Which, "Religion of It's Not There", should we Choose to Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

[Alan Gross]

Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

There are three very highly suspect characteristics
about the Religions profess to believe in and practice
"Infant Baptism", that are especially noteworthy.

A "careful reading of the Bible", as we all say as religious people
will reveal to anyone the three following salient facts of reality:

Of all of the verses they present as proof for holding their position
from which they have formed their Doctrine "Infant Baptism",

1.) The verses that contain the word, "baptism", Do Not Include
any mention or reference to an, "infant", or "baby",

2.) The verses that contain wording in them that indicates,
an "infant", or a "baby", etc., Do Not Include any mention or reference to the word, "baptism",

AND;

3.) Of all of the remaining verses that they bring forward,
as proof that, "Infant Baptism", may be practiced on babies,
DO NOT Contain or Include any mention or reference
to an, "infant", or a "baby", NOR to. "baptism".

Isn't that interesting to you?

What is a Bible believer to do?

How should a child of God go about processing all of that?

"Infant Baptism", is Practiced by multiple millions and millions,
of individuals on their babies, associated and sanctioned,
by Major Religious institutions worldwide operating
under the heading of, "Christianity".

And all of these people involved, in "baptizing babies",
are doing so with an expectation of there being
some element of God's Grace, that will aid in that baby's
Eternal Welfare, that is conveyed and transported to each baby,
when they are "baptized",
by performing this religious rite and practice

that they believe is supposed to be based on what is understood
by their religious leaders as being contained in the Bible.

But, where is it?

One astute Baptist lady who had been presented
with the "facts of God", with regard to "Infant Baptism",
by a Presbyterian minister, wanted to know from him,

"as I read the Bible on my own, why is it that I don't see
anything about "Infant Baptism" in there?

AND THAT I HAVE YO HAVE A Presbyterian minister,
LIKE YOURSELF, "SHOW ME"?

In order for a child of God to be convinced that joining in
and participating in the religious practices of someone
that is claiming to be Worshipping God, as a proponent
of, "Bible Christianity", shouldn't we be able to read in there
some evidence of what they say they believe,
ON OUR OWN, WITHOUT "THEIR HELP"?

THEIR HELP TO "SHOW US" WHAT IS NOT THERE?

AND TO TELL US, "IT'S IN THERE, YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT"?

Otherwise, "
Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

Since everyone is just freely throwing new words around everywhere,
not to be outdone, I decided that I could solve the issue Infant Baptized have, by just joining the club.

Luke 3:16 John the Baptizer said when Jesus came He would baptize with The Holy Spirit and with fire.

This becomes, "The Holy Spirit would Spirit baptize with Infant Spirit Baptism."

Read it and then explain how it’s not taught in scripture

There is one baptism. The immersion that the Holy Spirit does when he places us into Christ at the moment of redemption.

(Galatians 3:27)
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ

(Romans 6:3-4)
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

These become, "Infant Spiritually Baptized into Christ Jesus.

Where DOES this stuff come from???

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . . For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. . . ."

Becomes, "Infantly Spiritual Baptized into one spiritually
phantasmal infant body".

And I become a
Catholic Baptist Infant Spirit Baptism Regenerationalist.

Basically Landmarkism presented the claim that they were the true catholic church (using Grave's words...catholic not meaning Catholic)

Or, Biblically speaking, NOW, for short, an Infant Baptist Spiritually.

I am not sure, however, that "Holy Ghost baptism" is a stretch from "baptized with the Holy Ghost". I just don't see the difficulty on this one.

So, how did I do?

You can't say I can't do that.

 

[MrW]

Those who practice it (in error, of course), tell me,

1. It took the place of circumcision;

2. The believer’s households, who also believed simply MUST have had some babies in them, who were also baptized.

Also, many (perhaps most) of that persuasion actually believe babies can die and go to hell.

Of course it’s all false. Scripture never records baby baptisms. They can’t even understand language. How can they believe and ask for believers baptism?

They can’t. It’s totally made up by man.

 

[37818]

Becomes, "Infantly Spiritual Baptized into one spiritually
phantasmal infant body".

And I become a
Catholic Baptist Infant Spirit Baptism

What has that to do with Mark 1:8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 and Ephesians 1:12-14?

