Results 1 - 20 of 23
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | Mommapbs | 50774 | ||
Since the Holy Spirit is the deposit that guarantees our redemption (2 Cor 1:22) and obviously, from the conversion of the Gentiles in the passage of Acts 10:34-48, God credited the righteousness of Christ PRIOR to baptism here! So when did God change the order of His process? |
||||||
2 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 50985 | ||
Was it complete? Did they Have To Be Baptized or not? Could they refuse it since they were already saved? Why was it necessary for them to be baptized if they were already saved? More than that why did Peter command them to be baptized if it had nothing to do with salvation? Was not thier salvation complete? | ||||||
3 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51002 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! Let me take a stab at your questions! 1) Yes, it was complete, since they had already received the promised gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) - proof that the phrase 'for the forgiveness of sins' is not connected with the singular command to 'be baptized'. 2) Yes they could have, just as we can refuse to obey any of God's commands as Christians. But, why would they, or we, want to disobey Christ? 3) The verse never says that it was 'necessary' for them to be baptized. 4) Because baptism is commanded by Christ for believers, Peter also commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. 5) Yes, it was. Now, I have answered your questions, will you please answer mine? Your contention is that Acts 2:38 means that one must repent AND be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. How then did those in Acts 10 receive the gift of the Holy Spirit prior to be baptized? Please be specific! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 51023 | ||
2) "Yes they could have, just as we can refuse to obey any of God's commands as Christians. But, why would they, or we, want to disobey Christ?" When you teach, do you teach Mark 16:16? I would just like to take the time and deal with your number 2 answer: Was Mark 16:16 written for believers or nonbelievers? Jesus commissioned the apostles to GO preach to nonbelievers or believers? So the nonbeliever who believes and is baptized shall be saved! "4) Because baptism is commanded by Christ for believers, Peter also commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus." The aorist participle 'never' indicates action which is subsequent to the main verb, neither believing nor being baptized occurs after one is saved: But both occur Before one is saved. Can you show in the book of Acts where someone was converted and was not baptized? Acts 10 is when God open the door to the Lord's church to the Gentiles, Acts 11:18. This showed that the gospel was preached to the gentile also, and that the jews had to accept them. Being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, in water is what put them in Christ. Gal 3:26,27. When the gospel was preached in the book of Acts all who recieved it were baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2:38;22:16. |
||||||
5 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51071 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! 1) Do I teach Mk. 16:16? With two qualifiers, yes I do. a) I don't interpret it in the same way that you do. b) It is a very textually weak verse, so I would never use it to contradict other clear Scriptures. 2) Which 'aorist participle' are you refering to in your post above? 3) Are you going to attempt to explain how those in Acts 10 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (per Acts 2:38) before they were baptized? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 51151 | ||
GENTILES, RECIEVED GOD'S GRACE, ACTS10:44-48. THIS WAS A SPECIAL CASE, AS IN ACTS 2. | ||||||
7 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51154 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! In order to be consistent with your interpretation of Acts 2:38, the Gentiles could not have received the gift of the Holy Spirit unless they had first been baptized. Simply put, your interpretation of Acts 2:38 says that: 1) If we repent and are baptized, 2) then, we will be forgiven and received the Holy Spirit. However, Acts 10 doesn't follow this pattern. They repented, were filled with the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized. This fits perfectly with the exegesis of Acts 2:38 which I have presented on this forum. Only the plural command 'to repent' is associated with the promise of forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit. This aligns perfectly with Acts 10 and does not contradict the clear teaching of Scripture that 'works' do not, and cannot save us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 51161 | ||
The baptism by faith which Jesus commanded is not a "Work" and if it is show me the scriptures that proves your point. | ||||||
9 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51169 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! I'm confused now my friend, haven't you been the one arguing that baptism is a 'work of faith' as opposed to a 'work of merit'? The problem is that no matter how you try to avoid the term, anything done in an attempt to earn or gain salvation is a 'work' - which Eph. 2:8-9 specifically says cannot save us. If baptism is not a 'work', then I guess we don't need to 'do' it! :-) I still would appreciate a response to how the Gentiles in Acts 10 could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit without being baptized, if your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is correct! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 51174 | ||
"If baptism is not a 'work', then I guess we don't need to 'do' it"! :-) It's a command! From Jesus himself! In Luke 7:30 It says that the Pharisees and lawyers, rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being "not baptized of him. (John) If John's baptism was the counsel of God then what was Jesus baptism in Mark 16:16;Acts2:38; is it the counsel of God also, can we reject it or say it's not necessary for salvation if God commanded us to be baptized? |
