Christianity and Paganism - What is the Truth?

Where do you get your text for this comment?

 

In Galatians 6:11 Paul says "See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand."
Do you interpret that literally?
I'm just quoting Scripture!

Do you understand that forcing water baptism on the passage leads to a myriad of interpretive problems in other areas of the scriptures? You should consider that such a literal interpretation is not what the author has in mind.

 

So when Jesus bled blood and water at the cross was it all physically irrelevant? Was the blood not holy at all? Just spiritually holy?



1 peter 3

20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism now saves you. When you wash your hands do you turn the faucet and then SPIRIT comes out? and you wash your hands in spirit? because it says quite clearly NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT FROM FLESH.

That is a WATER BAPTISM. Unless of course you think they were a little confused by the HOLY SPIRIT comming out of the faucet.

If you got the holy spirit flowing out of your kitchen faucet, then you got a pretty good case.


Acts 10

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.


Is PETER DRUNK? why is he ordering them to be baptized if they already baptized? Why does he need water at all?

 

John Piper does a good job in explaining your verse, upon which you hang your theology.
What is Baptism and Does it Save? | Desiring God

 

I disagree.

HankD

 

From the "What We Believe" page of Grace Baptist Church, Tyler, TX, (your congregation)

Grace...
Salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is the only way God saves sinners. The works of men, their religion, and sincerity will be rejected at the judgment.

Where is baptism mentioned here? OR...are you in opposition to the doctrine of your own congregation?

 

As adorable as it is that you believe these things, none of them are true.

Mithraism did not even reach the West until the 1st century, after Christianity had already been established and long after the numerous Old Testament prophecies of Christ.

Why would the Egyptians need a "messiah"? Mithra was born from a rock, not from a virgin. Mithras had two companions, not 12 disciples. When Mithras and the Sun God feasted together, they did not feast on Mithras, himself, but the flesh of a bull. So the Mithric meal is not analogous to the Lord's Supper.

 

Christ.

 

Yes, I take that literally. You don't? I'm sure if we had the original copy that Paul wrote it would have been in LARGE letters.
We know what the author had in mind because what he had in mind was passed down. It called Tradition. Without exception every Church Father East and West believed in baptismal regeneration.

 

Actually, you only quoted one small part of the passage.

 

So Paul didn't write with a writing utinsel such as a quill and pen? Did he cause blood to drip out of his hand so he could write with it?

See...literal interpretation...kinda silly.

 

What are you talking about? Paul said he wrote in large letters and I accept what he said,

 

Why would I accept the interpretation of someone in 2017 when I can read how those who lived in the years 100-400 interpreted Scripture? They would be far more reliable then someone who lived 17-21 centuries later.

 

The rest doesn't change what he said. He is comparing the waters of baptism to the waters of the flood where all sin was wiped off the face of the earth. He says this washing is not an external washing like removing dirt from the body but an interior cleansing.

 

Not necessarily. The amount of heresy going on in and around that time was just as great as today. Origen is a good example.

 

Actually, by isolating the statement from its context, it changes it very much. That's what context means.
The text never says anything about an "internal cleansing".

 

With his hand, not with ink and a quill. How can a hand actually write without any ink. See. Literalism. You take it too far and it's just silly. Just like your attempt to have water baptism be the cause agent of salvation.

 

What comment? About heaven not being opened yet? Eph 4:8 says that when Christ ascended into heaven he took with him a host of captives. Heaven was not opened until Jesus ascended. All the Old Testament saints were in the abode of the dead or Abraham's bosom, whatever you want to call it. We see this in Luke 16. It could also be called paradise where the thief on the cross went. There was also the spirit prison that Peter writes about.

 

Origen got a few things wrong when he speculated and did not follow the tradition that was handed down. In the case of baptismal regeneration it was unanimous. The first to dispute this were the anabaptists in the 16th century. Why would I follow what they taught? What was their authority? Even Luther and Calvin didn't want to have anything to do with them. They were heretics in their eyes.
How do you know what heresy is and isn't? It can't be based on your private interpretation because you could be the one who is in heresy. What has always been believed is the most secure way to know which interpretation is the orthodox interpretation.