Saved souls

[The Briguy]

Please read carefully the following verses from Acts. Try to comment on the verses alone, not based on what you have been taught. What would you think if you picked up a page in the jungle and this was all you could read. Would you say that salvation can be lost? What does "saved" mean if you can become unsaved? No reason to write down "souls" being added if the "souls" could very well depart, as many of you believe. Also, who was Baptized here? Those who gladly recieved his word, making the Baptism responsive. At the end we see the number of the church growing daily, If it ain't a sure thing how can God say it was growing. Maybe the 10 saved on Tuesday get nulified by the 10 who get themselves unsaved on Friday. Doesn't make sense does it?
Finally, verse 2:40 says "save yourself" ------wait that goes against everything I have been taught! not if you believe that God provides the gift of salvation and we have to recieve it. If anyone cares to deal with these verses I ask that just for fun you deal with them alone, like you have no other scripture. (I know I know, I have said bunches of times scripture needs to be read as a whole, but humor me here - please)

In Christ,
Brian


KJV from Acts "2:40: And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
2:41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
2:42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
2:43: And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
2:44: And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
2:45: And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
2:46: And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
2:47: Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

[Eladar]

2:47: Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

I don't see where the scripture says that everyone who was added to the church were saved. It only says that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved, not that everyone that joined the churched was declared saved.

[Chemnitz]

I have yet to see a convincing argument for the position of once saved always saved.

[The Briguy]

Goldmetal, You probably watched the Steelers game on Sunday and afterward said there is no evidence that the Pats. won.

The scripture says that "that day" 3,000 souls were added. Not the day those three thousand souls die a physical death but the day they were saved. You see that eternal life in Christ starts while still on earth because as Christians we don't really die do we!

In Christ,
Brian

btw, thanks for both of your in depth anaylsis - just teasing ya

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
[i]2:47: Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily i]

I don't see where the scripture says that everyone who was added to the church were saved. It only says that the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved, not that everyone that joined the churched was declared saved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see in those verses where it says that anyone was saved - period.

Perhaps the discussion needs to go back a step and show where one is "saved", with or without assurance, before God passes judgement.

BTW "such as should be saved." sounds future tense to me.

Ron

[Chemnitz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW "such as should be saved." sounds future tense to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here.

BTW, I didn't watch the playoffs. Not a big fan of anybody playing, I do like the Rams, but they aren't my favorite team.

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:


The scripture says that "that day" 3,000 souls were added. Not the day those three thousand souls die a physical death but the day they were saved. You see that eternal life in Christ starts while still on earth because as Christians we don't really die do we!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Scripture also says "were added" not got saved. smile.gif

It may be your interpretation that they are the same thing, but you may be right or you may be wrong on that.

Perhaps those souls "were added" to the Church.

Question: can you tell if someone is or is not saved on the day they are Baptized? If not, why do you assume that all those that were Baptized in Acts were saved?

Ron

[The Briguy]

T2U says,

"Perhaps those souls "were added" to the Church.

T2U, what is the church? It is the body of Jesus, the hands and arms and feet and He is the head. You will never convince me that Jesus would dis-member himself, i.e. cut off one of his hands or toes, etc... which is what losing your salvation would do. So when you said "added" could be "saved" or "the Church" I say they are the same thing.

In Christ,
Brian

[Eladar]

Being a member of a church equals being one of the elect?

I'm afraid this view is not biblical. You are choosing to define the 'church' in a way that is wrong.

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
[QB]Being a member of a church equals being one of the elect?
[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tuor, being a member of a church is not equal to being one of the elect, but being a member of the church is.

Brian is referring to the body of Christ. Not a building or denomination. Those who are saved become part of the body of Christ, the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church

24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

~Lorelei

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:


BTW "such as should be saved." sounds future tense to me.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's look at this verse in other translations:

NKJV
"47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[1] daily those who were being saved."


NIV
"Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

RSV
"47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."

NASB
"47
praising God and &lt;*66&gt; having favor with all the people. And the Lord &lt;*67&gt; was adding [49] to their number day by day &lt;*68&gt; those who were being saved."


NLT
"47all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved."

~Lorelei

[Pauline]

Reading that passage would tell me that the way to be saved from this untoward generation would be by being baptized. And that would be how I would be added to the Church. That would then enable me to continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers with all the other members of the Church. All due to baptism.

But I do not see any proof of eternal security in this passage. I do see that baptism is the beginning of salvation, how we enter into it and into the sanctifying life of the Church.

Pauline

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

[Eladar]

Pauline,

Why couldn't an unbaptized person take communion and follow what the Apostles teach?

***Other than being baptized of course***

That could only be enforced by man, not because of baptism.

Lorelei,

I agree with you, but then we go must go back to the question of defining who exactly is in and who exactly apart from the church of God.

Since nobody knows this vital piece of information, it really is a irrelevent statement when it comes to our foreknowledge of salvation.

[The Briguy]

L. Thanks for the imput. You have defended my positions before and I like that and thank you. Great minds think a like I guess.

Tuor, poor Tuor, I wish I could say something that would free you from the bonds of not knowing for sure you will be Jesus some day but alas I can not. As much of a mess as I feel sometimes it is the knowledge that I know I will see my Savior face to face that keeps me going!

In Christ,
Brian

[Chemnitz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>NKJV
"47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[1] daily those who were being saved."


NIV
"Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

RSV
"47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."

NASB
"47
praising God and &lt;*66&gt; having favor with all the people. And the Lord &lt;*67&gt; was adding [49] to their number day by day &lt;*68&gt; those who were being saved."


NLT
"47all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their group those who were being saved."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All those versions have one common denominator focus on a continuing action that has not been completed. In other words, they weren't saved yet or in these words; they still could reject salvation.

[Pauline]

Tuor,
The unbaptized person could take communion. But he would not receive the graces from it.

God's sanctifying grace is implanted in the soul at baptism. That life in the soul continues to be nourished by the grace of the eucharist.

The unbaptized person has the grace of helps, to help him make his journey to baptism and the Church. But he is not a partaker of the divine nature, not a new creature in Christ Jesus.

And a person in gross sin can actually have the sacraments work against him because he uses them with a wrong intention.

Pauline

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Reading that passage would tell me that the way to be saved from this untoward generation would be by being baptized[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

41: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"

Gladly receiving the Word comes before baptism.
Then....those who gladly received his word were baptized.

It does not read to me that baptism saved them.

Godmetal,

I see what you are saying, but I don't see it that way. Let's ask all of the people who are reading this thread. See, I am telling you they are reading it when by the time you actually see it you will have read (past tense) it yourself. Those who were being saved were added to the church after they were saved.

Tuor,

Romans 8:16 "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

1 John 5:13
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Sorry Brian, I know you asked us to not use other scriptures, but I don't think Tuor is denying that salvation is eternal, rather he thinks that we can not know if we have received that eternal gift.

~Lorelei

[The Briguy]

L, you had to do what you had to do, no problem at all. Thanks for the wisdom in your post!

GM said: "All those versions have one common denominator focus on a continuing action that has not been completed. In other words, they weren't saved yet or in these words; they still could reject salvation."

GM, L. answered this but I ask you another question from what you said. What good would being "saved" be if it wasn't permanent. Example: You fall off a cliff and on your way down your pants catch a branch and you don't fall to your death. The branch saved you------- but wait the branch can't hold your weight and snaps and you do fall to your death. Now, the branch really didn't "save" you did it. Had you really been "saved" the branch would have held until help arrived. (btw, God is strong enough to hold your weight (mistakes) once HE saves you!!)

In Christ forever,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

Again, nothing in the passage talks about being past, present, or future saved. There is alot of language that folks equate with Salvation (ie: gladly receiving His word, baptism, and belief), but nothing that just taking that verse would spell it out for you.

The only thing it mentions in regard to Salvation is the possibility ("should").

Peace be with you.

[Eladar]

Lorelei,

What is meant by what we know is an implication. It might mean that we may know from that point on, but it might also mean we might know by judging our fruits what road we are on.

If one paticualar interpretation is believed to be the Gospel truth, then it needs to be in harmony with the rest of scripture.

Might I suggest contrasting your interpretation of 1 John 5:13 and Romans 8:16 with Luke 8:5-15 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-2.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Tuor ]

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Tuor ]

[Gloria1]

The question I have is when we get saved is it our soul or our person that gets saved?

To save a soul implies that the soul was lost and to save is sinner implies that the sinner was lost.

Is it our soul that commits sin against the will of the person or does the person commit sin against the will of the soul?

Are the person and the soul the same? Then how can we have a soul if we are our soul?

I'm lost, please help me.

Gloria

[Eladar]

The question I have is when we get saved is it our soul or our person that gets saved?

Our body is the jar in which our soul(true self) resides. Because our perception of reality is bent by our imperfect perceptions and limited understanding, our view of reality is imperfect.

Is it our soul that commits sin against the will of the person or does the person commit sin against the will of the soul?

Paul goes answers this question in Romans. He said that once we accept Christ as our savior, the sin we commit is due to the weakness of our flesh. It can be either way. It could be our flesh causing the sin or our soul, depending on the state of heart. Since it is impossible for us to judge our own heart, only God knows for sure.

