Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
It seems that that is what Adjensen is teaching also with his baptizing while speaking something equals witchcraft teaching.

No, that is not what I've said.

What I've said is that it doesn't matter, because baptism doesn't save you, and an act made in faith is sufficient in itself, it doesn't need specific pronunciations or practitioners. A baptism made in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is just as valid as a baptism made in the name of "gee-zus", because words do not save you and God is not constrained by human acts.

Period.

That's what I've said all along, and all you've done is dodge specific questions, because you can't answer them without demonstrating that what you teach is either wrong, or it is unbiblical.

According to Scripture, baptism does save us.


1 Peter 3:21 KJV
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


I have never said that words save us. I have said that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ shows faith in Christ.

My belief is the same as Hermas' belief...

Hermas in the early second century wrote of baptism "in the name of the Lord" and in the "name of the Son of God." He taught that baptism caused an essential change to take place in one's life because of the use of the name, but stressed that the name was not a magical formula and could not be effective in the absence of Christian virtues. He wrote, "If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name."

Jesus Name Baptism in History

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I never said you were a Calvinist.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I never said you were a Calvinist.

You just said on the last page that I follow Calvin who had a heretic murdered. We were just talking about John Calvin, and you brought him up to begin with.

I don't follow Calvinism.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I did not say you follow John Calvin

Originally posted by truejew
According to Scripture, baptism does save us.

According to Scripture, baptism does not save us.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV)

There is far more scriptural support for the claim that we are saved by faith, not works, and zero support for your "salvation by works alone."

By Reckart's own statements, it can be proven that by your theology, neither you, nor Reckart, nor anyone else in your church has a valid "Jesus only" baptism, so I'd not be too keen on hanging my salvation on any such claim.

Originally posted by adjensen
According to Scripture, baptism does not save us.

I just posted a Scripture that says baptism saves us. You can not pick Ephesians 2:8-9 and ignore 1 Peter 3:21 and other Scriptures that teach the necessity of repentance and baptism. You seem to not understand that repentance and baptism are not faithless works.

Again, I do not teach salvation by works alone. It is faith in repenting and being baptized that saves us. Please stop speaking lies about us.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
According to Scripture, baptism does not save us.

I just posted a Scripture that says baptism saves us. You can not pick Ephesians 2:8-9 and ignore 1 Peter 3:21 and other Scriptures that teach the necessity of repentance and baptism.

I just posted a Scripture that says baptism is not what saves us. You can not pick 1 Peter 3:21 and ignore Ephesians 2:8-9 and other Scriptures that teach that faith in Christ is what saves us, not works.

Get baptized all you want, in whatever manner you want, because it is not the works of baptism, the words used at baptism, or the person doing the baptizing that saves you, it is the faith in Christ that motivates your desire to be baptized that does.

Again, I do not teach salvation by works alone. It is faith in repenting and being baptized that saves us.

If that was true, then you wouldn't claim that one has to use the word "gee-suz", you wouldn't claim that only another Apostolic Oneness pastor has to baptize you, and you would agree that it is the act of faith, not the act of baptism, that provides salvation.

Originally posted by adjensen

I just posted a Scripture that says baptism is not what saves us.

I do not see that in the Scripture you posted. All I saw was that salvation is by grace through faith which is true, but does not take away from the necessity of repentance and baptism which are actions of faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

You can not pick 1 Peter 3:21 and ignore Ephesians 2:8-9 and other Scriptures that teach that faith in Christ is what saves us, not works.

I do not ignore Ephesians 2:8-9.

Originally posted by adjensen

If that was true, then you wouldn't claim that one has to use the word "gee-suz",

Who else should we have faith in?

Originally posted by adjensen

and you would agree that it is the act of faith, not the act of baptism, that provides salvation.

It is the act of faith that saves, not lack of faith like you are teaching. Getting baptized without faith does nothing. Not getting baptized is a lack of faith.

Originally posted by truejew
It is the act of faith that saves, not lack of faith like you are teaching. Getting baptized without faith does nothing. Not getting baptized is a lack of faith.

Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

reply to post by adjensen


What other name is there by which we must be saved?

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I did not say you follow John Calvin

So what just totally throw context out the window???

We were discussing John Calvin when I made the point that you responded to!

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

What other name is there by which we must be saved?

That isn't what I asked you. Congratulations on ducking a simple yes-no question for a fifth time. Care to try for six? Maybe you'll convince someone that your theology is valid by ducking it six times.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

What other name is there by which we must be saved?

That isn't what I asked you. Congratulations on ducking a simple yes-no question for a fifth time. Care to try for six? Maybe you'll convince someone that your theology is valid by ducking it six times.

My theology is valid. The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. Your claim that the apostles are witches is false.

Originally posted by truejew
My theology is valid. The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. Your claim that the apostles are witches is false.

That isn't what I asked you, because it isn't what I claimed. Baptizing in the name of Jesus isn't heresy, your reasons for baptizing in the name of Jesus, which were not the reasons that the Apostles did, are what your heresy is. The Apostles didn't practice magic and salvation by works, but that's exactly what you preach.

Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
My theology is valid. The apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. Your claim that the apostles are witches is false.

That isn't what I asked you, because it isn't what I claimed. Baptizing in the name of Jesus isn't heresy, your reasons for baptizing in the name of Jesus, which were not the reasons that the Apostles did, are what your heresy is. The Apostles didn't practice magic and salvation by works, but that's exactly what you preach.

Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

Again, I must ask you to drop your false accusations of witchcraft against me.

I teach baptism in Jesus name for the same reason the apostles baptized in Jesus name...because it is through Jesus that we have salvation. If baptizing in Jesus name does not make the apostles to be witches, it also does not make me a witch.

It is time for you to drop your witch hunt and return to a peaceful discussion.

reply to post by truejew


Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by truejew

 

Yes or no -- can God save someone who was baptized in a rite that cited any name or word other than "gee-zus"?

If yes, then it doesn't matter.

If no, then you say that God is limited by your speech and actions, and you are preaching magic, not faith.

There is no other name given by which we must be saved.


Acts 4:12 KJV
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

reply to post by truejew


Well what is your answer, yes or no?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Well what is your answer, yes or no?

Matthew 26:62 KJV
[62] And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

Well what is your answer, yes or no?

Matthew 26:62 KJV
[62] And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

Now you're claiming equivalence with Christ? Good grief.

You're not answering because of some noble grounds - you're not answering it because you, I and everyone else who will read your words knows that your answer is "no", and rather than actually having a valid reason that saying "no" is Biblical, you can't admit that you place your faith in works and magic spells.

A spell, charm, or incantation is a set of words, spoken or unspoken (prayer). Spellcasting is considered by its user to invoke some magical effect.

Not all speech is considered magical. Only certain words and phrases or words spoken in a specific context are considered to have magical power. (Source)

That, precisely, is what your theology teaches happens at a "gee-zus only" baptism. Your failure is not in using the name "gee-zus", or of praying, but in believing that doing so forces God to do something, which is the magical effect.

Point made, I'm done with this discussion.