Wile E. Coyote

Okay, I thought you may have had a probelm with this post:

The children of God are born spiritually, not resurrected spiritually.
Weird dichotomy!

Before a child is born physically, they are not dead, as they have not yet had a life in this world.
Natural birth includes conception. Likewise spiritual birth includes conception. John said that those who are born of God have God's "sperma" abiding in them.

Your post is double talk to say the least.

He is not a child holding a piece of ****. He IS a piece of ****!

ICRz9Q0bJNEI thought of you Wile

Sorry, I can't find a justifiable reason to neg rep you, Wile.
Maybe you could find one that shows you stick up for some one when really you shouldn't since you gave me one for hitting TH back for him hitting me for me sticking up for Chrys?

Paul said that we became sons BY FAITH whereas we were children prior to that. Galatians 4:1-7.

4 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

7 Therefore you are no longer a slave (child) but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Paul equates being a child to being a slave.

child= slave
son = mature man (full heir)

Stop with your scripture pretexting Jan!

We have no original autographs. Without them you have no case. So it is solely about what kind of baptism. Baptism in the classical sense would be in the Tri-une name. Water baptism was in the name of Jesus.

I am looking forward to your reply.

It looks like we're on the same page. I just posted on the sabbath thread.

What are you talking about?

Apple,

Lazy afternoon neg rep'd my reply #215 at http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3083076#post3083076

I am not interested in the subject. I was just acknowledging your question with a general answer stating my view.

Greetings friend! I have not been following the thread. But I strongly lean toward the view that Christ's death was a payment and not a punishment.

I think you are doing just fine. It was YOU who brought down Guildenstern on the nominative/vocative in Jesus' cry from the cross.

I was just letting you know that I interjected in your discourse with P. It's not about grammar and seminary as much as it is about context.

I have generally answered the points in your op elsewhere for the sake of others knowing that you have me on ignore. So you may not have seen my replies. Jesus told them to keep His commandments to the end of the AGE, that is, the end of the Jewish dispensation. By the time Hebrews was written they were near the end of the Mosaic age and the author rebuked the Hebrew Christians for staying with 'milk' and then commaned them to LEAVE the elementary principles of Christ and to move on toward perfection. He warned them that if they continued with the elementary teachings of Christ that they would be guilty of "crucifying the Son of God again and putting Him to an open shame."

Many of Christ's commandements do NOT apply today. Only Paul's gospel is for the new covenant Christian.