I know you are off on water baptism

“I indeed have baptized you in water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8 MKJV).

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Anthony » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:17 am



Hi victor I believe and agreed on a lot of the topics but I know you are off on water baptism everywhere in the new covenant when someone got save they were baptized rihgtaway even after receiving the Holy ghost they were commanded to be baptized. Whatever you do in word or deed do it all in the name of our LORD JESUS . EVERYONE WHO IS CALLED HAVE TO BE BAPTIZED ACCORDING TO PETER
Anthony
 

I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Anthony » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:17 pm



Water baptism has been practice in the new covenant era througtout scripturesJESUS himself was boptized as an example for us . Jesus sent the apostles to jerusalem and after, being filled with the HOLY GHOST Peter preached a great sermon and they asked what we do he told everyone none excluded to repent and be baptized in yhe name of JESUS CHRIST FOR REMISSION OF SIN AND BE FIILLED WITH HOLY GHOST.HE says if the LORD CALLS YOU , YOU HAVE TO DO THAT, PHILLIP went to Samaria and baptized there , then the HOLY GHOST sent him to babtized the E thiopian eunoch.the HOLY GHOST DID NOT FELL ON ANY IN SAMARIA ONLY THOSE BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME.PAUL came along after he spoke to JESUS HE WAS SENT TO ANNANIAS to be baptized and received the HOLY GHOST.HE later baptized the jail keeper and his household. Corneilus already received the HOLY GHOST WHEN HE WAS COMMANDEDTO BE WATER BAPTIZED.PAUL WENT UP TO EPHESUS MET JOHNS DISCIPLE AND REBAPTIZED THEM. NOT ONLYwere they baptized they were baptized the same time they accept JESUS THAT SHOW THE IMPORTANCE. QUESTION YOU SAYS WATER BAPTISM WAS FINISHED AWAY WITH. WHEN DID THAT HAPPENS GIVE ME THE BOOK ,CHAPTER AND VERSE . WHY WOULD PAUL REBAPTIZED THEM IF IT WAS NOT NECESSARYAND WHY WOULD PETER COMMAND THEM AFTER THEY HAD RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST ALREADY TO BE WATER BAPTIZED. REMRMBER NOW THEY CONTINUED IN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE ANR THE DOTRINE THAT WE PREACH IS BUILT UPON THE FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLE AND PROFIT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF BEING THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. PAUL SAYS CONSIDER WHAW I SAY AND THE LORD WILLGIVE YOU AN UNDERSTANDING AND ROMANS 15 VS 4 SAYS WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME TIMES WERE WRITTEN FOR OUR LEARNING THAT THROUGH PATIENT AND COMFORT OF THE SCRIPTURES WE HAVE HOPE .I TEACHES THE SAME THINGS YOU ARE TEACHING ON MOST OF THE SUBJECT BUT THE SCRIPTURES SAYS WE MUST ALL TEACH THE SAME THING. GOD BLESSYOU. LOVE YOU AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HEAR FROM YOU. TONY THOMAS
Anthony
 

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk » Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:16 pm



Hi Tony,

In one place you say the Holy Spirit didn't come on any people but those who were water baptized, whereas in another you admit that Cornelius received the Spirit before being water baptized. So if God gave His Spirit to Cornelius and those with him who believed, He did indeed show that water baptism wasn't necessary to receive His Spirit.

Furthermore, Simon the Samaritan believed and was water baptized, yet he didn't receive the Spirit (Acts 8). This tells us water baptism is no guarantee of receiving the Spirit, nor is it a supernatural rite that effects the saving of the soul.

We've seen the Lord do the same among us as with Cornelius and Simon, giving His Spirit to those who weren't water baptized and withholding the Spirit from some who were. Is God confused and unclear on this matter, or are you mistaken?

Why did the apostle Paul say he wasn't sent to baptize, if water baptism was so important, even in his day?

“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17 MKJV).

Water baptism isn't necessary if you have the faith of Christ, which confers on those who believe all that water baptism symbolizes.

Who needs the symbols when they have the Reality? It's the same with circumcision. Do you need to be circumcised to be saved?

You say, “ROMANS 15 VS 4 SAYS WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME TIMES WERE WRITTEN FOR OUR LEARNING THAT THROUGH PATIENT AND COMFORT OF THE SCRIPTURES WE HAVE HOPE” and, “THE SCRIPTURES SAYS WE MUST ALL TEACH THE SAME THING.

Perhaps you better get circumcised. After all, Paul and Jesus were both circumcised and Paul also circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3).

You say, “QUESTION YOU SAYS WATER BAPTISM WAS FINISHED AWAY WITH. WHEN DID THAT HAPPENS GIVE ME THE BOOK ,CHAPTER AND VERSE .

Let us ask you, Tony, where did Paul find “book, chapter, and verse” telling them to no longer require circumcision of the male believers in God who were being grafted into the lineage of Abraham? We received our revelation of water baptism in the same manner that Paul received his revelation about circumcision - from the Lord as He speaks to us today. And what we've heard from Him is in agreement with the Scriptures, as we show you here and in the writings on our site. There's no disharmony.

As for Jesus being baptized, He did say to John that they needed to fulfill what God required “for now.”

Matthew 3:14-15 EMTV
(14) But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and You are coming to me?"
(15) But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.

Water baptism was necessary at the time, just as other ordinances symbolizing the forgiveness and redemption in Christ were necessary to fulfill all righteousness. Look at how long Israel was commanded to make animal sacrifices, for example, yet after Christ that practice also faded away - “WITHOUT book, chapter and verse.”

You bring up Mark 16:16 about being baptized in order to be saved. Did you know that the verses following 16:8 aren't in the oldest manuscripts? Nevertheless, if those words are authentic, what baptism was the Lord talking about there? The context tells us:

Mark 16:16-18 EMTV
(16) He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be condemned.
(17) And these signs shall accompany those who have believed: In My Name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;
(18) they shall pick up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well."

The things described there are spiritual gifts that accompany the baptism of the Spirit. The Lord obviously wasn't talking about water baptism.

The Lord wasn't talking about water baptism in John 3:5, either (“born of water and the Spirit”). He was talking about being born again by faith in Him, which comes through the Word of God and His Spirit:

“Therefore putting aside all filthiness and overflowing of evil, receive in meekness the implanted Word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21 MKJV).

“…Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word” (Ephesians 5:25-26 MKJV).

The “washing of water by the Word” doesn't happen by water baptism, but by faith in Christ:

“This is a symbol of immersion, which now saves you--not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah” (1 Peter 3:21 HNV).

This is an ongoing work, not a one time ritual.

Are we the only ones who teach that just as circumcision was no longer necessary, so now we are in a new age/dispensation wherein water baptism is no longer necessary? We know others teach that water immersion isn't necessary, but do they do so for the same reason?

Nevertheless, just as Paul circumcised Timothy, so are we willing to immerse anyone in water, if necessary. We don't have a problem with it. The key issue at hand is faith in Christ, not the performance of an external rite.

Read over the Water Baptism section again, Tony, the rest of your answers are there if you have the heart for hearing and truly considering what the Lord has taught us. It seems you may be more religious than reasonable and more zealous of chosen doctrine than humble to receive revelation of God. We understand because we've also been there, but God was gracious to us.

Moreover, rather than focusing on doctrine, read our site and learn about the Lord and what He requires of you in order to be saved. You could start with How One Is Saved.

Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk
www.ThePathofTruth.com
Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk
 

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Anthony » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:39 pm



Hi greetings in JESUS CHRIST NAME the one and only true GOD.I was not saying that the Holy GHOST came in the same format all the time sometimes it happens before water baptism other times it happens afterwards.You never address this question so iam posing it to you again if water baptism was not necessary why would PETER THE APOSTLE COMMANDED THEM TO BE BAPTIZED AFTER THEY HAVE RECEIVE THE HOLY GHOST, Paul take note he did not leave it up to them if they feel like it, this was a commandment from JESUS through the mouth of Bro Peter whosoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

We cannot argue the scriptrure away, Jesus said, we must search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life JOHN 5VS39 and then he said in JOHN 7 vs 38 he that believeth on me as the scripture hath said, forget what TONY is saying or what Paul or Victor is saying, if it is not lining up with the scriptures and the scriptures clearly stated that every one everywhere should repent and be baptized in the name of JESUS CHRIST for remission of sin and be filled with the HOLY GHOST although there are times when people received the HOLY GHOST BEFORE THEY ARE BAPTIZED WITH WATER but are still commanded to di so.

You says SImons was baptized and did not received the Holy Ghost thats true, I was not saying every time someone get baptized in water thats a guarantee for them receiving the HOLY GHOST NO; NOT AT ALL, contrary to that i know alot of people whom have been baptized in water and not receiving the HGOLY GHOST, and i stated that in ACT 19 , and iam asking you again ,since water baptism is not necessay why Apostle Paul rebaptized these disciples who was already baptized you would not do that you would leave it up to them but the APOSTLE Paul what i say unto one isay unto all please give me an answer.

I know we are save by the grace of GOD through faith, but a saved person must obey GOD'S commandment for that's the whole duty of man to fear GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENT. THE SCRIPTURES COMMANDED US TO BE WATER BAPTIZED AND FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST.Paul said he was not sent to baptise but the scriptures have to be rightly divided , 1st COR 1VS IO SAYS WE MUST ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING ANDTHAT THERE BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU, PAULcontinue to say that salvation was through JESUS CHRIST by his
death , burial and resurrection and that dont look to PAUL, OR PETER OR
APOLLOS OR VICTOR OR PAUL BUT TO JESUS CHRIST THE AUTHOR AND FINNISHER OF OUR FAITH.IN THAT SCRIPTURES HE WAS TELLING US WHOM HE HAD BAPTIZED WAS HE DISOBEYING GOD SINCE HE WAS NOT SENT TO BAPTIZED ACCORDING TO YOU NO, OTHER PEOPLE WERE BAPTIZING, WE ALL HAVE OUR GIFTS IN THE BODY.

DONT turn away from the truth and turn to fables.Paul you mentioned circumcision,take note of how the apostles dealt with it in A CTSCHAP 15 andhow Paul withstood peter to the face in GAL. CHAP 2 they preached against circumcision, not with water baptism, they preach and practised water baptism and threre were no division among them onTHAT matter. IN THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES LET EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED PETER BAPTIZED WITH WATER THEN ANGEL SENT PHILLIP TO DO IT , THEN PUAL WENT AND DID AFTER SPEAKING WITH JESUS.

I gave you alot of scriptures supporting my position ,now you give me some scriptures supporting let GOD be true and every man a liar. You talked about
revelation iam with that too, but revelation have to line up with scripture, TRUE REVELATION DONT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURES and there is no private interpretation of the scriptures, it has to be supported.

NOW JOHN CHAP 3 VS 5 CLEARLY STATED THAT A MAN MUST BE BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT ONE IS AN OUTWARD SHOWING AN EVIDENCE OF CHANGE, HOLY GHOST BAPTISM THROUGH FAITH ,BUT GOD GIVE THE HOLY GHOST TO THEM THAT OBEY HIM. NOW IF A MAN TEAR DOWN WHAT HE ONCE BUILT UP HE BECOMES A TRANGRESSOR. NOW SOMEONE WIL HAVE TO TEACH THE DOCTRINE THE SCRIPTURE SAYS THE TIME WILL COME WHEN MEN WILLNOT ENDURE SOUND DOCTRINE ALOT OF PEOPLE HAVING ITCHING EARS. I KNOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT BAPTISM JUST COME BACK TO THE TRUTH AND DONT LEAN TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING JUST ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AND LET HIM DIRECT YOUR PATH GOD BLESS ,,,,TONY THOMAS
Anthony
 

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk » Mon Feb 09, 2015 10:32 am



Hi Tony,

Why do you assume that because Peter water baptized Cornelius, it was therefore necessary? The Scriptures don't say that, and you can't automatically assume that everything an apostle did was a commandment from God.

Peter doesn't even mention water baptizing Cornelius and his associates when he recounted what happened to the legalistic Jews who were concerned about his eating with Gentiles.

Acts 11:15-17 MKJV
(15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
(16) And I remembered the Word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
(17) If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?

If water baptism was necessary for salvation, don't you think Peter would have mentioned that as well, especially to the religious Jews hung up on physical rites such as circumcision? It was these same people who later influenced Peter to act hypocritically when he separated himself from the Gentiles in their presence:

Galatians 2:11-16 MKJV
(11) But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
(12) For before some came from James, he ate with the nations. But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.
(13) And the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so as even Barnabas was led away with their dissembling.
(14) But when I saw that they did not walk uprightly with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all, If you, being a Jew, live as a Gentile, and not as the Jews, why do you compel the nations to Judaize?
(15) We Jews by nature, and not sinners of the nations,
(16) knowing that a man is not justified by works of the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ; even we believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law. For all flesh will not be justified by works of law.

Peter water baptized Cornelius and his group because of a precedent set beforehand by God and not by revelation of what the Lord was doing next. It was because he received revelation, however, that Paul said he wasn't sent to water baptize. Paul understood the symbolic nature of this rite, which made it no longer necessary when Christ fulfilled it by the baptism in His Spirit.

You ask why Paul water baptized the disciples in Ephesus after they had already been water baptized once before. Are the Scriptures talking about water baptism there? It could sound that way, but consider the following translation of the verses in question.

Acts 19:1-6
(1) And it happened, in the time Apollos was in Corinth, Paul was passing through the higher parts to come to Ephesus. And finding some disciples,
(2) he said to them, Believing, did you receive the Holy Spirit? And they said to him, We did not even hear whether the Holy Spirit is.
(3) And he said to them, Then to what were you baptized? And they said, To the baptism of John.
(4) And Paul said, John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe into the One coming after him, that is, into the Christ, Jesus.
(5) And hearing, they were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jesus.
(6) When Paul laying hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in languages and prophesied.

What I see happening there is that Paul preached Christ to them and laid hands on them, which is when they were baptized, receiving the Spirit of the Lord.

Would water baptism “in the Name of the Lord” baptize believers “into His Name,” meaning into Him, or would the baptism with His Spirit do this? Certainly it's the latter, as we see.

“And all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:2 ESV)

It's the reality of God's Presence and spiritual acts that baptizes into His Name, not a ritual. If water baptizing “in the Name of the Lord Jesus” brought salvation, then the disciples in Samaria would have received His Spirit when they were baptized that way. But the baptism in the Spirit didn't happen until the Lord directly intervened through His apostles.

Acts 8:14-17 MKJV
(14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
(15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
(16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the Name of the Lord Jesus.
(17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Note that the apostles didn't lay hands on Simon, who also had been water baptized in the Name of Jesus:

Acts 8:13-24 MKJV
(13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed…
(18) And when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
(19) saying, Give me this power also, that on whomever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.
(20) But Peter said to him, May your silver perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
(21) You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.
(22) Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.
(23) For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.
(24) And answering Simon said, You pray to the Lord for me that none of these things which you have spoken may come on me.

If being water baptized in the Name of Jesus changed anybody, then Simon wouldn't have been offering money for the gifts of the Spirit, or unrepentant when confronted about it.

If being water baptized in the Name of Jesus was so important, why wasn't it done with Apollos, who only knew “the baptism of John”? Rather, Aquila and Priscilla “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly,” after which Apollos was a help to the disciples of the Lord:

Acts 18:24-28 KJV
(24) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
(25) This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
(26) And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
(27) And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
(28) For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Consider as well, that Aquila and Priscilla did these things with Apollos after spending time with Paul. Why didn't they do as you claim Paul and the apostles would have taught them? You can't say they weren't following God, because the results show that God was with them and Apollos, whom they ministered to in Christ.

But if, as you say, Paul did water baptize the Ephesians spoken of in Acts 19, this still doesn't prove your contention that water baptism is a necessary rite today. As we have shown you, Paul also oversaw the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), yet Paul knew and preached that circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation. Indeed, those who trusted in circumcision, the same as you trust in water baptism, were a threat to the Gospel Paul preached:

Galatians 2:1-5 EMTV
(1) Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus along.
(2) And I went up by revelation, and I set before them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those with influence, lest somehow I might run, or had run, for nothing.
(3) But not even Titus who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised;
(4) and that was because of false brothers secretly brought in (who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might reduce us to slavery),
(5) to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.

And to the Ephesians you claim Paul water baptized for their salvation, he later wrote:

“There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism…” (Ephesians 4:4-5 MKJV).

What baptism was Paul talking about? You ask us for Scriptures to prove things, Tony, and we've given them to you, but you have no respect for the Word of God.

Where in the Scriptures do you find that two water baptisms were commanded (one for repentance and one in the Name of Jesus), as it appears you believe was necessary (and maybe think still is)? The preaching of two water baptisms for salvation isn't found anywhere in the Scriptures because it was never necessary or mandated by God.

