[JoeT777]

We are discussing the scriptural doctrine of baptism, not the denomination membership requirements, which may vary for a number of different denominations.

Nobody made you monditor! Zhazha will discuss what he wants, besides you’re being rude to a newcomer.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Nobody made you monditor! Zhazha will discuss what he wants, besides you're being rude to a newcomer.

JoeT

Joe,

Yes, he can discuss what he wishes, but politely telling someone that we are discussing the scriptural basis for baptism and not denominational membership entrance requirements is not being rude. Your comments, however, are not just rude but disruptive.

If you are done with your disruptive comments, can we get back to the topic?

[Akoue]

Summing up.
One camp says that one must be baptized to BECOME saved.
The other camp says there is no point to being Baptized unless you ALREADY are saved.

If baptism is necessary before salvation, this implies that the finished work of Jesus is not complete and "God needs some helping out" because He is going to withold his mercy, grace, and love until we "perform."

If Baptism is not necessary for salvation, this implies that people can recieve God's love, grace and mercy without "perfoming" as did the thief on the cross, and Zaccheaus, and the household of Cornelius, and David, and Moses, and Abraham, and John the Baptist, and so on.

I appreciate your effort to summarize the difference between the two camps. Clarity is at a premium in discussions such as these.

It is with this in mind that I would like to offer some further clarification of what is, I think, an even more fundamental disagreement--one which goes a long way toward explaining the difference which you very helpfully articulate in your post.

One camp thinks of salvation as an event. According to this view, one was saved at a moment in time to which one may even be able to point. So, for instance, I might claim to have been saved at 3:14pm on November 11, 1974. From that point on, I have been saved--my salvation was completed on that date.

Another camp thinks of salvation as a process. According to this view, one's salvation is not a single event but a process of sanctification which begins at a certain point in time and continues until God's judgment has been rendered and one enters into eternity.

Proponents of the first view will often point to those places in the NT where salvation is spoken of in the past tense (I was saved, I have been saved). Proponents of the second view will typically point out that salvation is spoken of in the past, present, and future tenses (I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved). If salvation is a process begun by the Incarnation and continued in each of us every day, then, of course, it makes sense that salvation would be spoken of in past, present, and future tenses: Christ has saved me, his grace is active in me even now, and I will be perfected by God when I am brought into his presence in Heaven at which point the process of my salvation will be completed.

If one thinks of the work of salvation as having been completed on Golgotha, or at the tomb, then it won’t make a whole lot of sense to think of salvation as a process. It then also becomes problematic that Scripture speaks of salvation in the present and future tenses as well as in the past tense. And if all the work of salvation was done by Christ, so that nothing is required of us (nothing must be added to what Christ accomplished with his death and resurrection), then it is difficult to see how one is to avoid the doctrine of universal salvation. I see that you’ve written on another thread that to suppose that works are required along with faith for salvation is to take the view that we must add something to Christ’s work and sacrifice, that it threatens to undermine the sufficiency of that sacrifice. But, then, to suppose that faith is required for salvation would also be susceptible to the same charge: If I must have faith in order to be saved, then Christ’s salvific work on the cross and in the tomb wasn’t entirely sufficient since I must add something to that work, namely my own faith.

Here’s the point: Many Christians think of salvation as a process begun by Christ during his earthly Incarnation and continued throughout history in the hearts and lives of his people. When Scripture says that we have already been saved, this means that the process of salvation has begun, we are already in the process of being sanctified, that a fundamental transformation of the “inner man” is already underway so that I am not now what I was before. When Scripture says that we are being saved, this means that the process of salvation and sanctification which has begun continues even now to transform me. When Scripture says that we will be saved, it means that this process will continue and be completed when I am perfected in the next life. We are active participants in this process: God works in us through the unmerited gift of his grace, but we respond to this gift by the active reception of it through faith and works. This is what it means to have a living faith and this is why the Epistle of James says that a faith without works is not a living faith.

Baptism is at once a response to God’s call to conversion as well as a sanctifying act which is salvific because it is sanctifying. Baptism in water is baptism in the Spirit; the two are one in the act itself. Baptism is a sacrament, and a sacrament is an act in which the sign (in this case, water) and the thing signified (the action of the Holy Spirit) are one. It is correct to call this symbolic, so long as one understands the word "symbolic", in Greek "sumbolon", the way it was understood by the early Christians: "sumbolon" derives from the words "sun" and "ballein", literally to fall together. The sign (water) and the signified (the action of the Holy Spirit) are one in the act of baptism. There is not one baptism by the Spirit and then another baptism by means of water. There is just the one act which is at once baptism in water and in the Spirit.

[Akoue]

Joe,

Yes, he can discuss what he wishes, but politely telling someone that we are discussing the scriptural basis for baptism and not denominational membership entrance requirements is not being rude. Your comments, however, are not just rude but disruptive.

If you are done with your disruptive comments, can we get back to the topic?

Being Scriptural and being Christian are not the same thing. As has been explained to you here https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...rd-338216.html, sola scriptura is itself an unscriptural doctrine. It is therefore perfectly appropriate for any poster to this forum to discuss matters which are not overtly contained in the pages of Scripture since God's revelation extends beyond the written texts of the Bible.

Anyone who wishes to disregard such posts is, of course, well within his or her rights to do so. But it is inappropriate for you to attempt to exclude from the conversation any considerations that do not conform to your dearly held, if wholly unscriptural, doctrine of sola scriptura.

Just as a Lutheran should feel more than free to offer for discussion or consideration those views of Luther's which she finds to be relevant to the topic, so too a Catholic should feel perfectly welcome contributing the teachings of her Church. This is a Christianity forum, not a sola scriptura forum.

[Tj3]

Baptism is at once a response to God’s call to conversion as well as a sanctifying act which is salvific because it is sanctifying.

We are in agreement with the first half of that sentence, As for the second half, where in scripture do you find that baptism is sanctifying?

BTW, I agree in part regarding your comment about salvation being an event or process, but I think that you over-simplified it, but to get into it in detailed would derail this discussion However, let me just say that it is an event in that when we receive Christ as Saviour, we are saved - scripture is quite clear about that. The santification comes afterward which is why sanctification cannot be salvific.

Baptism in water is baptism in the Spirit; the two are one in the act itself.

This is not scriptural. For example, we have Acts 10:47 where they are clearly two different things.

[Tj3]

Being Scriptural and being Christian are not the same thing. As has been explained to you here https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...rd-338216.html, sola scriptura is itself an unscriptural doctrine.

As has been shown to you, sola scriptura is scriptural, though it may be contrary to the teachings of your denomination. Being scriptural and Christian, and being in concert with denominational teachings (whether it be your denomination or some other) are not the same thing.

It is therefore perfectly appropriate for any poster to this forum to discuss matters which are not overtly contained in the pages of Scripture

Yes, and no one said otherwise. Perhaps rather than trying to further disrupt this thread, if you had read what was said, you might realize that.

By the way, no one made you monitor either.

Now, are you planning further disruptions, or can we try once again to get back on topic? Hijacking threads is NOT appropriate.

[Akoue]

We are in agreement with the first half of that sentence, As for the second half, where in scripture do you find that baptism is sanctifying?

BTW, I agree in part regarding your comment about salvation being an event or process, but I think that you over-simplified it, but to get into it in detailed would derail this discussion However, let me just say that it is an event in that when we receive Christ as Saviour, we are saved - scripture is quite clear about that. The santification comes afterward which is why sanctification cannot be salvific.

There is no reason to suppose that sanctification cannot be salvific. Can you be saved without being sanctified? Can you be sanctified without being saved? The answer is, of course, no both times. The process of sanctification begins when the process of salvation begins. There isn't a lag-time between the onset of the two processes: They are one and the same process. Here you are too much in the grip of the picture of salvation which sees it as a narrowly circumscribed event.

This is not scriptural. For example, we have Acts 10:47 where they are clearly two different things.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit and was then sent to be baptized in water. Not all actions of the Holy Spirit are baptismal. This in no way conflicts with the claim that baptism in water is baptism in the Spirit.

