the first century. #27 ] and by His own word, will be here for all time. How can I not BELIEVE…THAT

I admire your enthusiasm. But we still have to “meet people where they are”; and we can do that, with just the verses they think promote “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”.

In the process we indisputably expose that their doctrine calls God FALSE/FRAUD/HYPOCRITE/WICKED, and expose the verses which absolutely warn against real apostasy.

“I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should also be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.” 2Cor11:3

What possible SECOND MEANING could there be to that?

 

[Gadgeteer]

I hope you can understand the question I just asked above…

Meant to write, “I hope you can answer…”

I don’t like the “twenty-minute-edit-limit”…

:nope: