Distortion of Scripture

How is it that your last statement as well as the rest of your post has gone off on rabbit trails, not dealing with this text. All you have done is quoted this text. Show how it is relevant today. How have I blaspehemed the Holy Spirit in the context of this Scripture. This Scripture is not talking of Baptism. That is clear for all who have read it. Demonstrate your accusation against me that I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit using this Scripture only. Keep to the context. Or apologize and give a retraction of what you said if you can't do it.
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. What authority you must think you have to impose such limitations! It's a wonder you don't reject more of the Bible, since it's writers didn't always keep to their immediate context, but referred to other Scriptures for support.

Indeed the text in question does not mention or speak of baptism. It does, however, demonstrate the danger of attributing the work of God to Satan. I demonstrated my charge against you with these words:

And then you come along, and proclaim that the instructions concerning baptism in the NT, which were given by the Holy Spirit, and commanded by Christ and His apostles, are just some pagan (demonic) ritual that God condemned in some obscure verse in Jeremiah (where was that again?), which was spoken to idolatrous Israel who actually was involved in pagan rituals.

You attribute the work of God to Satan. That is my understanding of the passage, and that is why I give you warning.

Now it is up to you to "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit" (Matt 12:33, 34).

Thus far you have borne corrupt fruit by claiming that NT instruction concerning baptism is of the devil.

Context extends beyond the immediate, sir. If I have misunderstood the passage and offered a poor argument, show it. I've been corrected before, and I will be again, I'm sure. As I said, that is my understanding of it, and my reason for warning you. I do so out of concern for your soul, not from any malicious intent.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmeer,
Before I point out the false accusations in the above post, and start reporting you to another administrator, do as I requested and save yourself a lot of grief.
If I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit then show me from that passage which you have quoted how I have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. You must show me from that passage and not read your own presuppositions in from other Books of the Bible. Show me in context from the passage which deals with the sin of "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." If you cannot do that you owe me an apology, and a retraction.
If you do not that I will take the matter up with the other moderators. Have I made myself clear.

Accusing another of blasphemy is a serious offence.
DHK

 

We do the best we can with the limited knowlege we have, and do so humbly, prayerfully, and sincerly. God expects faithfulness. He does not expect perfection.

I think when it comes to clear doctrine, we must be diligent. However, when it comes to matters of interpretation (such as what day to call the sabbath, use of translations, women wearing pants, etc etc etc) we must allow persons the religious liberty and local autonomy to practice those interpretations as they feel called.

Christ wanted us to enter into a relationship with our heavenly father. Jesus doesn't spend much time nitpicking a verse here or there. But, he does spend some time chastising the nitpickers.

Because we allow ourselves to become congregationally and communally self-centered. It's a common problem in the church. I think Satan uses that as a tool to divide, and we fall for it every single time. I believe that the biggest enemy of the church is the church itself. Brother pitted against brother is the easiest way for Satan to divide and destroy.

 

Matt 12:22-37 and Mark 3:22-30.
I am still waiting for a sutiable explanation of these verses Bmeer. Are you having a problem??
DHK

 

Can everyone agree that works,baptism are in vain if having not beleived first?Old or new test,it's beleiving not the physical act of baptism that saves.You all ever been in a dirt clod fight,if I started one I didn't mean to.Call it beleiving call it faith,when people start adding to it,it causes me to ask ?'s Johnv is right,but there's nothing wrong with asking?'s.O'Granny what long teeth you have,when did you grow a tail?

 

bmerr,

Mike here. (sorry, couldnt resist)

You said...

Could you quote me where I ever said "studying is not needed". I may not *emphasise* that point as much as others due to my feeling that is just a given. It goes without saying that we study.

Completly false. We MUST have the Holy Spirit opening our understanding to truth. If that were not the case, and all we needed to do was study, then everyone who studies the scriptures would come to the truth.

But thats not the case is it? Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and many others study study study study study and yet they are overflowing with idolatry and heresy, and completly off base regarding foundational teachings.

In adition to the witness of what we see happening, we have the witness of God Himself...

* "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us from God. These things we speak, not in the wisdom which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. But the natural man does not recieve the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. Nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."

* "And we know that the Son of God has come, and given us an understanding, that we might know Him who is true."

* " 'These are the words that I have spoken with you while I was still with you, that all things might be fullfilled which were written in Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me.' And He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures."

* "When He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

And of course, the 1st 2 of those quotes make crystal clear that it appies to us as well as the aposttles.

I agree completly. They work together.

"Then Peter said to them all, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And you shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call'."

If you have not recieved the Holy Spirit, bmerr, than you are still lost. Not one christian has ever been born again without the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

I agree completly! We do not need tradition in the least. The scriptures...and the scriptures alone, are our only truth standard.

But that is a completly different topic than what we are discussing.

Because the Holy Spirit opens their understanding to the truths found there.

* "Now we have recieved, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us from God. These things we speak, not in the wisdom which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. But the natural man does not recieve the things of God, for they are foolishness to him. Nor can he know them, for they are sopiritually discerned."

* "And we know that the Son of God has come, and given us an understanding, that we might know Him who is true."

* " 'These are the words that I have spoken with you while I was still with you, that all things might be fullfilled which were written in Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms concerning me.' And He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the scriptures."

* "When He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth."

God bless,

Mike

 

I don't put limitations on "rightly dividing the word of truth." But if you insist on reading into a passage of Scripture things that are not there, well, let's just say that is a mark of a cult. If you cannot give a proper exposition of Matt 12:22-37 and/or Mark 3:22-30, without going outside of these texts (since they are the only ones that talk of Jesus teaching of "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,"), then you are not rightly dividing the Word of truth, and have demonstrated to all that you have no idea what the meaning of the passage is, and how it relates to us today. It is the latter part that is important. How does it relate to us today? How can one commit "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" today? No one but Jesus spoke of this sin. Therefore you must confine yourself to Jesus's words. That is only proper hermeneutics.

If it doesn't mention baptism, don't draw baptism into the passage--again the mark of a cult. Reading into a passage things that are not there.

This is a false accusation. I never said that baptism, per se, not important. I never said that baptism, per se, was a pagan ritual. Why are you accusing me of such? The Hindu belief, that the waters of the Ganges river washes away sin is a superstition that a pagan cult believes. You believe the same. You believe that water (i.e. baptism) washes away sin. You believe that baptism is a part of salvation--baptismal regeneration. I didn't say baptism was not important, but rather that baptismal regeneration is a heresy, a pagan superstition akin to the pagan belief of Hinduism, and I stand by my words.

Are you God? Who are you to warn me?
First this is another false accusation.
I never attributed a work of God to Satan.
Why? Baptism is not a work of God. If it is, when did God baptize you? Jesus walked this earth 2,000 years ago. Are you 2,000 years old? Can you point to a time in your life when Jesus in his physical body baptized you? NO! Man baptized you. It is the work of man. A man was the baptizer, and a man was the recipient of the baptism. The whole process was done by man. It is not a work of God. To claim such a work as a work of God is gross error, and in fact is heresy. It is a work of man. Baptism does nothing but get you wet. It is a step of obedience in the Christian life, after salvation, done in obedience to the command of Christ.

The tree is made good by salvation. One is saved by trusting Christ as Saviour. There is nothing about baptism here. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism, as was the jailor in Acts 16:31, and the Ethiopian Eunuch. They simply called upon the name of the Lord, and were saved.

Another false accusation. You seem to have a good many in this post. I never said that baptism is of the devil. Please point to the statement where I have, or withdraw the statement.

Your accusations have been very malicious. Just read your above posts. You have made many false accusations. You just accused me falsely, without any reason of saying that baptism of is of the devil. Shall I call you a liar? You did. Why the slander and the lies? If this were on another board in another place you could be sued for the statements that you are making against me.

But instead I will await an explanation of Matt 12:22-37 and/or Mark 3:22-30. If you cannot explain what "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is from these Scriptures, then apologize and retract your statements.

False allegations are against the rules on BB.
DHK

[ July 09, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

bmerr here. I've done nothing that you haven't done to me and others already. I just made the charge outright. Myself and others have shown from the Bible that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. In response you have claimed that such doctrine is a "pagan superstition" derived from Hinduism. For a Christian to introduce "pagan tradition" as Bible doctrine would indeed be heresy.

In effect, you have accused me and others of heresy, which is right on track with blasphemy. You are as guilty as you say I am.

If you don't want to answer the charge, then let it pass. I've not misused the text in giving you warning. The text teaches a principle, that being that attributing the work of God to Satan is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins. The Bible is God's book. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is pagan. You say that baptism for the remission of sins is of the devil. You should substantiate your claim or retract it.

I've stated my case as plainly as I know how. If it's more than you can grasp, I can't help you.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

D28Guy,

Regarding,

The Bible is clear on how we can know. St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 3:8-10

Thus, the Church is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church. The same that was there in Pentecost is still with us today.

You can learn more by going here: Finding the New Testament Church. I suggest you read it.

Do not be led astray by Mormons, Jehov Witness, Baptist. Read the Bible it is clear.

 

bmerr here. At what time did I say that water washes away sins? Not once. The Bible does not teach it, and I have not said it. I don't have to refute a statement I didn't make.

What names have I called you, sir? I have been called names on other sites, and I know it's not fun. I wouldn't do it to another.

Here's some Bible to refute your postion that baptism for the remission of sins is "pagan tradition".

Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Rom 6:17, 18 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.

The offered verses of Scripture prove that it is not. If you'd like to show from Scripture that it is pagan in origin, do so.

I have demonstrated the principle (repeatedly) that giving Satan credit for God's work is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. The text in Mark 3 and Matt 12 show it quite clearly. What do I have to do, find your name in the text?

You have repeatedly made the statement that the idea of baptism for the remission of sins is pagan in origin, and yet you have not substantiated your claim with Scripture. I have given Scripture to support my postion. Where's yours? You should substantiate your claim or retract it.

Again, for the record, let me state my position: The Bible commands baptism for the remission of sins as a requirement for salvation under the New Testament. I have demonstrated this teaching from Scripture.

If you disagree with this position, show the Scriptures that you think support you.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Ma'am, who is "Christer"? I know of no such person. That aside, exactly which Scriptures were taken out of context, and which requirements for salvation did we add?

Nice comments on heresy, Ma'am. So basically herresy is claiming Divine origin for something demonic. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is claiming demonic origin for something Divine. I'd say those are on the same line.

Truth is divisive, Ma'am. Jesus Himself said that He came not to bring peace, but division (Luke 12:51-53), even to the point of dividing families. Anything that is not truth is false. There is a dividing line.

The Scriptures say that baptism is for the remission, or washing away of sins. DHK says it is not. He has divided himself from the truth. It's not my fault, I just pointed it out.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

#1. Is the gift of the Holy Spirit (Tongues prophecy etc) given to the saved or the unsaved?

The forgiven or the lost?

The born-again or the unregenerate?

#2. Was the Theif on the Cross ever saved? Forgiven? Born again? A saint?

#3. When does a lost person appeal to God for forgiveness, a clean conscience, a new life?

Do they pray and study the Bible without ever asking God for forgiveness or a clean conscience until AFTER they reach the point of Baptism??

#4. What is the "depravity" described in Romans 3? What does it "prevent"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

dianetavegia,

bmerr here. Howso? The fact that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world does not mean that everyone will be saved. It means that everyone can be saved.

The power for salvation is still there. Simply accepting the facts of the gospel saves no one. My wife and children all acknowledge the facts of the gospel, but none of them has become a Christian.

In purchasing freedom from sin for the world, Jesus also was given the authority to determine the conditions of pardon for sinners who wanted to enter the kingdom. Those "keys to the kingdom" (Matt 16:19) were given to Peter, and he gave them in Acts 2:38 to those who believed the message.

No, Ma'am, baptism does not diminish the power of the cross. Without the cross, baptism would mean nothing at all.

As far as baptism being "the outward expression of the inward change and is one way we can confess our conversion before men", I can agree with that to a point, but it's not exactly supported with Scripture. What I mean is that there is never any command to "be baptized to confess your faith before men". I agree with the sentiment, but it's just not why men were commanded to be baptized.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bob,

bmerr here. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now. I'm playing catch-up.

It's not given to anyone in any miraculous sense these days, sir. If you're referring to Cornelius and household, may I refer you to the "Sinner's prayer" board, and my response to StefanM (page 3, I think)? In summary, let me say that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and them to convince the Jewish brethren who had come with Peter that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them, not to demonstrate that they were already saved.

Saved? Yes. Forgiven? Yes. A saint? Yes.

Born again under the New Testament? No. Jesus had not yet died, and so the New Testament could not yet be in force (Heb 9:16, 17). The thief was saved under the Old Testament.

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

That word "answer" is eperotema, which means "an inquiry". It comes from the word eperotao, which means "to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek;-as (after, questions), demand, desire, question."

The ASV (1901) translates it as "interrogation", with a marginal reading of "inquiry, or appeal".

I'd say that it is in baptism, where one's sins are washed away (not by the water, but by the submission to God's command) that a person appeals to God for a good conscience, for it is sin that soils the conscience, while dirt soils the flesh.

I'm sure that many a penitent soul has asked God to forgive them before they have been baptized. I can find nothing in Scripture that would indicate that God would grant that request short of one doing what He has commanded, though.

Did you mean Romans 3? I'm not sure what you are referring to. It's probably quite obvious to you, but I'm missing it.

In Christ,

bmerr