[Tj3]

There is no reason to suppose that sanctification cannot be salvific. Can you be saved without being sanctified?

You are basing your argument on assumed silence. And yet we find many references to people who have been saved while subsequently being sanctified, in scripture.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that Cornelius was baptized by the Holy Spirit and was then sent to be baptized in water. Not all actions of the Holy Spirit are baptismal. This in no way conflicts with the claim that baptism in water is baptism in the Spirit.

Did you notice that Peter said that he had received the Holy Spirit just as they had - so are you saying that Peter did not yet have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

[sndbay]

What is essential to salvation? My answer would be One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism because it is the truth of what God's word tells us.
The Law of Faith..

We agree. But that comes back to my question. Which baptism - of the Holy Spirit or of water?

Are you saying that in Acts 10:47 that those men who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit were unsaved until they had been water baptized?

Let's go back to what SAVES us today? = Law of Faith.. = One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

When we turn to Christ in Faith the vail is taken away. Did the Gentiles have the vail with a priesthood, as we do NOW in Christ? No they were called by God and He purifying their hearts by faith.
No one before the vail was taken away had the dwelling of the Christ within. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. Now we have the image of righteousness, the same glory in HIS glory. Now we can be One with Christ.

Col 1:19-20 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

No I have not said that.. What I have said, is that what is written, (Revelation 1:5-6)And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

No mention of water washing our sins. Only the blood. As you will find throughout scripture. that was my point.

You must look further as it reads first begotten of the dead. What took place when Christ became the first begotten of the dead. We today are buried in HIS death when baptized, able to raise as He was raised.

Scripture says Christ with John both, as us fulfilled righteousness

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him

Right. So was Jesus doing so to be obedient to the father?
Or did He do it to wash His sins?

As scripture said the Spirit of God descending like a dove (Matthew 3:16)

Would Christ come to fulfill HIS Father's will? YES

1 Corthinians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Scripture say Christ, when He was baptized, withness by John to have had the HOLY SPIRT come upon HIM

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Right - so?

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

Scripture also say Christ was both born of water and blood.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Exactly.

1 John 5:6
6 This is He who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
NKJV

There are some who deny that Jesus came in the flesh, but this confirms that Jesus was not just born (water) but also was a man with flesh and blood. And this was necessary because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Heb 9:22). So this makes the point that Jesus was not just born of a woman (water), but denies the gnostics contention that he came only as spirit.

Scripture is not saying water as in the womb of HIS mother. But it does mean as blood as flesh, which would be shed for us. The water is of the spirit as in baptism.

The same as Christ Himself was born of water and blood...

Christ became that blood for us if we walk in HIS image of rightoeunsness, and baptized in HIM (reborn to newness of Life)

Christ became blood for us? Where do you find that in scripture? Are you thinking of this verse?

2 Cor 5:21
21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
NKJV
.

Yes, Christ's blood was shed for us, the flesh blood for our flesh in sin. So that we too could follow HIM unto righteousness.

One must be baptized unto death, and buried in Christ for that newness of Life. Able to raise as He was raised. Not to forget the fire of HIS hand.

1 Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

1 Cr 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

1 Cr 15:36 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

[Tj3]

Let's go back to what SAVES us today? = Law of Faith.. = One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism

Please answer my question - does this refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit or water baptism?

Second, why do you say "what saves us today"? Are you suggesting that there was another path to salvation other than the blood of Jesus shed on the cross?

You must look further as it reads first begotten of the dead. What took place when Christ became the first begotten of the dead. We today are buried in HIS death when baptized, able to raise as He was raised.

Actually, scripture says that we are buried in the likeness...

Rom 6:5
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,
NKJV

That means symbolically we have died with Him and been raised with Him. Symbolism does not save - it is Christ's blood, according to scripture, which takes away our sins.

As scripture said the Spirit of God descending like a dove [/B] (Matthew 3:16)

Would Christ come to fulfill HIS Father's will? YES

1 Corthinians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Okay - so?

Scripture is not saying water as in the womb of HIS mother. But it does mean as blood as flesh, which would be shed for us. The water is of the spirit as in baptism.

that is your claim, but there is absolutely nothing in that context about baptism, and absolutely everything about the first birth in the flesh and the second in the spirit.

