First Lutheran transgender bishop, Megan Rohrer

It is not faith in Jesus that prompts someone to deny baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ when Jesus was baptizing from the time of John the baptist, see John 1:33.
And yet paul thank God that he baptized few, as to him the main thing was Jesus saves!
 
It is not faith in Jesus that prompts someone to deny baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ when Jesus was baptizing from the time of John the baptist, see John 1:33.
I fully agree should be water baptized. but after receiving Jesus as lord!
 
And yet paul thank God that he baptized few, as to him the main thing was Jesus saves!
That's another question I asked them. It is stated in the New Testament that Paul was an evangelist and yet, he stated that he did not come to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, by which men are saved.

In another verse, he said he was glad he did not baptize some church members.

That seems like a very odd thing for an evangelist to say, if baptism saves.

But they ignored that question, too.
 
That's another question I asked them. It is stated in the New Testament that Paul was an evangelist and yet, he stated that he did not come to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, by which men are saved.

In another verse, he said he was glad he did not baptize some church members.

That seems like a very odd thing for an evangelist to say, if baptism saves.

But they ignored that question, too.
Paul NEVER gloried in water baptism, but the Cross!
 
He left because of the heresy of 'Gay is okay'. He was not okay with that. He believes what the bibles says. It's an abomination.
Absolutely, but its not your friend who should be leaving but rather the likes of Megan Rohrer.
Thank goodness God is the judge.
 
Absolutely, but its not your friend who should be leaving but rather the likes of Megan Rohrer.
Thank goodness God is the judge.
The conservative Lutheran churches still stand against that, but some of their entire groups in more liberal churches are now caving in!
 
Absolutely, but its not your friend who should be leaving but rather the likes of Megan Rohrer.
Thank goodness God is the judge.
I agree. Rohrer should be leaving. People like her pollute the church with heresy.
 
What damns sinners is not being water baptized, b ut not trusting in Lord Jesus to save them!
That is an iinconsistent comment because the Lord is telling all through clear words in 1 Peter 3 how He saves through baptism which does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.

Part of the reason for the disagreement regarding 1 Peter 3:21-22 is that there is a misunderstanding among the non Evangelicals or non Lutherans of the flood account. As a consequence of that 1 Peter 3:20 is misunderstood and like dominoes that misunderstanding rolls into 1 Peter 3:21-22 and other doctrines and passages.

In the flood account Noah and his family are descendants of Adam, therefore, like all other men who are not God incarnate, they have been impacted by the first sin and are sinful and sin from the get go.

God is bringing judgement upon the world through water. Noah, who found grace with God or unmerited favor with God, is saved by the judgement of God through that water. In other words, the flood waters were the means by which they were saved.

At the conclusion of the flood account Noah and all other men are judged or described in the same way regarding sin that all men were judged before the flood, namely, the imagination of man's heart is evil from childhood. See Genesis 8:21.

In the inspired interpretaion of the flood account 1 Peter 3:20 the literal stated means of salvation is the water. That is what saved through water means in that passage.

Although there are some who think they know better than God and try to obscure or replace the water with the ark as the means of salvation in the flood account that is an error and contrary to what the Lord says in that passage.

Referring back to the flood account 1 Peter tells us, this water prefigures baptism which does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
 
This another self refuting post on your part for the following reasons:
You dishonestly added words to the text.
The one church of the one Lord God only has one baptism, therefore, referring to baptism into Christ is not a dishonest addition. And it remains true that you could not find a relative pronoun that turns believed away from baptized in Mark 16:16 because there is none.
Yep. That was me. And you still lied when you claimed I said "that people shouldn't believe Jesus" clear statement that he who believed and was baptized shall be saved."
The one church of the one Lord God only has one baptism, therefore, when Jesus speaks of being baptized and any person tells others He is not speaking of the one baptism from God which was given to John to inaugurate then that person is saying in effect that one shouldn't believe what Jesus said. Attempting to redefine categories in this regard is a gross error.

The misinterpretation you are asserting is based upon and is drowning in eisegesis.
I was responding to your post, not John. John wouldn't lie.
Nobody said he did.
If you acknowledge that nowhere in Scripture does it say that John baptized with water but not with the Spirit then there is no Scriptual or logical reason to try and redefine the one baptism as water baptism. Nor is there a scriptural or logical reason to deny what occurs in that one baptism.
 
there were people in acts who had been baptized by John, and yet were not saved until heard the good news, and then trusted in jesus to save them!
They only said they were baptized with John's baptism. If they had been baptized with John's baptism then they would have known about the Holy Spirit.
 
The Baptism of John was not the water, but a promise to repentance and faith in coming Messiah!
You are again attempting to interpret Scripture through an extra-biblical grid which is contrary to Scripture. John's baptism was for the reission or forgiveness of sins, see for example Mark 1:4.
 
And yet paul thank God that he baptized few, as to him the main thing was Jesus saves!
""Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name." 1 Corinthians 1:12-15, -NKJV

Paul was thankful he hadn't baptized enough prople at Corinth to be dragged into their misguided divisions.

Paul then assigns the reason why he had not baptizrd many. "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." 1 Corinthians 1:17 -NKJV

Paul, as an Apostle of Christ, was trained to preach the gospel. He was going to be the witness of the Lord before kings and rulers. So although there were plenty of others to do the job of baptizing at Corinth he still baptized a few. That is the difference between being sent to do one thing rather than another and being sent to do one thing and categorically not an other. If it had been the latter then Paul would have been sinning to baptize a single soul.

An analogous situation in the OT is that of Moses appointing others to be judges among the Israelites so that he could attend to other matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Wrong. See: Paul and Cornelius.

No, right. That is what Peter wrote. And I have seen Paul and Cornelius and also addressed this. Did you not see that
Since baptism is for those who are already saved, what happens if a person gets baptized and never gets saved?

Are you talking about adult baptism?
How do you explain all the little babies you sprinkle who don't get saved when they grow up?

They rejected their baptism as adults.
But scripture does.

OK. Please show us an example of a person who received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after they were baptized.

Acts 2.

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
...in the ark. Christ is the ark.

Sure He is. But the water supported the ark enabling it to float.
This is the dumbest thing I've read here since Vibise's last post.

Vibise isn't on this board, so kindly concentrate. But what you wrote is just your opinion, and everything you write is supported by your opinion, correct?
The ark kept them safe FROM the flood. It was the flood, the thing you're analogizing to God's means of salvation, that was the outpouring of God's wrath. The ark, which is analogous to Christ, is what saved them from the water.

But the water also floated the ark. Water drowned the sinners, but kept the ark afloat. But Peter STILL SAID THAT "baptism NOW does save you" and he means Holy Baptism.
So, if you admit that the verse says "not as the removal of dirt from the body", then how can it be removal of sin from the flesh?

I admitted nothing. I quoted the verses in context at least twice on here. Not my fault if you missed it the first time, though I seem to remember that you responded to it. Peter was just saying that baptism isn't for removing dirt from the body, but is for an appeal to God for a good conscience--and we get that when our sins are forgiven.

But Baptism IS for the forgiveness of sins, as Peter said, in Acts 2. And as Paul recounted from what Ananais told him, in Acts 21, I think it is. Do you need to see those verses again?
....and that's why fire engines are red.
Nope. the fire engines are back at the station. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
That is an iinconsistent comment because the Lord is telling all through clear words in 1 Peter 3 how He saves through baptism which does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.

Part of the reason for the disagreement regarding 1 Peter 3:21-22 is that there is a misunderstanding among the non Evangelicals or non Lutherans of the flood account. As a consequence of that 1 Peter 3:20 is misunderstood and like dominoes that misunderstanding rolls into 1 Peter 3:21-22 and other doctrines and passages.

In the flood account Noah and his family are descendants of Adam, therefore, like all other men who are not God incarnate, they have been impacted by the first sin and are sinful and sin from the get go.

God is bringing judgement upon the world through water. Noah, who found grace with God or unmerited favor with God, is saved by the judgement of God through that water. In other words, the flood waters were the means by which they were saved.

At the conclusion of the flood account Noah and all other men are judged or described in the same way regarding sin that all men were judged before the flood, namely, the imagination of man's heart is evil from childhood. See Genesis 8:21.

In the inspired interpretaion of the flood account 1 Peter 3:20 the literal stated means of salvation is the water. That is what saved through water means in that passage.

Although there are some who think they know better than God and try to obscure or replace the water with the ark as the means of salvation in the flood account that is an error and contrary to what the Lord says in that passage.

Referring back to the flood account 1 Peter tells us, this water prefigures baptism which does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
the basis of what saves us is the Cross and resurrection of Jesus, and that saving grace applie dto us thru faith in Him!
 
This another self refuting post on your part for the following reasons:

The one church of the one Lord God only has one baptism, therefore, referring to baptism into Christ is not a dishonest addition. And it remains true that you could not find a relative pronoun that turns believed away from baptized in Mark 16:16 because there is none.

The one church of the one Lord God only has one baptism, therefore, when Jesus speaks of being baptized and any person tells others He is not speaking of the one baptism from God which was given to John to inaugurate then that person is saying in effect that one shouldn't believe what Jesus said. Attempting to redefine categories in this regard is a gross error.

The misinterpretation you are asserting is based upon and is drowning in eisegesis.

If you acknowledge that nowhere in Scripture does it say that John baptized with water but not with the Spirit then there is no Scriptual or logical reason to try and redefine the one baptism as water baptism. Nor is there a scriptural or logical reason to deny what occurs in that one baptism.
Every person water baptized in the NT were believers in Jesus as their Lord, see the jailer in Acts, believed in Jesus and was saved!
And the one true church of Christ is His body, all of the redeemed, regardless baptists, Lutherans, methodists etc!
 
They only said they were baptized with John's baptism. If they had been baptized with John's baptism then they would have known about the Holy Spirit.
The baptism of John was not the water, but the repentance and believe in coming Messiah! And John stated that the Messiah would baptize in Spirit and fire, nothing to do with water baptizing!
 
You are again attempting to interpret Scripture through an extra-biblical grid which is contrary to Scripture. John's baptism was for the reission or forgiveness of sins, see for example Mark 1:4.
There is no remission of sin apart from the Cross of Christ!
 
No, right. That is what Peter wrote. And I have seen Paul and Cornelius and also addressed this. Did you not see that


Are you talking about adult baptism?


They rejected their baptism as adults.


Acts 2.




Sure He is. But the water supported the ark enabling it to float.


Vibise isn't on this board, so kindly concentrate. But what you wrote is just your opinion, and everything you write is supported by your opinion, correct?


But the water also floated the ark. Water drowned the sinners, but kept the ark afloat. But Peter STILL SAID THAT "baptism NOW does save you" and he means Holy Baptism.


I admitted nothing. I quoted the verses in context at least twice on here. Not my fault if you missed it the first time, though I seem to remember that you responded to it. Peter was just saying that baptism isn't for removing dirt from the body, but is for an appeal to God for a good conscience--and we get that when our sins are forgiven.

But Baptism IS for the forgiveness of sins, as Peter said, in Acts 2. And as Paul recounted from what Ananais told him, in Acts 21, I think it is. Do you need to see those verses again?

Nope. the fire engines are back at the station. :)
When one is saved, the Holy Spierit saves and seals them into Christ, so its not water baptism but that Spirit Baptism in Christ thru faith that marks us as now saved!
 
I fully agree should be water baptized. but after receiving Jesus as lord!
That can and does sometimes happen but to insist upon that in all in all instances is a tacit denial of the grace of God in baptism, the unmerited favorof God in baptism. Baptism along with its gifts and benefits was freely given to men apart from any man's disposition or merit.

Since kidnapping someone or absconding with someone to take to a river is inconsistent with gift giving, as is an unexplained pouring or sprinkling of water on a person, we have a record of the Apostles first witnessing and then baptizing the first converts, the first converts and threir families or households.

An analogous situation to the start of the church among the Gentiles can be found in the Flintstones cartoon. To start the car Fred had to power it by running but once it was running his legs were no longer needed. So it was and is with baptism since parents want what is good and best for their kids, especially when that good and best is freely bestowed upon them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nic
Back
Top