Water baptism isn't necessary - we have given you ample proof. You keep asking us for the Scriptures, which we have supplied, refuting your understanding and use of the Scriptures. If you still wish to continue arguing your point, it's only because you're religiously stubborn in idolatry of other gods, one of them being water baptism and another, the Bible that you interpret in your carnality to justify yourself.

Here's what the Lord said to those who used the Scriptures against Him and the truth He spoke:

“You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify about Me. But you are unwilling to come to Me, so that you may have life” (John 5:39-40 EMTV).

You use the Lord's words to indicate one DOES find life in the Scriptures:

We cannot argue the scriptrure away, Jesus said, we must search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life JOHN 5VS39 and then he said in JOHN 7 vs 38 he that believeth on me as the scripture hath said,

Jesus said the very opposite. And isn't that what your stance is with us? You deny and defy what the Lord was saying to the Jews…that life wasn't where the Jews were looking for it. So with you and us. Your dogged insistence is not on the truth of the Scriptures, but on your interpretation and understanding of them.

You're the one shut out of the Kingdom of God, not because you weren't baptized in water, but because you haven't been baptized in His Spirit.

How then shall we speak the same thing when our trust is in the Lord and Author of the Scriptures while yours is in the Scriptures, interpreted your way?

You say, “NOW JOHN CHAP 3 VS 5 CLEARLY STATED THAT A MAN MUST BE BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT ONE IS AN OUTWARD SHOWING AN EVIDENCE OF CHANGE, HOLY GHOST BAPTISM THROUGH FAITH ,BUT GOD GIVE THE HOLY GHOST TO THEM THAT OBEY HIM.

You shout, “THE SCRIPTURES COMMANDED US TO BE WATER BAPTIZED AND FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST.

As we've already told you, the Lord wasn't speaking of water baptism but of being washed by the Water of His Word. You err, being carnal, and can't hear, being set on your gods.

Question: Do you really believe that if one were to receive the Holy Spirit but not be water baptized that therefore he would not be permitted into the Kingdom of God? Really, Tony? Where do you find Scripture for that?

Imagine the Lord saying to that person, “Yes, I understand that you have received and have dwelling in you MY Spirit; however, I can't have anything to do with you because you weren't immersed in water, sorry to say.”

You say, “I KNOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT BAPTISM JUST COME BACK TO THE TRUTH AND DONT LEAN TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING JUST ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AND LET HIM DIRECT YOUR PATH GOD BLESS ,,,,TONY THOMAS

No, you don't know we know the truth about baptism. You argue with what we know the Lord has revealed to us, claiming it's of our own understanding. We have acknowledged and do acknowledge Him and have received His Mind and understanding of matters. You have not. We are blessed and you oppose that blessing, because leaning to your understanding.

Read What It Means To Be Born Again. You have an erroneous understanding of the new birth, because you haven't been born again.

You write, “Hi greetings in JESUS CHRIST NAME the one and only true GOD.

Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ IS the One and Only True God (The Most Glorious of Truths). We speak in His Name to you. Consider prayerfully what gods you're serving that keep you from hearing us and what we speak in the Lord.

Paul & Victor
Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk
 

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Anthony » Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:39 am



hi Paul, this will be my last reply about water baptism and I will be very short the scripture says faith without work is dead just consider the healing of Naamans in 2nd kings chapter 5 GOD BLESS YOU.

Just something i read on another subject and i want you you to open it a little more for me is when you says that GOD HAVE A FEMALE SIDE AND THAT CHRIST IS THE FEMALE SIDE OF GOD THANK YOU
Anthony
 

Re: I know you are off on water baptism

Postby Paul Cohen » Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:47 am



The situation with Naaman bears out what we've been telling you, Tony. Naaman was given direct instructions from a man of God and his healing followed his obedience to the Word of God. We too have given instructions to others who have been similarly blessed when they received us as ministers of God and obeyed His instructions.

We have seen people repent of their sins, be delivered from various bondages, receive the Spirit of Christ, and manifest His gifts - all without water baptism. So to sum up this discussion, your argument doesn't hold water and your water holds no valid argument.

As for the “Female Factor” of God represented by Jesus Christ and His Body, I don't have anything to add to what is already said in The Asininity of the Trinity. It's all there.

Paul
Paul Cohen
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:01 am


Return to Water Baptism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest