Sentences with phrase «about the baptism of»

a sensible reply about baptism of the dead.

Paul is not talking about the baptism of the dead.

This was his message about the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

When they read about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, they didn't think about speaking in tongues or getting slain the Spirit.

what I don; t understand about the baptism of the dead is if it's main purpose is to make dead unsaved souls enter heaven then why even the need for Satan or Hell?

Not exact matches

Some added words about original sin and baptism from the white - board notes of a Catholic university theology professor:

2) You can learn more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saint belief in baptism for the dead here: http://www.lds.org/study/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng&query=baptism+dead and here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/08/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=baptism+dead.

All of the posts so far show an extreme lack of understanding of Mormonism and it's doctrines about baptisms for the dead.

«Whatever you do for the least of these...» Jesus» whole ministry between baptism and the cross (something I've mentioned before that you seem to ignore) is mostly about caring for people and is focused on compassion.

How about the very fact that they perform proxy baptisms of the dead?!

John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was the Jewish baptism of repentance which I wrote a few posts about, and which has nothing to do with receiving eternal life, and everything to do with the repentance of Israel as a nation so that she can be restored to her rightful place among the nations as God promised in Scripture.

Yet for the next several years, through my baptism, my church wedding (yes, to the Christian who gives gifts of underwear), through my continued efforts to write poetry, and even during my first bout of seminary education, I went about my life tense with the secret that I did not know how to pray as I ought.

Really, what I'm saying is that I have no systematic theological step - by - step delineation about baptism but I know I love the very mystery of it, the resurrection of it, the belonging of it, and yes, wait for it, the power of it.

Even in Matthew and Luke, which begin with stories about his birth and identity, his baptism is the inception of the main narrative.

Of course, when we realize that baptism is NOT required for eternal life, then this entire debate fades away into meaninglessness, but we already talked about this...

So let us all stop arguing about the method, mode, and magic words of baptism, and instead start living for Jesus and loving others like Jesus... just as He commanded us in Matthew 28:19 - 20.

Growing up Church of Christ and «water» baptism for salvation I was completely broadsided one day after reading about our sin problem (Romans 3:9 - 20) about God's solution ``... This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe..»

Catholicism today must leave the shallow and brackish waters of institutional maintenance, understanding that the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 is addressed to each of us in baptism, and living the universal call to holiness in such a way that the world meets Christ in us — and thus meets the truth about itself.

And not just Jesus: A whole gospel in all of its theological details — right down to debates about baptism, the relationship of law to grace, and the problem of divine foreknowledge — is taught to the people of the New World centuries before Jesus was even born.

According to the Code of Canon Law, it seems he should not: «there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.»

One of the things I love about Christianity is the physicality of sacraments like communion and baptism, the way we can taste, smell, hear, see, and feel the presence of God through these beautiful acts of remembrance and faith.

While Peter does teach that baptism saves us, a careful study of the context reveals that Peter is not talking about gaining eternal life and going to heaven when we die.

There has always been confusion about baptism because people choose to continue to obey the laws of Moses.

Second, while some think that Peter is referring to believer's baptism because of the mention of water in 3:20, Peter clarifies in 3:21 that he is not talking about the outward washing of the flesh with water but the inner purification of a good conscience toward God, which is accomplished only through the Spirit.

I can't quite figure out what has people upset about this??? If you don't believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true, then I am guessing you probably don't believe that the ordinance of proxy baptism that has been done by member of that church actually means anything.

On the other hand, Mormons complain about Christians saying Mormons are not Christian, and many of the same people who wring their hands over proxy baptism call for Christians to accept Mormons as their own.

The worst thing that can be said about proxy baptisms (by a non-believer) is that it is an act of misguided charity.

There was always lots of talk about infant baptism and how, like circumcision, it was a badge or sign of one's membership in the holy community, the people of God.

As one who is concerned about the renewal of the liturgy, I have been continually impressed that we do everything possible to avoid baptism.

(Or, in the case of my A.G. friends, when we start talking about the Baptism in the Holy Spirit... which we believe occurs at conversion and they believe occurs later.)

Despite all the questions I've had about my faith background, I've not once second - guessed the legitimacy of «believer's baptism.»

No matter what activity was actually going on in the Corinthian church regarding «the dead», why is the discussion / controversy about baptism and not the «true» means of salvation according to Baptists and evangelicals: an internal belief in Christ; an internal «decision» for Christ?

In polite company, and for the sake of keeping peace with each other (because mutual apostasies take so much effort), we can do with marriage what we do with our disagreements about eucharist and baptism: keep our mouths shut and let God sort it out in the end.

Is it possible that the reason that the Corinthians were so concerned about baptism is that they had been taught by the Apostle Paul and other Christian evangelists that salvation and the promise of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life are received in Baptism, just as orthodox Christians, including Lutherans, have been teaching for almost 2,000 baptism is that they had been taught by the Apostle Paul and other Christian evangelists that salvation and the promise of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life are received in Baptism, just as orthodox Christians, including Lutherans, have been teaching for almost 2,000 Baptism, just as orthodox Christians, including Lutherans, have been teaching for almost 2,000 years??

We have no more knowledge about the so - called rebirth, the new birth out of Water and Spirit which is the sacramental baptism (please consider that also Protestants believe in sacraments; I am a Lutheran).

Into the brief period of which we have a record are compressed his baptism by John the Baptist — a prophet of the Old Testament stamp — his time of solitary meditation and temptation in the wilderness, the calling of his twelve most intimate disciples, his going about with them healing and teaching in Galilee and its environs, the journey to Jerusalem and his triumphal entry, the stormy events of passion week, his crucifixion, and resurrection.

Then, in the reading from Acts, Peter tells Cornelius about «the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; and God was with him.»

The first part of the book is about transforming the practice of baptism and the Lord's supper to something that more accurately reflects the symbolism and significance of these events when they were first done by Jesus.

They know about the anti-Jewish polemics of certain church fathers; about the forced baptisms, especially of children; about the church council decree that sanctioned the removal of such children from their parents; about a papal edict encouraging raids on Jewish synagogues by the faithful; about the expulsion of all Jews from a country like Spain; about Luther's hate language directed against Jews when they did not convert according to his timetable; about the prohibition against Jews living in Calvin's Geneva; and about all the cruelties Christians have felt justified in perpetrating against the people they called «Christ - killers.»

We have known each other for about two years, and though we agree on many basic doctrines of Christianity, we don't agree on everything, and we definitely do not see eye to eye on some central Christian practices like baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church attendance.

«First of all, let me say a word about why the average adult seeks baptism.

Baker reports about the response to one of his six - day preaching tour: «The men of four villages wished at once to cut off their top - knots, and asked for baptism forthwith... I said that faith and patience were the life of Christ's people, and that a profession of this nature could not be put on and off like clothing: they had better wait;... But they said, «You must destroy our devil - places, and teach us to pray to our Father, as you call Him, in Heaven, or some beginning must be made.»

The period between a Pulaya candidate's acceptance of Anglican instruction and actual baptism, which usually extended to about two years, was considered a time of «probation» during which the candidate had to sufficiently demonstrate «strictly consistent Christian conduct» revealing a proper understanding of Christian fundamentals.

The opinion of the Free Churches about baptism is totally wrong.

For example, the idea of a heavenly contract gained cogency among Puritan clerics at least in part because it was used to support specific arguments against radical heretics» ideas about adult baptism and free will.

Although the YMCY preached the gospel of Jesus rightly to me, they did not tell me anything about the connection between faith and baptism.

You know the thing that happened throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee, after the Baptism that John proclaimed: Jesus of Nazareth — how God anointed him with holy Spirit and power: who went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him; and we ourselves are witnesses of all that he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

In any case, we know nothing about him until he left home to join the apocalyptic movement of John by undergoing John's initiation rite, baptism in the Jordan.

In the Christian Institute for the Study - of Religion and Society there was an open discussion about a proposal that since Christ transcended not only cultures but also religions and ideologies, the fellowship of confessors of faith in Jesus as the Messiah should not separate from their original religious or secular ideological community but should form fellowships of Christian faith in those communities themselves, and that so long as the Law sees baptism as transference from one community to another it should not be made the condition of entry into the fellowship of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper but made a sacramental privilege for a later time (Ref.

Here, as at the baptism, and at Peter's confession, something is seen, and something is withheld, about the meaning of Christ.