You MUST be baptized in JESUS name!

[rusra02]

oh come on, if god didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from that tree than he wouldn't have made it, now would he? So again it goes back to gods fault.

God- "ok so everything here is yours, have fun"
A & E- "everything?"
God- "well everything EXCEPT that One tree... that one RIGHT THERE."
Eve- "what the one with the really yummy looking fruit?"
God- "yeah thats the one, any tree but THAT one. Yup, any other thing is Ok, but that."
Adam- "why can't we touch that one?"
God- "oh, you wouldn't like THAT ONE, it didn't come out quite right. Beside I said so and I'm god so there."
A&E- "oh, ok... I guess"
-a few moments later-
Michael- "so how long do you think it will take them to eat it?"
Raphiel- "I'll bet they go for it as soon as we turn our backs."
Gabriel- "Nah, I say a few years, they have lots to look at first."
God- "hey wanna make a bet on it?"
Uriel- "no way, you always win... remember that last bet? 'hey how long do you think it will take me to create a univerce?' I'm still paying that one off"

wa:do

That fanciful tall tale has nothing to do with reality, as you well know. Adam and Eve could eat of all the trees in the garden except the tree God had forbidden. This prohibition, though simple, would demonstrate that Adam and Eve acknowledged God as their ruler, the One who has the authority to decide what is good and what is bad. Their eating from that tree was nothing short of rebellion against God's sovereignty. The spirit person who induced this rebellion, today offers complete moral independence from the One who created us. It was a lie in the garden of Eden, and it is a lie today. No wonder Jesus called Satan the "father of the lie." (John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:3)

​

.​

 

[rusra02]

If the world was perfect before original sin, how did they eat the apple? If the world was perfect and man was sinless, how did he sin? Seems like an oxymoron to me. Either the world was perfect and they could not eat the apple, or the world has always been imperfect. Not to dismiss original sin, but the concept that it was perfect before original sin is lacking. If WE were already lacking, then creation was alreadylacking.
And on the free will thing... if we could not choose evil, it would not be free. Yes, you can argue semantics, but even if god is omnipotent, he had to choose a way to do things. Maybe in his omnipotence he knew that free will with only good wasn't free will. I am a 27 year old jarhead and I can figure that one out, folks.

Perfect does not mean one cannot sin. The Bible explains that sin comes from wrong desires allowed to grow and flourish. (James 1:14,15) Perfect creatures can decide to do what God forbids. That is what Satan did, making himself a slanderer and opposer of God. A person who formerly was honest can make himself into a thief by acting on a desire for money or valuable things. On the other hand, he can remain honest by rejecting such wrong desires. To be unable to choose good or bad would make one a robot, not perfect. Just as a perfect creature can take a wrong course, because he is a free moral agent, so an imperfect creature can take a righteous course. He does so because he loves God and righteousness.

 

[elmarna]

I am glad you shared that with us.
It is good to be firm in your beliefs.
What I am not sure about is how you feel with those who do not agree with you.
There is a saddness in me when I see the beliefs called upon , but anger upon those who do support that way of thinking.
I hope you can acept the beliefs of others without frustration.
God does not want us to be angry. The love of god can be found within all of us.
Baptisum is a rite that does not mean anything without the love and worship of God.
Babies can be baptised. It does not mean they will be speaking the glories of God.
I see nothing wrong in the act itself.
It is in the opinions that "it saves" I can not support.
I know of a man who was baptised and slaughtered 10 children in a town near here.
Let's just say - if the heart is true to salvation he or she will be saved!

 

[Blackdog22]

Secondly, is free will actually free will if you can't make an evil choice?

I wanted to make 2 points.

First point is, yes free will would exist without the choice of evil. Just as freewill exists now without the possibility to fly, or with us having no control over gravity, or with us being forced to eat food, breathe air, drink water, get vitamins and nutrients. If you want your own kid you HAVE to give birth. Is not having another option for birth equal to us not having freewill?

Considering the above why does the option of evil exist? Where did this idea of evil come from? Would it not be impossible for an all good God to give man an evil choice? Under what reason would God create a tree with the knowledge of evil? Where did that knowledge of evil come from in the fruit? If in the beginning there was God and nothing, then evil came from God plain and simple.

Why would God give us the choice to do evil, but not give us the choice to fly? Is the act of doing evil more important than flying? Is the act of breathing underwater less important than doing evil? Why does God want this act of evil to be present in our lives? Why does he want it to be a choice and how can he even conceive of it(being all good)? It makes no sense at all.

Lastly, if Heaven exists and is free of evil, then do you have no freewill? It seems as if you can imagine a world with freewill and no evil, but insist of playing ignorant to it while on the earth. Of course you could think that Heaven is full of evil, but that would be a very new age approach to the idea of Heaven.

 

[painted wolf]

That fanciful tall tale has nothing to do with reality, as you well know. Adam and Eve could eat of all the trees in the garden except the tree God had forbidden. This prohibition, though simple, would demonstrate that Adam and Eve acknowledged God as their ruler, the One who has the authority to decide what is good and what is bad. Their eating from that tree was nothing short of rebellion against God's sovereignty. The spirit person who induced this rebellion, today offers complete moral independence from the One who created us. It was a lie in the garden of Eden, and it is a lie today. No wonder Jesus called Satan the "father of the lie." (John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:3).

That's like my saying that my toddlers touching things I said no to is "rebellion against my sovereignty" rather than the curious actions of an innocent who doesn't and can't fully understand the concept of action and consequence.

How do you expect Adam and Eve to understand action and consequence in a world without evil or sin?

What kind of responsible adult puts a marshmallow in front of a child, tells them not to touch it and when they do beats the kid up for it... for the rest of their lives... and then blames the child for getting what they deserved.

wa:do

 

[Evandr]

When one does something in someone's name with proper authority then they have been called and sent by those to whom they carry such authority from. Baptism is ineffectual and the ordinance is not bound in Heaven if the person has not been called by proper authority and given such authority to act in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (those being the names declared).

Simply raising your arm to the square and saying the words and making the motions is not enough. To declare to do something in the name of someone else supposes that you have the right to act in that person's name, in other words, the effect is as if they were there themselves.


The idea that declaring such somehow defines the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one single individual in Jesus Christ is errounious and without logical foundation. When Christ commanded that those to whom he was speaking should go and be baptized there were those authorized to perform the ordinance just as there are today but no one has the right to expect that they can take this authority unto themselves, they must be called of God and set apart for that purpose by those who have been called for that purpose. In other words, a person's right to baptize must have a liniage of authority from person to person in an unbroken line of authority all the way back to Jesus Christ himself who got his rights directly from the Father. Any supposed authority that cannot truthfully claim such liniage is usless and void of effect.

 

[Desert Snake]

In regards to the OP, no, baptism isn't necessary. It was being utilized to represent a conversion from one religion to another. People who are already Christians do not need to undergo this public, symbolic gesture.

 

[Evandr]

In regards to the OP, no, baptism isn't necessary. It was being utilized to represent a conversion from one religion to another. People who are already Christians do not need to undergo this public, symbolic gesture.

Oh, yeah, right; would you mind telling me what religion Christ was converting from when He himeslf insisted that John baptize him? And while you're at it please explain what Christ meant when he said that it was necessary for him to be baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness"