|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 19, 2007 0:49:53 GMT -4
That is correct. Yet doing the word does not confer salvation. It is a result of possessing salvation by grace. Do you agree? Yes. Doing the word does not in itself confer salvation, but you must do the word or you will not receive Christ's grace. We're going around in circles here. Works, or "doing the word" does not confer grace. Grace is unmerited favor. Those who work to merit grace will never receive it. This is what the NT keeps hammering home. Do you agree?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 19, 2007 11:06:55 GMT -4
We're going around in circles here. Not surprising, really. This is a subject Christians have been struggling with for about 2,000 years. Essentially correct. No. The NT also makes a point that God will judge each man according to his works, that those who turn their five talents into five more talents will be rewarded above those who bury their talent, that we should be doers of the word and not hearers only, that the widow who casts a mite into the temple treasury has done greater work than those of substance who cast in a trifle of that substance, that those who fill their lamps will be ready when the bride groom appears while those who do not will not be allowed to enter, that man is justified by works and not faith alone, that we should love and care for our neighbor as ourselves, and many other commandments about doing good works. Your position is essentially that all these passages are unnecessary distractions. Let's try a different tactic, DH. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 20, 2007 1:00:17 GMT -4
Jason
You are mischaracterizing the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as a struggle for Christians. We don’t struggle with it. We rejoice in it. It’s the unsaved who struggle with it.
There you go again. I don’t say that works are unimportant. They are very important, they just have nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin (salvation). Works are important in our witness, in making a difference in the lives of other people, in proving that our salvation is genuine, to ourselves and others. Jesus will reward us for our works. But let me say again, He will only reward the works of believers and only insofar as they are not dead works, i.e. done with wrong motives, such as trying to justify ourselves in God’s sight.
Context is everything. You can’t just grab verses here and there and create doctrine out of them. The whole teaching of the NT, taken together, is that salvation is by faith and not works.
Remember that Ishmael, the product of human effort, did not inherit the promises.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
No, baptism is not necessary for salvation.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2007 11:06:46 GMT -4
Jason You are mischaracterizing the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as a struggle for Christians. We don’t struggle with it. We rejoice in it. It’s the unsaved who struggle with it. You misunderstand me. The various branches of Christianity have been struggling with how important faith and works are since before the deaths of the original apostles. The older churchs - the Roman and Orthodox - tend to view works as equally important with faith. The Protestant faiths tend to emphasize faith over works. It is not a settled issue and never has been. I agree absolutely that context is very important in understanding scripture, but I disagree that the NT as a whole teaches you can be saved without good works. What then is the meaning of this passage: John 3:5 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." What is meant by being born of water?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 21, 2007 0:22:05 GMT -4
I probably should have made this clear a little earlier, but when I refer to the "church" I am always speaking of the elect, the body of Christ, the born again, the bride of Christ--never a denomination. If I refer to a specific denomination I will call it by its name. That way we can speed along. Therefore, I stand by what I said. The church has never had a problem with salvation by faith alone.
So back it up with scripture--in context. Please don't restate your previously posted verses because they have already been dealt with and found lacking.
Jesus wasn't talking about baptism in this verse. I believe He was referring to this prophecy, which Nicodemus, as a teacher of the law, would understand perfectly (it exactly describes what happens when we are born again):
Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].
Remember that Jesus never baptised anyone by dunking them or pouring water over their heads.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 1:13:10 GMT -4
You have in no way dealt with all the scriptures I quoted. You merely hand waved and posted your own. But let's focus on the current issue - baptism.
So Jesus is referring to Ezekial. Hmm. Since Jesus says "you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless you are born of water" how does the Ezekial prophecy apply exactly? How is Nicodemus going to fulfill it to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven? And it seems to be saying we have water sprinkled on us which make us clean. Isn't that how most Christian sects baptize?
Actually it seems Jesus did baptize at some times and not at others. John 3:22 says "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." In John 4 it says that Jesus didn't baptize new converts himself, but that his disciples did.
Why was Jesus himself baptized? Matthew quotes him as saying "suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." How does Jesus having been baptized fulfill all righteousness? Why does Jesus command his apostles to baptize all nations in Matthew 28:19? In Mark this is reported as "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." So apparently you need both belief and baptism to be saved, but just lacking belief will be enough to damn you.
In Acts Peter seems to make baptism a requirement for receiving the Holy Ghost, and to think that it allows a remission of sins. "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter also says that "baptism doth now save us" in his first epistle.
When Phillip converts the eunuch, the first thing he wants to do is be baptized.
Paul was also baptized right after his conversion. Ananaias said "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." So baptism is again linked to washing away sins, and a distinct act from calling on the name of the Lord. And Paul later says "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Sounds rather like a requirement there too. Paul also seems to think baptism is how members enter the church in Corinthians. He speaks of the members as having all been baptized by various leaders. In Hebrews Paul talks about laying aside dead works and then immediately follows it up with baptism being a doctrine of the church. Does this mean baptism is not a "dead work"?
Do you have any answers for these questions?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 21, 2007 1:44:03 GMT -4
You have in no way dealt with all the scriptures I quoted. You merely hand waved and posted your own. But let's focus on the current issue - baptism. Not true. Nearly all the verses you posted were from messages to the church about doing good works. These people were already saved and the context made it clear that works weren't being discussed in relation to salvation. Since this is the central message of the gospel--that man can do nothing to pay for his own sin--it's very important that we stick with it until you are able to see what the scriptures are actually saying as opposed to what you've been taught that they're saying. With regard to all those questions on baptism, I think I can sum it up for you. Here is the Ezekiel prophecy again: Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them]. This is the OT promise of a new covenant, something we once discussed. The sprinkling of clean water is a figure of speech. We all know that washing doesn't remove sin. This sprinkling of clean water in v. 25 is spiritual regeneration. It is an act of God. God is saying He will forgive men's sins, give them a new heart, put His spirit into them, and that this will enable men to walk in His statutes. When we put our faith and trust in Christ as having paid the penalty for our sins by His death, we are instantly spiritually regenerated. We follow up on this act of God by making a public declaration that this event has taken place by being baptised with water. It's a symbolic representation/enactment of the regeneration which has already occurred. It can't precede belief, otherwise what would it be symbolizing? Baptism by the Holy Ghost is (usually) an invisible event. Baptism by water is a public declaration that it happened. The term "spinkling of water," "water," and "baptism" do not always refer to the visible baptism of actual water. You should be able to answer your own questions now. Let's get back to salvation by grace and not works.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 10:58:26 GMT -4
Not true. Nearly all the verses you posted were from messages to the church about doing good works. These people were already saved and the context made it clear that works weren't being discussed in relation to salvation. As I said - you didn't engage each of the texts indivdiually - you merely waived your hand as you went by. So I took that as license to do the same thing with your texts. That is not the central message of the gospel. I would prefer that you answer each of them indivdiually. So when Jesus says "unless a man be born of water..." he is merely using a figure of speech? What is that figure of speech supposed to mean, in your own words? If he means a spritual regeneration by it then why does he say "born of water and of the spirit"? Why differentiate between the two? I agree that baptism is generally symbolic of a conversion, or at least a strong desire to be converted. But I disagree that it is merely symbolic. Why should Jesus say "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" if baptism is not required? Why do many texts refer to baptism as washing away or providing a remission of sins if it doesn't actually do this? That's a pretty handy way of deflecting questions you may not know the answer to. And we are still discussing faith and works. Baptism is a work of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 21, 2007 22:59:12 GMT -4
You know, I really think that if the Bible's message cannot be conveyed clearly by the authors, it really shows that it is not divinely inspired. I really mean that. Don't bother posting about translations, interpretations, 'written for its time', humans not writing it exactly as inspired etc. There really are simple ways to convey thought - be accurate, be direct, be simple - even if written in other languages. Christians who have different views on what a Bible verse means reminds me of history I've read about conflict between Protestants, Catholics and other Christian sects throughout the ages.
Now this part is real: My neighbour down the street says that she talks to God. She has Osteogenesis Imperfecta, and is confined to a wheelchair. Despite her great physical difficulties she is warm, smart, funny and a good friend. When this came up about God, I let it go. But now I'm thinking that I should gently explore this with her. I'm very curious what exactly is happening here but don't want to her to think that I have anything but respect for experience. My question is: if any of you were me, would you pursue exploring this with her, and how to bring it up in conversation, She is NOT the time of person to make things up - she's perhaps the most honest person I know, and she is mentally very alert. I felt really bad for her this week because she broke her leg getting out of a car to her wheelchair. Her bones are very brittle and she's suffered a lot due to her condition - she really is a very inspiring person.
Some info on Osteogenesis Imperfecta: Definition Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a genetic disorder characterized by bones that break easily, often from little or no apparent cause. A classification system of different types of OI is commonly used to help describe how severely a person with OI is affected. For example, a person may have just a few or as many as several hundred fractures in a lifetime. Symptoms: * Bones fracture easily. Fractures often present at birth, and x-rays may reveal healed fractures that occurred before birth. * Short stature. * Sclera have a blue, purple, or gray tint. * Loose joints and poor muscle development in arms and legs. * Barrel-shaped rib cage. * Triangular face. * Spinal curvature. * Respiratory problems possible. * Bone deformity, often severe. * Brittle teeth possible. * Hearing loss possible. * Collagen improperly formed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 23:17:10 GMT -4
The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are a few barriers to understanding it properly. 1) It was translated by imperfect humans that were not always themselves inspired. Some of the translations are wrong. Some copy errors have crept in too. Some parts of the books were lost before they were copied. 2) The books that make it up were chosen by imperfect humans who were not necessarily inspired. One of these was a wrong choice - The Song of Solomon isn't an inspired work - and other works that were inspired probably have been left out. The Roman Catholic Bible has more books than the more familir protestant bible. 3) Much of it (including most of the New Testament) was written to fill in the gaps of the doctrine that was taught by the living apostles, not to give the basics. Someone who doesn't already know the basics can get lost quickly in Paul's writings.
So, the keys to understand the Bible are: 1) Do everything you can to be in the right frame of mind to receive inspiration yourself - pray before studying it, ponder and fast and pray over particularly difficult passages. 2) Compare the Bible to other inspired texts that also proclaim the gospel, such as the Book of Mormon. 3) Use the teachings of modern prophets and apostles to explain dificult passages and doctrines.
Unfortunately only the first one applies to someone unwilling to accept the LDS church as what it says it is, but the first one can often be enough.
People talk to God all the time. He even answers, though not often with a voice. The best approach is proably the simplest. Ask her why she talks to God, and if He says anything in return. Show her you're interested in her feelings and willing to take what she says to you at face value.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 21, 2007 23:53:18 GMT -4
The Bible is divinely inspired, but there are a few barriers to understanding it properly. 1) It was translated by imperfect humans that were not always themselves inspired. Some of the translations are wrong. Some copy errors have crept in too. Some parts of the books were lost before they were copied. So, the keys to understand the Bible are: 1) Do everything you can to be in the right frame of mind to receive inspiration yourself - pray before studying it, ponder and fast and pray over particularly difficult passages. 2) Compare the Bible to other inspired texts that also proclaim the gospel, such as the Book of Mormon. 3) Use the teachings of modern prophets and apostles to explain dificult passages and doctrines. Unfortunately only the first one applies to someone unwilling to accept the LDS church as what it says it is, but the first one can often be enough. People talk to God all the time. He even answers, though not often with a voice. The best approach is proably the simplest. Ask her why she talks to God, and if He says anything in return. Show her you're interested in her feelings and willing to take what she says to you at face value. So what you are saying is that: Not all the Bible is divinely inspired. Some translations are wrong. It contains errors. Parts of it are missing. Parts of it don't belong there. You have to be inspired yourself in order to understand it. There are other gospels outside the Bible. Its message has been updated by other prophets. The Bible has difficult passages and doctrines. Now I can see that it isn't divinely inspired! Can anyone see how it it a human concept, written by humans, thought up by humans, misused by humans, misunderstood by humans etc ? Oh, when she said that she talks to God. I did ask her if it was a male or female voice and she said male.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 21, 2007 23:57:26 GMT -4
ginnie, why do you want to talk to her about this? Curiosity? Or do you think there's a chance she's in contact with someone?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 22, 2007 0:24:02 GMT -4
ginnie, why do you want to talk to her about this? Curiosity? Or do you think there's a chance she's in contact with someone? Actually, that's quite a good question. I'm curious for sure, as I am about religion in general. You know, even though I'm not a Christian anymore doesn't mean that I'm not on a search for spiritual fulfillment. And if she does talk to God , it wouldn't have to mean it is the same God mentioned in the Bible, but she is RC. Do I think there is a chance she's in contact with someone? Is God a someone? Well, yes, there is a chance I guess. I know she isn't lying, but that doesn't mean she is really speaking to God. I don't know there isn't a God of course, but with all the different faiths in the world there is one thing I do know - all of them are wrong on major points. So knowing that, you have still have to respect people's beliefs but you don't have to believe them yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 22, 2007 1:37:08 GMT -4
I'd be interested in what she tells you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 23, 2007 22:26:39 GMT -4
So what you are saying is that: Not all the Bible is divinely inspired. Some translations are wrong. It contains errors. Parts of it are missing. Parts of it don't belong there. You have to be inspired yourself in order to understand it. There are other gospels outside the Bible. Its message has been updated by other prophets. The Bible has difficult passages and doctrines. Now I can see that it isn't divinely inspired! Hey, despite my last post it's survived very well for a book that's around 2,000 years old, with parts around 3500 years old. And the fact that it still inspires hundreds of millions of people around the world is pretty good evidence that there's something that speaks to people there.
|
|