Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Both oneness AND trin are wrong, but oneness is better.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now, with this system established by the Apostles, why don't you adhere to it?
    No system was established. It's a figment of your imagination that expresses how closed minded you are. Each time it's different; therefore, there is no system. If we can learn anything from Acts, we can learn that Salvation is about one relationship with God not checking off the marks of some system.
    Oh that's right, skip all this and take sinners to Romans 10:9.

    This way we don't have to hassle with getting wet or dealing with the Spirit stuff.

    Just listen to them say "I believe, and I am saved", "I believe and I am saved", until they convince themselves....mind over matter, without a divine encounter.

    Comment


    • 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.....
      38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....
      I reckon you think folks are saved without remission of sins.
      Nope. You are just really, really bad at reading Scripture
      .

      Fact is, there is no sacrifice of Jesus involved in the salvation efforts of Baptists, per Acts 2:38 and Hebrews 9.

      Baptists have omitted the remission of their sins as their plan of salvation....


      22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.



      Per Acts 2:38, remission of sins is obtained in water baptism, which in turn, is where the blood of Christ is involved.

      You guys "confess" your way into salvation with no need of remission or blood.

      Crazy stuff.
      Last edited by Truther; 11-07-18, 10:09 AM.

      Comment


      • How can we receive remission of sins through His name without invoking His name?
        Easy, through his name doesn't mean invoking his name. It means we are saved according to his power and authority.
        Maybe just "thinking" His name is sufficient for this power?

        I have no problem openly saying His name as I pray for folks or baptize them.

        You can just think it, or boldly mumble it, if that's your prerogative.

        Comment


        • That did it.
          Your new name is father, son and husband...."FSH".
          Cool.
          How are you today, FSH?
          No, you are simply responding with irrationality to my logic.
          Just wondering FSH, do you guys ever speak the name of Jesus during services, or do you guys use the singular name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost instead?

          Like, praying for the sick in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

          Maybe rebuke evil spirits or pray for sick saying, "in the name of the Son", instead of "Jesus"?

          Comment


          • Cool verses. Neither of them prove anything because they are just recording history, not teaching doctrine or any system.
            So, unless the Apostles come back and do it again in the future, they are unnecessary for the Churches today?
            Nope, you are just wrong. You refuse to look at the actual evidence. Instead, you twist and abuse Scripture to justify your dogma.
            I think you kinda know they are more than someone else's history, but that it is the document of the doctrines held by the 1st century church in action.

            You would rather not duplicate their actions, but rather adhere to John Smythe's actions.

            Why?, I will never understand.

            Comment


            • Why did you bring up when the books were written?
              Is that how you tell sinners to read their order?
              Is there even a date on these books somewhere?
              Nope. I brought up the order written to express how fundamentally irrational it is to read Acts and not read Romans as to determine how one is saved. Romans was written before Acts. It was written to Saints to teach them how they were saved. Acts was written later to record history. How can you think Acts is so importation to Salvation when most in the early Church didn't have Acts but had Romans or Ephesians or Galatians? If most of the early Church grew based upon the Epistles, then why are you not considering the Gospel presented there in?

              Fundamentally irrational to teach the founding of the early church for sinners to observe, as it was in the 1st century?

              Modern sinners are above all that hubub?

              Comment


              • Acts 2 doesn't record 3000 sinners finding salvation by repenting. It records 3000 people being saved by grace through faith. These where then commanded to repent and be baptized.
                I see, they were added to the church WITHOUT repenting, WITHOUT being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and WITHOUT receiving the Holy Ghost.

                Cool...easier than Peter expected.

                Comment


                • Your history begins with John Smythe.
                  Silly man, I don't have a clue who John Smythe is. You don't know what you are talking about.
                  Since Peter is not the man that introduced of your church, here is your founder's replacement for Peter's Acts 2:38 message....


                  https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...ohn-smyth.html


                  Your replacement doctrine for Acts 2:38 etc, is originating with him.

                  Know your roots.

                  Comment


                  • No, I didn't skip anything. I dealt with Romans, I then dealt with Acts, and then moved onto John. Why are you pretending Acts is so important as to ignore what Jesus said in John?
                    Reading the Bible backwards again, eh?
                    Silly goose. You can't read the Bible backwards.
                    Oh that's right, the New Testament starts with reading Rev 22.

                    Comment


                    • Fix my opinion...tell me exactly where in the Bible the church started.
                      Tell me exactly where it says water baptism is necessary for salvation. Cornelius was obviously saved before water baptism. That's why Peter asks "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?". Saved before water baptism. How does that work with your theory?
                      Still cannot tell me exactly where the early church started in the New Testament?

                      Don't they know that in seminary, or do folks pay all that money and still not know?

                      Are you hiding something in the recesses of your mind, and just cannot admit it because of your religion?

                      You really should make your quest in life to find the exact passage of where the church started in the New Testament.

                      If you could explain that to your peers, you could reform their beliefs and lead a movement back to the original church.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Truther View Post
                        Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
                        Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost....Acts 2:37-38
                        Oh that's right, Peter told them they were saved, then told them to repent, etc....
                        This is the passage that you love to misinterpret. It doesn't say one is saved by getting baptized. These people already had faith and were already saved. Therefore, if anything, this passage proves your dogma is incorrect.
                        Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren now that we are saved by being pricked in our hearts, what shall we do?
                        Then Peter said unto them, Repent,...
                        As if misrepresenting my position and Scripture is a valid strategy.

                        Notice the different pattern. Baptized repented and no Holy Spirit. They needed laying on of hands. Different situation, different system. Therefore, Acts does not present your system.
                        Peter, the guy with the keys, was on his way....be patient.
                        Notice, that they were not satisfied until the Holy Ghost was given.
                        You have salvation without the Spirit.
                        Not cool.
                        All of this is irrelevant. Different pattern; therefore, Acts does not present a system on how one is saved.

                        These were saved and speaking in tongues before baptism. Therefore, different system this time too.
                        No, remission of sins was the next step per water baptism.
                        That's not what Acts 10 says. Why are you reading in your abuse of Acts 2:38 into Acts 10 as to twist it?

                        Problem you have is, you want salvation without remission of sins, which means no sacrifice of the blood of Jesus for Baptists.
                        A slanderous accusation justified by nothing but your ignorance of my position.

                        It would make it easier to skip Acts, but I don't skip Acts. I just don't abuse Acts as I skip over the other 65 books.
                        You make the specific accounts found in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19 irrelevant to the salvation seeker.
                        This is evidence of skipping Acts.
                        You know it is there, in the rear view mirror, as you skeedaddle over to Romans 10:9 with sinners.
                        Refusing to abuse Acts like you do isn't skipping Acts.

                        Wow, this time it's baptism first, then faith then Holy Spirit. The system is different again.
                        The system requires repentance, water baptism AND receiving the Holy Ghost to be saved.
                        Oh, so the system is just your precious Acts 2:38 twisted any old way. Ignore the fact that the gift of the Holy Ghost is a gift to saints. Ignore repentance is a work of Faith in the heart of the saint. Just ignore all doctrine taught in Scripture as to twist Acts 2:38 into teaching something it doesn't teach. Have fun abusing Scripture.

                        You have salvation without ANY of these practices.
                        Another expression of ignorance. I have all three. They are just results of salvation instead of the cause of salvation.

                        No system was established. It's a figment of your imagination that expresses how closed minded you are. Each time it's different; therefore, there is no system. If we can learn anything from Acts, we can learn that Salvation is about one relationship with God not checking off the marks of some system.
                        Oh that's right, skip all this and take sinners to Romans 10:9.
                        Or, John 3:15,16, 36a; 5:24, etc. You know the book you think you are suppose to read before Acts. The number of verses that teach my gospel is beyond belief.

                        16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.....
                        38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.....
                        I reckon you think folks are saved without remission of sins.
                        Nope. You are just really, really bad at reading Scripture
                        Fact is, there is no sacrifice of Jesus involved in the salvation efforts of Baptists, per Acts 2:38 and Hebrews 9.
                        Hogwash. Acts 2:38 doesn't speak to the issue of the sacrifice of Jesus at all. Stop abusing Scripture. Hebrews 9 says without blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus' blood was shed. His righteousness was imputed to us by faith and our sin were remitted by the spilling of his blood. Romans 4:4-8 says "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Therefore, those who have faith have their faith counted for righteousness and do not have their sins imputed to them. I.E., Faith alone saves. How can you skip over so much scripture to make accusations that have no foundation in reality?

                        Baptists have omitted the remission of their sins as their plan of salvation....
                        Nope, we just connect it to faith like Paul does. Hebrews explains how Jesus saves men. It doesn't explain who gets saved and why. I am saved by Grace through faith according to Ephesians 2:8-10. Therefore, Jesus sacrifice talked about in Hebrews 9 is applied to me. Acts 2:38 isn't a salvation passage. Therefore, Hebrews 9 doesn't apply to you.

                        You guys "confess" your way into salvation with no need of remission or blood.
                        A statement of true ignorance.

                        Easy, through his name doesn't mean invoking his name. It means we are saved according to his power and authority.
                        Maybe just "thinking" His name is sufficient for this power?
                        Why not? Vibrations in the air have no power. God is the one who acts.

                        I have no problem openly saying His name as I pray for folks or baptize them.
                        Neither do I. I just don't put my faith in some spell I say while baptizing. I trust in the person who's name you reference, Jesus Christ.

                        No, you are simply responding with irrationality to my logic.
                        Just wondering FSH, do you guys ever speak the name of Jesus during services, or do you guys use the singular name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost instead?
                        Like, praying for the sick in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
                        Maybe rebuke evil spirits or pray for sick saying, "in the name of the Son", instead of "Jesus"?
                        You really should think before responding. I have no problem using Jesus' name. Or saying in the name of Jesus, etc. If you cared to listen to my side of the conversation, you would realize how silly this response is.

                        Nope, you are just wrong. You refuse to look at the actual evidence. Instead, you twist and abuse Scripture to justify your dogma.
                        I think you kinda know they are more than someone else's history, but that it is the document of the doctrines held by the 1st century church in action.
                        You would rather not duplicate their actions, but rather adhere to John Smythe's actions.
                        Why?, I will never understand.
                        Still don't know who this John Smythe is. Acts doesn't express doctrine. If you had two unbiased cents you would realize this, but you are too brainwashed to see the truth.

                        Nope. I brought up the order written to express how fundamentally irrational it is to read Acts and not read Romans as to determine how one is saved. Romans was written before Acts. It was written to Saints to teach them how they were saved. Acts was written later to record history. How can you think Acts is so importation to Salvation when most in the early Church didn't have Acts but had Romans or Ephesians or Galatians? If most of the early Church grew based upon the Epistles, then why are you not considering the Gospel presented there in?
                        Fundamentally irrational to teach the founding of the early church for sinners to observe, as it was in the 1st century?
                        Modern sinners are above all that hubub?
                        Silly goose, read my comments in context.

                        Acts 2 doesn't record 3000 sinners finding salvation by repenting. It records 3000 people being saved by grace through faith. These where then commanded to repent and be baptized.
                        I see, they were added to the church WITHOUT repenting, WITHOUT being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins and WITHOUT receiving the Holy Ghost.
                        Cool...easier than Peter expected.
                        Nice job misrepresenting my position again.

                        Silly man, I don't have a clue who John Smythe is. You don't know what you are talking about.
                        Since Peter is not the man that introduced of your church, here is your founder's replacement for Peter's Acts 2:38 message....
                        https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...ohn-smyth.html
                        Your replacement doctrine for Acts 2:38 etc, is originating with him.
                        Know your roots.
                        Thanks for the article. You do realize that John Smythe is an Anabaptist, not a Baptist? These two groups are different.

                        Silly goose. You can't read the Bible backwards.
                        Oh that's right, the New Testament starts with reading Rev 22.
                        Nope, but then again, there is no problem reading Rev 22 first. That's just reading Scripture. As long as you read things in context, there is no problem.

                        Tell me exactly where it says water baptism is necessary for salvation. Cornelius was obviously saved before water baptism. That's why Peter asks "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?". Saved before water baptism. How does that work with your theory?
                        Still cannot tell me exactly where the early church started in the New Testament?
                        Don't they know that in seminary, or do folks pay all that money and still not know?
                        Are you hiding something in the recesses of your mind, and just cannot admit it because of your religion?
                        You really should make your quest in life to find the exact passage of where the church started in the New Testament.
                        If you could explain that to your peers, you could reform their beliefs and lead a movement back to the original church.
                        Are you really so silly as to not realize that I know exactly when the early church started? I don't care to talk about such because it is a rabbit trail that isn't helpful. Now, Tell me exactly where it says water baptism is necessary for salvation. Cornelius was obviously saved before water baptism. That's why Peter asks "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?". Saved before water baptism. How does that work with your theory?

                        God Bless

                        Comment


                        • Peter, the guy with the keys, was on his way....be patient.
                          Notice, that they were not satisfied until the Holy Ghost was given.
                          You have salvation without the Spirit.
                          Not cool.
                          All of this is irrelevant. Different pattern; therefore, Acts does not present a system on how one is saved.
                          Repentance, remission of sins and Spirit infilling is irrelevant?

                          M'kay.

                          Comment


                          • No, remission of sins was the next step per water baptism.
                            That's not what Acts 10 says. Why are you reading in your abuse of Acts 2:38 into Acts 10 as to twist it?
                            Peter cancelled water baptism for the remission of sins somewhere between Acts 2 and Acts 10?

                            Please show me.

                            Comment


                            • Problem you have is, you want salvation without remission of sins, which means no sacrifice of the blood of Jesus for Baptists.
                              A slanderous accusation justified by nothing but your ignorance of my position.
                              Nope, you say "saved", pre-Acts 2:38.

                              Gotcha.

                              Comment


                              • The system requires repentance, water baptism AND receiving the Holy Ghost to be saved.
                                Oh, so the system is just your precious Acts 2:38 twisted any old way. Ignore the fact that the gift of the Holy Ghost is a gift to saints. Ignore repentance is a work of Faith in the heart of the saint. Just ignore all doctrine taught in Scripture as to twist Acts 2:38 into teaching something it doesn't teach. Have fun abusing Scripture.
                                I think it is time you make Acts 2:38 precious too.

                                You fight it tooth and nail.

                                You fight the very first instructions to sinners on the birthday of the church and the official day of the Holy Ghost outpouring as promised in Joel 2.

                                Why?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X