Paul's argument against the idea that water baptism saves. (Implied)

Dave... · Monday at 1:51 PM

Lukaris said:
Baptism was not Paul’s ministry but he performed it when necessary, Circumcision was far less part of Paul’s ministry but he performed it when necessary ( Acts 16:1-5). It is irresponsible to speculate a change of practice when none is indicated.

It is irresponsible to assume that water baptism must be necessary in combination with faith for one to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and placed into Christ Jesus, since we have examples in that same historical book, that unique point in time and history where the Holy Spirit was placed into believers before they were water baptized. Only by faith did they receive the placing into with the Holy Spirit indwelling, as the rest of the Bible testifies to quite clearly. Just like Peter. But waited, when was Peter water baptized? There is no record of that. That's how important it was. What is important is believing, which was emphasized as what is important, belief in the Gospel.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Acts 10: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Lukaris said:
Paul evangelized Lydia ( & her household) who were near a riverside and baptized ( Acts 16:11-15).

And Lydia, like Cornelius, and many who were recorded in Acts, were already declared righteous by their OT faith and given to the Son by the Father. To consider the circumstances in Acts as they are today is extremely inappropriate handling of Scripture.

I think that it would be best if you could use examples from the Epistles, which would be more historically accurate to us today.

Dave

Lukaris · Monday at 3:04 PM

Dave... said:
It is irresponsible to assume that water baptism must be necessary in combination with faith for one to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit and placed into Christ Jesus, since we have examples in that same historical book, that unique point in time and history where the Holy Spirit was placed into believers before they were water baptized. Only by faith did they receive the placing into with the Holy Spirit indwelling, as the rest of the Bible testifies to quite clearly. Just like Peter. But waited, when was Peter water baptized? There is no record of that. That's how important it was. What is important is believing, which was emphasized as what is important, belief in the Gospel.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Acts 10: "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

And Lydia, like Cornelius, and many who were recorded in Acts, were already declared righteous by their OT faith and given to the Son by the Father. To consider the circumstances in Acts as they are today is extremely inappropriate handling of Scripture.

I think that it would be best if you could use examples from the Epistles, which would be more historically accurate to us today.

Dave

It is the denial of the practice of water baptism itself being performed by Paul I was responding to. As I have repeatedly said, the water doesn’t save but Paul still baptized with water for purposes of witness. If a person can’t be baptized with water ok, but it is the understood practice of baptism by immersion is tradition ( 2 Thessalonians 2:5).

It’s like saying James didn’t mention the relation of works to faith in his epistle ( or Paul, John, Peter etc.). A living faith in salvation by grace will show spontaneously in works ( James 2:14-26, Ephesians 2:8-10, Colossians 1:10-24 etc.).

Dan Perez · Monday at 6:38 PM

Lukaris said:
It is the denial of the practice of water baptism itself being performed by Paul I was responding to. As I have repeatedly said, the water doesn’t save but Paul still baptized with water for purposes of witness. If a person can’t be baptized with water ok, but it is the understood practice of baptism by immersion is tradition ( 2 Thessalonians 2:5).

It’s like saying James didn’t mention the relation of works to faith in his epistle ( or Paul, John, Peter etc.). A living faith in salvation by grace will show spontaneously in works ( James 2:14-26, Ephesians 2:8-10, Colossians 1:10-24 etc.).

And reading 2 THESS. 2:5 has NOTHING to do with WATER BAPTISM. and will like. to see a verse of. BAPTISM

BY immersion. !!

and 1. Peter 3:21 say BAPTISMA and NOT BAPTISM. , to believe just check the bGreek text and SEE as I always

CHECK. the Greek text , PERIOD !!

AND BAPTISMA IS USED 22 TIMES , beginning in MATTHEW 3:7. and ending in. 1. PETER 3:21 !!

dan p

ViaCrucis · Monday at 8:39 PM

MarkRohfrietsch said:
This is backwards; we can only become faithful with the intervention of the Holy Spirit and the word; there is no merit or worthieness in any of us. "by grace are you saved through faith... it is a gift of God, not of works..."

The Gospel remains as offensive today as it did two thousand years ago. For man craves glory, not the cross.

PloverWing · Monday at 10:34 PM

Dave... said:
Hey P

What is it that they see God giving them in this communion that we don't already have from being placed into Christ, the spiritual Body? What does this "grace" represent. Can a man be justified without it?

It's a way of experiencing God's presence, of being connected to the suffering and sacrifice of God who was incarnate in Jesus.

Yes, God is omnipresent, and so God's presence is around us all the time. But many Christians report that they encounter God's presence more clearly in some events or places than in others. Holy Communion is one of those places where many of us encounter God more intimately than in the mundane events of our daily lives. (Rudolf Otto's book The Idea of the Holy has useful things to say here.)

Can a person be justified without the sacrament of Communion? Sure. As I said earlier in the discussion, God is not limited to the sacraments. God's presence comes to us in many ways. And, more importantly, the work of Christ can save even those who never feel God's presence. That's a hard path to walk, but I know some people who walk it.

Dave... said:
And a question for you. What must a man do to be saved?

That's the hard question, isn't it?

Different Scripture passages suggest different answers, and (as I assume you know) the church has hypothesized a dozen or more different theories of the atonement over the centuries.

Some Scriptures suggest that the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save us, full stop. It is finished, we are saved. (This is how I'm inclined to think. But also... : )

Some Scriptures suggest that faith (some combination of belief and trust) is necessary.

Some Scriptures suggest that following the teachings of Jesus is necessary.

Note that some Christians use the word "saved" to mean "forgiven by God" and others use it to mean "conformed to the image of God's son", which further complicates the discussion.

I suppose in the life to come, we can put Irenaeus and Anselm and Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas and Luther and Calvin in a big wrestling pit and watch them fight it out.

Or, perhaps that is one of the mysteries we will finally understand when we see God face to face.

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-06-09T10:10:59-0500

Dave... said:
Hey P

What is it that they see God giving them in this communion that we don't already have from being placed into Christ, the spiritual Body? What does this "grace" represent. Can a man be justified without it?

And a question for you. What must a man do to be saved?
<Snip>

The grace that is conveyed in the Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Absolution are not something that we don't already have; rather, it more abundance of that grace. Lke it says in John 10:10

" ...I came that they may have life and have it abundantly."

Just as there is no limit to God's grace, why would we presume to limit our our Lord God delivers that grace. He has lots to go around, and has given us many ways and means to not only receive it but to participate in it as well!!

concretecamper · 2026-06-09T10:37:46-0500

MarkRohfrietsch said:
The grace that is conveyed in the Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Absolution are not something that we don't already have

?

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-06-09T12:07:49-0500

concretecamper said:
?

Not sure why you only have part of the quote; see the post above: Paul's argument against the idea that water baptism saves. (Implied)

Dave... · 2026-06-09T12:47:32-0500

PloverWing said:
Different Scripture passages suggest different answers, and (as I assume you know) the church has hypothesized a dozen or more different theories of the atonement over the centuries.

Hey P

Actually, they all say the same thing when the context is considered. There are a few verses that are mistranslations, but that's to be expected when the options, at least linguistically, are equal. The Bible must determine the rest, which is correct. Sound hermeneutics can weed out the bad stuff.

PloverWing said:
Some Scriptures suggest that the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save us, full stop. It is finished, we are saved. (This is how I'm inclined to think. But also... : )

The whole Bible teaches this. Even the OT points to this. All we need to be saved is to be one with Jesus, as He is One with the Father. He did what we cannot do. The indwelling Holy Spirit unites us with Him so that we can have all those ingredients that save us. The atonement, the righteousness of God, the life. And faith in Jesus gives us that indwelling, which gives us that Spiritual union. That is the Gospel. In fact. One cannot believe the Catholic church and the Bible. They teach a different Gospel, which is no Gospel at all. I would say that Catholicism, (and like minded theology) are a continuation of the OT Jew/Gentile who thought that he could be saved by the Law, they just apply the same reasoning to NT things. See Galatians 5 for yet another example of circumcision being condemned, not because of the act, but because of the motive. Just like water baptism.

You see, a person who obeys to earn salvation is not obeying the God. Real obedience is meant to be a natural response of love, trust, and relationship, not what a person is in bondage to for salvation. Legalism never sees works as an evidence, only as a cause. That's why they interpret James as a cause, and not an evidence.

PloverWing said:
Some Scriptures suggest that faith (some combination of belief and trust) is necessary.

It is. The initial faith/believe is for justification. The ongoing faith/believe, which is what James spoke of ( practical sanctification-evidence ), is to become what God already reckons us to be legally "in Christ" (Positional sanctification--justification). The progressive sanctification.

PloverWing said:
Some Scriptures suggest that following the teachings of Jesus is necessary.

The whole Bible is the teaching of Jesus.

PloverWing said:
Note that some Christians use the word "saved" to mean "forgiven by God" and others use it to mean "conformed to the image of God's son", which further complicates the discussion.

I agree. Paul vs. James, some would say. Though they are not standing toe to toe, rather, back to back, Paul fighting legalism, James agreed (James 2:10), and James fighting against intellectual claims of genuine faith without any substance to witness those claims, and Paul agrees in many places, (Ephesians 2:8-10, Galatians 5:6) to name a few. Paul within the context of cause, James, evidence. For us, evidences never justify, only validate a faith of one already justified.

PloverWing said:
I suppose in the life to come, we can put Irenaeus and Anselm and Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas and Luther and Calvin in a big wrestling pit and watch them fight it out. Or, perhaps that is one of the mysteries we will finally understand when we see God face to face.

God will separate the wheat from the chaff. He already knows who is who. It's the truth that divides, not me. Any message of 'can't we all get along' at the expense of the truth is not from God. Jesus vomits out of His mouth "luke warm" Christians. I never want to be accused of being luke warm. Catholicism, and like systems of teaching, are not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Dave

concretecamper · 2026-06-09T12:50:34-0500

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Not sure why you only have part of the quote; see the post above: Paul's argument against the idea that water baptism saves. (Implied)

Because the part of your post I quoted had me scratching my head. Surely the Graces received from the Eucharist, Baptism, and Absolution ARE NOT already had by those who have not taken part in these Sacraments.

Dave... · 2026-06-09T13:18:19-0500

MarkRohfrietsch said:
The grace that is conveyed in the Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Absolution are not something that we don't already have; rather, it more abundance of that grace. Lke it says in John 10:10

Just as there is no limit to God's grace, why would we presume to limit our our Lord God delivers that grace. He has lots to go around, and has given us many ways and means to not only receive it but to participate in it as well!!

Hi Mark

You're post rings of relativism and universalism. Am I misreading you?

But there are limits to His grace.

God can reach any result, but He cannot do anything. He cannot lie, He cannot break His seal of the Holy Spirit in us. He cannot act contrary to His own nature. He is the Truth, He says His Word is the Truth, Jesus is the Word. He cannot go against His word.

If one does not believe, he is condemned already. Anyone who teaches another Gospel is accursed and eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8-9.) These are facts.

God tells us to hold to His Word and lean not unto our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6). That's because the heart is desperately wicked, who can understand it? (Jerimiah 17:9) And the Devil will temp us according to our flesh, our reasoning, apart from Scripture, or using half truths from Scripture, like with Adam and Eve. Whole false systems of teachings, idols, are designed to appeal to the flesh in the same way. I believe that Catholicism, and like minded systems of teaching, appeal to the flesh in that same way. They are idols.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If you are in Christ (Holy Spirit indwelling), you have the Way, the Truth, and the Life already. And you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. That's God's guarantee of your inheritance. Only He can break it and promises never to do so. Jesus is the way, the Truth and the Life, not the eucharist, not the Pope, not even John the Baptist, who said, less of me and more of Jesus. The only thing left is evidence, not merit. Evidence only reveals.

Are you really saved/delivered? Do you already have eternal life? If we have everlasting life, then we are sealed and cannot lose it. That's a guarantee from God. The only question left is in the evidences, not the merit. Is that faith Genuine. God knows, we don't always.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-06-09T17:36:38-0500

Dave... said:
Hi Mark

You're post rings of relativism and universalism. Am I misreading you?

But there are limits to His grace.

God can reach any result, but He cannot do anything. He cannot lie, He cannot break His seal of the Holy Spirit in us. He cannot act contrary to His own nature. He is the Truth, He says His Word is the Truth, Jesus is the Word. He cannot go against His word.

If one does not believe, he is condemned already. Anyone who teaches another Gospel is accursed and eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8-9.) These are facts.

God tells us to hold to His Word and lean not unto our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6). That's because the heart is desperately wicked, who can understand it? (Jerimiah 17:9) And the Devil will temp us according to our flesh, our reasoning, apart from Scripture, or using half truths from Scripture, like with Adam and Eve. Whole false systems of teachings, idols, are designed to appeal to the flesh in the same way. I believe that Catholicism, and like minded systems of teaching, appeal to the flesh in that same way. They are idols.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If you are in Christ (Holy Spirit indwelling), you have the Way, the Truth, and the Life already. And you are sealed with the Holy Spirit. That's God's guarantee of your inheritance. Only He can break it and promises never to do so. Jesus is the way, the Truth and the Life, not the eucharist, not the Pope, not even John the Baptist, who said, less of me and more of Jesus. The only thing left is evidence, not merit. Evidence only reveals.

Are you really saved/delivered? Do you already have eternal life? If we have everlasting life, then we are sealed and cannot lose it. That's a guarantee from God. The only question left is in the evidences, not the merit. Is that faith Genuine. God knows, we don't always.

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Either you never read any of my other post that you have responded to in the past, or you are making up stuff as you go. I subscribe to neither universalism or relativism; there is no such thing as eternal security, as one's free will and the devil are always working to replace our faith with any one of thousands of other false Gods. Materialism, legalism, and ego to name but 3.

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-06-09T17:49:35-0500

concretecamper said:
Because the part of your post I quoted had me scratching my head. Surely the Graces received from the Eucharist, Baptism, and Absolution ARE NOT already had by those who have not taken part in these Sacraments.

Well, there was the good thief. He had neither baptism nor the eucharist, yet sufficient grace to we personally welcomed to paradise. Those who are faithful and repent are missing out on the outpouring of abundant grace that is freely given by our Lord in these sacraments. Likewise, with with Holy Absolution; it is one thing to be faithful and penitent, and know what that means; how much more abundant that forgiveness is when one's pastor lays his hands on your head and pronounces our Lord's forgiveness. Our private confession is done kneeling with no screen.

PloverWing · 2026-06-09T19:22:30-0500

In response to my statement that "Some Scriptures suggest that the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save us, full stop. It is finished, we are saved.":

Dave... said:
The whole Bible teaches this. Even the OT points to this.

As I said, this is the option I lean towards as well. But honesty requires me to point out that universal reconciliation is a minority view in the church.

Dave... said:
In fact. One cannot believe the Catholic church and the Bible. They teach a different Gospel, which is no Gospel at all. I would say that Catholicism, (and like minded theology) are a continuation of the OT Jew/Gentile who thought that he could be saved by the Law, they just apply the same reasoning to NT things. See Galatians 5 for yet another example of circumcision being condemned, not because of the act, but because of the motive. Just like water baptism.

You see, a person who obeys to earn salvation is not obeying the God. Real obedience is meant to be a natural response of love, trust, and relationship, not what a person is in bondage to for salvation. Legalism never sees works as an evidence, only as a cause. That's why they interpret James as a cause, and not an evidence.

I don't know why you keep returning to the Catholic Church in this discussion. Baptism was the normative practice in the ancient church long before the Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox Churches. Baptism has also been the normative practice in most of the churches that came out of the Reformation.

If you do want to talk about Catholic Christianity, however, I'll note that Catholic theology also understands that we are saved by God's grace. I do see in Catholic teaching an emphasis on the importance of believing correct doctrine and living according to the teachings of Jesus, but that doesn't mean a belief that we are "saved by the Law". I think you are mischaracterizing Catholic theology here.

In response to my image of a heavenly wrestling match between an assortment of disagreeing theologians:

Dave... said:
God will separate the wheat from the chaff. He already knows who is who. It's the truth that divides, not me. Any message of 'can't we all get along' at the expense of the truth is not from God. Jesus vomits out of His mouth "luke warm" Christians. I never want to be accused of being luke warm.

I'm not suggesting that we should be lukewarm or that we should abandon our search for truth. I'm only suggesting that we should have humility in our search, acknowledging that the truth may be hard to discern. If the truth were obvious, Christians wouldn't disagree so much.

concretecamper · 2026-06-09T19:23:09-0500

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Well, there was the good thief. He had neither baptism nor the eucharist, yet sufficient grace to we personally welcomed to paradise

Saved under the Old Covenant. We all know where Christ descended to to preach the good news before the resurrection. So the good thief joined our Lord in Abraham's bosam, not heaven.

Again, the graces accessible to those who received the Sacraments of Baptism, The Eucharist, or Penance ARE NOT available to those who do not.

MarkRohfrietsch · 2026-06-09T20:44:03-0500

concretecamper said:
Saved under the Old Covenant. We all know where Christ descended to to preach the good news before the resurrection. So the good thief joined our Lord in Abraham's bosam, not heaven.

Again, the graces accessible to those who received the Sacraments of Baptism, The Eucharist, or Penance ARE NOT available to those who do not.

As you wish.

ViaCrucis · 2026-06-10T12:49:51-0500

concretecamper said:
Because the part of your post I quoted had me scratching my head. Surely the Graces received from the Eucharist, Baptism, and Absolution ARE NOT already had by those who have not taken part in these Sacraments.

In a marriage two people have come together and pledged their love to one another--naturally they love each other already by the time they pledge that love by deciding to get married, and then the marriage happens and they exchange vows and commit to each other. And every year they will celebrate that, often by giving each other gifts and other ways of celebrating it. And throughout the whole marriage they will say "I love you" to each other, do things for one another. Each of these is an act of giving love to someone else, but the act of giving love in these ways does not imply there was an absence of love prior. A man and a woman love each other before they get married, and a married couple love each other not just on their anniversary but the whole time in between anniversaries. Each gift, each declaration, every word of affection is a giving of love, not of a love that was absent before, but the same love that already was.

We can recognize something like this in our mundane human relationships. That love is given, over and over without thinking of an absence; so it should not be terribly crazy to conceive that God, in His love toward us, is freely offering His grace.

When I receive the body and blood of the Lord in His Supper, this is grace--not a new grace that God didn't have toward me already, but the same grace He has always had toward me. I'm not receiving something that did not already exist, I'm receiving what God already is; and what He already is toward me through His own Son. The super-abundance of grace which God has for us in Christ is ubiquitous, ever-present, and always--that same grace is potent and present in Word and Sacrament. God's free Self-giving of Himself toward us out of the infinite abundance of Himself, and which He has for the whole world of sinners and broken creation.

Dave... · 2026-06-10T13:12:58-0500

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Either you never read any of my other post that you have responded to in the past, or you are making up stuff as you go. I subscribe to neither universalism or relativism; there is no such thing as eternal security, as one's free will and the devil are always working to replace our faith with any one of thousands of other false Gods. Materialism, legalism, and ego to name but 3.

I have been reading your posts.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Sometimes, when so many today like to say things without saying them, so that they can point and say 'see, they believe just like us', when I don't. And so many claiming that 'we're not really saying what we're saying, and we're not really doing what we're doing', I feal obligated to clarify everything just so no one misunderstands. I like clarity.

I have been baptized by/with the Holy Spirit into Christ, and then water baptized as a public testimony.

I have the same grace as you do, and access to the same. I have no need of a Eucharist, but I do have Jesus Himself living inside of me. The whole OT Priesthood, like everything in the OT, pointed to something better, the real. The Perfect Priesthood of Jesus Christ, the only 'real' mediator between man and God. Put down the OT types and golden calves and experience Jesus in a way that only NT believers can experience. God's Promise is already here, as we as NT believers already have Him inside us. No need for the types of the OT any longer. That which they pointed to is here, namely, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit of Promise. God now dwells in believers, and no longer does He dwell in Temples, or anything physical that you can make up and call God.

Again, we now live in the NT dispensation and the OT Priesthood is no longer needed to approach God. That's why the curtain of the Temple tore down the middle when Jesus died on the cross. The mistake that Catholicism makes, just like Pentecostal and Charismatics, is that they believe that the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the NT from start to finish. They see the Levitical system, the priesthood, and all the OT types in action, but do not consider that that point in time was still OT up until Jesus died on the cross. We have the High Priest, Jesus, living inside us. Why would I seek Him outside of me in a statue, or a piece of metal? At best, that's the OT model, not the NT promise fulfilled. He gives me all the grace directly.

Dave

Dave... · 2026-06-10T13:40:00-0500

PloverWing said:
In response to my statement that "Some Scriptures suggest that the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was sufficient to save us, full stop. It is finished, we are saved.":

As I said, this is the option I lean towards as well. But honesty requires me to point out that universal reconciliation is a minority view in the church.

But Plover, God doesn't command that we 'lean towards' the Gospel. This is no 'minor view'.

PloverWing said:
I don't know why you keep returning to the Catholic Church in this discussion. Baptism was the normative practice in the ancient church long before the Catholic Church split off from the Orthodox Churches. Baptism has also been the normative practice in most of the churches that came out of the Reformation.

If you do want to talk about Catholic Christianity, however, I'll note that Catholic theology also understands that we are saved by God's grace. I do see in Catholic teaching an emphasis on the importance of believing correct doctrine and living according to the teachings of Jesus, but that doesn't mean a belief that we are "saved by the Law". I think you are mischaracterizing Catholic theology here.

Again, it's in writing in this very thread. People believe that one must be water baptized to be saved. And those same people try to pass that off as the same things that everyone does. It's not the act, it's the motive. You get that right?

PloverWing said:
In response to my image of a heavenly wrestling match between an assortment of disagreeing theologians:

I'm not suggesting that we should be lukewarm or that we should abandon our search for truth. I'm only suggesting that we should have humility in our search, acknowledging that the truth may be hard to discern. If the truth were obvious, Christians wouldn't disagree so much.

I agree, but I would temper that with this.

"In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance. It will always say you are being divisive, you are being unloving, you are being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn't get scrutinized. So it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny—just let's embrace each other; let's love each other; let's put all that behind us. False doctrine cries the loudest about unity. Listen carefully when you hear the cry for unity, because it may be the cover of false doctrine encroaching. If ever we should follow 1 Thessalonians 5, and examine everything carefully, it's when somebody is crying unity, love, and acceptance." Macarthur

Sometimes telling people the truth, no matter how gentle we try to be, is taken as an offense. Like Paul stated "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" In fact, the first line of defense for false teachers these days is to claim victimhood. 'You just hate us...' etc.. Sometimes, when defending that line of defense, you're not the voice of reason, rather, you're just appeasing them in their lies. I suppose there is a balance to be held along with some discernment.

Dave

Lukaris · 2026-06-10T15:51:41-0500

Dan Perez said:
And reading 2 THESS. 2:5 has NOTHING to do with WATER BAPTISM. and will like. to see a verse of. BAPTISM

BY immersion. !!

and 1. Peter 3:21 say BAPTISMA and NOT BAPTISM. , to believe just check the bGreek text and SEE as I always

CHECK. the Greek text , PERIOD !!

AND BAPTISMA IS USED 22 TIMES , beginning in MATTHEW 3:7. and ending in. 1. PETER 3:21 !!

dan p

It was a typo mistake on my part. I meant 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Paul's argument against the idea that water baptism saves. (Implied)

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Episcopalian

Unapologetic Apologist

I stand with Candace

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

I stand with Candace

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Unapologetic Apologist

Episcopalian

I stand with Candace

Unapologetic Apologist

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Similar threads