Skip to main content

quote:   Originally Posted by vplee123:
Crusty I can see an old Irishman making a joke like that. Can almost hear it in my head... The fact that bill puts this as a testimony to what the Catholic Church is what ticks me off. No priest would give that valid answer. IF he said it, clearly it was a joke. But now we are expected to believe priests really would think that way? Puhhhhlease, bill.

Sorry, VP, my Friend,

 

The priest was neither old, nor was he joking.  He was very serious.  So, take it any way you like.   You can keep closing your eyes and yelling, "It didn't happen!   It didn't happen!" -- much like many Roman Catholics did for years about the sexual abuses of children.

 

But, just as the sexual abuse did happen -- my ridiculous episode with the Roman Catholic priest did happen.

 

However, if it makes you feel better -- please feel free to keep closing your eyes and yelling, "It didn't happen!   It didn't happen!"  No skin off my nose.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Dove,

 

For anyone to respond, there must be a question or a somewhat reasonable comment.  Insane ranting and raving do not qualify for either.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Nice try Billie boy...Let's try this --- How, may I ask, can you pass off as a response to my so-called "Insane ranting and raving" (when we all know you as the perpetrator of constant ranting and raving and other inane drivel) by calling me your friend and denigrating my religion when you have no way of knowing my religious beliefs. I suspect your hatred for all things Catholic might drive you to mistakenly believe I am a Catholic... How then do you explain your denigrating comment? Simple enough to qualify for your definition of a question? But I really didn't expect an answer. We all know that when faced with a difficult decision you always run off and start a new thread...

-------------------------------------------

Ahh Billie Boy... There you go again... I have told you time and again - I am not your friend... And you dare to denigrate my religion while you do not know what my religion is! Further proof that you approve of only one religious belief - Religion according to Billie Boy...You, Billie boy are less than a hypocrite.. You do the work of Satan! Be gone oh evil one!!! 

The only "skin" off my nose is the nonsensical lies that you state that a catholic priest beliefs which way the water rolled off your head has anything to do with the validity of a baptism. I think, though, that it is just ridiculous enough that our "forum friends" will just roll their eyes.
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,

 

Your Book of Law might throw you back into Judaism -- but, my Bible tells me that when a person repents and believes, that person is saved.  Then, that person is baptized to follow the ordinance given to us by Jesus Christ.

 

My Friend, if you are comfortable living under the Law, God bless you.   I will live under His Grace and be joyful.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

____

True to form, Bill, you sidestepped the real issues I put before you and relapsed into your old predictable mode of accusing me of Law-keeping.  When your position is fatally undermined by sound hermeneutics, you have no real answer; thus you lamely submit this shallow, generalized, and un-responsive reply.

Hi Vic,

 

How many other posting names do you have besides Vic and Dove?  If you are going to add personas in an attempt to gain a small iota of credibility -- at least use some different rhetoric.   Your line of ranting and raving is so obvious to everyone.

 

One small suggestion:  Grow up and act like the adult, not a 3rd grade school yard pest.

 

Bless your confused little old heart!

 

Bill

madboy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • madboy
quote: Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
quote: Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,   Your Book of Law might throw you back into Judaism -- but, my Bible tells me that when a person repents and believes, that person is saved.  Then, that person is baptized to follow the ordinance given to us by Jesus Christ.

 

My Friend, if you are comfortable living under the Law, God bless you.   I will live under His Grace and be joyful.   God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,   Bill

True to form, Bill, you sidestepped the real issues I put before you and relapsed into your old predictable mode of accusing me of Law-keeping.  When your position is fatally undermined by sound hermeneutics, you have no real answer; thus you lamely submit this shallow, generalized, and un-responsive reply. 

Hi Head,

 

I HAVE addressed your supposed issues inside and out, up and down; but, like the legalistic blind man you are -- you will not see.

 

Jeremiah 5:21 tells us of such blindness, "Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear."

And in Psalm 135:16-17 David is speaking of idols, but He could just have easily been speaking of those who must stay in the Law, instead of receiving the Grace brought to us through Jesus Christ, "They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths."

 

My Friend, in your legalistic stupor; these Scripture passages could, and should, be speaking to you.  Isn't it time you lay aside the Law and accepted the Grace of God?

