According to the bible....YES!!! And that answer is not just BIBLICAL, but consistent with my POV.
No, the bible does NOT contradict itself by saying, at the same time, there is one baptism and many baptism in effect.
Hillsage said:
But the MANY ORTHODOX doctrinal positions DO CONTRADICT. Welcome to Chritianity 101 and the 666 (sic) different divided denominations under the 'ONE umbrella' of Orthodoxy, which is a non biblical word made up by man.
Man made orthodoxy can have contradictions but the Bible does not. So there cannot be both one baptism and many baptisms in effect at the same time.
Hillsage said:
The scriptures I quote, you should really read. How many LordS are there that pertain to being "called to the ONE hope of your CALLING" which I quoted EpH 4 from, earlier (post 69) and even BOLDED it in hope you would connect the dots. So let me now help you with your addition of 'error upon error' in your above quote and biblical shortcoming as to how many LordS there are ;
1CO 8:5 For although there may be many so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as indeed there are many "gods" and MANY "lords" -- 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
I hope you can now connect the dots 'in this verse' concerning the additional "one God and Father" terms in the verse above. Terms which again confirm 'with consistency' my opinion of Eph 4 as proven below.
EPH 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 4:4-5 is correctly, accurately rendered "one God" and "one Lord".
1 Cor 8:5 is speaking about many false gods and in no way changes the fact there is one God true of and one true Lord of heaven.
Hillsage said:
I have never said there isn't a necessity for water baptism!!! You have assumed that POV, which again goes to show that your understanding falls short in grasping what I'm trying to share here, in order to even help you to understand, my POV.
I posted "
The problem lies with those that are attempting to find a way to get around the necessity of water baptism and thereby create many baptisms contrary to to there being one baptism in effect today, that one baptism being Christ's baptism of the great commission."
I mentioned Ephesians 4:5 (post #56) in my first post in this thread. In your first post (post #58) in response to my post #56 you brought up Hebrews 6:1-2 and said "
As you can plainly see, multiple baptisms are the 'basic/fundamental/elementary teaching we should be receiving in the church."
So are you trying to argue that other baptism than water baptism can save?
Prove many different baptismS can save?
Are you denying there is one baptism that saves?
What exactly are you trying to prove by bring up Hebrews 6:1-2? So far you have created a contradiction between Eph 4:5 and Hebrews 6:1-2.
Hillsage said:
YES it is,
but it falls flat on its face concerning Hebrews 6:1-2.
And consistency is the jewel to be sought for when making statements concerning doctrinal understanding.
--you have not disproven what I have said about what Heb 6:1-2.
--you have only created contradictions within holy scripture between two verses and have not yet cleared it up.
HHillsage said:
Correct again.
Now plug the 'baptism of death' that Jesus suffered on the cross into the Eph 4 list and you have all the outliers fulfilled by God and not all but the one which you believe is fullfilled by you because you got dunked in water baptism.
Christ's baptism of suffering is not the one baptism of Eph 4:5 that is in effect today. That baptism of suffering on the cross occurred over 2000 years ago fulfilling many prophecies meaning that baptism no longer exists.
--Christ's human administered water baptism of the great commission (Matthew 28:19-10) saves and lasts till the end of the world making it the one baptism of Eph 4:5 in effect today. The baptism of Luke 12:50 is nowhere is said to save/remit sins nor is that batpism said to continue till the end of the world. Therefore the baptism of Luke 12:50 is eliminated from being the one baptism in effect today.
--F.F. Bruce: “
baptism in the New Testament is always baptism in water unless the context shows it to be something else; that is to say, the word is always to be understood literally unless the context indicates a figurative meaning” (
Questions Answered, p. 106) (my emp).
So the one baptism of Eph 4:5 is a literal immersion and is not being used figuratively in the context representing suffering. No one was commanded the baptism of Luke 12:50 to be saved. This too eliminates the baptism of Luke 12:50.
Hillsage said:
'A baptism' which I already told you does nothing to promote the unity of the Spirit in Eph 4. And I proved that point based upon Paul's comment in Corinthians where he thanked God he baptized no one but two. IOW SO MUCH FOR THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT being based upon water baptism. CONSISTENCY again, of the teaching of scripture. Can you not see this?
---1 Corinthians 1:12-13 prove the necessity of water baptism in being "
of Christ". Paul used water baptism in uniting the division that was at Corinth.
---Paul said "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;"
NOT because baptism is unnecessary but "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name."
Hillsage said:
There's a saying that if you tell a lie enough times, everyone will eventually believe it. IOW I've already told you 'once' and now 'twice', I"m not interested in this OT OLD COVENANT opinion of yours. Especially since I've already refuted it WITH SCRIPTURE and you never even acknowledged that scripture, let alone refuted it. So I'm at the point that I'm really not interested in dialogue along that scripturally unsupported line. But you are entitled to that being 'your opinion', and your way of dealing with this one baptism/baptisms issue in YOUR bible.
All you have done so far is create a logical, mathematical contradiction among scriptures and not resolved it.
Heb 6:1 "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us
go on unto perfection; not
laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,"
I explained what was meant by "go on unto perfection" and "laying again the foundation". You have not. What I presented on Heb 6:1-2 was logical and consistent with rest of scripture. If it was just my opinion and a wrong opinion then you should able to quickly prove it wrong, but you have not. Again, al l you hav done is create logical mathematically contradictions. (By the way, your use of 1 Cor 8:5 was amusing.)