 

[37818]

Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

No such Christianity that is Christianity.

 

[taisto]

Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

There are three very highly suspect characteristics
about the Religions profess to believe in and practice
"Infant Baptism", that are especially noteworthy.

A "careful reading of the Bible", as we all say as religious people
will reveal to anyone the three following salient facts of reality:

Of all of the verses they present as proof for holding their position
from which they have formed their Doctrine "Infant Baptism",

1.) The verses that contain the word, "baptism", Do Not Include
any mention or reference to an, "infant", or "baby",

2.) The verses that contain wording in them that indicates,
an "infant", or a "baby", etc., Do Not Include any mention or reference to the word, "baptism",

AND;

3.) Of all of the remaining verses that they bring forward,
as proof that, "Infant Baptism", may be practiced on babies,
DO NOT Contain or Include any mention or reference
to an, "infant", or a "baby", NOR to. "baptism".

Isn't that interesting to you?

What is a Bible believer to do?

How should a child of God go about processing all of that?

"Infant Baptism", is Practiced by multiple millions and millions,
of individuals on their babies, associated and sanctioned,
by Major Religious institutions worldwide operating
under the heading of, "Christianity".

And all of these people involved, in "baptizing babies",
are doing so with an expectation of there being
some element of God's Grace, that will aid in that baby's
Eternal Welfare, that is conveyed and transported to each baby,
when they are "baptized",
by performing this religious rite and practice

that they believe is supposed to be based on what is understood
by their religious leaders as being contained in the Bible.

But, where is it?

One astute Baptist lady who had been presented
with the "facts of God", with regard to "Infant Baptism",
by a Presbyterian minister, wanted to know from him,

"as I read the Bible on my own, why is it that I don't see
anything about "Infant Baptism" in there?

AND THAT I HAVE YO HAVE A Presbyterian minister,
LIKE YOURSELF, "SHOW ME"?

In order for a child of God to be convinced that joining in
and participating in the religious practices of someone
that is claiming to be Worshipping God, as a proponent
of, "Bible Christianity", shouldn't we be able to read in there
some evidence of what they say they believe,
ON OUR OWN, WITHOUT "THEIR HELP"?

THEIR HELP TO "SHOW US" WHAT IS NOT THERE?

AND TO TELL US, "IT'S IN THERE, YOU JUST DON'T SEE IT"?

Otherwise, "
Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Practice, as being, "Bible Christianity"?

Since everyone is just freely throwing new words around everywhere,
not to be outdone, I decided that I could solve the issue Infant Baptized have, by just joining the club.



This becomes, "The Holy Spirit would Spirit baptize with Infant Spirit Baptism."









These become, "Infant Spiritually Baptized into Christ Jesus.





Becomes, "Infantly Spiritual Baptized into one spiritually
phantasmal infant body".

And I become a
Catholic Baptist Infant Spirit Baptism Regenerationalist.



Or, Biblically speaking, NOW, for short, an Infant Baptist Spiritually.



So, how did I do?

You can't say I can't do that.

Alan, I never brought up infant baptism except to state that if water is the thing that immerses us into Christ, then paedobaptism has an argument since it would be water that saves. You have never addressed this.

 

[canadyjd]

1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit…” we are baptized into one body.

Clearly, according to this passage of scripture, we are baptized into one body BY God Holy Spirit.

I asked you to explain that verse given your repeated claims scripture never says we are baptized by God Holy Spirit. You even claimed it was evil to think about it.

You referred to God Holy Spirit as the “element” Jesus uses to baptize according to Luke 3:16.

I ask you to affirm God Holy Spirit as a Person within the Godhead, equally God in every way to the Father and the Son. If God Holy Spirit is a person, why do you call him an element?

Instead of answering these simple and revenant questions, you start a thread about infant baptism as a distraction and attempt to make it seem I support infant baptism.

You have lost the debate and are unable to come to grips with the biblical truth that what you have stated is contrary to scripture.

And PLEASE, do not post a 12,000 word essay, quoting scripture that has nothing to do with the topic.

peace to you

 

[MrW]

revenant

noun
One that returns after a lengthy absence.
One who returns after death.
One who returns; especially, one who returns after a long period of absence or after death; a ghost; a specter; specifically, in mod. spiritualism, an apparition; a materialization.

 

[Alan Gross]

What has that to do with Mark 1:8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 and Ephesians 1:12-14?

In keeping with the O.P.,

Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Choose to Practice,
as being, "Bible Christianity"?,

my idea was that there are many, many folks who believe, profess, and practice a "Religion of It's Not There",

when, more often than not, the subject they are talking about doesn't always include any reference to what they are saying it means(?), from within the very verses that they are advancing in the attempt to make their case.

The words for claiming what they believe are just "Not There".

So, as a nod to Infant Baptizers, who base that practice, as being fully dependent on making,

"An Argument from Silence", when "baby" and "baptism" are never found in the same verse,

I just added "Infant", to other applications where I have been frustrated by folks capriciously penciling in words that change the meaning of a verse in the Bible dramatically.

I will use one example verse you just posted to illustrate what I mean.

My frustration is more toward, "how can you see what God originally intended, if you default away from what His words are saying that are written down there,

and just jumping immediately to adding new words and meanings to the words that are in the Bible" (and in compassion for my brothers, who I see as having Satan robbing them of God's blessing that were written there in the first place that they missed and are missing out on),

more than fussing that what they come up with, in their replacements of God's words, butchers the context and results in the development of some brand new hypothesis, that is now stated as if it is a Bible fact, although it is entirely made up from a misinterpretation,

that I don't see found as being taught anywhere else. (So, if there are things being invented that aren't Bible teachings AND they are obliterating the original teaching from God, it is a double disappointment.)

From:
I Corinthians 12:12 "For as the" (physical) "body is one,

"and hath many members" (hands, feet, eyes),

"and all the members" (hands, feet, eyes)

"of that one" (physical) "body, being many,

"are one" (physical) "body:

"so also is Christ" (Who is one complete physical body with many members, like hands, feet, eyes, and a head, etc.)

Then,

13 "For by one Spirit..."

is said in exactly the same way, as we have read and seen in I Corinthians 12:3; just before this passage, in the context of 12:13;

in 12:3, it says,

"no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:"

where we have "no man speaking"

"by the Spirit"

and then in the latter part of that verse;

"...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

we, again, have, "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

So, for us to see,

"For by one Spirit..."

as being the accommodation of the Holy Spirit Enabling the saved soul to be guided by and feel His Unction leading them to be water baptized, into that specific body of believers,

which ARE the exact words God, that He confirms to us, GIVEN JUST AFTER THIS 12:13 PASSAGE, IN CONTEXT, in I CORINTHIANS 12:18; "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him".

Those Corinthian believers were, of course, baptized in water, as a public profession of their faith and as their entrance into membership of one of Jesus' church bodies*

and it was exactly by the same experience we see where, by giving His Divine Unction, the Holy Spirit was the cause of, "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:", at the beginning of this chapter in I
Corinthians 12:3,

and, also, there where, "...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

So, "For by one Spirit..." is by the leading and guiding Unction, of the Spirit of God, as we just saw in I Corinthians 12:3; in the words, "by the Spirit" and "by the Holy Ghost",

"are we all baptized" in water, as a public profession of their faith and as their entrance into membership of one of Jesus' church bodies*

"into one body"*

which is "the church of Christ, at Corinth", from I Corinthians 1:3, and from this chapter 12, in I Corinthians 12:27;

"Now, you are the body* of Christ
and members in particular."

These particular members of the church of Christ, at Corinth, had joined that body of believers, by water baptism,

after being saved and given an obedient Spirit in their heart from the Spirit of God to follow their Lord and His command to be baptized.

The only thing that could be more certainly plain and explicit, FROM THE STRAIGHTFORWARD, SPIRITUALLY SOBER reading of scripture, in context,

could possibly be the conspicuous absence of word additions, inspired from somewhere outside the Bible into the minds of men, such as, "spirit baptized" and "universal body".

They are "Not There".

How can we say that God is in any way saying, at the beginning and end of this same verse, in 12:13, that souls are in two ways saved, or had to, or needed to be saved, or said to have been saved two times(?)

At the beginning of the verse, souls are somehow imagined to have been "spirit baptized" into a "universal body" to try and say that is a way for them to have had an experience of being "saved", although, it is not written down there, in any shape or form like that(?),

and then at the end of the same verse, are we to believe that it is supposed to make sense for it to also be recorded that they,

"have been made to" be saved(?), too?

That would make that verse go about saying something like this;

"we have all experienced being "saved"

"and not only that, but,
we "have been made to" be "saved", also.

Is that supposed to be what a Bible verse teaches us?

Those efforts of "adding to" the scriptures would additionally obscure and eradicate the intended original meaning, which are God's Divine Design and Intention stated in I Corinthians 12:12-13,

which is: for saved souls to all put their "light on a candlestick*", by following His command and being scripturally baptized into a church* of the kind that JESUS BUILT,

to serve God and bring Him Glory in and through one of Jesus' church bodies*,

while at the same time those obscure and unmitigated words added would be solely dependent on introducing new foreign concepts into the word of God

that are not otherwise taught, word for word, line upon line, from any other portions of the Bible.

 

[Alan Gross]

1 Corinthians 12:12-13

That was my idea behind the O.P., when it says, "It's Not There", when it is talking about those particular-type word additions (even though, they are "Not There", to start with),

that would then be responsible for creating religious ideas that run directly contrary to God's Own Words,

and to run in opposition to what God said, concerning what pleases Him, as being the reason for why He wrote what He did.

So, "Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Choose to Practice,
as being, "Bible Christianity"?

or should "we" look elsewhere?

Let me ask you this:

Once, an individual defaults to a position of embracing religious ideas that directly run contrary to God's Own Words into their heart and soul, by placing different words with different meanings in place of God's,

where would they go and by what process could they be brought back to an understanding of what God had originally intended for them to be shown from His word?

They have already changed His Words and replaced them with words from some place entirely somewhere else that are drastically different from God's.

They are stuck.

They are the ones who have stuck themselves into a stronghold where they have forfeited their own ability to know that they need out of it

and with no ability to get out of it, if they did know that they needed to,

apart from them being Graciously Blessed to repent toward God,

forsaking their acceptance of these strange activities by the spirits involved in the process of altering what God has said to make it into lies,

and for them to start begging Jesus and suing God for Mercy, to be delivered.


Then, to continue, I Corinthians 12:13;

"we" the saved individuals of Corinth who were led by the Holy Spirit to be water baptized and join as members of the "church* of Christ, at Corinth", I Corinthians 1:2, were,

"all" (water) "baptized into one body*",

*for an example of "one body", here, as being one "church body" spelled out, with its plain definition in the Greek

and as defined, when those local church assemblies were "built" into a Divine Organization by Jesus Christ*, in the New Testament,

this "one body", at Corinth, that "we", again, is talking about, as being those saved souls in Corinth who had been led by the Holy Spirit to join the church of Christ, at Corinth, by water baptism, was:

"a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

"covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;

"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20."

"whether we be Jews or Gentiles,
"whether we be bond or free;

"and have been all made to drink" (referring to their Salvation) "into one Spirit" (their New Birth from Above).

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
...

Again, just like with this sample description, taken from the currently established, "Bryan Station Baptist Church",
as described below, in bold blue,

for all of the instances of the word, "church", "body", etc., above or below,
please insert this normal, typical, regular meaning, of what a "church" is, as described in the Bible, along with the words "church", "body", etc.,

to serve as an explanation of what God is talking about (prior to any of man's tampering) and to not lose what God put there and was referring to, when He says, the word, "church", "body", etc.

*The Meaning of a "church"
or "church body", etc., in the Bible:

A "Church is a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

"covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;

"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20."

Every time, when the Bible mentions and refers to a "church" or "body", etc., it is in reference to an individual church body, in its practical application,

and so, the Bible may be referring to the individual local church assembly as a Divine Institution,

and/or to more than one, or all of the specific local church bodies, that there are/were in existence.

However, there is always a local church body, or some actual church bodies, that are being referred to, in real life, when we think of them in their rubber meets the road, practical application.

That kind of thinking is, of course, no different, whatsoever, than the thinking we are using when we talk about, "The Public School System", for one of thousands of examples.

We would be thinking about and have in mind that what we are referring to would and will always be some actual school located in a particular place, or several real schools in several places, in the practical, down to earth, real world application of our words that we are using.

We may be talking about "The Public School System" as if it may sound like it is One Big, overarching, all-encompassing, and widespread contrivance of a far-flung operation, however, anytime that the actual concept of "The Public School System", meets reality, its existence is always able to be observed, in its practical application, as being in the form of a Real School, somewhere, or maybe several Real Schools that it is that are being talked about.

So, in the Bible, one such instance is, "Unto God be Glory in the church", for example, and it simply means, "Unto God be Glory in the church", at Ephesus", where this scripture was being written to,

and/or, by practical application, it is saying, "Unto God be Glory" in any and every local church, that is a visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers, like that one at Ephesus, that has "covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;
"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20",

or any number or all such churches that are organized and operating in that same manner, which have that same description, because they indicate what the Bible is referring to when using the word, "church", and they really actually exist in reality on earth, according to the same pattern as the first church Jesus built.

That is the only kind of "church" there is, that Jesus, the Apostles, and the remainder of the New Testament makes reference any to, at all.

...

 

[canadyjd]

revenant

noun
One that returns after a lengthy absence.
One who returns after death.
One who returns; especially, one who returns after a long period of absence or after death; a ghost; a specter; specifically, in mod. spiritualism, an apparition; a materialization.

Grammar Police? “Relevant” is what I meant. Spell check changes my words sometimes, or I just mis-spelled it.

It’s good to see you, Ms. Adams, on BB. I haven’t seen you since 4th grade.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

That was my idea behind the O.P., when it says, "It's Not There", when it is talking about those particular-type word additions (even though, they are "Not There", to start with),

that would then be responsible for creating religious ideas that run directly contrary to God's Own Words,

and to run in opposition to what God said, concerning what pleases Him, as being the reason for why He wrote what He did.

So, "Which, "Religion of It's Not There",
should we Choose to Practice,
as being, "Bible Christianity"?

or should "we" look elsewhere?

Let me ask you this:

Once, an individual defaults to a position of embracing religious ideas that directly run contrary to God's Own Words into their heart and soul, by placing different words with different meanings in place of God's,

where would they go and by what process could they be brought back to an understanding of what God had originally intended for them to be shown from His word?

They have already changed His Words and replaced them with words from some place entirely somewhere else that are drastically different from God's.

They are stuck.

They are the ones who have stuck themselves into a stronghold where they have forfeited their own ability to know that they need out of it

and with no ability to get out of it, if they did know that they needed to,

apart from them being Graciously Blessed to repent toward God,

forsaking their acceptance of these strange activities by the spirits involved in the process of altering what God has said to make it into lies,

and for them to start begging Jesus and suing God for Mercy, to be delivered.


Then, to continue, I Corinthians 12:13;

"we" the saved individuals of Corinth who were led by the Holy Spirit to be water baptized and join as members of the "church* of Christ, at Corinth", I Corinthians 1:2, were,

"all" (water) "baptized into one body*",

*for an example of "one body", here, as being one "church body" spelled out, with its plain definition in the Greek

and as defined, when those local church assemblies were "built" into a Divine Organization by Jesus Christ*, in the New Testament,

this "one body", at Corinth, that "we", again, is talking about, as being those saved souls in Corinth who had been led by the Holy Spirit to join the church of Christ, at Corinth, by water baptism, was:

"a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

"covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;

"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20."

"whether we be Jews or Gentiles,
"whether we be bond or free;

"and have been all made to drink" (referring to their Salvation) "into one Spirit" (their New Birth from Above).

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
...

Again, just like with this sample description, taken from the currently established, "Bryan Station Baptist Church",
as described below, in bold blue,

for all of the instances of the word, "church", "body", etc., above or below,
please insert this normal, typical, regular meaning, of what a "church" is, as described in the Bible, along with the words "church", "body", etc.,

to serve as an explanation of what God is talking about (prior to any of man's tampering) and to not lose what God put there and was referring to, when He says, the word, "church", "body", etc.

*The Meaning of a "church"
or "church body", etc., in the Bible:

A "Church is a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers,

"covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;

"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20."

Every time, when the Bible mentions and refers to a "church" or "body", etc., it is in reference to an individual church body, in its practical application,

and so, the Bible may be referring to the individual local church assembly as a Divine Institution,

and/or to more than one, or all of the specific local church bodies, that there are/were in existence.

However, there is always a local church body, or some actual church bodies, that are being referred to, in real life, when we think of them in their rubber meets the road, practical application.

That kind of thinking is, of course, no different, whatsoever, than the thinking we are using when we talk about, "The Public School System", for one of thousands of examples.

We would be thinking about and have in mind that what we are referring to would and will always be some actual school located in a particular place, or several real schools in several places, in the practical, down to earth, real world application of our words that we are using.

We may be talking about "The Public School System" as if it may sound like it is One Big, overarching, all-encompassing, and widespread contrivance of a far-flung operation, however, anytime that the actual concept of "The Public School System", meets reality, its existence is always able to be observed, in its practical application, as being in the form of a Real School, somewhere, or maybe several Real Schools that it is that are being talked about.

So, in the Bible, one such instance is, "Unto God be Glory in the church", for example, and it simply means, "Unto God be Glory in the church", at Ephesus", where this scripture was being written to,

and/or, by practical application, it is saying, "Unto God be Glory" in any and every local church, that is a visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers, like that one at Ephesus, that has "covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy;
"whose purpose is the carrying out of
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20",

or any number or all such churches that are organized and operating in that same manner, which have that same description, because they indicate what the Bible is referring to when using the word, "church", and they really actually exist in reality on earth, according to the same pattern as the first church Jesus built.

That is the only kind of "church" there is, that Jesus, the Apostles, and the remainder of the New Testament makes reference any to, at all.

...

All those words complaining of people changing or adding to scripture…..

And then YOU change the passage from “ate baptized by One Spirit” to “are led” by the Spirit to be baptized.

Log meet Eye

peace to you

 

[MrW]

Grammar Police? “Relevant” is what I meant. Spell check changes my words sometimes, or I just mis-spelled it.

It’s good to see you, Ms. Adams, on BB. I haven’t seen you since 4th grade.

peace to you

Behave, young man, or I’ll have to send you to the principal’s office again!

 

[Alan Gross]

13 "For by one Spirit..."

"For by one Spirit..."

as being the accommodation of the Holy Spirit Enabling the saved soul to be guided by and feel His Unction leading them to be water baptized, into that specific body of believers,

which ARE the exact words God, that He confirms to us, GIVEN JUST AFTER THIS 12:13 PASSAGE, IN CONTEXT, in I CORINTHIANS 12:18; "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him".

So, "For by one Spirit..." is by the leading and guiding Unction, of the Spirit of God, as we just saw in I Corinthians 12:3; in the words, "by the Spirit" and "by the Holy Ghost",

"we" the saved individuals of Corinth who were led by the Holy Spirit to be water baptized and join as members of the "church* of Christ, at Corinth", I Corinthians 1:2, were,

And then YOU change the passage from “ate baptized by One Spirit” to “are led” by the Spirit to be baptized.

I see were I explained some about, "For by one Spirit...",
but I don't see me saying, “are led” by the Spirit to be baptized, as if I was connecting it to the verse and adding in words to the Bible anywhere, for you to claim, "YOU change the passage".

Should I begin to feel like It's Not There?

“are led” by the Spirit to be water baptized", is the Divine Interpretation of the words there.

That is the explanation of the verse.

There isn't another one.

"by the Spirit" and "by the Holy Ghost",
and "For by one Spirit..." are all describing this same activity, as performed by the Holy Spirit, in context.

In each of these cases, The Holy Spirit is the "cause".

Cause: "by the Spirit of God",
Effect: "no man speaking...calleth Jesus accursed:"

Cause: "but by the Holy Ghost."
Effect: "...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,"

Cause: "For by one Spirit..."
Effect: "are we all baptized".

The Holy Spirit isn't saving these people, He is Administering His Watch care and Superintendence over them, as The Manager of one of The Lord's Churches.

Who God wants to be added into the membership of any given particular local church assembly, The Holy Spirit is His Manager that sees to it that gets accomplished.

IN CONTEXT, in I CORINTHIANS 12:18;

"But now hath God set the members
every one of them in the body,
as it hath pleased him".

13 "For by one Spirit..."

is said in exactly the same way, as we have read and seen in I Corinthians 12:3; just before this passage, in the context of 12:13;

in 12:3, it says,

"no man speaking by the Spirit of God
calleth Jesus accursed:"

where we have "no man speaking"

"by the Spirit"

and then in the latter part of that verse;

"...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
but by the Holy Ghost."

we, again, have, "no man can say
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

So, then we can see,

"For by one Spirit..."

as being the accommodation of the Holy Spirit Enabling the saved soul to be guided by and feel His Unction leading them to be water baptized, into that specific body of believers,

which ARE, again, the exact kind of wording God uses, when He confirms this to us, THAT IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO LEADS AND GUIDES SAVED INDIVIDUALS TO WHERE GOD WANTS THEM AND THEIR GIFTS ADDED,

AND that was GIVEN JUST AFTER THIS 12:13 PASSAGE, IN CONTEXT, in I CORINTHIANS 12:18;

"But now hath God set the members
every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him".

Those Corinthian believers were, of course, baptized in water, as a public profession of their faith and as their entrance into membership of one of Jesus' church bodies*

and it was exactly by the same experience we see where, by giving His Divine Unction, the Holy Spirit was the cause of, "no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:", at the beginning of this chapter in I
Corinthians 12:3,

and, also, there where, "...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."

So, "For by one Spirit..." is by the leading and guiding Unction, of the Spirit of God, as we just saw in I Corinthians 12:3; in the words, "by the Spirit" and "by the Holy Ghost",

"are we all baptized" in water, as a public profession of their faith and as their entrance into membership of one of Jesus' church bodies*

"into one body"*

which is "the church of Christ, at Corinth",
from I Corinthians 1:3, and from this chapter 12,
in I Corinthians 12:27;

"Now, you are the body* of Christ
and members in particular."

These particular members of the church of Christ, at Corinth, had joined that body of believers, by water baptism,

after being saved and given an obedient Spirit in their heart from the Spirit of God to follow their Lord and His command to be baptized.

All those words complaining of people changing or adding to scripture…..

I took the word, "spirit" away from the word "baptized"

and the word, "universal" away from the word, "body".

Is that what God used to trigger you?

They aren't in the Greek, anyway.

Nothing like ether one of them have ever existed.

The only way that people could ever 'teach' stuff like that is for them to be entirely dependent on "adding to" and "taking away", from what the Bible actually says.

And, if and when they do that, they REALLY MISS OUT
on GOD'S IDEAS and PLAN.

 

[canadyjd]

I see were I explained some about, "For by one Spirit...",
but I don't see me saying, “are led” by the Spirit to be baptized, ….
…….., "YOU change the passage".

“are led” by the Spirit to be water baptized", is the Divine Interpretation of the words there…….

So, then we can see,

"For by one Spirit..."

as being the accommodation of the Holy Spirit Enabling the saved soul to be guided by and feel His Unction leading them to be water baptized, into that specific body of believers,….

which ARE, again, the exact kind of wording God uses, when He confirms this to us, THAT IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO LEADS AND GUIDES SAVED INDIVIDUALS TO WHERE GOD WANTS THEM AND THEIR GIFTS ADDED,…….

after being saved and given an obedient Spirit in their heart from the Spirit of God to follow their Lord and His command to be baptized…..

1 Corinthians 12:12 “By one Spirit we are baptized into one body….”

So, you deny you said the passage should be understood as meaning the Holy Spirit leads folks to be baptized instead of what it actually says which is Holy Spirit baptizes us into one body…..

You then write about 10,000 words explaining why the passage should be understood as meaning God Holy Spirit leads people to be baptized instead of what it actually says which is God Holy Spirit baptized us into one body.

You then accuse me of changing the words and, at some point, claimed I have been “triggered” in this discussion which I take as a sanctimonious dismissal of everything I have stated.

I will leave you, then, to your “Religion of it’s not there….”

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you