In any case, as long as we are in this world, we will sin. It is by the Grace of God that we are saved.

Are the person and the soul the same?

No, the body is the clay vessel in which our soul resides


To save a soul implies that the soul was lost and to save is sinner implies that the sinner was lost.

The sinner is the name we give to the vessel in which the lost soul resides.

We are not actually saved until judgement is given. Until then we can only be on the road to salvation.

[The Briguy]

Tuor, the road to salvation? When you accept Christ (your words) your salvation begins and the only road you are on is the road to heaven!

In Christ,
Brian

[Pauline]

Hi Gloria,
How are you doing?

A living human person is made up of a body and a soul. Without his body, the soul is no longer a human person, but is rather a bodyless spirit. That's what death is: the separation of body and soul. And those people won't be human beings again until the resurrection when body and soul are reunited. Does this clarify things?

Pauline

[Pauline]

Lorelei,
Neither does that passage say that gladly receiving his word saved them.

What saves people is God's life within them because He is life and holiness. And God gives that share in His life at baptism.

Pauline

[Pauline]

Tuor,
The bible says that God created man body and soul. That is what makes up a man. To say that the soul is the complete person doesn't fit. Why then did God give us bodies? Why will He resurrect the body? Why not just leave us spirits in heaven? And why did Jesus Christ take to himself a body? And why did He resurrect His body? Because a body is part of a full human being. We wouldn't be fully ourselves without our bodies.

Pauline

[Gloria1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
The question I have is when we get saved is it our soul or our person that gets saved?

Our body is the jar in which our soul(true self) resides. Because our perception of reality is bent by our imperfect perceptions and limited understanding, our view of reality is imperfect.

But our persona is not our body and if our soul is our "true self" then who is our "person" (from persona)?

Is it our soul that commits sin against the will of the person or does the person commit sin against the will of the soul?

Paul goes answers this question in Romans. He said that once we accept Christ as our savior, the sin we commit is due to the weakness of our flesh. It can be either way. It could be our flesh causing the sin or our soul, depending on the state of heart. Since it is impossible for us to judge our own heart, only God knows for sure.

But our flesh does not have a will to be weak. We have either our persona to blame or our soul. If our person is lost our soul is not and if our soul is lost our peseon is not. If both are lost redemption is not possible.

Next, you bring in the "state of our heart." Is this yet another entity that impedes on our volition? Is there now three of us?

In any case, as long as we are in this world, we will sin. It is by the Grace of God that we are saved.

Gal.5:1-4. It was for liberty that Christ freed us from the yoke of slavery and we are not to take upon us this yoke for a second time. . . . if we seek justification in the law after we have been set free we will have fallen from Gods favor (v.4).

Are the person and the soul the same?

No, the body is the clay vessel in which our soul resides

Notice the duality in "our soul" as if we are not the same as, or one with, our soul.

To save a soul implies that the soul was lost and to save is sinner implies that the sinner was lost.

The sinner is the name we give to the vessel in which the lost soul resides.

The vessel is the body of the being and cannot be lost or found, or good or bad in itself.

We are not actually saved until judgement is given. Until then we can only be on the road to salvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean with one foot in heaven and one foot on earth? smile.gif

Gloria

[Gloria1]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pauline:

Just fine Pauline, how about you?

Yes, body and soul in the image of God and not corruptible as such. Beautifully made and capable of sustaining life throughout eternity.

Just from the manner of speach in this thread alone I sense another image, or nature, in which we are not capable of praising God [for]ever (?). It is called our humanity wherein we are sinners and only in which we are sinners.

Gloria

[The Briguy]

Pauline writes:

"What saves people is God's life within them because He is life and holiness. And God gives that share in His life at baptism."

Pauline, This is your opinion and to many of us is not biblically based and is offensive. The more appropriate thing to say is that from what you understand or from what the RCC teaches "This is so and so"

To whoever said that "recieved the word gladly" (or whatever exact words are used) does not mean they were saved is just denying what the verse says because it does not fit what they believe. The verses say what they say and it would be so nice to see some honesty here and have people say, based on just the verses presented, the Bible seems to say Baptism follows being saved and salvation starts the day you are saved. Come on folks you can still believe what you want and say that the verses need to be taken in a different context and taken as the whole of scripture but have the humblness to admit what just the verses I used say on their own. I suspected when I asked people to just stick to the vereses that they wouldn't and they didn't. Humblness and honesty are Christian traits that could have been shown here but weren't by several. I am disappointed but not surprised.

In Christ,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

Brian, I did stick to the verse. You are the one is going outside the verse to say that something (recieved the word gladly) means something (got saved) other than what it says.

[Chemnitz]

I decided to skip the eng. translations and look at the Greek text behind them, it turns out that the word translated as "who were being saved" isn't really a verb. It is a participle acting as an adjective. Now in greek, participles take their aspect (greek doesnot have true tenses) from the main verb which in this case is an imperfect (focus on connection and focus on actor). Imperfect aspects in greek do not show completed action. In this case the context of the Greek lends itself to a continuous translation of the imperfect. So, what you have is a continuous action that has not been completed.
What this all boils down to is you don't have an argument because the grammar of the text does not allow you to make your argument for (once saved=always saved). So it looks like I shall continue having to wait for somebody to prove with Biblical evidence the false doctrine of once saved=always saved.

[The Briguy]

Ed, please re-read the verse as it explains itself. I just don't understand why you can't just be honest, maybe humble is the better word, and give me the point and move on. I did that on that other thread and it felt good. It does not mean you are giving up your belief, just saying that I have a valid point!!! What do you say my friend you will be a better person for it.

Hope this day finds you well,
In Christ
Brian

[Irish Pete]

I do not mean for this to come across mean-spirited but I think Briguy and Michael Wrenn ought to form the obnoxious duo, because your civility towards anyone disagreeing with either of you is anything but Christ-like.

You sign your posts "in Christ", etc., but your posts are anything but...

They come across as from one who is carnal and not kind.

Yes, Jesus came on strong at times but I'm not so sure I can trust myself to communicate the way He did because I come not from a position of perfect holiness as Jesus did but as a human being with many imperfections.

The way both of you respond to people on these posts you might think is righteous behaviour. It is not.
It is simply immature and caustic.

I trust you will re-think your behaviour before continuing another post. You do Our Lord no honour by sarcasm and condescending words towards others.

Thank-You.

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
Lorelei,
If one paticualar interpretation is believed to be the Gospel truth, then it needs to be in harmony with the rest of scripture.

Might I suggest contrasting your interpretation of 1 John 5:13 and Romans 8:16 with Luke 8:5-15 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have already explained the seeds to you before so I won't repeat myself.

I agree with you that the interpretation must be in harmony with the rest of scripture, which is why I believe that you can know and that it is eternal. I have explained the seeds already, it isn't the seed, it is the ground that makes the difference.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is warning them to make sure thier faith is indeed true, not that they might lose it.

What one must do to be saved? Romans 10:9 "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead".

Paul goes on to tell us that not everyone in Corinth believed this. "12
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

He wasn't saying they could lose what they had or they had to "do" something to keep it, but rather that they examine what they believed to make sure it was real.

The verses must be in harmony throughout scripture, but it is only a few verses later that you can see in context what Paul was referring to.

~Lorelei

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Lorelei,
Neither does that passage say that gladly receiving his word saved them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that it did. I simply stated that it came first.

By admitting that Neither of them are true you are admitting that your first statement was false.

So does this passage show us baptism saves or not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:

What saves people is God's life within them because He is life and holiness. And God gives that share in His life at baptism.

Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The passage certainly doesn't say this! This simply shows us by what bias you are interpreting the scripture.

~Lorelei

[The Briguy]

IP, You really haven't read most of my posts. I am almost always kind and considerate and sometimes humorous. I was frustrated this am when I wrote the one post but that kind of thing is the exception not the rule, as many on the board would attest to. Being Christ-like is what I strive for everyday but in my imperfection I fail time and time again.

GM, I trust the KJV translators more then you. However, I will give your post some thought and research. Please do not study scripture with a point to prove as you will be biased in your findings. Thanks for the research though.

In Christ,
Brian

[Chemnitz]

Briguy, there is a difference between what i did there and what I do on a normal basis. What I did there was systematic approach to refuting a heresy, which in this case is based on a faulty interpretation of a single verse of the Bible. If you think the kjv translators disagree with me on this point you better go back to grammar school, because they agree with me.

[Sir Ed]

Brian, its simple you change the language "gladly received his word" to say "got saved." If the it mean't "got saved" it would say "got saved."

This is just strictly using your method of looking at the verse standing alone.

[The Briguy]

Ed, I say that based on the rest of the verse. It is the only logical way to read it. Scripture explains itself a lot like that. I was saying to read all the verses as a whole, begining with "save yourself" verse, which no L. or RCC have touched yet (I think). I will think through what has been said and ask you to do the same.

Learning in Christ,
Brian

[Pauline]

Godmetal,
Thank you for posting on the meaning in the Greek.

Brian,

I am astounded that anyone is offended by the fact that salvation is God's own life within the person's soul, making that person a new creature in Christ Jesus.

What do you think 2 Pt 1,4 is refering to in the statement "partakers of the divine nature"? And Gal 4,19 "Christ formed in you."
And other like verses about abiding in Christ and He abiding in us? Also, Gal 2,20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Do you not have Christ Jesus living in you, making you a new creature? Isn't that what the Christian life is, Christ living in us and us in Him?

Pauline

[The Briguy]

Pauline it is not that part of what you said that was offensive it was the rest of the line. You wrote:
"What saves people is God's life within them because He is life and holiness. And God gives that share in His life at baptism."

You tend sometimes to write only parts of verses as well and leave out the parts that don't agree so much with what you say. Anyway, now that I am reading your statement closely it seems to be poorly worded. Did you get that quote from an older source? The reason that quote gets to me is that both RCCers and L.s alike will agree that someone who becomes a Christian and dies before baptism still goes to Heaven therefore making your statement false in the sense that there are exceptions. Of course in my understanding, Baptism has nothing to do with salvation and entrance to Heaven, I'll show you that someday when I am in Heaven. Pauline, forgive me if I sound harsh I just felt you were telling God His Buisness, which is not wise, just ask Job. Take care,

In Christ,
Brian

[Eladar]

I have already explained the seeds to you before so I won't repeat myself.

Jesus himself explained the seeds. Any other explanation is extra Biblical.

Luke 8
11
""Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.
12
""Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.
13
""Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.
14
""The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
15
""But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.


As Jesus says, the seed is the word of God, what we call the gospel.

Verse 12 states that the seeds thrown on the path represent people who never believed the word of God.

In verse 13, Jesus says that the people who are represented by the rocky soil are people who receive the word of God with joy and believe. To say that they didn't actually believe correctly is extra Biblical. Don't you think that Jesus would have made that distinction if He meant that distinction? To say anything about what these people believed, is to try to figure out what Jesus 'really meant'.

In verse 14 Jesus talks about another group who 'hear' the word of God. These people must also believe, since only the ones on the road are ones who never believe.

In verses 13 and 14, Jesus gives the reasons why some people at some point in their lives believe the gospel, yet reject it and are not saved.

In verse 15 Jesus describes the elect.

Lorelei, you will have to forgive me if I believe Jesus' version over yours.

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
I am astounded that anyone is offended by the fact that salvation is God's own life within the person's soul, making that person a new creature in Christ Jesus.
What do you think 2 Pt 1,4 is refering to in the statement "partakers of the divine nature"? And Gal 4,19 "Christ formed in you."
And other like verses about abiding in Christ and He abiding in us? Also, Gal 2,20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Do you not have Christ Jesus living in you, making you a new creature? Isn't that what the Christian life is, Christ living in us and us in Him?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline the way you pull these Scriptures out of their context you sound like a humanist, who in their manifesto, says that there is a spark of divinity in every one of us. The New Ager says to look at the god within you. Even Benny Hinn says that we are all little gods running around on this earth. The verses are all taken out of context. You are trying to force your own presupposed beliefs into them.
DHK

[Sir Ed]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[Irish Pete]

DHK said:
"Pauline the way you pull these Scriptures out of their context you sound like a humanist, who in their manifesto, says that there is a spark of divinity in every one of us. The New Ager says to look at the god within you. Even Benny Hinn says that we are all little gods running around on this earth. The verses are all taken out of context. You are trying to force your own presupposed beliefs into them."

(I knew you were hiding out somewhere. You're in good company with Briguy and Michael Wrenn)

By the way, I didn't know someone who is a humanist would think themselves as having "a spark of divinity" within them. A divine humanist is kind of like an oxymoron. N'est pas?

Read Pauline's posting again please!!!!:

"Originally posted by Pauline:
I am astounded that anyone is offended by the fact that salvation is God's own life within the person's soul, making that person a new creature in Christ Jesus." (By the way 2 Corinthians 5:17 states this for true Christians. Do humanists believe this or are you going to accuse me of pulling Scriptures out of context too?)

"What do you think 2 Pt 1,4 is refering to in the statement "partakers of the divine nature"? And Gal 4,19 "Christ formed in you."
And other like verses about abiding in Christ and He abiding in us?"
(Do humanists believe this too? What is your opinion of these texts?)

"Also, Gal 2,20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Do you not have Christ Jesus living in you, making you a new creature? Isn't that what the Christian life is, Christ living in us and us in Him?"

(I still fail to see how humanists would believe this when Scripture is plainly speaking of the Christian. I am trying to understand your logic in this. Please help me)

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:

Lorelei, you will have to forgive me if I believe Jesus' version over yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I would want you to believe the Word over me. What Jesus said does not contradict what I was saying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:

To say that they didn't actually believe correctly is extra Biblical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:

In verse 14 Jesus talks about another group who 'hear' the word of God. These people must also believe, since only the ones on the road are ones who never believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They Must also believe? Jesus didn't say they did and in your own words wouldn't "Any other explanation be extra Biblical"?

The seed is indeed the Word of God and the soil represents all people. Each type of soil represents different types of people and the good soil is the elect.

If you notice throughout the whole passage no one could change what soil they planted thier seed in. Once it was planted in good soil, then it was there forever more bearing fruit.

~Lorelei

[DHK]

The offending post of Pauline (to which both Lorelei and Briguy took note of) said: “What saves people is God's life within them because He is life and holiness. And God gives that share in His life at baptism.”

These are the supporting verses that she used to justify this position.
“What do you think 2 Pt 1,4 is refering to in the statement "partakers of the divine nature"? And Gal 4,19 "Christ formed in you."
And other like verses about abiding in Christ and He abiding in us? Also, Gal 2,20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Do you not have Christ Jesus living in you, making you a new creature? Isn't that what the Christian life is, Christ living in us and us in Him?” (Pauline)

2 Pet.1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
“Whereby” is a connective. It refers back to the verses just preceding this one. To fully understand verse four, you must know what is being said in verses two and three.
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Grace and peace are multiplied to us through the knowledge of God. An infant does not have the knowledge of God. According as his divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness through the knowledge of God. He has given us all things, all things that pertain to life and godliness THROUGH the knowledge of God. This rules out infant baptism. It also rules out becoming a member of the Catholic Church. Whereby, he says. Whereby, what? Whereby (through that knowledge) are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises. Those promises are in the Word of God. That is the knowledge referred to, the knowledge that we now have of Christ. “That by these (promises) you might be partakers of the divine nature. Of what promise am I a partaker of the divine nature of God? Does church membership promise me this? NO. Does baptism promise me this? No. Of what promise am I a partaker of the divine nature of God?
I become a partaker of His divine nature when I become saved, that is born again by the spirit of God. Again this has nothing to do with baptism of any kind, especially infant baptism. John 1:12:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
When I received Christ as my Saviour, He adopted me into His family. I became His child. As it says in this verse “the power (authority) to become the sons of God.” He made me his heir, and according to Romans 8, I am not only an heir of God, but a joint heir with Jesus Christ. Christ, by His Holy Spirit, has come and taken up residence within me. Again, this has nothing to do with baptism or the Church.
One verse at a time. Yes I believe that I partake of his divine nature, but not in the same way Pauline does, and not in the same way the typical Catholic interprets this verse. It has nothing to do with Baptism. Salvation has nothing to do with baptism. Other verses I will explain later, as I have time.
DHK

[Eladar]

Lorelei,

When Jesus speaks, He often said let those who have ears listen. When Jesus says that they heard, this means they actually believed it. Those who don't hear what is said aren't deaf, they just don't believe.

In any case, the people who are of the rocky soil type actually believe the word of God. They don't just believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they believe the word of God. There is no getting around the fact that Jesus plainly says that this group, who believe the word of God, will lose it. The word of God dies in them.

The scripture speaks for itself.

[Pauline]

I was beginning to wonder, from the protests on this thread, if some here even believed in the indwelling of Jesus Christ in the soul of the believer. But, if I understand DHK correctly, he came around to saying he does believe in that and experience it. Am I correct in this understanding, DHK?

I don't believe that I took one of those scriptures out of context. I think the meaning is clear. Jesus Christ abides in the Christian and the Christian abides in Him. He is our Way, our Truth and our Life. That is the only way we can reach heaven. On the day of judgment, God will look at us to see if Christ is formed in us, Gal 4,19. That's what this life is: an opportunity to have Christ living in us and forming us to be like Him in how we think, speak and act. So the whole Christian life begins with and progresses with Jesus Christ indwelling the soul and making the person more and more like Himself. That is what fits us for life in heaven.

And this is the partaking in the divine nature, the walk in and with Jesus, the holy adventure. It is only through His Life in us that we can give up self and sin and become more fully that new creature which was born in us at baptism. It is the most intimate of all relationships. We are born again at baptism, then we must grow in maturity in Christ. And that is where scripture is a great help for it is profitable for this that we "may be perfect (mature) thoroughly furnished unto all good works", 2 Tm 3,16-17.