 

Romans 3:20-22, "Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (21) But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (22) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe. . ."

 

Don't you think it is about time you lay aside the Law and believe what the Bible is attempting to teach you?  Just a thought!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Ephesians 2-8

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Ephesians 2-8
quote:    Originally Posted by vplee123:
The only "skin" off my nose is the nonsensical lies that you state that a catholic priest beliefs (sic) which way the water rolled off your head has anything to do with the validity of a baptism.  I think, though, that it is just ridiculous enough that our "forum friends" will just roll their eyes.

Hi VP,

 

In the end, we will all stand before God in judgment and He will ask us, "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?"

 

And, when you answer, "But, God, I supported the Pope, all the priests, and the Roman Catholic church with all my heart!"

 

He will say, "That is nice.  But, what did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?  Did you place Him first in your life -- or were the Pope and the Roman Catholic church the guiding lights in your life?"

 

And, I believe He will remind you of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."   It is not Mary, nor any Saints, nor any Pope, nor any priest, nor any church -- ONLY Jesus Christ stands between us and God the Father.

 

Then, I believe He will ask again, for the final time, "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?  Did you make Him the Lord of your life?"

 

Then, I believe He will remind you of His commandment, the 2nd Commandment, to not worship idols -- such as the Pope and the Papacy.  

 

How will your respond to Him?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Be Still - Know I Am God - 1

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Be Still - Know I Am God - 1
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote: Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
quote: Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,   Your Book of Law might throw you back into Judaism -- but, my Bible tells me that when a person repents and believes, that person is saved.  Then, that person is baptized to follow the ordinance given to us by Jesus Christ.

 

My Friend, if you are comfortable living under the Law, God bless you.   I will live under His Grace and be joyful.   God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,   Bill

True to form, Bill, you sidestepped the real issues I put before you and relapsed into your old predictable mode of accusing me of Law-keeping.  When your position is fatally undermined by sound hermeneutics, you have no real answer; thus you lamely submit this shallow, generalized, and un-responsive reply. 

Hi Head,

 

I HAVE addressed your supposed issues inside and out, up and down; but, like the legalistic blind man you are -- you will not see.

 

Jeremiah 5:21 tells us of such blindness, "Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear."

And in Psalm 135:16-17 David is speaking of idols, but He could just have easily been speaking of those who must stay in the Law, instead of receiving the Grace brought to us through Jesus Christ, "They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths."

 

My Friend, in your legalistic stupor; these Scripture passages could, and should, be speaking to you.  Isn't it time you lay aside the Law and accepted the Grace of God?

 

Romans 3:20-22, "Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. (21) But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (22) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe. . ."

 

Don't you think it is about time you lay aside the Law and believe what the Bible is attempting to teach you?  Just a thought!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Ephesians 2-8

_______________________

Again, Bill, you SAY you have addressed the issues I raised, but a review of my detailed post above, which responds with substance to your earlier post, discloses that you did NOT address ANY of the points I made in reply to you.  It is not enough to CLAIM to have responded; you need to put up the goods.  And it does you no good and proves no point whatsoever to quote thos scriptures that deal with one's failure to see the truth.  If YOU can see the truth so clearly, why do you not respond to the actual issues I put before you in this post.  I gave you the courtesy of responding in detail.  In a reasoned  discussion you should do the same.

Hi Head,

 

Although we have mashed these grapes until there is not juice left -- if you will simply tell me the Scripture verses or passages which you believe support your legalism, I will be happy to respond.

 

However, if you just repost some ten layer rambling dialogue, all bets are off.  I do not have the time nor the inclination to wander through such a "Vic type" ranting clutter.

 

Lay it out clean -- and we can attempt once more to discuss your issues.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

So, how about it, Bill?  What's the difference between, "Grandpa, let's eat," and "Let's eat, Grandpa"?

_____________

Still haven't gotten an answer to this question.  Of course, if you give a truthful answer it invalidates your whole ridiculous argument.  Do you have an answer, or do we just accept that your whole OSOS nonsense is just that?

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Vic,

 

How many other posting names do you have besides Vic and Dove?  If you are going to add personas in an attempt to gain a small iota of credibility -- at least use some different rhetoric.   Your line of ranting and raving is so obvious to everyone.

 

One small suggestion:  Grow up and act like the adult, not a 3rd grade school yard pest.

 

Bless your confused little old heart!

 

Bill

----------------------------

Are you really that paranoid, or is this another of your attempts to escape having to answer for erroneously thinking I was a Catholic and thereby lamely attempting denigrate my religious beliefs? I have repeatedly stated the following:

 

I am a Christian... I believe that Christ died on the cross to provide me with salvation... Being a mere mortal, I am sinful and have to constantly work at modeling my life as God would wish... Unlike some, I make every attempt to at all times be truthful... I was raised a Baptist but not in a family where Christ was a central part of life... My adult life has been as a Protestant in non-denominational churches, much of it in military chapels... My name is not Vic... The last time you finally answered a post, you had me as female. Now Vic may be a female but I don't think so. So please, stop your paranoid rantings. I am not Vic... I am not Catholic... I have never been to Mass and would not know what to expect if I were to do so...

 

As for Vic, I have nothing but respect for him and hope that I haven't said anything here to offend him.

 

Oh, and I expect that I should form this as a question if I expect an answer - do you, Billie boy, at least acknowledge that you were in error?

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

So, how about it, Bill?  What's the difference between, "Grandpa, let's eat," and "Let's eat, Grandpa"?

_____________

Still haven't gotten an answer to this question.  Of course, if you give a truthful answer it invalidates your whole ridiculous argument.  Do you have an answer, or do we just accept that your whole OSOS nonsense is just that?

-------------------

Don't hold your breath Crusty.... He probably thinks you too are Vic!

Sad.....

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,

 

Although we have mashed these grapes until there is not juice left -- if you will simply tell me the Scripture verses or passages which you believe support your legalism, I will be happy to respond.

 

However, if you just repost some ten layer rambling dialogue, all bets are off.  I do not have the time nor the inclination to wander through such a "Vic type" ranting clutter.

 

Lay it out clean -- and we can attempt once more to discuss your issues.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

____________________________________________

 In your most recent effort to deal with the topic under discussion, Bill, you came up with only this:

 

"If our salvation depends upon being baptized -- why did both Jesus and the apostle Paul not baptize people.  Paul tells us he is NOT sent to baptize; but, to preach the Gospel.  Would he say that IF our salvation depended upon being baptized?  NO!"

 

Now HERE is how I responded to that argument when you raised it earlier, in a post that you have read and similarly responded, un-responsively (your material in blue, my reply in bold, my current comments in unmodified black).  It will be evident to anyone reading our exchange that you have NOT addressed the issue that I laid before you.

 

Just one more example of how you have distorted scripture in an attempt to make it say something that it does not say.  You write:

 

1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

If Paul was not to baptize anyone -- and if a person can only be saved through "baptismal regeneration" -- why did Paul preach the Gospel? 

 

Now HERE is what I submitted in reply to that, Bill, and you have not touched it edge, side, top or bottom.  All you have done (see above) is to re-state your original contention concerning I Corinthians 1:17.  Re-stating an argument does not prove an argument.  Re-stating the same argument here does not answer the detailed challenge I made to your argument when you originally made it.

 

Paul was sent to baptize.  Paul was as fully subject to the Great Commission as were the other apostles and disciples whom Jesus commanded to,  “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost....” (Matthew 28: 19).  So the scripture itself affirms that Paul was sent to teach and to baptize.  Is Paul, in I Corinthians 1:17, contradicting this plain directive of Jesus?  By no means.  In every place where Paul preached, the sinners’ responses to his preaching included baptism. We read all about that in the accounts of salvation in the book of Acts. 

 

The best way I know to explain the matter--and to show that without doubt there is no contradiction in these scriptures-- is that what Paul was saying was parallel to something that John wrote in I John 3:18:  “My little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in deed and in love.”  Was John denigrating or forbidding loving words and loving deeds?  By no means!  The concept, reflecting the construction in the Greek, is perhaps expressed as well by J.B. Phillips as by any translator:  “My children, let us not love merely in theory or in words—let us love in sincerity and in practice!” The Geneva Bible captures the meaning thusly:  “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue only, but in deed and in truth.”

Similarly, Paul was telling his Corinthian brethren that he had come to them not solely to teach and administer baptism, but to set before them the gospel in its fullness.  That, of course, included baptism, but it included more than baptism, since baptism without faith and repentance would be a meaningless ritual. Remember, also, the context of this verse.  Paul was dealing with immature Christians who were placing inordinate importance upon WHO had baptized them.  In this regard, he observed that, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest anyone should say that I baptized in my name.” Here Paul states HIS reason, in retrospect, for being thankful that he personally baptized only a very few of the Corinthians.  In saying this, Paul was in no way diminishing the importance of baptism.  To the contrary, Paul was concerned that those who were baptized should know that it was in the very name of Jesus Christ  and by His authority that they were baptized.

 

What Paul is teaching in I Corinthians 1 is that the Christian owes his allegiance to CHRIST, not to Paul or to Apollos or to any other man.  Here is how Paul explicates the matter:

 

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 

 

Let us look at these questions Paul poses.  They are rhetorical questions and the answers were understood by the Corinthians.

 

Q. Is Christ divided?

A. No.  He alone is supreme and your loyalty is to Him. Thus you are “of Christ,” and not “of Paul” or “of Apollos.”

 

Q. Was Paul crucified for you?

A Of course not; it was Christ, not Paul, who died on the cross for you and thus you are “of Christ” and not “of Paul.” You owe your love and loyalty to Christ.

 

Q. Were you baptized in the name of Paul?  

A. Of course not; you were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Therefore you are Christ’s.

 

Hi Head,

 

Since you have long rant, let's take it one at a time:

 

You day, "Paul was sent to baptize."

 

Yet, the apostle Paul, the greatest Christian evangelist, tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

 

So, who would know Paul's ministry better -- him or you?   Personally, I will go with Paul.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Dove of Peace:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

So, how about it, Bill?  What's the difference between, "Grandpa, let's eat," and "Let's eat, Grandpa"?

_____________

Still haven't gotten an answer to this question.  Of course, if you give a truthful answer it invalidates your whole ridiculous argument.  Do you have an answer, or do we just accept that your whole OSOS nonsense is just that?

-------------------

Don't hold your breath Crusty.... He probably thinks you too are Vic!

Sad.....

______________

Oh, he won't answer.  Probably run off and start a new thread.

Originally Posted by House of David:
Dove, I see where you've said you've never been to mass. Please give it a try. You may find that a catholic mass is beautiful, and a place where earth and heaven meet.

Thank you HOD... I may just do that in the very near future... :-) I do hope no one took my statement that I was not Catholic wrong... No Christian should ever be ashamed regarding his/her religion... To deny Christ is to deny salvation. To deny the Church is to deny ones beliefs. I was merely trying to point out how paranoid Billie boy really is... First he has me on his list as female, then he has me as Vic... I suspect he has my age wrong also, though I gave him a huge clue recently... He is so naive he has no idea how wrong he is on either point... And his perspective on religion is also wrong in so many ways.

Hey bill thank you for the post that allows brevity in my reply. What will I say when face to face with God? Thank you, Lord for being the center of my life. Thank you for counting me worthy to stand in your Presence. Do I worship the pope, Mary, idols? Never. Do I live a Christ centered life? Yes. Do I take my direction from the pope or from Jesus Christ? Easy. From Jesus in His Holy Gospel. Do I worship in the Catholic Church? Yes, praise God I find the fullness o truth there. Blessed be God forever.
Originally Posted by vplee123:
What will I say when face to face with God? Thank you, Lord for being the center of my life. Thank you for counting me worthy to stand in your Presence. Do I worship the pope, Mary, idols? Never. Do I live a Christ centered life? Yes. Do I take my direction from the pope or from Jesus Christ? Easy. From Jesus in His Holy Gospel. Do I worship in the Catholic Church? Yes, praise God I find the fullness o truth there. Blessed be God forever.

______

I can't count the times you have told Billy that over & over again. He won't believe you no matter how many times you say it. He's jealous & despises you with everything he has in him because you are the Christian he is not.  It's his job to do just that, he is a child of Satan.

 

If everyone would block him, he would have no audience to preach his hate & no place here to gather souls for Satan.

