Re: Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

checker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote in
news:1386ED76-41E1-5716-7D5E-E31F23A5BC47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


>>1.  Denial of Baptism is work-righteousness.  
> 
> I have never denied baptism.  I have simply pointed out that getting
> baptized does not give you faith, 

That's denial of Baptism.  You think Baptism is "just getting
wet".  It's exactly the same as saying Jesus was "just a man".
If you said Jesus was "just a man", I'd say you were denying
Jesus.  Your response would be "I'm not denying Jesus, I'm
just saying He wasn't God."  And that would be equivalent
nonsense.

>Why do you object to my Biblical stance?  

You don't have a Biblical stance.  You have a pharisiacal and
materialistic stance.  You deny the mysteries.

> Abrasive is not unbiblical.  I find YOURS just as abrasive.  So what?

So what?  You started it, that's what.  You have the unmitigated
gall to come into the group shouting at everyone and
then complain that they're "abrasive" when all they've done
is complain about your immaturity.  


> Nice analogy.  It doesn't work at all.

If it didn't, you would have said why.  Probably using
all caps.

 
> How stupid!  Because I HAVE (a PASSIVE, NOT ACTIVE VERB) something
> means I am "doing" something.  No, your theory sinks into the hole.

The point is that no where in your "having" do you mention
Jesus.  You call a stance which excludes Jesus as the actor
of salvation "Biblical".  That's rich.


>>Second, you really
>>have no understanding of what "my theory" is, so whether it is
>>in the toilet or not is beyond your current ability.
> 
> In other words, since I don't agree with you it must be beyond my
> current ability.  LOL!  What a joke.  You really are arrogant, aren't
> you?

You're the one who thinks he can judge a theory he hasn't
even studied yet.  You call me "arrogant", but I've never
(as you have) called myself "I AM" or claimed to speaking
for Jesus.  <shrug>



> I never said faith was like balogna, you did.  But YOU DID claim that
> faith "is the really just the mouth with which we eat salvation."
> 
> NOW SHOW US SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO, or eat your WORDS.

"By grace ye are saved through faith."  Clear enough?  (I note
that you can't answer my question.)


>>Is God bound by time?  Abraham saw Jesus' day and rejoiced.  Why
>>couldn't someone be associated to Jesus' death and resurrection
>>before it happened?  Be sure and site Scripture in your answer.
> 
> LOL!  Okay, then you disagree that Jesus was God IN THE BEGINNING, a
> point in TIME?  LOL!  

You sure do a lot of LOL-ing.  A sure sign of someone who doesn't
have an argument and thinks he can score points by sheer bravado.
There aren't many on this group that are succeptable to such
childish tactics.  And of course Jesus was with God in the
Beginning.  Being transtem****al, Jesus was/is with God in all
times.  

> God is not BOUND by time, but He deals WITH US in time.  SHOW US
> SCRIPTURE that says otherwise.

Funny, now your _demanding_ an argument from silence?  


>>> Since scripture says nothing about Baptism in his regard, you are
>>> arguing the baptism issue from absence, a logical fallacy (you ought
>>> to get a book on reasoned discourse. . .you would learn what an
>>> argument from abasence is).  
>>
>>I'm not arguing that the thief was baptized.   
> 
> You DID argue that we didn't KNOW that he wasn't baptized, 

Exactly.  I'm not the one arguing from silence here.  Looks like
you'd better get that book yourself.  


> You have not demonstrated that it is fallacious since I have
> demonstrated CLEARLY FROM SCRIPTURE that Jesus was not yet dead,
> buried, and resurrected, and that Christian baptism did not yet exist,
> so my position that he was not baptized in Christian baptism stands
> firm and without refute.

You're quite a piece of work.  You base an argument on your own
feeble intuition of how time works and claim that you've
demonstrated the Baptism didn't exist.  Yeah, you'd better
get that book.


> No, it is that YOU are too simple.  SINCE Christ had not died, been
> buried, and resurrected, no Christian baptism existed yet, 

Says who?  No gets to heaven except by Jesus' death and resurrection,
and that includes the people who lived and died before Jesus
was born.  ALL of those people are saved by His death, _even
though it hadn't happened yet_.  This silly time-bound argument
of yours holds no water at all.


>>>>Nonsense.  John's baptism was valid "for the remission of sins."
>>> 
>>> Not according to the Bible.
>>
>>Doesn't your Bible have Mark in it?
>>
>>Mark 1:4
>>John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of 
>>repentance for the remission of sins.

So you don't have an answer for this?  Not surprising, since
your "stance" is far from Biblical.  

>>> In the Name of Jesus,
>>
>>One thing that never appears in Scripture is Jesus laughing.
>>
>>So it's just a further mark of your bizarre egoism that you
>>"LOL" in Jesus Name.
>>
> So you think Jesus was a grouch?

I think Jesus was much better behaved in public.  


> SHOW ME SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO, and I'll stop laughing at you.

Laugh all you want.  It just underscores your (lack of) character.

Bart

-- 
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))