DHK, I did not intend to insult you when I said your theology is too narrow to include "intention". I did intend to state a fact and to make a point. So answer me truthfully: Does your theology include "intention" in one's worship? Do you believe God looks on the heart, on the intention of the person praying and bowing, etc., or not?

Please explain your thoughts on the following:
at baptism we are raised to "walk in newness of life". Romans 6. Scripture expresses it in differing words, but the same general idea of the person becoming new, made over, transformed in Jesus Christ. Scripture uses terms like: walk in newness of life", Ro 6,4, or being "made a new creature in Christ Jesus", 2 Cor 5,17, or "be born again of water and of the Spirit", Jn 3,5, that "baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.)by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pt 3,21.

And Gal 3,27 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

I make no apology for my assertion that the new life is implanted in the Christian at the time of baptism. I see scripture teaching the same thing. And it has been re-emphasized in my life over and over as my relationship with Jesus Christ has deepened over the years. It is re-enforced every time I renew my baptismal promises.

Pauline

[Lorelei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
Lorelei,

When Jesus speaks, He often said let those who have ears listen. When Jesus says that they heard, this means they actually believed it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hearing does not equate believing. Jesus tells us this in the parable of the builder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Matthew 7:24
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man

26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hearing alone is not enough. You must put into action that which you heard. Jesus clearly teaches that there is a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tuor:
The scripture speaks for itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed it does.

John 10:27
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Tuor, I guess you and I will just keep this conversation up until we get to heaven and settle it once and for all. Even though we disagree I still like ya and enjoy conversing here on the BB. I just felt like I needed to say that. Sometimes I just keep writing it "as I see it" and that kind of makes me sound stand offish. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Ok, now we may now put the gloves back on....no not gloves, use a sword. Not just any sword, but THE Sword. The Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. As long as we have the right weapon we are on the right track! :D

Bless ya~

~Lorelei

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
I make no apology for my assertion that the new life is implanted in the Christian at the time of baptism. I see scripture teaching the same thing. And it has been re-emphasized in my life over and over as my relationship with Jesus Christ has deepened over the years. It is re-enforced every time I renew my baptismal promises.
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline,
You need to take these verses in the context of the Bible, and not the Roman Catholic Tradition or Catechism. That is the problem here.
”Walk in newness of life,” applies only to a “believer,” that is one who can believe. You apply these verses to infants, and you apply them to baptism, both of which are wrong. I have never seen an infant (a week to a month) walk, neither physically or spiritually. Infants don’t walk! Infants don’t believe! Infants are incapable of having believing faith. That is why your verses are so greatly misused and out of context. Your presuppositions are wrong. No where in the Bible is there any evidence, anywhere, of any infant getting baptized. It just isn’t there. If you are going to stick to the Scriptures alone, avoiding church fathers and Catholic traditions, you cannot find a shred of evidence for these heretical teachings.
There is no new life implanted at baptism. Baptism gets you wet. It is a step of obedience in the Christian life. One first has to become a Christian (a believer in Christ), before he can be baptized. That discounts all infants. Baptism has nothing to do with one’s salvation, nothing! In Rom.6:3,4, it pictures one’s death to his old life and his resurrection to a new life in Christ. It is symbolic. It is a picture. Don’t be superstitious. There is no magical power in water to save you. The Hindus believe that when they wash in the River Ganges, that it washes their sin away. Your belief is similar, as is your belief in idols. I guess Catholicism is a lot like Hinduism. It even has more than one god (i.e. Mary).
In John 3:5, Jesus speaks of being born of the water and of the spirit. Water again is symbolic. No where in this passage is Jesus referring to baptism. There is no hint of that anywhere in this passage. The water here refers to the Word of God. Jesus said “Ye are clean through the word that I have spoken unto you.” (John 15:3) The Word here is used as a cleansing agent. It is symbolically used.

James 1:18 “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” Here James says we are born again (he begat us) with the Word. If we are born again with the water and the spirit, the spirit we all know is necessary. The other agent must of a necessity be the Word of God. It is declared so here in James 1:18. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Water is symbolic of Scripture or the Word.
1 Pet.1:23 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” Peter again tells us the same thing, that we are born again through the Word of God, a symbol of water. We are not born again by water. That is something corruptible, something Peter just mentioned in a previous verse. We are not redeemed with corruptible things. Water is corruptible.
New life is never implanted at baptism, especially at infant baptism. The Scriptures don’t teach it.
DHK

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
DHK, I did not intend to insult you when I said your theology is too narrow to include "intention". I did intend to state a fact and to make a point. So answer me truthfully: Does your theology include "intention" in one's worship? Do you believe God looks on the heart, on the intention of the person praying and bowing, etc., or not?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it is not the intention that God considers, Pauline. If a thief robs a bank, and tells the police that he had only good intentions of feeding his hungry family, and giving some of the proceeds to charity, what will they think? Does he get charged on his intentions or on his act? Sin is Sin, no matter what the intent is. It is never right to do wrong in order to do right. If God says it is sin, then it is sin. It does not matter what your intentions were. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1John 3:4). That's not legalism. That's a New Testament verse that is talking about holy living. It is interesting that John ends that same epistle with these words:
5:21 "Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen."
DHK

[Pauline]

DHK.
I cannot prove from scripture that infants were baptized during NT times. You cannot prove from scripture that they weren't. The NT does say that whole households were baptized. And it is likely that some of those, maybe many of them, had infants. The NT certainly does not show baptism being done always on an individual basis. Whole families were baptized. And you cannot prove there weren't babies among them.

Jesus Himself instructed us to bring children to Him. I have read that, at least, one of those verses uses a Greek term meaning babes in arms. Perhaps Godmetal can speak to this?

There is no reason why God cannot infuse a share in His divine nature into the baby of a Christian couple to help them raise that child for Him.

And you cannot adequately explain away what scripture says about being baptism and walking in new life. And, that as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. The verses I quoted are meant to be taken literally and they have such force that they stand on their own.

You just don't want what they say to be true so you try to explain it away.

On the subject of "intention" -- do you think when a mother kneels before her little child and kisses his feet -- her intention doesn't matter to God? Do you think God sees that as idolatry or not?

Pauline

[Eladar]

Lorelei,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John 10:27
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see you believe in the self apointed elect.

I am not talking about the elect, I am talking about those who are not apart of the elect, but at one point in their lives believe the gospel.

Or as Jesus says:

""Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

Jesus said they fall away. But some say there is no such thing as falling away. I guess those people choose to over look certain scripture. :eek:

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tuor ]

[Lorelei]

Tuor,

Then those people have no hope of ever coming to the Lord.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hebrews 6:4
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5
who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
6
if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Hebrews explains who those are that fall away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hebrews 3:11
So I declared on oath in my anger, `They shall never enter my rest.'"[1]
12
See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hebrews 4:1
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
2
For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need only rest in the hope of our savior who gives eternal salvation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Hebrews
5:9
and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

6:19
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure

7:25
Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

~Lorelei

[The Briguy]

Pauline, you said that DHK could not prove that infants were not Baptized. I can just by the following 2 verses from Acts (KJV)

"8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Please don't argue that if an infant had been with Phillip and eunuch that they could have done what the eunuch did. That is not logical and boarders on pure foolishness. I would rather you discount the scripture and say that verse 8:37 is not in some Bible versions rather then argue that an infant was capable of responding the way the eunuch did.
Pauline, I beg of you to read and re-read these verses with an open mind and really comment on them in pure honesty, even if that means saying you need to study more on it or that I am right and these verses do not support your position. Thanks in advance for your honest answer.

In our humble Savior,
Brian

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
Pauline, you said that DHK could not prove that infants were not Baptized. I can just by the following 2 verses from Acts (KJV)

"8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Please don't argue that if an infant had been with Phillip and eunuch that they could have done what the eunuch did. That is not logical and boarders on pure foolishness. I would rather you discount the scripture and say that verse 8:37 is not in some Bible versions rather then argue that an infant was capable of responding the way the eunuch did.
Pauline, I beg of you to read and re-read these verses with an open mind and really comment on them in pure honesty, even if that means saying you need to study more on it or that I am right and these verses do not support your position. Thanks in advance for your honest answer.

In our humble Savior,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian,

Do you read Acts 8:30-31 with the same eyes?

"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

How do you understand Scripture if no man guides you? What man guided you into your understanding of Acts 8:36-37?

If you must rely upon another to guide you, how do you know who to trust? Who is correct? Who has the authority?

Or are we to discount this portion of Scripture?

Ron smile.gif

[Pauline]

Brian,
The baby cannot make a decision for Jesus Christ as his stage of life. You are correct there. But the family is a unit. The father and mother can make a decision to raise that child for Jesus Christ. And God honors that decision by giving the baby a share in His own life to help that child be spiritually aware and to continually make decisions for Christ as he grows. God also makes available to the parents the graces they need to raise that child for God. So God is very much with that family as a unit as well as with each individual in it.

This is connected to the sacrament of marriage in which God is closely involved with the husband and wife.

The case of the eunuch does not take away from the truth and reality of God bestowing His grace in a baptized child. The sanctifying grace the eunuch received is the same sanctifying grace a baby receives. And sanctifying grace works differently in individuals, according to their God-given missions in life. The grace works in the father to help him be the best possible father, in the mother to help her be the best possible mother, in the baby to help him be the best possible child of his parents. Anyone of the three can choose to cooperate or to rebel against God's grace.

And God's grace will be present to the child, to help him make the right decisions for Christ as he grows. That's the most precious of all gifts that parents can give their child.

Pauline

[Sir Ed]

Brian, all those two verses from Acts PROVE is that THE EUNICH had to believe. It doesn't PROVE anything about infants, you, me, or anyone else.

You are confusing EVIDENCE with PROOF.

[Eladar]

Lorelei,

Why the warning to not have a disbelieving heart, if one has no choice in the matter?

Why the warning if these people already believed at one point in their lives and according to 'once saved always saved' are therefore assured of salvation?

Perhaps 'once saved always saved' is not quite as biblical as some would make it out to be.

[The Briguy]

T2U, When the eunuch read those scriptures he was not a Christian and therefore he did not have the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Phillip did and therefore he understood. Your logic is off here. If everyone had to learn everything scriptual from someonelse no one could learn from anyone because everyone would be looking for someone to learn from. Hows that for a brain twister, I think you get the point though. I know what I know the way that Phillip knew a lot of what he knew, from the Holy Spirit leading me into Truth.

Sir Ed, you can play Bill Clinton if you want but the verses stand on their own. If the eunuch could not believe with his heart, he would have been prevented from being Baptized. That is clear enough that even Clinton and OJ would have to agree. Well it's fourth and long, time for a punt perhaps? (snicker, snicker)

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

[Sir Ed]

Brian, I can't disagree with the substance of your last post. Everything you say about Phillip is true.

However, I can disagree with your red herring of Clinton and OJ. Its very disappointing.

[The Briguy]

Ed, sometimes my humor gets away from me. It was meant to be funny, not hurtful. Please accept my apology. I appreciate your posts and discussing things with you and would hate to have my poor choice of a joke prevent any future debates. Again, I am deeply sorry.

In Christ,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

Brian, referring to anyone as Clinton is just asking for a knock-down, drag-out fight!! smile.gif

Not to mention OJ . . . .

[The Briguy]

Not two pillars of society are they? Anyway, in the middle of the bad joke there was a statement that I would like you still to address. You probably didn't adderss it because I sandwitched it between the Clinton comments. Looking forward to your reply,
In Him,
Brian

[Pauline]

Brian,
I'm realizing in reading the above posts that we have different conceptions of the Christian life. Catholics have a strong sense of community. Our identity is that we are the body of Christ. Our Faith is a communal Faith.

When we go up to receive our Lord in the eucharist, there is a sense of family, of connectedness with one another, even with others that we've had some difference of opinion with. We've prayed the Lord's Prayer (forgiven everyone and asked forgiveness) and given the sign of peace (to demonstrate we are at peace with everyone) before the communion rite. So there is a powerful sense of unity with our Lord and with one another.

We celebrate our Catholic Faith by sharing in one another's spiritual journeys. And we particularly value the family. Our communal way is definitely the scriptural way: Jesus Christ was born into and grew up in the Holy Family. The Book of Acts reports that the earliest Christians baptized entire households. Paul refers to himself as a father to those he brought into the Church.
He writes of Christians as being of one faith, being one body. He wrote against schism and any dividing of the body of Christ.

When someone, baby or adult, is baptized, he is initiated into the family of God. He actually becomes a child of God. And the only way a human being can become a child of God is for God to place in his soul a share in the divine nature. This truly makes the person a child of God.

That's what salvation is, having Jesus Christ living in us and us in Him so that we become like Him -- He is formed in us. It is a lifelong process. Like a baby: first it crawls, then toddles, then walks, and then runs. This is a picture of the spiritual life, of the Christian becoming more like Jesus Christ, our Way, Truth and Life.

Pauline

[Sir Ed]

Brian, I did address it. I agreed with the substance of that particular post concerning Phillip.

[DHK]

Pauline,
You said: “I cannot prove from scripture that infants were baptized during NT times.”
That is all that needs to be said. If you cannot prove it keep silent about it. Where Scripture is silent we must also be silent. We cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. That is what gets the Catholic Church and many other cults in so much trouble—they read into the Bible things that just are not there. If it is not taught in the Bible, not specifically mentioned in the Bible, no example given in the Bible, why do you presume that it is in the Bible? That is fairly large leap of faith—one that many of us call heresy.

Jesus said in Luke 18:16, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Allow them to come unto me. That verse indicates that the disciples were to allow the children to come to Jesus—on their own accord. There is no indication of a babe in arms here. But even if there were, would that change things any? Not at all. Such is the kingdom of God. To be received as a child, or even an infant who holds out his hands for his mother. Salvation is a free gift that needs to be received. Children of all people know what it is to receive a gift. It is only the adults, like the Catholics, who try to complicate things, and make John 1:12; Rom.6:23; Eph.2:8,9; all untrue by saying that you have to work to receive this gift of eternal life. You must receive it, like a child, freely. They don’t work for the things they receive. There is nothing of baptism in any of these verses.

You say, “There is no reason why God cannot infuse a share in His divine nature into the baby of a Christian couple to help them raise that child for Him.”
Yes there are very good reasons why God CANNOT infuse His divine nature into the baby of a Christian couple or any couple. He CANNOT go contrary to His Word. He will not do that which is against His will. You use human speculation to form the will of God. For example, “There is no reason why…” That is your reasoning. That is not what the Word of God teaches, just what your imagination is thinking. What does God say:

Psalm 51:5“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
David admits that he did not have a divine nature at birth. It was anything but. In sin did my mother conceive me, he says, speaking of his sinful nature. It certainly is not speaking of God’s divine nature imparted unto him.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Here he says, that infants go astray from the womb speaking lies. What’s this about a divine nature? Sounds pretty sinful to me!

Jer.2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
Now look what God is telling Jeremiah. Even if you wash yourself with soap, and the strongest possible lye (nitre); use bleach if you want to, you will not be able to wash away your sins. Take all the water you want. Use the Atlantic and the Pacific put together. It still would not be enough water to wash away your sins, and you still would never have a soap strong enough to do the job. Any one who thinks that baptism washes away sin just believes in a silly superstition. All that water does to you is get you wet.

You are reading into the Scriptures things that are not there.
You are failing to take the Scriptures that are there at face value.
For example, What does it mean to: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, or;
”For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” or,
”For if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved,” or,
”To Him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” or,
”But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”

In all of these verses there is no baptism and no works. You are saved by faith and by faith alone. Again I go back to your first batch of verses, which I claimed were quoted out of context and still maintain that they are. The reason is given above. Salvation is by faith, not by baptism, as the Catholic church teaches.

You say, “And you cannot adequately explain away what scripture says about being baptism and walking in new life.”
But I can explain that very well Pauline. The problem is that you won’t listen or accept my explanation. I have already said that a baby cannot walk: neither physically or spiritually. So how is this supposed to apply to infant baptism?? How can an infant walk in newness of life when it has total inability to believe or to walk. Are we making any sense here?
Regarding adults, water doesn’t make them walk does it? Water doesn’t impart newness of life? Water is H2O. Let us understand this very basic concept of life. There is no magical power in H2O to impart divine life, or newness of life. Baptism is a step of obedience taken by one who already has eternal life abiding in him. It is a step of obedience for a believer, one who has come to Christ as a sinner and trusted Christ for the forgiveness of his sins through the shed blood of Christ. It is something that is done AFTER salvation, and has nothing to do with salvation. In baptism there is a picture given of the old life being put to death, (“buried with him by baptism” Rom.6:4) and rising again to a new life (“walk in newness of life” ;)

Please do not read into the Scriptures that which is not there. Take them at face value as God intended them to be taken. We are saved by faith!
DHK

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: DHK ]

[The Briguy]

Pauline writes:
"The Book of Acts reports that the earliest Christians baptized entire households."
You compare a scripture that talks about Baptizing whole households with the Acts 8:37 which says exactly what it means? Sand vs. rock if you ask me.

Ed, my above post that I asked you to address should have said eunuch, not Phillip.
Read it again. I will fix it now. Sorry about that. We are talking about the reason for Baptism here so it is c crucial point.

In Him,
Brian

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: The Briguy ]

[UncleRay]

Dear DHK,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes there are very good reasons why God CANNOT infuse His divine nature into the baby of a Christian couple or any couple. He CANNOT go contrary to His Word. He will not do that which is against His will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"He CANNOT go contrary to His Word"

You honestly believe that your understanding of a scripture verse limits God? ? ? ANd you alone know His will?

Although divinely inspired, scripture is the result of translations, the culture of the time, and what the writer was trying to convey. My God can do anything He wants. The law, scripture and sacraments were created for our benefit, not to limit God by the words of man, even if those words are inspired.

I'm certain that your God is the same. You are just trying to keep Him in a box of your understanding.

Grace and peace,

Uncle Ray

[Sir Ed]

Brian, what you say about the eunich is true.