You can claim that it is meaning something completely different than what it says if you wish, but that is taking it completely out of context, and forcing it to bend to your theology.

Yes, Christ's blood was shed for us, the flesh blood for our flesh in sin. So that we too could follow HIM unto righteousness.

Agreed.

1 Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Let's read it in context:

Col 2:11-15
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
NKJV

It goes back to the cross, not water baptism.

1 Cr 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

Interesting one. I never saw anyone try to use this to support belief in baptismal regeneration before, other than Mormons. Note that this is not an endorsement of baptism for the dead - it is simply acknowledging that some people do engage in the practice. Of course if you are trying to argue that this is the basis for a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, then perhaps we ought to have a second thread on whather you belief that those who have already died can be saved after death through substitutionary baptism of the living for the dead. I truly hope that you do not believe in that.

[JoeT777]

The sanctification comes afterward which is why sanctification cannot be salvific.

Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural gift of God that comes with baptism. As mentioned it is not an actual gift in the since that it is one event. This grace remains throughout life – this is why Catholics baptize at birth. The goal of sanctifying grace is heavenly bliss, knowledge of God. It is conferred in the form of Forgiveness, Justification, and Redemption


St. Thomas suggests that forgiveness is a virtue, "that a gloss on Psalm 50:19, "A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit," says: "A hearty contrition is the sacrifice by which sins are loosed." We gain knowledge of truth and salvation through God’s forgiveness. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9). Doctrinal norms require the pronouncement of absolution by the priest from which the penitent receives a pardon of sins with an infusion of grace wherein gratuitous virtues moving one towards works in charity. (Cf. Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 3, 84 and 89). In my opinion, this is unlike the Protestant ‘forgiveness’ received through prayer in that a Catholic receives a literal remittance of the sin and its negative spiritual effects; of course temporal effects of sin remain.


Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life: CCC 1992. The infused grace received by the penitent is justification. Justification takes several forms, all of which are received by the penitent. The degree to which the grace is effectual depends on the cooperation of the penitent. Justification is the work of God; however, an actual grace of justification is one that furthers holiness through beneficial works in charity.


It seems that there must be a cooperation, or synergism, of the will between these graces and the works; allegorically, taking possession of merited Holy gifts leading to redemption. Redemption is a grace of restitution for sin; ransoming the penitent from the demands of Divine justice for satisfactions due to sin which of course are paid for through the merits of Christ’s sufferings. It’s here that I see the habit of justification becoming most efficacious, leading to sanctification. To receive the gift of sanctification is to receive the knowledge of “immortality and inhabiteth light inaccessible: whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and empire everlasting. Amen. … To do good, to be rich in good work, to give easily, to communicate to others, To lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life. (1 Timothy 6:16 seq.)


There is a synergism between God and man when these graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV]. Conversely, the Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, (or is only saved one time), the certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Thus, Luther rejects that there is free will. Similarly Calvin’s view of a fiduciary faith denies that man can be holy, having only a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works actually removes sin.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural gift of God that comes with baptism. As mentioned it is not an actual gift in the since that it is one event. This grace remains throughout life – this is why Catholics baptize at birth. The goal of sanctifying grace is heavenly bliss, knowledge of God. It is conferred in the form of Forgiveness, Justification, and Redemption

I understand that to be your denominational teaching, but that is not what we find in scripture. If you wish to argue what your denomination teaches, you are on a different topic.

I notice that your validation for your position is entirely denominational, so there is no need for any further response.

[sndbay]

Please answer my question - does this refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit or water baptism?

Clearly both, up straightway out of the water: and the heavens opens, and the Spirit of God descends like a dove, and lighting upon.

If any man will come after ME, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow ME.

Further reference would be thread --> Can you lose your salvation # 362 #368

[Tj3]

Clearly both, up straightway out of the water: and the heavens opens, and the Spirit of God descends like a dove, and lighting upon.

