Results 1601 - 1620 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1601 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19054 | ||
Bill: Justification is a legal declaration. Nothing more. That was the view in Paul's day as well as ours. It does not mean "being made righteous." The view that actual righteousness is infused into us is the Roman Catholic view, not the view of Scripture. One of the greatest points of conflict between Martin Luther and the Pope was precisely on this point. We are not saved because God has made us inherently righteous, Luther argued, but rather because God has declared us righteous on account of Christ (this is known as forensic justification). The Old Testament sacrifices never took away individual sins, only the Atonement that they pre-figured. It is Christ that has always been the sole source of justification: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:4 I suggest that you are defining justification out of the legal context in which Paul was working, since it means precisely that we are declared righteous. In the case of the Christian, that justification occurs solely on the fact that Christ foreign righteousness is imputed to us (put on our account). Our record of wrongs and Christ's "switch places," so to speak. I do understand your position, Bill. Most of the pastors that I have sat under in my life had been Dallas Theological Seminary-trained ones, just as I am sure that yours is. I became a Christian while a regular attender of a Bible church and have spent most of my Christian life in dispensationalist circles. I have many, many friends who share your view. And, while I consider you all to be members of Christ's body, I also know that the Dispensationalist view is a very recent development in church history (as in the last 150 years) and holds a viewpoint contrary to almost every major evangelical theologian in church history. Now that in itself does not mean that this view is wrong, but one really has to wonder how so many learned men of God over the last 2000 years missed this until the 1830's. I would encourage you to examine some alternative viewpoints, even if it is only to understand and be able to refute the critics of DTS teachings. --Joe! |
||||||
1602 | Lionstrong, this is not universalism. | Eph 3:6 | Reformer Joe | 19055 | ||
Bill: Again, I agree completely that we can do nothing that is pleasing to God apart from the empowerment by His Spirit. I have never suggested that we can, because to do so would violate the entire message of the New Testament. However, the very verses you cite, and the example of Christ, show that while Christ acted on the initiative of the Father, and by the power of the Spirit, it was CHRIST doing these things, not the Father through him. The problem I have with the notion of "Christ living His life through me" is that it is completely foreign to the idea that by God's empowerment, I am the one living the life. I can take no credit for the sanctification in me, just as Paul considers all of his "upward mobility" to be rubbish in light of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus as Lord. However, it is also true that the Holy Spirit is not merely using me as a conduit, but rather is changing ME and making ME more like the Son in righteous living. One other thing: Paul wasn't pleasing God through the Law before. That was his whole point. --Joe! |
||||||
1603 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49170 | ||
Of course, you will have to decide for yourself whether to follow the current Catholic Catechism, or the Council of Trent of the 16th century, which anathematized Protestants. Both having papal authority, and being mutually contradictory statements, I can't tell you which one was fallible and which one wasn't. --Joe! |
||||||
1604 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49178 | ||
"Thankfully Joe the buck doesn't stop with you. :-)" Well, I can agree with you there. "And as you know, the door swung both ways on condemnations in those days." Yes, but that doesn't address the material question I addressed. Was Trent wrong about us Protestants? Are we anathema? Is the Catechism right when it says I am basically a Roman Catholic, although a separated one in denial? So whom should I believe? The 19th ecumenical council (ratified by Pius IV), or the 1994 Catechism (given the nod by John Paul II)? I really do not intend to take an ad hominem stance, Emmaus. I simply cannot grasp how one can hold to the infallibility of the Church of Rome and reconcile these two crystal-clear official dogmatic documents. If you can help me out in seeing the harmony between the two without minimizing what either of them say, I remain fully open to let the buck pass to you... --Joe! |
||||||
1605 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49191 | ||
So what is the difference between "canon-law anathema" and "biblical anathema." The link you posted just stated that the two were different. Is there any historical support for such a view. It also alludes to the Nicene anathema as an example of a "traditional wording." But here is the Nicene anathema: "But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that He had no existence before He was begotten, or that He was formed of things non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or is created, mutable, or variable, these men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God holds accursed." Can someone believe what is anathematized above and still be a Christian? I hope that we would both agree that he cannot. Likewise, I would assume that since there is no salvation outside the Church, any type of anathema (biblical or canon-law or whatever), being a form of excommunication, would be considered a "cutting off" of the anathematized (including Protestants before 1983, apparently) from the means of grace unto salvation, barring recanting and repenting on the part of the "heretic." In the Bible itself, it means nothing else but "accursed" (such as the Judaizers preaching a false gospel in Galatians 1:8-9 and Paul's desire that he be accursed for the sake of his fellow Jews in Romans 9:3). Nowhere do we see any license for it to be interpreted as a disciplinary measure by the church, but rather a direct and final judgment from God. I would need a lot more historical support for such a two-tiered "anathematizing" before I would buy into such a notion. Seems like attempts at retroactive harmonizing on the part of canon lawyers. How did the Church of Rome understand Trent in the 17th century? Was it different than the 1994 Catechism depicts the relationship between Protestants and Catholics? And why, if the church is infallible, would they abolish the anathema after so long (at least as far back as Nicea, according to the answer given in the link you provided)? --Joe! |