Hi Chick,

 

My Friend, actually, if the cabal would block me that would be a real blessing.  For then I could write without all the clutter.  Please feel free to suggest this to all your Friends.   But, unfortunately, when you block me -- I can still read your wonderfully encouraging posts.  I suppose the only way to stop me from reading your enlightening posts -- is to post somewhere other than the Religion Forum.  So, if you want to try the Food Forum, I promise not to visit there.

 

God bless, have  wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Friends_Piggy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,

 

Since you have long rant, let's take it one at a time:

 

You day, "Paul was sent to baptize."

 

Yet, the apostle Paul, the greatest Christian evangelist, tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

 

So, who would know Paul's ministry better -- him or you?   Personally, I will go with Paul.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

____

You did not "take it" , Bill; that is, you did not answer the very specific argument I posed to you on this point, as follows, bracketed thus: <<<  >>>

 

<<<The best way I know to explain the matter--and to show that without doubt there is no contradiction in these scriptures-- is that what Paul was saying was parallel to something that John wrote in I John 3:18:  “My little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in deed and in love.”  Was John denigrating or forbidding loving words and loving deeds?  By no means!  The concept, reflecting the construction in the Greek, is perhaps expressed as well by J.B. Phillips as by any translator:  “My children, let us not love merely in theory or in words—let us love in sincerity and in practice!” The Geneva Bible captures the meaning thusly:  “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue only, but in deed and in truth.”

Similarly, Paul was telling his Corinthian brethren that he had come to them not solely to teach and administer baptism, but to set before them the gospel in its fullness.  That, of course, included baptism, but it included more than baptism, since baptism without faith and repentance would be a meaningless ritual. Remember, also, the context of this verse.  Paul was dealing with immature Christians who were placing inordinate importance upon WHO had baptized them.  In this regard, he observed that, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest anyone should say that I baptized in my name.” Here Paul states HIS reason, in retrospect, for being thankful that he personally baptized only a very few of the Corinthians.  In saying this, Paul was in no way diminishing the importance of baptism.  To the contrary, Paul was concerned that those who were baptized should know that it was in the very name of Jesus Christ  and by His authority that they were baptized.>>>

 

Your shallow and simplistic response did not touch on any part of what I posted in establishing my position on this issue.  You simply do not understand the very most basic principles of argumentation and debate, Bill.

 

And Bill, your cheap shot in referring to my post as a "rant" adds nothing to the meager

and feeble response you provided.  My post provided a calm, detailed and clear explication of why my views on the subject differ from yours.  That is not a "rant."  

 

Hi Head,

 

After all that, we still have the apostle Paul, the greatest Christian evangelist, telling us in 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

 

Paul says, "Christ did not send him to baptize -- but to preach the Gospel."

 

You say, "No, that is not true!"

 

Who should know more about Paul's ministry -- Paul or Head?

 

I will go with Paul.  And, since Paul was NOT sent to baptize, but to only share the Gospel -- it would seem logical to assume that baptism is NOT the cause of salvation; but, is indeed, the result of salvation.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Head,

 

After all that, we still have the apostle Paul, the greatest Christian evangelist, telling us in 1 Corinthians 1:17, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

 

Paul says, "Christ did not send him to baptize -- but to preach the Gospel."

 

You say, "No, that is not true!" [Now, Bill, you ought to know that when you use quotation marks, that is supposed to be a verbatim (word-for-word) representation of exactly what was said in the original statement you are referencing.  You know good and well that I did not say those words.  You know good and well that I provided a specific, detailed explanation of just why Paul was indeed sent to baptize, just as were the other apostles.  And you know good and well that you have not responded to that in any meaningful way, but are continuing to dodge the truth of it.  You SHOULD know that by now, having repeatedly given the same evasive and unresponsive reply, your inability to deal fairly with the issue is manifest to all who are following this string.]

 

Who should know more about Paul's ministry -- Paul or Head?

 

I will go with Paul.  And, since Paul was NOT sent to baptize, but to only share the Gospel -- it would seem logical to assume that baptism is NOT the cause of salvation; but, is indeed, the result of salvation.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

So, how about it, Bill?  What's the difference between, "Grandpa, let's eat," and "Let's eat, Grandpa"?

_____________

Still haven't gotten an answer to this question.  Of course, if you give a truthful answer it invalidates your whole ridiculous argument.  Do you have an answer, or do we just accept that your whole OSOS nonsense is just that?

_______________

Still posting on this topic, Bill?  Answer the above, please. 

Hi Crusty,

 

I am truly sorry you have a reading problem.   But, let me make what I wrote in my earlier post a wee bit more graphic.  Maybe with a graphic illustration, i.e., a picture -- you will better understand what was written.

 

So, here goes:

 

Correct Punctuation-1

 

I pray this helps you.  And, by the way, thank you for always bumping my posts to the top so that more folks can find them.  I appreciate your help in sharing the Gospel.   Keep up the good work!

 

Let me just close by adding that you look very good with "egg on your face"!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Correct Punctuation-1
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Crusty,

 

I am truly sorry you have a reading problem.   But, let me make what I wrote in my earlier post a wee bit more graphic.  Maybe with a graphic illustration, i.e., a picture -- you will better understand what was written.

 

So, here goes:

 

Correct Punctuation-1

 

I pray this helps you.  And, by the way, thank you for always bumping my posts to the top so that more folks can find them.  I appreciate your help in sharing the Gospel.   Keep up the good work!

 

Let me just close by adding that you look very good with "egg on your face"!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 

Quotation marks are important, also, Bill, and misuse of them can result in misleading conclusions.  See my most recent post above pointing out your misuse of quotation marks. I urge you to repent of this punctuation sin!

 

Is that an ostrich egg smeared across your ancient face?

quote:  Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Quotation marks are important, also, Bill, and misuse of them can result in misleading conclusions.  See my most recent post above pointing out your misuse of quotation marks. I urge you to repent of this punctuation sin!  Is that an ostrich egg smeared across your ancient face?

Hi Head,

 

Would you care to give me a hint?  Or, do I have to spend time digging in your "Legalist Garden" to find the "worm" you buried for me to find?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Frog Outstanding

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Frog Outstanding

Jesus Himself said:  Unless one is born of the water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. John 3:5.   The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.  He also commanded the disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations, and to baptize.  Baptism is necessary for salvation!!

Praised be Jesus forever!!

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:  Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Quotation marks are important, also, Bill, and misuse of them can result in misleading conclusions.  See my most recent post above pointing out your misuse of quotation marks. I urge you to repent of this punctuation sin!  Is that an ostrich egg smeared across your ancient face?

Hi Head,

 

Would you care to give me a hint?  Or, do I have to spend time digging in your "Legalist Garden" to find the "worm" you buried for me to find?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Frog Outstanding

____

I have given you far more than any "hint," Bill, in explaining my position on the issue that you are dodging.  Cutesy metaphors and cartoony froggies do nothing to change that.  You are truly pitiful in your shameless and cowardly evasion.

quote:   Originally Posted by Nathan Evans:

Jesus Himself said:  Unless one is born of the water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. John 3:5.   The Lord Himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.  He also commanded the disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations, and to baptizeBaptism is necessary for salvation!!  Praised be Jesus forever!! 

Hi Nathan,

 

Yes, in Matthew 28:19-20, Jesus Christ does tell the apostles, and all Christian believers, to "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, Teach them all that I have commanded you."

 

Notice the sequence:  GO -- then, MAKE DISCIPLES.  To make disciples means to lead non-believers into a saving faith in Jesus Christ.  In other words, those folks have salvation, for they are discipled into a saving faith in Jesus Christ.  Then, BAPTIZE  them, since they are already saved.  And, TEACH them that they may grow more mature in their knowledge of God's Word.

 

Does Jesus Christ tell us that baptism is necessary FOR salvation?  NO.  Nowhere in the Bible does Christ tell us this.  Matter of fact, Paul tells us that he was NOT sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.  Why was he to preach the Gospel?  Obviously to lead people toward salvation in Christ.  But, he was NOT sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17).   If baptism is mandatory for salvation -- why did the apostle Paul stop short of achieving that goal?

 

And, John 4:2 tells us that Jesus did not baptize anyone.  If baptism in mandatory for salvation -- and Jesus came to offer us salvation -- why would He stop short and NOT baptize anyone?

 

You are implying that the "water" mentioned in John 3:5 is the water of baptism.  And, I have seen others who will say it is the amniotic fluid which a child lives in for nine months before being born.  Neither of these is correct, as shown when we examine Scripture in more detail.

 

In my initial post which began this discussion, "Repent - And Then Be Baptized!"  -- I have discussed what Scripture shows us Jesus meant in John 3:5:

 

So, to answer your question more specifically, i.e., what would I tell non-believers if they come to me and asks, as those people did on the Day of Pentecost, what they must do to be saved -- I would give them the same answer Jesus gave Nicodemus that late evening, "You must be born again of the water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God"  (John 3:3,5).

What does this mean?  To understand what "being born again of the water"  means, let's turn to the story of the woman of Samaria in John 4:

 

John 4:9-14, "Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, 'How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?' (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)  (10) Jesus answered and said to her, 'If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, "Give Me a drink," you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.' 

 

(11) She said to Him, 'Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? (12) You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?'  (13) Jesus answered and said to her, 'Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; (14) but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.' "

 

Jesus said, in John 3:5, that we must be born again of the water and the Spirit.  No one can dispute that He is speaking of the Holy Spirit, who will indwell and seal all believers at the moment of their salvation.

 

And, in John 7:37-39, He combines the water and the Spirit, "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.  (38) He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, "From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' "  (39) But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified."

 

So, what is this "living water" which Jesus speaks of in both these Scripture passages?  It can only be the Word of God, both the Living Word, Jesus Christ, and the Written Word, Scripture, the Bible.

 

To summarize, how are we saved?  We are saved through the Word of God (Written and Living) and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

 

My Friend, if your doctrines require you to read INTO Scripture what is not there, to make Scripture fit your preconceived beliefs and doctrines -- then, you need to reexamine those beliefs and doctrines.  We are NEVER to read our biases into Scripture -- we are to take FROM Scripture what God has inspired into it.  That is the only way we can ever have a truly Biblical theology and Biblical doctrines to support theology.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible Inspired By God

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible Inspired By God
Last edited by Bill Gray
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Crusty,

 

I am truly sorry you have a reading problem.   But, let me make what I wrote in my earlier post a wee bit more graphic.  Maybe with a graphic illustration, i.e., a picture -- you will better understand what was written.

 

So, here goes:

 

 

 

I pray this helps you.  And, by the way, thank you for always bumping my posts to the top so that more folks can find them.  I appreciate your help in sharing the Gospel.   Keep up the good work!

 

Let me just close by adding that you look very good with "egg on your face"!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

________________

So, not going to answer the question.  You say that the comma is important and give an analogy that doesn't fit.

 

I say a better analogy - a spot on analogy, a hit-it-on-the head analogy, an analogy that actually makes sense - to what is in the passages discussed are, the sentences "Grandpa, let's eat," and "Let's eat, Grandpa".  Why is this a better analogy? Because the comma in the English language doesn't influence the timing of events.  It doesn't mean "then".  My example proves this theses, yours does not.

 

Since you want to do the Fundy Two Step, explain to me how I'm wrong.  Otherwise admit that the whole basis for your OSAS, based on the placing of a comma, is pure, unadulterated rubbish.

 

Originally Posted by Nathan Evans:

Jesus Himself said:  Unless one is born of the water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. John 3:5.  

___________________

Using Bill's completely fallacious reasoning, this would mean that Jesus believes baptism must come first (the water) then the salvation (Spirit).   And to take it one step farther, since Bill in fact must believe this, then he would also have to admit that there are contradictions in the Bible.

 

What is clearly obvious is that Bill's love of the Bible above all else has blinded him to any real understanding of it.

Hi Crusty,

 

Wherever your head is -- please get it out and read what is written in that graphic.  That is EXACTLY what I wrote in my post.  And, that is what I mean when I speak of the importance of the comma.  If you cannot grasp, nor comprehend, this -- I am sorry, my Friend -- we have no more to discuss.

 

But, you might try one of two things:  Either go back to school for a remedial reading class -- or have your glasses check so that you can read better.

 

Other than that, I am not sure that I, nor anyone else, can help you.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Gimme A Hug

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Gimme A Hug

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×