dodge
New member
I understand that Madist MUST change the context of John 3:14-21 or MAD would fall apart.
The word world means exactly what it says WORLD.
ECT For Those who Think MAD to be False: What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Lighthouse
- Start date
I understand that Madist MUST change the context of John 3:14-21 or MAD would fall apart.
The word world means exactly what it says WORLD.
Paul's teachings are directly from Jesus Christ. Paul's gospel IS the gospel of Jesus Christ, you are soooooo dense
dodge
New member
Got ya, Jesus never taught His own GOSPEL. Now that there is dense to the Nth degree.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
If God wanted to:
1. Save some people to inherit the earth
2. Save some people to dwell in the New Jerusalem, as kings and priests over the earth
3. Save some people to fill seats in heaven
To have the entire universe filled with his people, and his Glory.
Could he do it?
Why would you fight against him doing it?
1. Save some people to inherit the earth
2. Save some people to dwell in the New Jerusalem, as kings and priests over the earth
3. Save some people to fill seats in heaven
To have the entire universe filled with his people, and his Glory.
Could he do it?
Why would you fight against him doing it?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
1. The majority of the OT was calling out an earthly people.
2. The 4 gospels and Hebrews-Revelation were a calling out of Jews to inherit the City.
3. Romans-Philemon are calling out all to inherit the heavenly seats.
Keep them separate and watch the Bible start making sense.
2. The 4 gospels and Hebrews-Revelation were a calling out of Jews to inherit the City.
3. Romans-Philemon are calling out all to inherit the heavenly seats.
Keep them separate and watch the Bible start making sense.
turbosixx
New member
I agree, that is the root of confusion concerning baptism with mad. One verse is (1) taken out of context and (2) used to proclaim an untruth that cannot be supported by the rest of the scriptures.
1. Can you prove that Paul’s point of vs 17 is that baptism isn’t part of the conversion of a Christian keeping with the context of the passage? If you can could you please explain it to me.
2. I see zero proof using the rest of the scriptures to support this claim. If Jesus sent Paul to preach and not baptize, then why did he baptize? Even on his last journey he baptized those in Acts 19 and after his journeys were complete and on trial he mentions baptism when speaking of his conversion. Also, he speaks much of what baptism is and does in other passages. Can you show one other verse to support this claim?
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I'm curious where would you put Peter’s letters? Peter is writing to the same people that Paul wrote to. Do feel Paul and Peter told them "separate" things?
2 Pt. 3:15....... just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
Peter said he’s stirring their remembrance of the words spoken by “your apostles”.
1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
Since Paul and Peter both wrote to them, did they tell them to look for the same thing?
3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things,
It makes more sense to me that they would tell them the same thing since we are all saved by the same savior.
2 Pt.1:1....To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence.
Idiot.
My point was that for those who don't know the Bible and therefore don't understand what a single verse may be referencing from another part of the Bible are not going to understand that verse like those who know God do.
Here's a question: How do you know that "Gave His only begotten Son," means that He was given as payment for our sin? It's not from John 3:16 alone, because it doesn't directly tell you. In fact, it doesn't directly tell you why giving Jesus was necessary. Or even why it matters that God loved the world. And it only half tells you why believing in Him is a good thing. Bottom line: John 3:16 isn't the entire story. It's only part. You need to know other things from the Bible to know what it truly means.
P.S.
The Law was never a requirement for Salvation. That's how dumb you are when it comes to MAD.
Not the issue at all.:nono:
The 12 were commanded to baptize in the Great Commission. Paul said that he was not sent to baptize, therefore the Great Commission did not apply to Paul. The issue is why Paul was not commanded the same as the 12. Do you know?
What claim?
turbosixx
New member
Can you explain what Paul meant by his statement based on the context?
Saying Paul was not sent to baptize doesn't make sense to me when he says "16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" Why would he do something he wasn't commanded to do??
I see no other scriptural support to the claim that Paul was not instructed to baptize. Paul did baptize. Did he go against his commission? I Cor. 1:17 is pulled out of context and used to support an untruth.
Just because he wasn't commanded to do so as the 12 were doesn't mean he wasn't allowed to. He did baptize some people. And Paul, himself, said he was not sent to baptize. He wouldn't have said that if the Great Commission applied to him.
I never claimed Paul was instructed not to baptize. No one did. Because it isn't the case.
If a woman sends her husband to the store to get milk and he buys soup as well he's not breaking any rules even though he was not sent to buy soup.
turbosixx
New member
I thought the mad claim was that based on this verse baptism isn’t part of the gospel. Is that correct?
turbosixx
New member
This is taken out of context. Please explain what Paul meant by this statement keeping it in context.
turbosixx
New member
Yes it's a true statement but it's taken out of context. Context it everything. Please explain what he means by it based on context.
Can't you read?
dodge
New member
He can read ! lol, you miss the POINT which is that Madist do not keep the CONTEXT of the verse to support MAD.
Wake up PJ.
turbosixx
New member
Can't you explain in keeping with context. It's a simple request.
Hi and I see what he want me to say , so lets start , because THERE ARE NO SPIRITUAL BLESSING IN WATER BAPTISM !!
In verses 14, 15 , 16 , and 17 there 6 negatives !!
#1 , in verse 14 the neg is NONE
#2 , in verse 15 the NEG is LEST
#3, in verse 16, the NEG is NOT
#4 in verse 17 , the NEG are NOT , NOT and NOT !!
The context than is NOT, NOT, NOT , NONE , LEST ,
So will you explain what BAPTIZO means in verse 17 ?
If Paul did WATER BAPTIZE than Paul's ministry was of NONE EFFECT in verse 17 !!
So where is the Greek word for WATER in verse 17?
Notice that there is no WATER in Rom 6:3 or in Rom 6:4 nor is there WATER in Acts 19:1--7 and see what Paul did to these 12 disciples !!
dan p
You are a fool if you think 1 Corinthians 1 is all there is to Paul's statement about baptism.
But...I did ask you for a history of water baptism...using only...Scripture.
You refused...and JohnW proved your incompetence with just one passage from the OT...
dodge
New member
You asked and I did not feel like giving you scripture so you can force the out of context answer into MAD. Really not that hard to understand is it ?