||||||
1606 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49285 | ||
You wrote: "Ninety nine percent of what you see and hear regarding Christianity is taken out of context and made to fit our mainstream, personal viewpoint." Don't you think that figure is a little high? --Joe! |
||||||
1607 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49394 | ||
Thanks for taking the time to get those links for me, Emmaus. Of course, this is a Catholic Web site, and I was less than impressed with the Protestant's line of inquiry. One thing that was brought up regarding heresy that I would like to address with you, however. The Catholic said this: 'You can be sure that the Pelagians considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they had the Scriptures to back it up. Likewise the Nestorians, Donatists, and Monophysites considered their doctrines to be the “true gospel,” and they too had the Scriptures to back it up.' I would disagree here. The Pelagians and these other heretics were heretics precisely because their doctrines could not be backed up with the whole of Scripture. The early church condemned these groups as heretics, not simply because they differed with the Mother Church (which is another interesting argument in itself since Arians and Pelagians were PART of the Mother Church at the time), but because their views cannot be backed up by the whole counsel of God found in the Scriptures. Interestingly enough, if we look at church history, we find that doctrinal truth was often held by a minority of bishops. For example, at one point Athanasius stood virtually alone in his condemnation of Arianism, and he was exiled more than once by the powers that be. We could take a modern-day heresy and examine it in light of the question of authority. When a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door, I know that he will have verses which, taken out of context, will seem to back his theological perspective. However, being somewhat well-versed in the Scriptures, I know that there are a great many more passages from Scripture which shed light on the false interpretations of the Watchtower Society, rendering their theology to be false. Likewise, the Arians and the Pelagians and the Monophysites can be shown to be in error not simply because they disagree with the early church, but because they disagree with Scripture. When Luther stood before the church officials at Worms, he likewise said that he would not recant unless the Roman position could be demonstrated from Scripture or by common human reason. The problem for the Reformers was not that the church was interpreting Scripture wrong as much as the church was ignoring Scripture for the sake of human traditions that had gradually supplanted the supreme authority of God's word. It wasn;t what was "twisted" in Scripture as much as it was what was "added to" Scripture (and contrary to what Scripture clearly teaches and what the church originally held) and given apostolic authority. The other point I would like to bring up is this statement made by the Catholic participant, when asked about Roman Catholicism being a different gospel in light of Galatians 1: 'Okay, then you must also consider either Calvin’s or Luther’s gospel to be “a different gospel,” since their doctrines were radically different from each other. Which of these men do you think fell under Paul’s anathema, Luther or Calvin?' Now that is moving into a bit of intellectual dishonesty. While Luther and Calvin did disagree on certain issues (chiefly the nature and role of the sacraments), they did not disagree one bit on how a person is saved. Confessional Lutheranism and Calvinism are not "different gospels," any more than the Fransicans, Jesuits, and Benedictines are promoting a "different gospel" than the Dominicans, Cistercians, and Augustinians. As much as some Catholics try and suppress this fact, there are "in-house" disagreements on matters of doctrine in the Mother Church as well. --Joe! |
||||||
1608 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49469 | ||
Classical, evangelical Protestants are united on several things. Gee, you make it seem like we are just one big "anti-Catholic club" or something! The Protestants of the Reformation were united in saying that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. They were also united in saying that while the church are God's people and have been given authority in interpreting Scripture, only Scripture is a binding authority on matters of faith and life. In all Protestant churches that believe the Bible is the word of God, all of these things are held in common. Likewise, while Catholic orders do agree on the key dogmas of Catholicism, the rules established by different orders do emphasize different things. Many of the orders, such as the Society of Jesus, were started as reforming orders within the church. The Franciscans faced a great deal of grief from other Catholics over their insistence upon "apostolic poverty." Many in the Order of St. Francis went to far as to accuse the rest of the orders to be lapsed Catholics who did not understand the Christian life at all. The fact is that, while all who take holy orders are part of Catholicism, there are substantial differences between different