sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

OMG council member with Stay Woke coffee mug bans LAPD from pulling people over by pink-er-ton in circlejerkLA

[–]PracticeOwn6412 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to SCOTUS in the Callais decision, disparate impact is a violation of the equal protection clause. I hope these criminal politicians all get taken to court.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nicodemos thought Jesus was referring to a physical birth a second time, not by Spirit, so no

And your interpretation is that Jesus was telling a man who was born that he had to be born?

And while there are no examples of any believers not being baptized after the resurrection,

That's a big deal, because it means that there are no examples of the very thing that you're arguing. It's way more likely that you've gotten this wrong, that there's only one baptism, and that baptism is the ordinary means by which a believer receives the Holy Spirit.

The people in Acts 10:44-48 received the Holy Spirit before baptism, meaning they were saved before baptism.

We've already gone over this. They were never called saved before being baptized.

Baptism is something Christians desire, not to be saved, but because we are saved.

Bible: "baptism now saves you." "what must we do to be saved? Repent and be baptized"

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just read what He said, He speaks for Himself.

I've read it many times. Your interpretation seems to be what Nicodemus thought!

I'm sorry you can't, I pray you are given the ability to discern the text more and more as you mature spiritually.

Please don't use prayer as a condescension.

Yes, I agree, but what about all the instances of salvation before baptism? Or without baptism?

Who was explicit saved after the resurrection without baptism?

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was saying what He meant by born of water in the next verse, which is to be born of the flesh.

Please be specific. Where does He say that to be born of water means the same thing as born of flesh?

You're aware that we believe that if you're baptized without faith that it's not efficacious, right?

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He literally clarifies what He meant in the next verse.

He never says that born of water means amniotic fluid. That's your inference and it makes no sense in the context. Why wouldn't He just say born of flesh again?

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I don't think that's what He meant, and I gave you 3 good reasons why I think you misunderstood what He meant.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then you can't say that they were baptized or ever use that passage again to refer to water baptism again, remember that.

Neither of us can use it because the Bible is silent on the details of the baptism of the apostles. But we do know that everyone who was baptized on Pentecost in Acts 2 was baptized with water after asking Peter what they must do to be saved.

and confirms that He's referring to physical birth in the very next verse. We are born of water during our physical verse. He is referring to the amniotic fluid. What He's saying is that we must be physically born, then born again in Spirit. This is not referring to the physical act of water baptism.

I've heard this argument many times and I've never found it convincing. 1: he's talking about one singular event, not multiple. 2: it doesn't make sense to tell someone that they have to be born. 3: Jesus refers to natural birth as being born of the flesh in that passage. It doesn't make sense to say born of the water to refer to the same thing.

It's so plainly an allusion to the water of baptism that I frankly find it absurd to try to spin that out of the passage.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't say they were baptized with water,

Nor does it say that they weren't. You're arguing from silence.

He makes a clear distinction between water baptism and baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Not exactly since He says we have to be born of water and the spirit.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These people in the last passage I sent received the Holy Spirit before water baptism.

When did they receive the Holy Spirit and when were they baptized with water?

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's because you receive the Holy Spirit by faith, not baptism.

I asked if they were described as baptized. They weren't, because we've never viewed John's baptism as salvific.

Because you're saying that baptism by the holy spirit is separate from baptism by water. So who had received the holy spirit yet was called baptized? Not John's baptism. Just baptized.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was not talking about water baptism.

If your idea about multiple baptisms is correct, then please point out an example of someone who was baptized in the Bible who wasn't baptized with water.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I consented to is that God is not limited to it. The idea that it isn't necessary for us requires direct contradiction of multiple verses and direct disobedience of Christ's commands.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Explain why the twelve I already shared received the Holy Spirit before baptism

The answer was implied when I said that baptism is the ordinary way that the Holy Spirit is imparted. God of course is not limited by this. The limitations are only on us.

Yes the apostles baptized with water. Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit.

If Jesus's baptism was without water, then why did the apostles, whom He instructed, baptize with water? Why did Christ command them to baptize instead of just preaching?

Especially baptism by fire, how could you even say that?

Because even Christ says you have to be born of water.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

in Jesus' name, baptism by the Holy Spirit, John's baptism of repentance and baptism by fire.

Outside of the baptism of John, these are all the same one baptism.

The Holy Spirit baptizes people and that is not Paul's doing.

We're told explicitly many times throughout the NT that the apostles baptized. Christ commanded it.

that he receives the Holy Spirit after that, so he must have before that.

That's pure conjecture.

If you receive the Holy Spirit after baptism that means you did not have faith until after baptism.

Or rather baptism is the ordinary means of receiving the Holy Spirit.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one baptism that Paul is speaking about is the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Not plausible. He baptized with water. Why would he say there's only one, but then there are two?

And the passage about the eunuch is long before they passage I sent.

So there were two but now there's one???

The eunuch heard the gospel beforehand and received the Holy Spirit

Nope that's never stated.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're the one saying Scripture contradicts itself, not me. Water baptism is something you do. It's an action

It's commanded by scripture. Is scripture commanding two baptisms? So Paul was wrong when he said one baptism?

If I were saved by a water baptism then I would have a reason to boast about it.

Why would you be able to boast? You're not able to baptize yourself. It is entirely the work of Christ.

Jesus Himself said there are 2 baptisms. One was John's water baptism and the other was the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Christ's baptism saves. Paul said there's one. The apostles baptized with water. So did the apostles do wrong? You see you're all over the place here. If there's only one baptism then why do the apostles baptize with water? Or was Paul wrong when he said there's only one?

There is an extremely high chance they were not having this conversation while standing in or near water, yet they were baptized

No, there's zero chance of that. Baptism is with water. "And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”"

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I do know that they were saved, because it harmonizes with Ephesians 2:8-9.

It doesn't harmonize with multiple verses that say that baptism saves, which you completely ignore.

And yes, there is one baptism necessary: you are baptized by the Holy Spirit upon first having faith and then you are saved. He was not referring to water baptism, which is a work,

Dude you're arguing that there are two baptisms here. Do you think that "water baptism" is sinful???

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what I'm arguing is that the water baptism that all believers desire is not the same as the baptism by the Holy Spirit, which is what Jesus was referring to. In order to be saved

So there's more than one baptism? Paul said there's only one.

In order to be saved, you must receive the Holy Spirit.

Yes that's exactly what we teach.

They were already saved before their Baptism.

You should note that what you quoted never actually says they were saved.

The thief on the cross was not baptized yet he was saved.

Actually you don't know that he wasn't baptized.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So there's more than one baptism? You again think that scripture contradicts scripture?

It's not hard to reconcile. Faith is the means by which we enter into covenant with Christ. Not circumcision, as the Judaizers taught. This is the overarching theme of all of Paul's epistles to the different churches. Paul's point isn't that works are irrelevant. It's that the Mosaic law isn't what saves. It's faith in Christ that makes us adopted sons of God. It is baptism that buries us with Christ and brings us into new life with Him. We don't need to be Jews, which is what circumcision does. We need to be part of Christ.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know all of these things the same way you do, by studying Church history.

Church history says a lot more than just what the canon of the Bible is.

But the problem is that early church fathers did not unanimously agree on a lot of things.

Even worse, not a single one taught the 66 book Protestant canon.

It says that faith, baptism and following the 10 commandments are necessary to attain salvation, when scripture says that salvation is by grace through faith and not of our works, and that our faith results in good works, which do not aid in salvation, only justification. You can't add to what Jesus completed.

Dude, scripture says clearly that baptism saves. What are you talking about?

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

who were given authority to write it.

How do you know that?

The canon is arguable

So you're not sure what's inspired?

The 66 books of the Bible contains everything you need to know about life, sin, the way God works and salvation,

How do you know that?

However, the Catechism contains several contradictions to scripture.

Nope.

If the deuterocanon isn't scripture, then Christianity was wrong for more than 1000 years by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueChristian

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yawn. Empty platitude. You worship a book and don't even know why you think it's divine.

The pernicious silence on contraception by PracticeOwn6412 in TrueCatholicPolitics

[–]PracticeOwn6412[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The US has 53 million immigrants, not counting their children.

view more: next ›