Results 3141 - 3160 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3141 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 23142 | ||
Greetings charis, I thank you for presenting yourself a little more clearly. :-) I never said nor hinted that the process of sanctification was not an ongoing process (1 Peter 1:2, Phil. 2:12). In fact, I agree! And I believe that this process has a beginning at salvation and an end, when the Lord completes the work that He has started in us. However, I believe that at the moment of salvation, a believer experiences the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism by fire, which would constitute 'one baptism'. As for subsequent baptisms by fire throughout our lives that help us to be cleansed from sin- I have always believed that this is only the process of sanctification working itself out in our lives rather than us going through other subsequent baptisms. But I appreciate your point of view and I'll have to consider what you believe, although I disagree with it in light of Eph. 4:5. I believe that all three forms of baptism (fire, Holy Spirit, and water) are effective as you do, even though I believe that water baptism is not entirely essential to complete our spiritual walk in Him. Yes, water baptism is very important and we must do it because we are commanded to. And, like you've already stated, it is entirely for OUR benefit. But I believe that water baptism, in and of itself, is just a public affirmation and declaration of the Spiritual baptism that has already occurred within. Yes, water baptism is a sign to the world of our faith. Why do we do it in church, you ask?? Good question!! It is really a symbol for society as a whole, my friend, not just the church for church membership! :-) Friend, I have nothing at all to prove to you either! I only pray that you and I could see the truth as to what Scripture says concerning baptism. :-) And yes, I know just how effective my baptism is, thank you. Nolan |
||||||
3142 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 23152 | ||
Thank you charis! Blessings to you as well, and I appreciate this time to re-visit some of these 'fine points' of baptism that I have already seemed to 'settle' in my own mind. My own interpretation is only seen through my eyes and it is always invaluable to see the view from someone else's viewpoint, my friend. I apologize if I may have seemed a little 'defensive' when considering my baptism. Thank you! Love and peace in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
3143 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 23173 | ||
Greetings Randy, my dear Brother in Christ! I sincerely forgive you for any rudeness whatsoever, my friend! You are absolutely right- Every experience in the Lord is more than we could ever think or imagine. I sincerely forgive you and do not think any less of you.. I appreciate you returning my love and peace 'with interest'! :-) We will have to chat sometime. Your servant in Christ, Nolan |
||||||
3144 | how to be baptize'd do you need holy | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 56986 | ||
Thank you, Justme! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3145 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57006 | ||
Greetings Rferg! When I define water baptism, I believe that it is a public, outward expression of the inward transition that has already occurred. So yes, I believe that water baptism is important (commanded by our Lord in Matthew 28:19), but, at the same time, I do not believe that water baptism is essential to our salvation. You are on the right track for seeing my point of view on baptism.. But water baptism is not always at a "later" time than being Baptized by the Holy Spirit. I would say that these are two separate events- one accomplished by the Holy Spirit inwardly; the other accomplished by a pastor and water at a time, method, and setting of your choosing.. Publicly declaring Christ as Lord and publicly declaring yourself to be His has always been an important, spiritual occurrence that the Lord does not fail to notice! Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3146 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57012 | ||
Greetings again, Rferg, I've argued this topic over and over again at this Forum.. Would you like for me to bury you with Commentaries? Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3147 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57015 | ||
Yes, this Forum is here for us to learn from each other.. [The following article was taken from John MacArthur's "Grace to You" website, at http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] (Part 1 of 2) "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26)." "© 2000 Grace to You" |
||||||
3148 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57016 | ||
[Taken from http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] (Part 2 of 2) "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687. Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." "© 2000 Grace to You" |
||||||
3149 | 3 baptisms or 1, or... | Col 2:12 | Makarios | 57062 | ||
Greetings Rferg, I'm not sure what to make of your post.. The confusion begins with "I believe the KJ version of the Bible is perfect, because I serve a God who is perfect" and it gets more confusing from then on.. The King James Version of the Bible was not "inspired" or hand-written by God Himself. It is a revision of the manuscripts that are handed down to us, which are in themselves copies of what was first inspired. As for your commentary on John 3:16 and Acts 2:41, I fail to follow your reasoning, and it just doesn't make any sense. I am at a loss to understand the point that you tried to make in your last paragraph. Sorry, but I do not believe that you will be successful in proving to me that water baptism is essential to salvation. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3150 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 8097 | ||
Amen, Radioman!! | ||||||
3151 | Who moved the Sabbath to Sun.? | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 11740 | ||
Excellent study Norrie! Nolan |
||||||
3152 | Do you rest on the Sabbath? | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 12594 | ||
Dear christiankl, here is some information on the Sabbath that you might find interesting.. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote, There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest, whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them. Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal reason. As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) affirms that the sabbath has been a shadow of a reality yet to be. And he declares else-where its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence, superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians." Part 1 of 2 From the Archives at "Grace to you" at http://www.gty.org |
||||||
3153 | Do you rest on the Sabbath? | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 12595 | ||
Dear christiankl, here is some information on the Sabbath that you might find interesting.. "The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church. As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin's own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, "The Law of the Lord"]." Part 2 of 2 From the Archives at "Grace to you" at http://www.gty.org Grace to you! --Nolan |
||||||
3154 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 12597 | ||
Are you a Messianic Jew? | ||||||
3155 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 12673 | ||
AMEN Brother! :) | ||||||
3156 | Correcting the translation | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 24944 | ||
Greetings Dave! I have found your website at http://biblestudy.iwarp.com interesting! You have a study of Colossians 2:16-17, an article on the Ordination of Women, studies on the books of Daniel and Isaiah, and a study on the Synoptic Gospels! You have definitely put a lot of time into your website, and I will return to it later and examine it much more closely.. Thank you for sharing it! Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
3157 | Question to ART regarding the Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Makarios | 69360 | ||
Greetings BradK, my friend, All three of your posts are in response to my question to ART. Please remember to respond to his posts, so that you can strike up a conversation. As for me, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the Sabbath. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
3158 | Present tense | Col 2:17 | Makarios | 28407 | ||
Excellent post Steve, And I agree! :-) Blessings to you, Nolan |
||||||
3159 | For the One with us? | Col 3:17 | Makarios | 7614 | ||
Good point, Ray.. And I agree that we should all take special note of where something is capitalized and where it is not. Blessings, Nolan! | ||||||
3160 | Did Paul write the Laodiceans? | Col 4:16 | Makarios | 9225 | ||
Greetings Blaze and Tim! Thank you for some excellent and most interesting responses! I especially appreciate Tim's analysis of the letter to the Ephesians and his posting of the complete letter of Paul to the Laodiceans! These were excellent posts! The New Testament tells us that there were letters written that we don't have as New Testament canon. Among them are... - a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); - a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); - a missing epistle to the Colossians, which may have been written in Laodicea or there may be another letter written from or to the Laodicea (Col. 4:16); - a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3). Moreover, the Vulgate records a letter Paul wrote to Laodicea. Is it possible that the letter to the Laodiceans in the Vulgate is the letter Paul was talking about in Col 4:16? Is this the same one that Tim posted earlier? http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/7churches/7church7.html tells us there were 6 cities named "Laodicea" and the letters gives us no hints as to which "Laodicea" is being referred to here. This may or may not be the same as the one mentioned in Revelations. The largest of these 6 cities was distinguished by the term, "Laodicea on the Lycus", but this term is not applied in this letter. There was a Laodicea in Greece (about 40 miles East of Ephesus on the banks of Lycus) and another in Syria. According to http://www.lazarusinternet.com/guide/footprints.htm, there was a large Jewish population in Laodicea of Turkey, where both Latin and Greek were in use as a common tongue. http://www2.britannica.com/search?query (equals)laodicea, tells us there are several cities in Western Asia by this name. Like both of you fellow brothers in Christ, I find this very interesting! Thank you for sharing the information! Blessings! Nolan |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 ] Next > Last [185] >> |