[The Briguy]

Ed, You're driving me crazy, which today is a short drive. Anyway, I am trying to make you see that unbelief and non-confession would have prevented the eunuch from being Baptized. Is it wrong to conclude from that that you MUST first believe to be Baptized? (thus nullifying infant Baptism - at least based on this one verse) if it is wrong tell me how so.

In Christ our Savior,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

No, its not wrong to assume (and/or conclude) that is the case based on that one verse. However, as you know, I believe that assumption is incorrect based on other verses of Scripture.

The only thing that verse proves is in regard to the Eunich.

[DHK]

Brother Ray,
From my understanding of Scripture I am able to determine the will of God for my life. I also know God’s general will for all mankind from that same Scripture (that none should perish, that all should be saved). According to 1Cor.2:12, God has given me “His Spirit that I might know the things that are freely given to us from God.” God does illumine my heart with understanding of Scripture. I freely admit that without hesitation. If that is to imply that I am right and you are wrong, then so be it.
You serve a very cruel and vindictive god, if your god can do anything it wants. My God cannot lie (Num.23:19). My God cannot sin. My God cannot look upon or countenance evil (Hab.1:13). I am truly sorry for you that you serve such a weak and anemic god. For my God is the Sovereign Creator of the universe, holy, just, completely separated from sin, and yet a God of love and mercy at the same time.
God is indeed limited. For He has limited Himself by his very nature. Your arguments are as foolish as the atheists who argue: “Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?” The atheist thinks he has limited God, and proved that God is not infinite. Your reasoning is the same. It is illogical. God does not go contrary to His Word, and He does not go contrary to His nature.

Prove Scripture by Scripture. You cannot prove Scripture by your own reasonings and insults, but rather answer Scripture with Scripture.
DHK

[The Briguy]

Sir Ed writes:
"The only thing that verse proves is in regard to the Eunich."

Ed Ed Ed Ed, what am I going to do with you. Did you really think out that last statement. You make it sound like scripture lessons are not transferable(sp?). Was the sermon on the MT. only for those who were in the audience? Were many of the parables just for the diciples? Was the forgiveness lesson with Mary M. just for her? Was the Mary and Martha lesson only for Martha? I think you see my point. We need to apply all of the "teachings" of the Bible across the board and see how they apply to us. I do realize that Jesus did give "charges" that were isolated to the apostles or the 70, etc... but that is not the kind of thing we are discussing here.
What are your thoughts on this fine day, ED.
btw, do you do this from home or work?

In Christ,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

Unfortunately, from work! It appears you and I are speaking a different language. Yes, the story of the eunich is EVIDENCE of requiring believer's baptism. It is not, however, PROOF.

[The Briguy]

Ed, I do this from work too, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Anyway, do you then agree that we can't isolate the eunuch scripture and we must take it with the Bible as a whole?

In Him,
Brian

[DHK]

Pauline,
You said: “I cannot prove from scripture that infants were baptized during NT times.”
---You finally agree with the Baptists. You have no Scriptural defence left?

[Pauline]

DHK.
And, you can't prove from scripture that some of those "entire" households didn't have babies which were baptized. So you aren't any further along on proving your position on this topic.

But I do have support from tradition that the early Christian did baptize babies and therefore we know that their understanding of the apostles teaching included baptizing babies.

Nope, I still am Catholic in my view and far from the Baptist view on this topic. You didn't seriously think otherwise smile.gif smile.gif

BTW, please don't miss the last post on the Oral Tradition thread before Joseph locked it. It was such fun getting in the last word, that I don't want you to miss it.

Pauline

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

[The Briguy]

Pauline, When I showed you direct scriptual evidence about infant Baptism you did not accept it. We know no babies were baptized because belief was the requirement of the eunuch. If this was a court trial any jury would find for my argument over yours.

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
Pauline, When I showed you direct scriptual evidence about infant Baptism you did not accept it. We know no babies were baptized because belief was the requirement of the eunuch. If this was a court trial any jury would find for my argument over yours.

In Love and Truth,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Philip was talking to an adult. Must we necessarily generalize this to infants as well? They would not be able to answer either way, but would that preclude them from Baptism?

An imperfect analogy:

I will give a drink of water to anyone who is thirsty.

You tell me you are thirsty, so I give you a drink of water.

You have a baby in your arms. Do I withhold water from it because it did not say it was thirsty?

You say, "The baby is thirsty."

Do I continue to withhold water?

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[The Briguy]

T2U, I appreciate your analogy and perhaps me and you would have set up things differently but we are constrained to God's plan not ours. You left out the 1st verse I used which does say that infants can't be baptized:
""8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

What would have hindered the eunuch? Not understanding why he was being Baptized would have. No belief or heart confession =
no Baptism.

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
T2U, I appreciate your analogy and perhaps me and you would have set up things differently but we are constrained to God's plan not ours. You left out the 1st verse I used which does say that infants can't be baptized:
""8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

What would have hindered the eunuch? Not understanding why he was being Baptized would have. No belief or heart confession =
no Baptism.

In Love and Truth,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, I think the strongest statement that you can make is that your personal interpretation of this particular verse is no belief = no baptism. You don't actually speak for God, right?

Now there are other verses in Scripture which may be appealed to as a support of infant Baptism. It is simply that you wanted to focus on this one.

BTW in regards to: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?", my question as to whether this must be generalized to infants still stands. The eunuch was an adult. Perhaps your "heart confession" is only required of adults, not infants. The fact is you do not really know.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
DHK.
And, you can't prove from scripture that some of those "entire" households didn't have babies which were baptized. So you aren't any further along on proving your position on this topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline, as I said before, you cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. There are no recorded infants in those households. There are no recorded infants anywhere being baptized IN THE BIBLE. You may have some heretical teachers teaching that afterward. I am not concerned with those men. I am concerned only with God's inspired Word. I have given you plenty of Scripture to think about, and a simple challenge:
ANSWER SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE!

So far I haven't seen that from you. Ye do err not know the Scriptures, neither the power of God.
DHK

[The Briguy]

T2U, I think in life in general everyday we weigh out evidence and draw conclusions. I do not speak for God but I can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, weigh out the scriptual evidence on a subject and draw a conclusion based on that. My conclusion of the two verses in question is the logical conclusion and the only one I see, therefore I feel I can boldly say it is God's rule for baptism. I hope you can see my logic there. In fact, if you think about it that is what we all do here on the BB. T2U, Do you agree that based on these two verses I have a logical conclusion? Be honest now!!! (Ha Ha)
Take care and keep searching and growing,
In Christ,
Brian

[Sir Ed]

The Bible does not speak directly on the topic of infant baptism. To say that it does is an outright untruth. Thus, we must go to other verses that allude to infant baptism.

As soon as ya'll so show me the verses that say infant baptism is improper, I will change my ways. Until then I continue to rely on the teachings of the early Church fathers and:

Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
John 1: 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 1: 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Matthew, v. 19: Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Likewise in St. Mark, the last chapter, v. 16:He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 19:4.9 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Mark 10:39.27 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized

Peace be with you.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[The Briguy]

Not one of those verses implies infant baptism. Not one verse support or supply any evidence that infants should be Baptized. On the other hand, We read in scripture Repent and be Baptized, and the story of the Eunuch which are direct evidence that infants do not qualify for Baptism. It is not about the evidence or proof Ed, it is about you accepting what you see the Bible say. I could take your verses one by one and show how infant Baptism does pertain to them but I won't unless you want me to.
In Christ,
Brian

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
The Bible does not speak directly on the topic of infant baptism. To say that it does is an outright untruth. Thus, we must go to other verses that allude to infant baptism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post Sir Ed. But you should have stopped at the word "baptism." "The Bible does not speak of the topic of infant baptism," therefore to read infant baptism into the Bible is absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of purgatory, therefore to read purgatory into the Scriptures is absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of indulgences, therefore to read indulgences into the Scriptures in absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of kissing the pope's feet, therefore to kiss the pope's feet is absolutely wrong (it is idolatrous), and it is heretical. Be consistent Sir Ed.
DHK

[Sir Ed]

Brian, with all respect, you would be wasting your time. Like I said, until you show me the verse that says infants are not to be baptized, I will continue to believe the early Church fathers and my understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit, of Scripture. What someone says in 2002 about baptism and their interpretation of Scripture is way down my list as far as the basis for beliefs.

My faith is a simple one. Scripture tells me this:
1. We are baptized with the Holy Ghost.
2. We are baptized of God, not man.
3. The Spirit from Heaven descends on us like a dove and remains with us at baptism.
4. We are to baptize all.
5. Baptism is a part of Salvation.
6. We are baptized that we should believe on Christ.
7. We are baptized with the same baptism as Christ.

I'm sure you will tell me that the verses I listed don't mean what they say. If you don't DHK will. ;) However, like I said, my faith is a simple one.

Peace be with you.

[Sir Ed]

DHK, FYI: Let me remind you again, I don't read your posts and I don't respond to them. Your hatefulness, lack of reason, twisting of Scripture, and reliance on yourself as the ONLY authority leaves us nothing to talk about.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
T2U, I think in life in general everyday we weigh out evidence and draw conclusions. I do not speak for God but I can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, weigh out the scriptual evidence on a subject and draw a conclusion based on that. My conclusion of the two verses in question is the logical conclusion and the only one I see, therefore I feel I can boldly say it is God's rule for baptism. I hope you can see my logic there. In fact, if you think about it that is what we all do here on the BB. T2U, Do you agree that based on these two verses I have a logical conclusion? Be honest now!!! (Ha Ha)
Take care and keep searching and growing,
In Christ,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is going to drve you crazy, but no, your conclusion is not the only logical conclusion. As I said the verses in question concern an adult, not an infant. it tells us nothing about infants.

Do you hold to a belief in "age of accountability"? If so why? Because before such an age, one cannot make a declaration of belief, because one is not sufficiently formed?

Ok, why then does this mean that Baptism of infants is not valid? It may simply mean that if one is not Baptized by that age, then one needs to declare that belief because they are now capable of doing so. Prior to that age, such a declaration is not possible and so not necessary.

I don't recall any passages in the Bible which say "Baptize except infants."

Ron smile.gif

[DHK]

Sir Ed,
You are perfectly right when you say that the Bible does not speak of altar calls, and guitars in church. These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history. Concerning guitars we don’t use a guitar at all in our church. So that ought not to be an issue. There are a variety of Baptist churches as you know, each having a wide variety of traditions. This type of tradition is not doctrinal. Playing a guitar is not going to affect my salvation. The giving of an altar call (which again is done in some Baptist churches but not in all), is not going to affect my salvation, or my walk with God. They are simply extra-Biblical traditions.

However the last two examples that you gave are taught in the Bible.
The sinner’s prayer is recorded in Luke 18:13,
”And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God.
DHK

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Sir Ed,
You are perfectly right when you say that the Bible does not speak of altar calls, and guitars in church. These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history. Concerning guitars we don’t use a guitar at all in our church. So that ought not to be an issue. There are a variety of Baptist churches as you know, each having a wide variety of traditions. This type of tradition is not doctrinal. Playing a guitar is not going to affect my salvation. The giving of an altar call (which again is done in some Baptist churches but not in all), is not going to affect my salvation, or my walk with God. They are simply extra-Biblical traditions.

However the last two examples that you gave are taught in the Bible.
The sinner’s prayer is recorded in Luke 18:13,
”And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt;&gt;These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history.&lt;&lt;

How does this differ from what you would reject as mere traditon of men?

&gt;&gt;The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is.&lt;&lt;

This sounds like a completely different and note worthy change from the standard that you have used in the past when judging the beliefs of others.

I must remember to refer you back to this line of reasoning should you fall back on your old ways.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[Chemnitz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it really? I beg to differ. Age of accountability is a story that was conjured up to reasure guilty parents for not baptizing their children, that is what I think. A story conjured up by people so caught up in their own human reasoning that they refused to believe that a small child or infant can believe even though they can't tell us. A story conjured up by people who honestly believe that in their sinful depravity that is human nature, they can do something for God. My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God.

God does not recognize some age at which a person is now accountable for his deeds. A child is already damned because of the fall. All flesh is born sinful. God made it quite clear that he holds even infants accountable when he made the convenant of circumcision.

Comparing age of accountability to the trinity is a pretty lame comparison. There is Biblical evidence for the Trinity whereas for age of accountability there is ziltch.

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You will have to do it without me. Sorry. I'm too tired.

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

&gt;&gt;These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history.&lt;&lt;
How does this differ from what you would reject as mere traditon of men?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

”How does this differ from what you would reject as mere tradition of men?”

It is Jesus that rejects that rejects the tradition of men or the commandments of men when they put these commandments on an equal value or greater value than the Word of God, “thus making the Word of God to none effect.” We all live with tradition. Every one has tradition. New years Eve/Day, Birthday parties, anniversaries, etc., are all examples of traditions. But these have nothing to do with my faith or my religion.
Those traditions that are religious in nature and definitely contradict the Bible we must reject. Over time infant Baptist became a tradition and a doctrine in liturgical churches. From the beginning it was not so. It cannot be demonstrated from Scriptures. The same is true for the other things that I previously mentioned: purgatory, the kissing of the pope’s feet, both of which are either are directly prohibited in the Bible or have a bearing on our salvation.
The Bible is our standard in all things. Everything must be measured by the Bible. The history of music is an interesting discussion. In the past I posted quite a bit in the music forum. There are principles of music taught in the Bible (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). At one time in the Christian church there used to be no instruments at all. Gradually there were some. Some churches only have a piano and/or organ. Some churches will only play traditional old hymns of the faith. Some now accept modern CCM music. I am of the opinion that the latter genre of music obscures the message of the gospel. That is my opinion based on principles that I have gleaned in the Word of God. You will find that Adam disagrees with me, and goes to a different type of church than me. He has that soul liberty, that right, and I hold nothing against him for his belief. There are many Baptist churches that now accept CCM music. They are still Baptist. They don’t differ with me in doctrine. But their standard of music is different. It is a historical change in the church. You must decide for yourself what is right or wrong on such issues on the basis of what you believe the Bible teaches.
I hope this helps.
DHK

[DHK]

Sir Ed posted:
"My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God."

Baptism is a work. It is a work that man does for you. He baptizes you. He does the work. You are being baptized by someone. That is called a work. God is not directly baptizing you. How then could baptism be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is baptism called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.
DHK

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Sir Ed posted:
"My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God."

Baptism is a work. It is a work that man does for you. He baptizes you. He does the work. You are being baptized by someone. That is called a work. God is not directly baptizing you. How then could baptism be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is baptism called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Accepting Jesus is a work. It is a work that you do for yourself. You accept Jesus. You do the work. You are being accepting Jesus by yourself. That is called a work. God is not directly accepting Jesus for you. How then could accepting Jesus be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is accepting Jesus called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

Accepting Jesus is a work. It is a work that you do for yourself. You accept Jesus. You do the work. You are being accepting Jesus by yourself. That is called a work. God is not directly accepting Jesus for you. How then could accepting Jesus be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is accepting Jesus called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the only "work" that God accepts.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


It is the only "work" that God accepts.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt;&gt;It is the only "work" that God accepts.&lt;&lt;

You might check that against Matthew 25.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

&gt;&gt;It is the only "work" that God accepts.&lt;&lt;
You might check that against Matthew 25.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
verses 1 to 13 speak of the kingdom of heaven, a time yet to come.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
verses 14 to 30 is talking primarily of the kingdom of Heaven, a time yet to come.

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
verses 31 to the end of the chapter talk of the judgement of the nations which will take place after the Coming of Christ, during the Kingdom of Heaven, when Christ rules for a thousand years.
I have looked at every verse in Matthew 25, and none of them refer to works for salvation.
DHK

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
verses 1 to 13 speak of the kingdom of heaven, a time yet to come.

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
verses 14 to 30 is talking primarily of the kingdom of Heaven, a time yet to come.

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
verses 31 to the end of the chapter talk of the judgement of the nations which will take place after the Coming of Christ, during the Kingdom of Heaven, when Christ rules for a thousand years.
I have looked at every verse in Matthew 25, and none of them refer to works for salvation.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Matthew 25
35
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

DHK, you might want to look again.

Edit starts here.

"verses 31 to the end of the chapter talk of the judgement of the nations which will take place after the Coming of Christ, during the Kingdom of Heaven, when Christ rules for a thousand years."

Ok DHK, I get what you are trying to say but this is merely your interpretation.

I have a feeling that you are picking and choosing words from Scripture to fit your preconceived ideas. Not judging you, but only reporting what I see.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

"verses 31 to the end of the chapter talk of the judgement of the nations which will take place after the Coming of Christ, during the Kingdom of Heaven, when Christ rules for a thousand years."
Ok DHK, I get what you are trying to say but this is merely your interpretation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is there to interpret? In the previous verse Jesus said he was coming again in his glory. Before that he speaks of His Kingdom. No one has seen Jesus come again yet with his holy angels to set up his kingdom. Have you? The everlasting punishment here correlates with Rev.20:15-20. This is speaking of totally different time period in history. We are not dealing with that time period in history, just as we are not in the Old Testament times now. We are dealing with the time before Jesus comes again. "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2Cor.6:2) In this time, after the death of Christ, and before the coming of Christ, God is calling a people out for Himself. He is doing that by faith in his Name. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved." (Rom.10:13) This has nothing to do with works. Not in this dispensation. The only requirement for salvation is faith, faith in the shed blood of Christ, his sacrifice on the cross that took the place for your sins.
DHK

[Pauline]

DHK.
Where does scripture say Mt 25 is not for this dispensation?
Pauline

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


What is there to interpret?
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DHK, you don't believe that the interpretations that you choose to accept are the only possible interpetations, do you?

Ron smile.gif

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:

Where does scripture say Mt 25 is not for this dispensation?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mat.25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

This sounds pretty straight forward to me. Have you seen the son of man come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, and have you seen Him sitting on His throne of glory, here on earth? Has anyone? It must then then be a future event.
DHK

[Glen Seeker]

DHK,

So what happens at this future event? The sheep and the goats are separated by their deeds. By their good works, the sheep get to go with the Lord. Conversly, by their lack of good works, the goats get sent away from the Lord.

You will notice that both the sheep and the goats in this parable talk to the Lord as if they know Him. "Lord, when did..." So it must be understood that they all believe in Him.

Sure seems to me that believers can be accepted or rejected by the Lord by the works which they do. :eek:

Am I gonna take flack over this or what!?!?

Aloha and God Bless

[Pauline]

Glen Seeker,
You won't get any flack from me over that post.

DHK,
So you don't think we'll be judged when Christ returns? You think that only applies to those who are living then? How do you know He won't return tonight? If He did, would we then be in that dispensation.

I think trying to divide the Christian era up into dispensations lacks scriptural credibility.

Pauline

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pauline ]

[DHK]

“So what happens at this future event? The sheep and the goats are separated by their deeds. By their good works, the sheep get to go with the Lord. Conversly, by their lack of good works, the goats get sent away from the Lord.”
“You will notice that both the sheep and the goats in this parable talk to the Lord as if they know Him. "Lord, when did..." So it must be understood that they all believe in Him.”

Revelation :19:11-14
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

The sheep and the goats in Mat.25:32 are clearly identified as “nations” “And before him shall be gathered all nations.” These are not individuals, per se, they are nations; nations that have either been friendly toward the Jews “my brethren,” or unfriendly to the Jews. It is a judgment of the nations, not individual Christians.
This judgment will take place after the Great Tribulation, a period of time lasting for seven years. The rapture will take place before then, the catching away of all believers described in 1Thes.4:16,17. Because I have trusted Christ as my Saviour I will not be here during this time of Great Tribulation when God’s wrath is poured out upon the world (Rev. 6 to 19). When Jesus comes in his glory, as he says he will in Mat.25, and in Rev.19, I, along with other believers in Christ will come with Him. We will be part of “the armies which are in heaven.” I will not be a part of those nations that are then being judged. My sins, regarding my salvation have already been judged. They have been put under the blood to be remembered no more—totally forgiven. By the time I will come back with Christ, my works, as far as my walk with Christ is concerned will have been judged, but this has nothing to do with salvation, and nothing to do with the judgement mentioned in Matthew 25.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance
God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
DHK

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:

This judgment will take place after the Great Tribulation, a period of time lasting for seven years. The rapture will take place before then, the catching away of all believers described in 1Thes.4:16,17. Because I have trusted Christ as my Saviour I will not be here during this time of Great Tribulation when God’s wrath is poured out upon the world (Rev. 6 to 19). When Jesus comes in his glory, as he says he will in Mat.25, and in Rev.19, I, along with other believers in Christ will come with Him. We will be part of “the armies which are in heaven.” I will not be a part of those nations that are then being judged. My sins, regarding my salvation have already been judged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have said, DHK, that is your interpretation not mine, ours, or everybodies. In fact, that is not even every Baptist's interpretation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000562

[The Briguy]

Ron writes:
"This is going to drve you crazy, but no, your conclusion is not the only logical conclusion. As I said the verses in question concern an adult, not an infant. it tells us nothing about infants."

Actually, my point was to make you see how I came to MY conclusion not persuade you to agree with me. I believe we will not agree on infant Baptism because you would have to change your whole system of beliefs to accept my viewpoint. My view of baptism is actually different then most, well maybe all the people on this board. I, in a nut shell, see Baptism as the "signing" of an agreement. Kind of like a husband and wife sign a marriage certificate to show that they are serious. In the early church baptism was just like that. It affiliated people with "The Way". Now it seems to me, with persecution being different and the "Church being worldwide the need for Baptism has diminished, it is still a fine thing to do if you feel the need, but not necessary by any stretch. You can see how infants don't fit into that view at all. And you can see why no infant was ever Baptized in the Bible. Keep searching and questioning Ron, I know I will!!!

In Christ our Lord,
Brian

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

As I have said, DHK, that is your interpretation not mine, ours, or everybodies. In fact, that is not even every Baptist's interpretation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never claimed it to be every Baptist's interpretation. You ask me what the Bible says and I will tell you. One thing that all the Baptists do agree on, however, is that one is saved by faith alone, without works. That is where this discussion began. Baptism, a work, cannot save (Jer. 2:22).
DHK

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


I never claimed it to be every Baptist's interpretation. You ask me what the Bible says and I will tell you. One thing that all the Baptists do agree on, however, is that one is saved by faith alone, without works. That is where this discussion began. Baptism, a work, cannot save (Jer. 2:22).
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"I never claimed it to be every Baptist's interpretation."

No, DHK, you did not. But you did say, "What is there to interpret? In the previous verse Jesus said he was coming again in his glory. Before that he speaks of His Kingdom. No one has seen Jesus come again yet with his holy angels to set up his kingdom. Have you? The everlasting punishment here correlates with Rev.20:15-20."

I'm glad that you recognize that it is merely your interpetation and not an absolute given.

This takes us back to Matthew 25. If your "Left Behind" end times scenario is not a correct interpretation, you may have a problem with your understanding of the value of "works" as they relate to judgement.

[Glen Seeker]

In Matt.25, when it says that he will gather all nations doesn't it mean that he will gather people from all nations?

If it means the nations themselves, from what period in time? Take, for instance, the US. Will we be judged for what we did to the native Americans or African slaves or will we bejudged as a nation for the good we have done? Perhaps we will be judged for not stopping the killing of millions of innocent babies in their mothers' womb.

It seems to me that the text here is referring to the people of all nations rather than the nations themselves.

Aloha and God Bless

[trying2understand]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:

Keep searching and questioning Ron, I know I will!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto. smile.gif

[DHK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glen Seeker:
If it means the nations themselves, from what period in time? Take, for instance, the US. Will we be judged for what we did to the native Americans or African slaves or will we bejudged as a nation for the good we have done? Perhaps we will be judged for not stopping the killing of millions of innocent babies in their mothers' womb.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mat.25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these MY BRETHREN, ye have done it unto me.

It seems apparent that: first, the event is after the coming of the Lord, and second, the nations the nations are gathered to be judged for their “works,” or their relation to Israel. “My brethren” is the Jewish nation. We have no reason to believe otherwise. Why bring in other red herrings such as crimes done to African slaves? The total picture centers around the coming of Christ and the Jewish nation. The nations will be judged in accordance of how the treated the Jews (“my brethren” ;).
DHK

[Pauline]

DHK.
Scripture has certainly defined "brethren" differently than you do.
Pauline

[Glen Seeker]

So, only those nations which existed after WWII will be judged? Since there was no nation of Israel at the time, then Nazi Germany wont be judged?

Perhaps this means that the judgment will only pertain to the situation of the world on the day of the Lord's return. Who knows, one day before that, a nation which fought Israel may make peace with it.

The Soviet Union is gone. It was no friend of Israel.

The judgement of nations as you say it, makes no sense at all. After all, what is a nation but its people? The government of the nations direct their policies. Many of the governments which are anti-Israel, also oppress their own people. how can those nations be judged?

Could brethren of the Lord be Christians? Could the judgement be directed against those who persecute Christians?

Hmmmm! Things to ponder. :rolleyes:

[DHK]

“So, only those nations which existed after WWII will be judged? Since there was no nation of Israel at the time, then Nazi Germany wont be judged?” (Glen)
---No, only those nations which exist after the Tribulation Period has ended will be judged. We are in no position yet to say exactly who those nations will be.

Mat.24:21-27
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Verse 21 points to a “Great Tribulation.” Verse 27 points to the coming of Christ. Both of these are talked of in more detail in the rest of Matthew 24 and in the Book of Revelation. It is still a future event. Except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved (physically)

”The Soviet Union is gone. It was no friend of Israel.”
That may be somewhat true. But Russia and its allies are still here, and are mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel as those that will come down upon Israel. Each nation will be judged in accordance to its relation to Israel at that future time in history.
DHK

[Glen Seeker]

Are you telling me that all the people of those nations will be judged as a single unit? China is no friend of Israel and, (according to "THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH") is one of the nations which is going to try to invade or conquer Israel. Will the nation be damned? It persecutes thousands of its own citizens for trying to spread the Christian faith. Being part of the nation, will those Christians also suffer the same judgement as the rest of the nation?

Again I must say that nations are comprised of people. Without them, nations are nothing but empty land. I cannot envision a just God who will judge all the people of a nation because of the decisions of a few in power.

A god like that might be a god of wrath. He certainly isn't the God of mercy that I worship.

Aloha and God Bless

[DHK]

I am saying Glen, that you cannot use verses that speak about future events, eschatology, and so on, to prove that infant baptism and salvation by good works are Scriptural. This conversation, though interesting, is way off topic. I think it is deliberately so. I would be glad to continue such a discussion on another thread. But you cannot use the “judgement of the nations,” a future event, to say that salvation is by works. You will have to try harder than that. Scripture does not contradict itself.
DHK