orders which, while not being central to Roman Catholicism, are important to them and often the cause of internal disagreements. You wrote: "And the argument about the ancient heretics using scripture to support their positions is valid." I never argued that cults and heretics do not use Scripture to support their claims. My point was that it is not a simple stalemate between opposing parties, simply because the early church used the WHOLE of Scripture to point out where their interpretations were false. For example, the Arians can point out passages where Jesus claims that the Father is "greater than" He is. But once we look at the whole of apostolic revelation in Scripture, it becomes quite clear that Jesus is not talking about His essence or stating that He is a created being. That is the path the Council of Nicea took in condemning him, rather than putting their heads together in a huddle and coming out to say, "This is true because the Church says so." You wrote: "The difference is that in the forum and in the Protestant world there is no other really binding authority if one Church, say Lutheran or Reformed, has no more authority than another in resolving these scriptural disputes as the Church Councils do." I accept many of the Church councils as binding. My church stands with you in believing the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. We look at Augustine and Aquinas and Anselm and read them as well, even though we do not view their teachings as binding, we recognize that they were used of God to properly interpret Scripture in a great number of instances. My denomination, like most rooted in the Reformation, recognizes RCC baptism as valid as well, even if it disagrees with Rome on what the sacrament "does." I have a very high view of the church. The confession to which I subscribe agrees with the historical position of Rome in stating that "out of which [the church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." We just differ on what our definition of the "church" is. Have you ever taken the opportunity to read what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about the Church? If you haven't, I think that taking a look at it might clear up some misconceptions of theauthority I do acknowledge the church in having. Chapter 25 of the WCF is a very short one, and I encourage you to look at it, if only for clarification of my position: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ And I know that if in almost half a milennium that we have not resolved the differences, that a meager series of posts is not going to accomplish much. But I do enjoy the exchange, and hope that you aren't put off by my strong wording. I am not insulted by yours! --Joe! |
||||||
1609 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49486 | ||
While some Reformed individuals hold to "double predestination" (often referred to as supralapsariansism), many hold that God's foreordaining to everlasting death is a passing over of the non-elect. In other words, since the "default position" from birth is being a child of God's wrath, He simply in His divine counsel chooses save some who are already under His righteous judgment and not others. Those in the latter group will continue to reject Christ, following their own natural inclinations until their last breath. And the message of Christ is good news for all who believe. The bad news preceded the Good News, that all are already under the judgment of God the Father. Simply put from the Calvinist viewpoint, the "bad news" of Romans 1-3 applies to all men, and the "good news" of Jesus Christ is a rescue from the bad news for the elect. It is different from the pagan idea of fate. Fatalism says that no matter what one does, his/her outcome is certain. In stories regarding fate we have people trying to escape from their predicament, to no avail. In Reformed theology, those who will be in hell have no desire to embrace Christ. It is not a situation of people running to Jesus Christ and being turned away. It is a case of everyone running from Christ unless God changes the heart and will. All who put their trust in Christ will be saved. However, only those whom the Father gives the Son will do so (John 6:37-44). --Joe! |
||||||
1610 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49489 | ||
Yep, talk about them! :) Here is the statement of my denomination on that very section: "The Presbyterian Church in America received the same Confession and Catechisms as those that were adopted by the first American Presbyterian Assembly of 1789, with two minor exceptions, namely, the deletion of strictures against marrying one's wife's kindred (XXIV,4), and the reference to the Pope as the antichrist (XXV,6). Other than these changes, and the American amendments of Chapter XXIII on the civil magistrate (adopted in 1789), this is the Confession and Catechisms as agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster which met from 1643-1647. The Caruthers edition of the Confession and Catechisms, which is based upon the original manuscript written by Cornelius Burgess is the Edition presented to and adopted by the First General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America." (http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm) So we can acknowledge that some of our spiritual predecessors went too far, erroneously so. But once again, the Confession does not carry the same authority as the Scriptures, so acknowledging the fallibility (and even error) of the Westminster divines does not pose a problem for us. --Joe! |
||||||
1611 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49491 | ||
Let me try one more time, just for fun. Fate is something that cannot be avoided, no matter how much one tries to avoid it. In other words, human beings are free to try, but outside forces will always prevent them from succeeding. Predestination is something that is also fixed, but no one will ultimately try to avoid one's destiny. Human beings who are not predestinated unto eternal life will by their very nature NOT try to avoid it. Constrained by their natures, their will is conformed to the lifelong rejection of the true gospel of Christ. They will not fight their destiny. Every action they do will be in rejection of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone. The destiny of all men is determined by God, but there is no thwarting of free rebellion on the part of a human being against one's predestination (since such free rebellion will not occur). So while there is some similarity between fate and biblical predestination in that our destinies are determined in eternity without our consent (which Augustine rightly pointed out would be in favor of rejection of Christ), in biblical terms we will all willingly embrace the path that leads to our destiny. --Joe! |
||||||
1612 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49504 | ||
Welcome to the Forum! This is one topic that you will find no lack of posts on. I recommend that you go up to the quick search box at the right and type in words such as "elect," "election," and "predestination" to get an eyeful of both sides of this debate. Simply put, however, those not predestined for salvation will never want what it takes to be justified before a holy and just God. It is not just a question of inability; the non-elect DESIRES to refrain from true repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ's accomplished work on the Cross alone for salvation. --Joe! |
||||||
1613 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49527 | ||
Well, I hope that you will not follow the theological teachings of Thomas Jefferson too closely, since he was a Deist, someone who believes that God created the universe and left it to run on its own. In Deism God is an "absent landlord" and there is no room for miracles (hence they deny the passages in the Bible that speak of miracles, including the resurrection of Christ). Thomas Jefferson isn't just denying biblical predestination. He is saying that Plato is the foundation of all biblical theology today. Does that really make sense to you? --Joe! |
||||||
1614 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49546 | ||
Yeah, too bad the RCC idea of "reconciliation" involves a unilateral abandonment on the part of Protestants of all the doctrine over which we divided in the first place! :) --Joe! |
||||||
1615 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49553 | ||
You wrote: "Is this saying that God has made a list of those who will not/cannot come to him? Pardon the naivety but unless this is supported clearly somewhere in the Bible, then it is clearly just one of those utterances that seem to abound, concerning the plans and thinking of God. I'd certainly like to read this IN the Bible." For the concept of human nature being disinclined toward God, Romans 3:10-18. For passages which say where Jesus addresses who will/can come to Him or believe Him: John 6:37-40,44,65 John 10:25-30 Matthew 11:27 Luke 10:22 God's sovereign choice (without our consultation): Ephesians 1:4,11 Romans 8:28-30 Romans 9:18-24 Mathhew 13:10-16 There are many,many more, but that is a start. --Joe! |
||||||
1616 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Reformer Joe | 49554 | ||
"But along with Jefferson, the other Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen were not exactly Christians but more in line with deism or the unitarian view. I wonder why? Some sterling minds, there, wouldn't you say?" Some pretty intelligent people, yes. If faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord were a matter of mere intellectual capability, then Christianity as a world view would certainly be in trouble. Since there are a myriad of "pulsating brains" on either side of this theological fence, however, we can't chalk it up to mere intelligence or stupidity. It is a matter of the WILL to believe, not the brainpower to do so. You wrote: 'At a minimum, a "revealed religion" should provide an ANSWER instead of questions, each of which seem to have unlimited answers, and most often, those answers simply spawning more and more questions, with more and more answers, and on it goes, and goes, and goes....' Well, Christianity does provide an ANSWER. On the surface the answer is a very basic one that even a child can grasp. However, the Bible shows, for all who are willing to study it, the myriad of facets and intricate detail that one answer has, so that the keenest of theologians can spend a lifetime exploring the riches of what God has chosen to reveal to us about who He is, His character, and the grand narrative of creation, fall, and redemption that can be found within the pages of Scripture. --Joe! |
||||||
1617 | Is baptism done only once? | Eph 4:5 | Reformer Joe | 42385 | ||
Congratulations! You have once again demonstrated complete theological ignorance, as well as declaring the apostles to be apostate. Namely, you wrote: "the only trick is what the church has been doing to these people all these years and now are going to be exposed with holy spirit...again if you are not a jew water baptism "never" applied to you!" Well, it seems that Paul baptized a few Gentiles in his day... "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other." --1 Corinthians 1:14-16 I guess you know more than Paul did, but hey, he was only an ignorant apostle, not a wise man with a modem! You also wrote: ".and if jesus specifically wanted man to use water...then he would have told his apostles after pentecost to use water but he did not!they did until the holy spirit told them otherwise!" So what you are saying is that the apostles were baptizing with water for years and years, and then in Acts 11, the Holy Spirit suddenly told Peter that EVERYONE had been doing it wrong? Great timing on God's part, there! How ridiculous. You also asserted: 'god "never" leaves any of his work for man to do..it has always been the holy spirit doing the teaching...not a preacher,reverend of the pope" Oh really? No teaching by man? "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues." --1 Coritnhians 12:28 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and TEACHERS" --Ephesians 4:11 "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom TEACHING and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." --Colossians 3:16 Hmmm...seems the Holy Spirit uses MEN to to a great deal of His teaching. Now let's look at baptism. If the Holy Spirit is the one baptizing, and men do not play a part in it, why does Jesus tell his disciples to baptize people? Were the disciples supposed to baptize them in the Holy Spirit? The men Jesus commissioned were certainly supposed to be involved in the baptism in SOME way. You wrote: '"MAN" has taught water baptism in the church but now....it is the spirit....and where in ephesians 4:5 does it say water?' Nowhere. And when it talks about people eating something, they don't always say they ate FOOD! You know why? Because all but the most obtuse people understand that the baptism that people perform on other people is done with water. You wrote: "peter had the holy spirit and still used water but was corrected and said this....Acts 11:16" So Peter baptized Cornelius and his family with the Holy Spirit? If that is so, he does it in a most interesting way: "And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days." --Acts 10:48 He ordered WHOM to baptize them? The Holy Spirit? Peter was bossing God around? See, this is what happens when people disconnect themselves from the church's 2000-year history regarding the apostolic tradition. I have shown you that just about every sentence you wrote in this post is simply wrong. You reference to Galatians was so out of left field that it doesn;t even merit a response. Where exactly do you go to church that water baptism is not performed? I suspect that you in your infinitessimal wisdom and your Bible decided that you were right on this, and forget about EVERYONE else who is misguided, because the "Holy Spirit has shown YOU the truth"! Please get yourself under some sound teaching, because that kooky voice in your head that you are listening to is not the third Person of the Trinity. --Joe! |
||||||
1618 | Is baptism done only once? | Eph 4:5 | Reformer Joe | 42441 | ||
You wrote: "is the church the teacher or the holy spirit?" Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us THROUGH the church. Go back and read the Bible verses I posted. You do believe the Bible, don't you? "paul never used water...you asume water because that is what you were taught since you were a kid" So what did he use? Ketchup? Please enlighten us. "the apostles were not apostates they just needed the holy spirit to teach them read John 14:26 and 16:12-14" Yes, and they had to the Holy Spirit to teach them since Pentecost. They still baptized with water. Maybe God felt that they just needed years and years before He was to reveal to them that "water baptism is not for today." Good thing you are listening to the Spirit more carefully than they were! ;) John 14:26 is a great verse. The Holy Spirit does indeed teach us. The Holy Spirit teaches us THROUGH the church. Go back and read the Bible verses I posted. You do believe the Bible, don't you? "peter ate with gentiles and when the jews came he turned his back on them but paul confronted him" That has nothing to do with this discussion. 'and so will religion be corrected by the holy spirit!and only a carnal minded person would resort to name calling and in the same breath "PROCLAIM" to be a christians!(kooky name in my head)' I said you had a kooky VOICE in your head; get it straight. And did the apostles resort to "name calling"? "You FOOLISH Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified" --Galatians 3:1 "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is PERVERTED and is sinning, being self-condemned." --Titus 3:10-11 "and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the UNTAUGHT and UNSTABLE distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." --2 Peter 3:15-16 Hmmm...foolish, perverted, untaught, and unstable. Guess who I am thinking of right now! "you see the carnal in your mind?" Nope...but I am sure that the "Holy Spirit" is telling you to tell me all about it... So before I respond to you again, I want you to go back, look at all of the Bible verses I posted before, and actually fit those into your convoluted theology. Go back and read the Bible verses I posted. You do believe the Bible, don't you? --Joe! |
||||||
1619 | Is baptism done only once? | Eph 4:5 | Reformer Joe | 42457 | ||
You wrote: 'The Word of God doesn't say "that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of salvation".' My "non-trick" Bible shows me: "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory." --Ephesians 1:13-14 and "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." --Acts 2:38 and "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." --Romans 5:5 (see context; Holy Spirit connected to justification) and "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God" --1 Corinthians 2:12 (note that it is the "carnal" Corinthians who have received the Spirit already) The fact is that Scripture plainly teaches that all who hear and truly receive the message of God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone are baptized with the Holy Spirit. You will find nothing in Scripture or in church history that hints at a "second blessing." So it is what YOU believe that is out of line with both Scripture and the way God has operated though his church for 2000 years. --Joe! |
||||||
1620 | Is baptism done only once? | Eph 4:5 | Reformer Joe | 42459 | ||
okay...let's try this one more time. All I want is a simple answer to this question: In Acts 11, Peter is describing his experience with Cornelius. He remembered what Jesus had said to him when he was at Cornelius' house and saw them receiving the Holy Spirit. So, did he baptize the family of Cornelius with water or not? "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" --Acts 10:47 --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ] Next > Last [97] >> |