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

2) Jesus IS God and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

[jenniepepsi]

This brings up two questions.

1) Scripture says ONE baptism not two, so it cannot be both.

2) Jesus IS God and therefore did not need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor did the indwelling of the Holy spirit begin until after Jesus' death and resurrection. Therefore the Holy Spirit coming as a dove does not and cannot represent the same thing.

Jesus is NOT god. It never once says in the bible that jesus is god. He specifically says 'in the name of MY FATHER' he doesn't pray to himself does he? He asked GOD to forgive them when they sacrificed him. He didn't ask himself to forgive them.


But I do understand why you would think jesus is god :)

[Tj3]

Jesus is NOT god. it never once says in the bible that jesus is god. he specifically says 'in the name of MY FATHER' he doesnt pray to himself does he? he asked GOD to forgive them when they sacrificed him. he didnt ask himself to forgive them.

but i do understand why you would think jesus is god :)

John 8:24-25
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
NKJV

Please note that in the original Greek, the word "he" is not there, nmeaning that this literally says:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins."

The term used in Greek is an emphatic declaration that Jesus is "I AM", the same identification that God gave for Himself in the OT.

Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
NKJV

Jesus used the Septuagint, which was a contemporary Greek translation of the Bible, and it calls God in Exodus by the same term that Jesus uses for Himself. That would explain why, when Jesus called Himself by that same term in John 8:58:

John 8:57-59
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
NKJV

The Jews took up stones to kill Him because they knew and understood that He was calling Himself God.

We have many other places in scripture where Jesus is called God, for example:

John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV

Heb 1:8
8 But to the Son He says:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
NKJV

An exhaustive study of the declaration of the divinity of Jesus throughout scripture would be a major work in and of itself, and that is not the topic of this thread. But if you would like to discuss this further, please start another thread with that comment or question and we can get into what scripture says in more detail.

[JoeT777]

I understand that to be your denominational teaching, but that is not what we find in scripture. If you wish to argue what your denomination teaches, you are on a different topic.

I notice that your validation for your position is entirely denominational, so there is no need for any further response.

The Church receives God’s revealed truth from Tradition handed down from the Apostles, from a special written form of Catholic Tradition called Scripture and from communion with the Holy Spirit. This truth cannont be denied at judgement.

[classyT]

John 8:24-25
24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
NKJV

Please note that in the original Greek, the word "he" is not there, nmeaning that this literally says:

"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins."

The term used in Greek is an emphatic declaration that Jesus is "I AM", the same identification that God gave for Himself in the OT.

Ex 3:14
14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
NKJV

Jesus used the Septuagint, which was a contemporary Greek translation of the Bible, and it calls God in Exodus by the exact same term that Jesus uses for Himself. That would explain why, when Jesus called Himself by that same term in John 8:58:

John 8:57-59
58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
NKJV

The Jews took up stones to kill Him because they knew and understood that He was calling Himself God.

We have many other places in scripture where Jesus is called God, for example:

John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV

Heb 1:8
8 But to the Son He says:
"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
NKJV

An exhaustive study of the declaration of the divinity of Jesus throughout scripture would be a major work in and of itself, and that is not the topic of this thread. But if you would like to discuss this further, please start another thread with that comment or question and we can get into what scripture says in more detail.

Tom,

YES! He IS GOD! And how right you are.. the Jews back then had NO problem understanding EXACTLY what he meant and they hated him for it too!

[Tj3]

The Church receives God’s revealed truth from Tradition handed down from the Apostles, from a special written form of Catholic Tradition called Scripture and from communion with the Holy Spirit. This truth cannont be denied at judgement.

That is your claim. But your denomination started well after all the Apostles had died.
The one true church is not a denomination, nor does God require any denominations teachings or traditions. He gave us His word in writing.

You are, of course, welcome to abide by the teachings of your denomination,but you have no right to demand that others submit themselves to your denomination. I'll stick with the written word of God, as He commanded.

[arcura]

The,
Wrong!!
The Church started with the Apostles just as the bible says.
Believe as you wish but your wishes will not change historical fact.
Fred