||||||
11 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51210 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! So, is it a 'work' or not. My point was simply that one cannot 'do' something which is not a 'work'. You have argued all along that baptism is a 'work of faith', but now you want to change your position and say that baptism is not a 'work'. Which is it? ;-) p.s. - You still haven't explained the conflict between your interpretation of Acts 2:38 and the historical account of Act 10! According to your interpretation, forgiveness of sins and the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit are both the result of following the commands to 'repent' and to 'be baptized'. How then did the individuals in Acts 10 receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51223 | ||
Tim, once upon a time before I knew everything worth knowing :-) my English teacher wrote in the margin of an essay in which I had not only misspelled a word but had used it in such a manner that it was obvious I had no idea what the word meant. Here's what he said, "Hank, as an absolute last resort, you might try using a dictionary. Dictionaries have remarkable ways of informing you both how to spell a word and what the word means." Well, after all these years I thought it might be a good idea to find out what the dictionary says about works and baptism. One of the definitions given for 'works' is _religious or moral acts_ and for 'baptism' is _a religious act_. Of course someone may object on the grounds that, after all, what does Webster know about words :-) --Hank | ||||||
13 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51239 | ||
Greetings Hank! What is that old saying: Don't confuse me with the facts? This is the part of the whole discussion which I simply cannot comprehend - Eph. 2:8-9 rules out all works, not just certain kinds! :-) Yet, those who believe in baptismal regeneration simply bypass this very clear passage totally. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
14 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51241 | ||
Tim, if only there was some way to cut and paste Ephesians 2:8,9 so that it appeared to be an integral part of either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38! Perhaps you could sneak it in and catch the baptismal regenerators by surprise. No? Well, it was just a thought, the only remedy that we haven't tried to get their attention off Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. --Hank | ||||||
15 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 53953 | ||
"Tim, if only there was some way to cut and paste Ephesians 2:8,9 so that it appeared to be an integral part of either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38! Perhaps you could sneak it in and catch the baptismal regenerators by surprise. No? Well, it was just a thought, the only remedy that we haven't tried to get their attention off Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38". --Hank Here's one of your post in agreement with Tim! ID#51241 6/11/02 at 11:09pm. |
||||||
16 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 53958 | ||
FORUM MEMBERS: The post that I'm responding to is what Grace and Truth has produced to "prove" that I don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture. He has already made the accusation that I don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, which is a lie, and now he is busy trying to cover up and "prove" his case with this pathetic bit of "evidence." What do you think, FORUM MEMBERS? In my more than 2,000 posts to this forum, have I ever as much as hinted that I do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture? I shall appreciate your notes and comment. --Hank | ||||||
17 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54030 | ||
FORUM MEMBERS: My point about this issue is in reguards to Mark 16:9-20, Hank, tells me that he and members of this forum believe that this portion of scripture are not in the origional manuscrips, therefore (not inspired) He's in agreement with Tim Moran on this issue, therefore I stand on my word! | ||||||
18 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 54041 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! :-) If Mark 16:9-20 is not original, one cannot accuse someone of not believing in the inspiration of Scripture simply because they don't believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in the original autographs! Either Mark 16:9-20 is original - in which case it is Scripture - , or it is not - in which case is not Scripture. That is the question being debated. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
19 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54048 | ||
Is Mark 16:9-20 in your bible? | ||||||
20 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 54054 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! I know that you are aware that there is no "Bible" in the sense that there is one standard text handed down in complete form throughout the centuries. What we have are thousands of copies of the originals. These copies, while they agree 99.99 percent of the time, differ at some points. Mark 16:9-20 is one of those points. Is Mark 16:9-20 in my published translation? Yes, with footnotes indicating that it was not in the original autograph of Mark! Is it in many Greek manuscripts? Yes, but many also include information about it being added and not being in the original copies. Is it in the earliest manuscripts? No, even many of the early church fathers testify that it was not in the early greek copies. So, why is it missing in the earliest manuscripts? Why do so many copies which do contain it include notes identify it as a spurious addition? Why are there four different endings in the various copies of Mark? These questions have to be addressed my friend. You can't simply ignore them! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |