User Profile: scarebear83


Member Since: February 12, 2011

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 8, 2014 at 4:31pm

    Lucretius, appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacies…. I would suggest looking up Ignaz Semmelweis and his struggle against the majority in the medical field. He died without knowing his contribution to the medical world. Simply put, just because a majority of learned people say so doesn’t make it true.

  • March 28, 2014 at 1:36pm

    Cont’d- If you read Acts 2:38 Peter tells them to repent AND be baptized FOR the remission of sins. Drop down to verse 41 Those who gladly received his word were baptized and 3,000 souls were added to them, drop down to verse 47 the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Baptism is not a charitable deed we do or an act we decided will get us to heaven it is a command given by God in that once we are baptized He adds us to His church. He was the one who came up with it, not us. We are simply following His command to do it.

    Faith is a faith that works. It doesn’t start at the time we’re saved, it works when we first start to believe on to our death if we remain faithful. Hebrews 11 and James 2 gives us good examples of faith and what it does. By faith we are moved to become children of God by faith we know and we do. Don’t get me wrong, I know I can’t get to heaven on my own, I need the blood of Christ I know I need God’s grace. I can offer you a free gift but if you don’t take the effort to either get up from the chair or to extend your arms then how will you get the free gift?

    Yes, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God but that doesn’t mean we are without the ability to seek God. Romans is often used to show that but if you dig deeper it’s talking about those who refused to seek God not that we can’t. Heb. 11:6 God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

  • March 28, 2014 at 1:16pm

    Cont’d- You also stated that those in the O.T. were not baptized… well I think it’s a misunderstanding of what baptism really and truly stands for. Gal. 3:27 and Romans 6:1-11 state exactly what it’s for. We are buried with Christ and we put on Christ. So understanding that, then it would be difficult for a person under the law of Moses to be baptized because Christ had not yet come into the world much less died and was raised and that’s what baptism symbolizes. However, it is an interesting note that the children of Israel were somewhat baptized (1 Cor. 10:2). They passed through the waters and when the Egyptians chased after they were washed away in the water (sins washed away).

    Acts 22:16 Is not speaking about a verbal calling and you’re saved. It implies that by being baptized we are doing exactly that, calling on the name of the Lord.

    Ephesians 2:10 I notice that people tend to stop just before this verse. If you read it you’ll notice we are His workmanship created for good works. When a person treats baptism as an outward showing then they turn it into a boastful thing (Look at me I’m baptized, I’m a believer!) But if one views it as a necessity towards salvation then it doesn’t matter who is there or what time of the day, but that you obeyed God and through baptism He adds you to the church…

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:51pm

    Summermeadow, sorry it took me a while to get back to you, I’ve been busy.

    Let me ask you, can you baptize yourself? Or do you need help in being immersed? If you look at baptism you really aren’t doing the work, someone else is (A dead person cannot bury themselves).

    You say that faith is not a work but I can’t understand how it can’t be, it’s a verb, it is something you yourself do unless you’re saying that God gives you faith and He does everything so you don’t have to (that would include feeding the poor spreading the gospel etc.). But we know that doesn’t happen. Jesus commanded His apostles to go and baptize people in the great commission… why would He tell His apostles to go do something they couldn’t fulfill?

    Being obedient to God does in no way negate what Christ did on the cross. Just because Christ died on the cross is by no means a free ticket to say we don’t do anything to be saved. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord but was he saved from the sinful world before or after the flood? I would hope you’d say after because the sinful world was not washed away until the flood. Yes, I know he was saved from physical harm but why use Noah’s event in 1 Peter 3:20-21 as a comparative illustration to baptism if baptism doesn’t save us? (If you read verse 21 it states implicitly that baptism doth also now save us).

  • March 20, 2014 at 4:46pm

    Cont’d: You also showed Cornelius’ household as proof of a Spirit baptism then they were baptized afterward as an obedience that followed.

    A) I’m slightly confused, if a person is obedient then they will be rewarded but if they are disobedient then they will not. So if water baptism is an act of obedience, if a person doesn’t do it then what’s the opposite of obedient? Will a person who is that go to heaven?

    B) You missed the part that Peter was still speaking… granted there may have been a person or two who “got it” before the sermon was over but all those who were there the Holy Spirit fell upon them. There may have been one or two that still hadn’t believed yet. So we see the Holy Spirit falling upon them before they had a chance to believe.

    C ) Peter gave orders for them to be baptized in verse 48. If baptism isn’t essential towards salvation why order them to be baptized? Why didn’t he just tell them, “You’ve been baptized by the Spirit and now you are saved.” Because Peter had the authority to give the command (by Jesus) and we see that it was immediately after the event. All instances of baptism in Acts were always immediate, not days or weeks later.

    D) We see that this “baptism” was a means to show that the Gentiles were able to receive the gospel message just like the Jews (vs 45) not that it’s an indicator that we are saved by this way… unless you were able to speak in tongues and prophecy immediately afterward even then it’s not a

  • March 20, 2014 at 4:26pm

    Summermeadow, Is one saved by faith? I would assume so. Faith is your part so we aren’t saved by grace alone. What happens if a person doesn’t repent? Will he still be saved? I hope you answer no to that. Faith, and repentance are needed in order to be saved. What about confession? Can we be saved if we don’t confess Christ? Again I’m hoping you’re going to say no. So then we see we are not saved by grace alone through faith alone. So if these things are needed why is it a stretch to say water baptism “doth also now save us?” (1 Peter 3:20-21). Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6 tells us exactly what baptism is intended to be. So by my understanding is that we are first saved (made alive) then we die to ourselves and buried with Christ afterwards… does that seem to make sense to you? You’re made alive then you die (in the spiritual context)? Or would it make more sense to die to sin first and be buried first then you will be raised with Christ. We are buried, washed, and raised and put ON Christ through baptism. It can’t be a Holy Spirit baptism because why would Annanias tell Paul to arise and be baptized? (Acts 22:16) Why would Philip tell the eunuch that he may be buried in water (Acts 8:36-37)? It’s not the water that saves, it’s the act of obedience (Eph. 2:10).

  • March 20, 2014 at 4:04pm

    Let me ask you Bud, can the people who have the Holy Spirit be bitten by snakes and not die? The Holy Spirit’s abilities were not in little spurts but all believers who had the Holy Spirit would be able to be bitten and do miracles. If a person says, “I can heal the sick but I can’t be bitten,” then they’re lying. A sign of someone who has the abilities of the Holy Spirit will be exactly as the instances in the New Testament. There won’t be any waiting a few days then they’re healed, they will be healed instantly. People will be able to speak a known language without having previously studied (not some garbled gibberish). Just look at all the miracles done in the New Testament and compare them to what you’ve seen. Are they exactly the same as in the Bible or is it just a “feeling” someone has that nobody can really confirm?

  • March 18, 2014 at 2:35pm

    1 Pet. 3:20-21 and Acts 8:36 are the key identifying verses on scriptural baptism for salvation. Acts 19 shows us that a “Holy Spirit Baptism” is not the means of salvation. In fact the Holy Spirit was only poured out twice; on Pentecost in Acts 2 and on the gentiles of Cornelius’ household in Acts 10 in which there was a purpose for it but it was not for salvation… unless you’re saying the Apostles were not saved until this moment even though they had been with Jesus for 3 years. But every other instance of people receiving the Holy Spirit it was only through the laying on of hands and only to impart spiritual gifts, not because of salvation.

    1 Pet. 3:20… in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ

    Acts 19:5-6 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

    So we see in Acts 19 they were baptized first then they received the Holy Spirit through laying onof hands. If they were saved by a mystical unseen Holy Spirit baptism then why would they be baptized by the Spirit just to have the Spirit imparted to them again? It doesn’t make sense.

    Responses (2) +
  • March 4, 2014 at 1:13pm

    It is sad. Unfortunately when that day comes there will be two types of people, the one in front of the gun and the one pulling the trigger. The really sad part is that there will be (are) actual people happy to pull that trigger.

  • February 26, 2014 at 1:48pm

    To those of you defending that a person must give of their services to a gay wedding, would you also be willing to tell a gay baker or photographer that he must give his services to someone who held the view of say, the Westboro Baptist church? You say it works both ways well ok it does. If you’re not prepared to demand and allow the WBC to sue the person who refused service then you aren’t allowed to tell Christians that they have to provide a service that goes against their beliefs. Besides, I can’t seem to get anyone to answer this question, if the FFRF can demand that Bibles be removed from hotels because it is seen as endorsement of Christianity then why are Christians forced to provide their services and it be seen NOT as an endorsement?

  • February 24, 2014 at 3:03pm

    So if placing a Bible in a hotel room is seen as endorsement of Christianity then one will have to conclude that taking photos or catering food to a gay ceremony is also seen as an endorsement. Therefore a person should not be forced to offer their services to something they don’t want to endorse. Sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  • February 24, 2014 at 2:36pm

    Can someone show me what’s wrong with this conundrum?

    The FFRF demanded Bibles be removed from a hotel because it could be seen as an endorsement of Christianity.

    A Photographer or cake baker have to provide their services for a gay ceremony and by doing such aren’t really endorsing it.

    Is it endorsement or not?

  • February 21, 2014 at 1:23pm

    “Why would a university place a religious book in a hotel room unless there was a message of endorsement…”

    Then she nor anyone else should have any problem when a Christian photographer says, “No” to lend their services to a gay ceremony.

  • February 18, 2014 at 12:36pm

    From a Christian standpoint it’s actually a sad ending. I’m glad the victim is ok but for one of the suspect’s souls, we shouldn’t be rejoicing this.

  • February 18, 2014 at 12:09pm

    You say you know the Bible better than any Christian? Ok, Destroyer I’ll take the bait. What is it that you know more than I do?

  • February 11, 2014 at 1:24pm

    If I may add my two cents to this conversation, I keep reading that people have lost their faith because of (insert reason here) and are trying to blame God or Christians for it. Here’s a little insight, God is not the author of confusion… man, however, does twist scripture to fit his needs instead of allowing the Bible to transform his thoughts. We need a “back to the Bible” movement in which nobody tries to interpret what the Bible says but simply lets it speak for itself.

    Another reason I see is that “Why would God allow (insert problem here)?” It’s not that God wants people to hurt nor does He sit around waiting to condemn everyone, He wants all men everywhere to come to Him but the problem is sin. We live in a sinful world and as a result of that have to deal with pain and suffering and even death but the heavenly reward is far better than anything this world can offer. It is not God’s fault that others cause problems, it’s man’s fault. Look at 9-11 could God have stopped the attacks? Yes, but He would have intervened in the terrorist’s free will. However, look at all the good things that happened on that day, people risking their lives for others, the care and love shown by men and women alike, that was the love of God. He was in the same place when His Son was crucified and He was in the same place on 9-11 and He is in the same place today.

    Humans aren’t perfect but don’t lose your faith because of other people.

  • February 7, 2014 at 6:16pm

    What people fail to realize is that when God created all things He had to create them as infants. When He created man, He didn’t create a fetus and then let it grow from there (that would mean woman would have had to be created first etc.) God created a fully grown, fully functional man. Now if we look at the universe in the same manner, we see that God made not only planet earth, but the stars, and galaxies etc. at their mature state. It’s not deception on His part it’s a misunderstanding of His creation. If God would have made a baby universe then life would not have been suitable until much later. If He can create the universe in all it’s glory then why make it as an infant? Why not just make it fully mature and ready for life, which is what He did. He made the stars with their light fully visible on planet earth.

  • February 6, 2014 at 3:18am

    Ripe, you’re assuming God is subject to the same natural laws that we are but let’s assume God needed to be created well then who created Him and who created Him? Eventually you are going to have to come to something or someone who is eternal. Science tells us matter can neither be created or destroyed so if scientists already believe in something eternal why is it a stretch to say there is a God and He is eternal? Secondly, since God is the Creator of time, space, and matter He is not bound to the same natural laws as we are. He is outside of time thus not subject to it thus, eternal.

  • January 29, 2014 at 6:06pm

    TexasKnight, actually if you calculate how long people lived before the flood and how long they had to have children (a few hundred years) you’re looking at a population that could easily be in the Billions not millions.

  • January 27, 2014 at 4:41pm

    I once again state that if you believe our founding fathers had the idea of keeping religious symbols or verses off public lands, buildings, items etc. then please explain to me the Liberty Bell which quotes a Biblical verse. Why are you not asking for it to be removed? Because it’s a historical item? Well so were some of the crosses and monuments that the atheists have sued to remove. You can’t have it both ways. Either our founding fathers were church state separatists or they believed and even used government operations to pray and declare days of thanksgiving to the God of the Bible.

123 To page: Go