JFJ Forums

(… cont)
Ripley’s said: “I suggest that you (RCC/Oneness) are robbing the power of the cross when NUANCING, and PLAYING WITH GOD'S WORD, to say that *WE* dictate to God how, and where, and when His grace flows.”
I say: No.  Robbing the power of the cross is done when man-made Protestant tradition denies the graces received in baptism and imposes restrictions on infant baptism that are nowhere found in scripture.  The Holy Spirit indeed blows when and where it wills but it also blows exactly when and where scripture says it will.  Amen! It is the Gospel that saves!  It is all about trusting in not only what Jesus said, but what he did and what he has commanded us to do.  Jesus Christ commissioned the Apostles to spread this Good News to all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Repent and be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Indeed!!!!! The Spirit of God blows through the regenerative waters of baptism.

Ripley’s said: WHAT YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE IS WHAT YOU ASK OF THAT FORMER NUN YOU QUESTION: WHERE IS IT RECORDED THAT PETER WAS THE BISHOP OF ROME?
I say: Is it fair to assume then that you agree the “former nun” Mary Ann Collins is a fraud?  Or did she respond to your request to provide the order/diocese in which she was a nun?  Regarding Peter being the Bishop of Rome ….  I know we’ve talked about this before but I can’t remember which thread.  Raise your question in that one or start a new one and we can talk more about it.
(cont …)

(cont …)
Krisi said: “Aren't we supposed to interpret the Bible as a whole?”
I say: “Yes.  The bible is to be interpreted as a WHOLE!”
Krisi said: “Does it say anything about traditions to study?” and “Also, Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosphy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Seems to me everything that I keep reading about tradition is bad...and that's all you (wk) keep referring to.”
St. Paul says: “hold fast to the traditions I handed down to you” (1 Cor 11:2)
St. Paul says: “hold fast to the traditions whether oral or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15)
St. Paul says: “shun those acting not according to tradition” (2 Thess 3:6)
The “Bible as a whole” tells us to reject the traditions of the Pharisees and to “hold fast” to the traditions of the Apostles “whether by letter or word”.  The Protestant man-made tradition of “sola-scriptura” tells us to reject what the Apostles handed down “by word”.

Krisi – when Paul says he was “glad he did not baptize”, he is expressing frustration at the factions that were forming in Corinth.  His purpose was to unite the Corinthians so they would be in agreement and “perfectly united in their beliefs” (1 Cor 1:10).  Using this text to downplay the significance of baptism is a gross misinterpretation of the context of his letter.

When I hear that you basically say that the Spirit "isn't good enough" because you have to be baptized in water...I'm afraid for you because in my opinion that could be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit...unforgiveable sin. I'd be careful. The Holy Spirit is what is given to us by the grace of God and it is what we are baptized in (like John said, I baptize with water but he who comes/Jesus baptizes with the Spirit) and that's all that matters. What God gives us, his grace; not what man can give us...none of that matters.

Krisi – you are not “hearing” what I’m saying.  I will again repeat it:  Baptism is not a work!  It is a means by which God conveys grace.

“The Holy Spirit isn’t good enough.”  Huh??? Where have I ever said this? This is your interpretation not mine.  Man gives nothing in baptism except the promise to help the baptized grow in faith, to help make them disciples.  The administer of baptism is the “hands and feet” through which God works to give this free gift of the Holy Spirit.  There is no blasphemy whatsoever.  “ … be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”.  If the Holy Spirit was not received through baptism, then it would be just like what John was doing in the Jordan before Jesus Christ “fulfilled all righteousness” in his baptism.  It would only be a “mikveh” or ceremonial cleansing.  Instead, the skies ripped open, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, and God proclaimed Jesus Christ as his beloved son.  Jesus here begins his ministry, his journey back to the Father, and he opens the way for us.  It is the same for us, a beginning of our journey to the Father through what Jesus Christ has done.  It’s all about God’s grace, not man’s work.

Sugarman said: “When peter said acts 2:38 he did not believe salvation was for gentiles yet. acts 2:38 was only for JEWS to bring them out of t he OT and into The NT.”
I say: Jesus told all of the Apostles to go out and make disciple of ALL nations, baptizing them….  So how can you say Peter didn’t know salvation was for the Gentiles yet?  Furthermore, by your assertion, you are saying that in order for a Jew to enter into the New Covenant, he must be baptized.  This is contrary to the arguments you’ve made in the past about the meaning of baptism.


Wk if you would read acts You see The jews were surprise  The HG fell On The Gentiles.

This is  big clue they did not expect  gentles to be saved at that point.

as for matt  28:19 you need to understand The  mind set of peter at the Time before The Hg came on the gentiles.





Furthermore, by your assertion, you are saying that in order for a Jew to enter into the New Covenant, he must be baptized.  This is contrary to the arguments you’ve made in the past about the meaning of baptism.


No I'm not please read my own words NO ONE IS BORN UNDER THE OT NO MORE I thought I was clear on that?

I thought I was clear we are saved " even as they" "gentiles" who believe paul message while still preaching. The gentiles were saved by believing The message.

When “entire households” were baptized, where is an age distinction made?  Scripture links baptism and circumcision and Jews were circumcised on the 8th day.  The early church even discussed if baptism should be done on the 8th day.

Romans 2:29 (King James Version)

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Wk  circumcision is tied in with The spirit Not the literal act of it like in Ot times. Why do you think paul said Not in the letter?




Show me in scripture where anyone was ever denied baptism because of age.  Rejection of infant baptism is a subset of Protestant tradition that denies the Grace of God.  Infant baptism is an entry into God’s covenant family by God’s grace alone, with the realization that the baptized infant will continue to grow in God’s grace through the teachings of the family into which the infant was born.  For those old enough and capable of either accepting or rejecting the Gospel, baptism comes after accepting.

i already show you from scripture what the apostles require before baptism

The apostles always made sure they Confess first unless your trying to make a guide if your adult confess First if baby baptism first I do not find that teaching in scripture and the apostles were pretty clear on baptism.


to end for Now show me in scripture where a baby was ever baptism under The believers baptism?

so Now

1. explain why the jews were surprise The Hg fell on the gentiles if peter and the rest of the jews with him believe salvation is for the gentiles also at that time?

2. explain what Literal circumcision haves to do with baptism? paul puts it circumcision of the spirt and yet your trying to connect it with the OT and Not what it means Now in the NT.

3. How do you know households include babies? maybe there was babies in households but How do you know that it was for households who can only meet the apostles requirements?

4. You said Now I making The arguments jews must be baptism to be saved where did I ever say that?

I thought I said acts 2:38 was just for jews and pointed to  certain point in History and not meant for all time and that we are saved " even as they" which points to How the gentiles were save when peter was preaching?

also read Wk acts 10 and 15 and connect them together they both talk about the same thing.

in acts 10 peter mind set was to be AWAY from the gentiles God give him a vision of animals that was a symbol of non-jewishing culture "gentiles" that God told Him to not say what I say is clean is not.

Now go to acts 15


7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

If we keep all this in context before The vision peter did not understand that salvation was for gentiles also.

if we keep this in context we see it was because The gentiles believe The gospel had faith and even was not even baptism yet they were saved.

This shows it by believing  one is saved. One who truly believe shall confess Christ with his   mouth.

Sugarman said: “Wk if you would read acts You see The jews were surprise  The HG fell On The Gentiles.This is  big clue they did not expect  gentles to be saved at that point.
I say: The Jewish people collectively may have been surprised but the Apostles knew with absolute certainty that Jesus’ atonement was for ALL.  This is why they discipled with Jesus for 3 years and why Jesus “semicha’d” them, giving them authority.

Sugarman said: “as for matt  28:19 you need to understand The  mind set of peter at the Time before The Hg came on the gentiles.”
I say: You know the mindset of Peter?  Was it different than what Jesus told him and the other Apostles to do in order to make disciples of ALL nations?  Baptism is part of the Great Commission – two parts to it – “baptize and teach”.  Any other interpretation is twisting scripture.

You have me confused about what you are saying w.r.t. Acts 2:38.  Here is what you said: “acts 2:38 was only for JEWS to bring them out of t he OT and into The NT”.  If I understand you correctly now that you’ve tried to clarify your point, you are saying that Jews born under the Old Covenant had to be baptized to get them into the New Covenant.  But either Jew or Gentile, not born under the Old Covenant does not need to be baptized.  Is this what you are saying?  (Could you please respond to this in the “Baptism Debate” thread?)

“Entire households” means exactly that – no exceptions.  In fact a “household” at that time looked very different than today and included grandparents, cousins, aunts/uncles, servants, and MANY children (children were properly understood as a blessing and not a curse and Jews did not try to stifle the Author of Life with birth control).  If age were a restriction on baptism, scripture would certainly have made a distinction or it would have been handed down by the Apostles The Jewish people were not accustomed to rejecting God’s grace until their children were “old enough”.  In fact, they were accustomed to their children being born into the faith of their fathers and being obedient to God’s command to circumcise.
(cont …)

(… cont)
Sugarman: 1. explain why the jews were surprise The Hg fell on the gentiles if peter and the rest of the jews with him believe salvation is for the gentiles also at that time?
Their surprise may have been more due to awe that what was being proclaimed was now being experienced, not that they were caught off guard due to lack of understanding.  You can even go through the O.T. and see that even to Abraham was made the promise that one day God’s plan of salvation would unfold for ALL.  The “Jews” are awestruck to see evidence of this fulfillment before their eyes.

Sugarman: 2. explain what Literal circumcision haves to do with baptism? paul puts it circumcision of the spirt and yet your trying to connect it with the OT and Not what it means Now in the NT.
Literal circumcision was the ante-type to literal baptism.  The Jews were commanded by God to circumcise on the eighth day, we are commanded to baptize.  The discussion of types and ante-types and the relationship between circumcision and baptism has already been discussed.  I find it fascinating and am willing to discuss it more, but can you bring it up in the “Debate about Baptism” thread?

Sugarman: 3. How do you know households include babies? maybe there was babies in households but How do you know that it was for households who can only meet the apostles requirements?
I don’t know from reading the isolated verse.  But in scripture I see absolutely no case where anyone was ever denied God’s grace because of age.  Jesus even says “Let the little ones come to me”.  Furthermore, if we look at extra-biblical writings, we see absolutely no evidence of any sort of age requirement being imposed until some time after the Reformation.  We see very early Church writings where it was discussed if infants should be baptized on the eighth day or not.