BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

Bless your heart. Your arrogance is astounding. Not everyone gets on these forums every day. I work, read, and have many other family obligations. Any failure to respond immediately is not running away from a question. Like others, it's balancing other more important priorities in my life.

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

I, and others, provided you an answer that you didn't like because it doesn't fit your made-up theology and you misunderstand the verse.

It's clear that protestantism is NOT from God. It is the work of the devil to drive apart the Church that Jesus created.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

That verse is not saying that water baptism is the means by which someone is forgiven or saved.

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Does that verse directly say that water baptism is the means by which a person is saved?

No.

Did Isaiah directly say "It was the will of the Lord to crush him, he has put him to grief", and did you say, "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief."

Yes. And there you have it.

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

Baptism is a real and necessary means by which we are united to Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins. That's exactly what Acts 2:38 says.

You're treating John 6 as if it introduces a different and competing requirement for initial salvation. It doesn't.

Christ is not contrasting baptism with the Eucharist. He's speaking about abiding life in Him. That's why the same discourse also says "He who eats… abides in Me, and I in him"

Your argument assumes there must be one exclusive mechanism of salvation, and if two things are spoken of as necessary, they must contradict. Why?

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

Baptism is a real and necessary means by which we are united to Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins. That's exactly what Acts 2:38 says.

You're treating John 6 as if it introduces a different and competing requirement for initial salvation. It doesn't.

Christ is not contrasting baptism with the Eucharist. He's speaking about abiding life in Him. That's why the same discourse also says "He who eats… abides in Me, and I in him"

Your argument assumes there must be one exclusive mechanism of salvation, and if two things are spoken of as necessary, they must contradict. Why?

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

---

Water Baptism doesn't save us. The Holy Spirit Baptism is what saves us:

I Corinthians 12:13 NKJV
[13] For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodywhether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freeand have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

Peter was still Preaching the Gospel.pf the Kingdom, AKA John's Baptism, which was for Israel. Paul was given the gospel of grace for genttils and jews who are now under Grace. Peter wasn't for today.

Grace saves through FAITH in Jesus Christ, believing that He died and rose again, shedding His blood as the Sacrifice for our sins.

Romans 10:9-10, 13 NKJV
[9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

The Hope that saves is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that He died and rose again for our sins. That is the blessed hope.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

Baptism is a real and necessary means by which we are united to Christ and receive the forgiveness of sins. That's exactly what Acts 2:38 says.

---

No, Acts 2:38 is NOT saying that water baptism is the real and necessary means for forgiveness or salvation. They are receiving the forgiveness of sins because of what their baptism signifies - their true repentance and faith in Jesus in their heart.

If it were true that a believer isn't forgiven or saved until they've performed the ritual of water baptism, then it would mean that someone could hear the gospel, believe in Jesus and trust in him for their salvation, but die before they get water baptized - and that would mean they aren't saved, regardless of their faith. Is this what you believe?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

You're treating John 6 as if it introduces a different and competing requirement for initial salvation. It doesn't.

Christ is not contrasting baptism with the Eucharist. He's speaking about abiding life in Him. That's why the same discourse also says "He who eats… abides in Me, and I in him"

Your argument assumes there must be one exclusive mechanism of salvation, and if two things are spoken of as necessary, they must contradict. Why?

---

You obviously aren't comprehending your dilemma. If you take Jesus' words literally in John 6, that the performative action of "eating his flesh", which is done in the Eucharist according to your and Roman Cathoilc belief, is necessary for eternal life, without which you DON'T have eternal life.... then by your belief it must be the Eucharist that your salvation is contingent upon, not water baptism. Because if a person is water baptized, but has not yet taken the Eucharist, then according the literal interpretation of John 6, Jesus is saying you still do not have eternal life. It also means that even if you were NOT water baptized, but you DID take the Eucharist, then you DO have life.

So then, how can water baptism be the "real and necessary" means to salvation, if that completely contradicts your literal interpretation of Jesus' words in John 6? It would seem that according to your interpretation, clearly, it has to be the Eucharist, not water baptism.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

---

NONE of those verses are "competing in my framework".

• I explained the verse about water baptism
• Grace saves us... which is received through our faith. We receive this grace by our faith, even if we aren't water baptized
• "For IN this hope we were saved" - IN, not BY or because of this hope we are saved. Another way to look at it, is that the "hope" being talked about there is.... faith. Scripture says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for"

The real question is, how is it that you "don't have a problem with these", since you believe that water baptism is the real and necessary means by which we are saved? Because these verses you're referencing are clearly saying that it's not. That is, unless you're saying that we don't receive grace UNTIL we've been water baptized, even though we have true faith (which would contradict pretty much everything said by Paul and by Jesus himself), and saying that we don't have hope UNTIL we've been water baptized, which doesn't make sense. Are these what you believe?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

---

NONE of those verses are "competing in my framework".

• I explained the verse about water baptism
• Grace saves us... which is received through our faith. We receive this grace by our faith, even if we aren't water baptized
• "For IN this hope we were saved" - IN, not BY or because of this hope we are saved. Another way to look at it, is that the "hope" being talked about there is.... faith. Scripture says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for"

The real question is, how is it that you "don't have a problem with these", since you believe that water baptism is the real and necessary means by which we are saved? Because these verses you're referencing are clearly saying that it's not. That is, unless you're saying that we don't receive grace UNTIL we've been water baptized, even though we have true faith (which would contradict pretty much everything said by Paul and by Jesus himself), and saying that we don't have hope UNTIL we've been water baptized, which doesn't make sense. Are these what you believe?

---

You only demand answers and outright refuse to answer any of mine. You keep demanding a yes-or-no answer, but you haven't justified the framework that makes your question make sense in the first place.

Until you do that, you're not exposing a contradiction. You're just asserting one.

You're collapsing everything into an "all-or-nothing before vs after" framework. Paul doesn't contradict this at all. In fact, he says we are baptized into Christ's death and put on Christ.I'm not saying grace starts at baptism. I'm saying baptism is where Scripture says we are united to Christ and receive forgiveness. Those aren't the same claim.

Your argument only works if there can be one and only one mechanism of salvation. Where does the Bible teach that?
If you can't show that, then there's no contradiction to resolve.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, there you have it, folks.

They simply can not acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture. When you ask them to, they call it a "stupid-ass game". They have to deny, twist, avoid, and divert away from it in order to get around it. Look how one directly denies the very wording of Isaiah.

It's clear that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not from God.

---

Acts 2:38: Peter commands, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins".

So directly written in scripture it says get baptized for the forgiveness of sin. That's baptismal regeneration.

You think baptism can only be symbolic and that it's really unnecessary. Why differ from the very wording?

---

It is clear that he "simply can not(sic) acknowledge what is directly written in Scripture."

---

Lol

It's a classic case of imposing a modern operating system on ancient hardware. When we approach these texts with a post-Enlightenment, nominalist lens, we try to isolate variables that were never meant to be separated. In a nominalist framework, everything is a discrete unit. "Faith" is one bucket, "Works" is another, and "Grace" is the currency moved between them.

The Apostles and the Church for the first millennium + operated on a participatory ontology. It's essentially the difference between knowing about a person (nominalism/data) and being in a marriage with them (ontology/union). In a marriage, you don't ask, "If I don't do the dishes, are we still legally married?" You just do the dishes because you're in a shared life together.

Someone could read James and Paul and be like "well do I just need to believe? We're justified by works, not faith alone, but maybe faith alone saves us...but our works don't save us, but we have free will and faith can't be dead. What do I do?!?!"

Faith wasn't just "mental assent" to a proposition, or just "hey Jesus is Lord, I'm certain of that"; it was an alignment of one's entire being toward God.

---

You never could answer why, if water baptism is how one is saved, how "eating Jesus flesh" could be necessary for salvation, given your literal interpretation of John 6. If literal, then clearly Jesus said that without eating his flesh, you do NOT have eternal life. This would mean even if you were water baptized. So how can water baptism be the means by which one is saved? Your views are in contradiction, and thus, obviously incorrect.

---

You'd have to throw that same accusation at the Bible: that my views are contradicting:

Scripture lists several things as "saving" us:
Faith saves us: "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." (Luke 7:50)
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24)
Works save us: "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

There's also past, present and future tense:
Past Tense: "By grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:8).
Present Tense: "The word of the cross... is to us who are being saved" (1 Corinthians 1:18).
Future Tense: "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:13).

I'm not presenting a contradiction and neither are these verses competing for the "salvation slot", they're all different parts of the same "salvific journey"...but you're trying to argue that there's a salvation slot. Why don't you give me a reason why you need a single marker for salvation?

You said "If John 6 is literal, then Baptism isn't enough." but it also says in John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." If salvation is a process of union (the Orthodox view), then Jesus is simply describing the Entrance (John 3) and the Abiding (John 6).

Your theology is directly from the reformers who were deeply concerned that if salvation was a lifelong process requiring participation in sacraments (like Baptism or the Eucharist), then people would try to "earn" their way into heaven. That was their key to breaking away from Rome. I get it, Rome was nuts back then...but the reformers committed themselves to reductionism and in doing so opened a giant can of worms. Its why nearly a billion people will be flopping on the ground and speaking gibberish at Pentecostal churches as the second, maybe even the largest Christian group in the world by the end of the century.

---

Notice you aren't answering the question. Make it make sense, according to your theology: if water baptism is the means by which we are saved, then how can John 6 be literal? Then bring everything you mentioned above together, and answer: is water baptism the means or mechanism by which we are saved, without which we are NOT saved - yes or no? Because your assertion is that the verse which says "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" is Scripture directly telling us that it is.

This doesn't need a reply that's a long essay. It's a simple, uncomplicated question. Either the act of water baptism is the necessary mechanism or means by which we attain salvation, or its not. Answer?

---

I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense. Your question is like asking "is a human alive by Birth or by Breathing, Yes or No?".

Why do you believe your question is valid in a biblical context? You're demanding that I choose between two 'means' of salvation (Baptism in John 3 and the Eucharist in John 6) as if they are competing for a single slot. Where does Scripture say there is only one 'mechanism' for salvation?

---

Your answer is what's known around here as a "dodge".

Here is the issue, which you obviously haven't comprehended. If you say that the verse "Repent and be baptized.... for the forgiveness of your sins" means that water baptism is the means by which we are saved and thus is required for salvation, then your literal interpretation of John 6 contradicts that. Because in John 6, Jesus clearly says that it's "eating his flesh", i.e. the Eucharist that gives salvation, not water baptism. And he clearly says that if you DO NOT eat his flesh, then you DO NOT have eternal life. This would mean that your salvation is contingent upon "eating his flesh", not water baptism. So how do you square this with your theology?

The second question is just a straightforward one: do you, or do you not believe that water baptism is the means or mechanism by which we are saved?

---

All of these verses are competing in your framework. You're the one who has to harmonize them because your claim is we're saved ONLY by faith and nothing else.

So how do you fit all of these into your framework? I don't have this problem, you do:
Baptism saves us: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." (1 Peter 3:21)
Grace saves us: "For by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:8)
Hope saves us: "For in this hope we were saved." (Romans 8:24

---

NONE of those verses are "competing in my framework".

• I explained the verse about water baptism
• Grace saves us... which is received through our faith. We receive this grace by our faith, even if we aren't water baptized
• "For IN this hope we were saved" - IN, not BY or because of this hope we are saved. Another way to look at it, is that the "hope" being talked about there is.... faith. Scripture says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for"

The real question is, how is it that you "don't have a problem with these", since you believe that water baptism is the real and necessary means by which we are saved? Because these verses you're referencing are clearly saying that it's not. That is, unless you're saying that we don't receive grace UNTIL we've been water baptized, even though we have true faith (which would contradict pretty much everything said by Paul and by Jesus himself), and saying that we don't have hope UNTIL we've been water baptized, which doesn't make sense. Are these what you believe?

---

You only demand answers and outright refuse to answer any of mine. You keep demanding a yes-or-no answer, but you haven't justified the framework that makes your question make sense in the first place.

Until you do that, you're not exposing a contradiction. You're just asserting one.

You're collapsing everything into an "all-or-nothing before vs after" framework. Paul doesn't contradict this at all. In fact, he says we are baptized into Christ's death and put on Christ.I'm not saying grace starts at baptism. I'm saying baptism is where Scripture says we are united to Christ and receive forgiveness. Those aren't the same claim.

Your argument only works if there can be one and only one mechanism of salvation. Where does the Bible teach that?
If you can't show that, then there's no contradiction to resolve.

---

Are you blind? I literally outlined your contradiction above. How do you resolve your belief about water baptism with your belief in the literal interpretation of John 6, which in the literal sense clearly states that salvation is contigent upon the Eucharist, NOT water baptism?

So, you're now saying that water baptism is ONE of other different mechanisms of salvation. Then doesn't that contradict your claim that water baptism is "real and necessary" for salvation? in other words, if the Eucharist is also a means and mechanism to salvation (according to your literal interpretation of John 6), then someone can take the Eucharist and NOT be water baptized, and is saved. That would indicate that water baptism is NOT "necessary" for salvation.

How are you not understanding this?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Does that verse directly say that water baptism is the means by which a person is saved?

No.

Did Isaiah directly say "It was the will of the Lord to crush him, he has put him to grief", and did you say, "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief."

Yes. And there you have it.

---

Acts 2:38 -
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit are tantamount to being saved.

1 Peter 3:21 -
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, 8 persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It can't get more clear that that.

Isaiah 53 - God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer. He permitted it as part of His divine plan to bring about the ultimate good - the redemption of humanity.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Does that verse directly say that water baptism is the means by which a person is saved?

No.

Did Isaiah directly say "It was the will of the Lord to crush him, he has put him to grief", and did you say, "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief."

Yes. And there you have it.

---

Acts 2:38 -
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit are tantamount to being saved.

1 Peter 3:21 -
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, 8 persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It can't get more clear that that.

Isaiah 53 - God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer. He permitted it as part of His divine plan to bring about the ultimate good - the redemption of humanity.

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

This has been explained to you. It's a perfect example of the semantic barrier I was talking about. You make no distinction between sense and reference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

This has been explained to you. It's a perfect example of the semantic barrier I was talking about. You make no distinction between sense and reference.

---

Why do you guys ALWAYS use the "it's been explained to you" excuse, when you've never explained it?

Do you guys honestly think people buy this? "Semantic barrier' just means "I can't defend what I'm saying, so I'm just going to try gaslighting".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

Substitution is Biblical.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Acts 2:38 is not saying that water baptism is the means and mechanism by which we are saved, meaning even if you have faith in Jesus, you are still NOT saved until you get water baptized.

Is that what you believe? That someone who has faith, but is not water baptized, still goes to Hell? If you argue "baptism by desire" you're in essence proving the point that water baptism is NOT the necessary mechanism by which someone is saved.

---

Baptism is the Ordinary means of salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "God did not ACTIVELY will Jesus to suffer"
Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; HE has put him to grief". It can't get any clearer than that. You are blatantly denying what is written directly in Scripture, placed right in front of your face. Absolutely astounding. That tells us all we need to know.

---

Did God, in His ACTIVE will, desire Jesus to Suffer?

---

if baptism is the "ordinary" means of salvation, which means there are other ways to salvation, then it is not necessary. You're defeating your own argument, and you still don't realize it.

There is no difference between God "ACTIVELY willing" and God "willing" something. You're chasing a pointless argument. The fact remains that the following happened:

The Bible, directly from Isaiah:
"It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief."

YOU: "It was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, he has NOT put him to grief."

There it is, clear as day. I don't know what else needs to be said. You have been exposed (if you haven't been already - hint... you have)

---

Then perhaps you shouldn't claim adherence to the Nicene Creed or its affirmation of the Holy Trinity.

If the Father and Son have entirely separate wills, you break the unity of the one God affirmed at Nicaea. If they share a single will but the Holy Spirit is excluded, the Spirit is effectively left out of the Godhead. Either way, this departs from the Trinity as defined by the council.

Especially since you already reject later ecumenical councils and deny the authority of apostolic succession. I don't even know how you can affirm the Nicean Creed: by rejecting later councils, you undermine the very principle that makes Nicaea authoritative, which is apostolic succession. So you basically have to deny they had any authority to begin with.

---

I have no idea what your reply has anything to do with what I posted. I simply showed how a Roman Catholic directly denies what is written in Scripture, word for word. No insertions or deletions, no interpretations by me, just me copying the text from Isaiah 53 verbatim and posting it in the form of a question:

Isaiah 53: "It was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief"
My question: "Was it the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief?"
His answer: "NO, it was NOT the will of the Lord to crush him, and put him to grief"

This has nothing to do with any creed, heresy, the Trinity, or any ecumenical council. It's just a demonstration how you guys have to directly deny what is written in Scripture such as shown above, in order to hold your views. If that isn't proof positive that your views are false, then I don't know if anything could convince you. I do, however, think this does convince the rational, intellectually honest Christian who is witnessing all this unfold.

It is absolutely astounding how you guys can directly negate what is in Scripture verbatim, and somehow keep thinking that you're in the right. Quite remarkable, really.

---

Isaiah 53 says it was the will of the Lord to crush Him. It does not go on to define that as the Father turning against the Son, pouring out retributive wrath on Him as a substitute. That conclusion is something you're bringing into the text, not something the text itself explicitly states.

Christians have interpreted Isaiah 53 in multiple ways while fully affirming its truth. Most Protestants don't even accept your view of it. Did you know that?
The disagreement here isn't over whether the text is true, but over how it should be understood.

---

I didn't ask if Isaiah says that "the Father turns against the Son and pours retributive wrath on him as a substitute." I did not ask if you agreed with any conclusions.

I simply asked if it was God's will to crush him and whether it was God who put him to grief - essentially just repeating the verse verbatim, but in a question format. I was essentially asking if you accept the words of Scripture. You guys can't get yourself to even do that. What does that say about your view, your "conclusions"?

This was an exercise to expose your view as false. And it has. Anyone who has to directly and willfully negate the very words of Scripture has by definition a false view.

I would be willing to bet that most Protestants are in agreement with me, that Isaiah 53 is true, that it was God's will to crush Jesus, and to put him to grief. I think you're just making stuff up again.

---

Lol you're so dishonest

Read my first sentence. I said verbatim the scripture and you're acting like I didn't.

You have so much pride that you can't even agree to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics

---

I'M dishonest?? I'M the one with pride?

Didn't you just agree with someone that I was "snide, rude, and abusive" to him, yet were completely unable to support it?

Your first sentence doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what Isaiah says. That was the given premise - we all know that's what is says, it's undeniable. Rather, I asked YOU:
"Was it the will of God to crush him and put him to grief?"

Answer? "Dishonesty" is constantly dodging pertinent questions. "Pride" is not being able to change your views when they're shown to be wrong.

---

Claiming that "hermeneutics doesn't apply" is actually the height of pride, because it suggests your mind is the standard by which God's Word is measured.

We both agree on the text: Isaiah 53:10 says it was the will of God to crush Him and put Him to grief. There is no dispute there.

The conflict arises because you are engaging in nave realism which is assuming that your specific theological conclusion (PSA) is the "plain meaning" of the text, rather than one of several historical interpretations.

You assume "will" (chaphets) means God was the active executioner pouring out retributive wrath. I view it as God's permissive will. That basically means allowing the world's violence to converge on Jesus to overcome it (as seen in Acts 2:23). Both views "accept the words," but we interpret the agency differently.

The Definition of "Crush": You interpret "crushing" (daka) as a judicial penalty. However, the same Hebrew word is used throughout the Psalms to describe a contrite or broken spirit (Ps 51:17).

---

Where did I say "hermeneutics doesn't apply"? Isn't this an example of the "dishonesty" that you were railing against earlier, attributing me to a quote I didn't say in my comment?

You're wasting your time trying to argue against this. I am not arguing any interpretation. I'm merely asking you whether you believe it was God's will to crush him and put him to grief. A simple yes or no. I'm literally just quoting the verse verbatim in question form.

It's the very fact you guys can't/won't answer it, and the one person who did who's a Roman Catholic outright said NO, thus denying the very words of Scripture. It's to reveal you guys for you really are.