Results 101 - 120 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22631 | ||
More Clarification. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, given in the NT by the outpouring in Acts 2 (on the Apostles) and Acts 10 (on Cornelius and his household) is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is automatically received when one believes and is baptized. Being able to speak in tongues or heal is not the seal of the Holy Spirit but an outward manifestation for the purpose of witness. In Acts 2 it supported the preaching of Peter and the other Apostles. In Acts 10 it showed Peter that the Gentiles were to be accepted as brethren. And in other places it was used for the same purpose. The indwelling Spirit, however, is our guarantee from God that we are one of His people. Tim |
||||||
102 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22635 | ||
When speaking to baptized believers, as is the case throughout the epistles, it is not always necessary to talk about the birth process which is in effect what Baptism is. The truth of Ephesians 2:8-9 cannot cancel the truth of Mark 16:16 or 1 Peter 3:21. Even more convincing, now that I think of it, is Romans 6:1-11. Note especially Rom 6:3-4 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Also there are a whole string of conversion examples in Acts -- 10 cases that I know of -- that ALL include baptism but not belief, though I think belief can be assumed on the basis of the kind of people they were. Tim |
||||||
103 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22640 | ||
James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Works is not the same as law either. Bible says "not faith alone" you say "faith alone". I believe the Bible. Tim |
||||||
104 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22644 | ||
Going to have to end this discussion. You want baptism to be water baptism in one place and "metaphorical" in another. Sorry that is inconsistent with good biblical interpretation. To me scripture is plain and does not contradict itself. You and your reformist friends (since salvation by faith alone is a reformist doctrine) may never change your minds but still you insist on twisting the scripture to say baptism is not an essential element in conversion. In Christ Tim |
||||||
105 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22645 | ||
Amen -- of water(baptism) and the Spirit. I say this because the use of the conjunction in this passage makes these two things refer to the same thing. In Christ Tim |
||||||
106 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22646 | ||
No it is not. Now you are adding ANOTHER baptism. This brings the count up to 2 which does not equal 1. At least not in any school I ever attended. Tim |
||||||
107 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22673 | ||
I agree that they do not contradict. The problem is that we are trying to separate elements that are inextricably bound to each other. James does not say we are saved by works, just that faith without works is dead. Faith alone is not true faith, if you will. As I posted in a reply to Nolan this discussion is perhaps getting tired. My final argument -- Take it or leave it -- is this. 1. To be saved you must be "in Christ" 2 Cor 5:17. John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'" Only Christ can save and to take advantage of that salvation you have to be "in Him". 2. -- Rom 6:1-11 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been BAPTIZED into Christ Jesus have been BAPTIZED into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." (NASB emphasis mine). This very clearly shows a process. a. you die to sin (Believe and Repent) b. you are burried with Christ in BAPTISM (Immersion in water) Note: Paul says that we are baptized INTO Christ (v. 3) so that is how we get in! c. you THEN rise (from the water) to live in newness of life. 3. Since it is in Christ that we find salvation, and since it is BAPTISM that puts us into Christ, we have to conclude that BAPTISM is an essential element of SALVATION. This in no way denies that we are saved by faith since it is our faith that leads us to the waters of baptism. God said it I believe it That settles it I rest my case In Christ Tim |
||||||
108 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22674 | ||
Don't confuse "WORKS OF THE LAW" with "WORKS". The first relates to observance of Old Testament law, the second relates to works of righteousness. But that is by the way. The point I was making is that we are not justified by FAITH ALONE. Tim |
||||||
109 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22826 | ||
AMEN! We receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism. You seem to disagree that there are 2 different aspects of the Holy Spirit here. In Ephesians 1 Paul talks about the Holy Spirit as a seal and pledge. (vv 13 and 14). This in no way implies "Spiritual gifts" of miraculous proportion. This is an internal Spiritual function, a mark, a sign, a seal, a guarantee. Not all New Testament Christians had miraculous ability. Miraculous ability was no evidence of spiritaul maturity either. Just look at the Corinthian church where some were claiming superiority because they spoke in tongues while others did not. Paul does not praise them but tells them to grow up. Paul speaks of these miraculous manifestations as signs to unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). These are Christians. They have received the "indwelling" Holy Spirit or the Seal of the Holy Spirit as a sign to God that they are His. But in 1 Cor 14:1 Paul tells them to desire Spiritual Gifts (implying that some of them may not have had these gifts). In the Language of Acts 2:1 and following the Spirit came "upon" them. In Acts 10 the Spirit was "Poured out" on them. A gift external with external signs. A gift "of" something can be "from" that person or thing or a gift of that person or thing him/it-self. This is not a divided Spirit but different aspects of the Spirit received at different times by the same person/s. There is a receiving by outpouring and a straight gift and these are two different things. Or is this impossible? Yours in Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
110 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22827 | ||
Will check my grammar on this tonight as well to see if there are any linguistic clues in the original Greek and post a follow up on Monday. In Christ Tim |
||||||
111 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 23317 | ||
Dear Nolan. I know I said I was going to lay this to rest but some of your comments made me look at a few things this weekend. (Actually had a lot more I would have like to have done but on Saturday morning the wife of our Sunday morning preacher phoned to tell me that her husband was terribly ill with bronchitis and would not be able to preach Sunday Morning and his son baled out at the last minute on the Sunday evening sermon at the house church we assist on Sunday evenings. I found myself in a situation where I needed to dedicate some time to lesson preparation instead of personal research. On top of that my wife came down with the same condition so I was cooking, cleaning and changing nappies as well. Quite a hectic weekend!) Looked at 2 different grammars to investigate the usage of 'eis' in the new testament. Moulton stated that Acts 2:38 could either be translated "because of" or "with a view to" DEPENDING ON YOUR DOCTRINAL BIAS. (Paraphrase). Dana and Mantey (well known baptist gramarians) state that 'eis' is used over 1700 times in the New Testament. Yet they could only quote 2 possible places where this should be translated "because of" -- Acts 2:38 being one of these (sorry, cant remember the other right now). In the writing of Luke (Luke and Acts) this usage only occurs once. This puts serious doubt on the usage to me and looks like a case of a grammatical rule being created to support a pre-decided doctrine. Unconvincing to say the least. As I have mentioned before (I think), there are two aspects to Salvation. The important part is God's part. When explaining God's part it is not always necessary to mention Mans's part (Belief/repentance, baptism). For example I have no problem with Acts 4:12 which explains that salvation is in no one else but Christ. That is not talking about belief or faith either! I started writing something on Friday and don't recall whether I ever completed and submitted it -- Friday started getting crazy. The gist of what I wanted to say is that just like Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac, to prove his faith, so in a sense is baptism a proof of our faith. Popular doctrine says baptism is a symbol of salvation already received. I think it is more a symbol of a person's faith (as per your own comments on James 2). I believe baptism and belief are essentially tied together. In the same context as Romans 5:1-2 we are told in verses 6, 8 and 10 what this is about. Christ's part in salvation was done BEFORE we were saved. Romans 6 gives a very detailed account of the process -- Baptized into Christ equals Baptized into his death v3. Baptism equals burrial v4. New life comes AFTER death and burrial therefore AFTER baptism. I am trying to not over-strees the importance of baptism but IT IS ESSENTIAL. It is something that we have to do when we believe. We are doing a course on personal evangelism for some of our newer members at the moment. The brother who is conducting the course commented that he has almost never converted "Bible Schollars". Can we be deceived by preconceptions and doctrines we have grown up with. I believe so and of course am in the same boat. My belief structures are also influenced by my own background, experience and training. But I do try to keep an open mind. If you are right and I am wrong, I pray God will forgive me and help me see the light. I pray He will help me to keep a 'love of the truth'. I pray the same for you and all others on this forum. I think I'm right, and you think you are. We can't both be right, but we could both be wrong. The only chance we have is to seek earnestly for the truth. In Christian Love My prayers are with you Tim |
||||||
112 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 23464 | ||
I argue no more. I am not conceding the point but one last thing -- Baptism is never by sprinkling or pouring, it is by immersion only. You don't bury a body by throwing a few grains of sand on the head -- you completely cover it. Baptism means immersion. The Greek Orthodox Church have always practiced baptism by immersion because they understand the force of the Greek word 'baptizo'. Baptism by sprinkling or pouring can be shown historically to have originated only about 400AD. Sorry, still disagree with your conclusions but I suppose that's life. In Christ Tim |
||||||
113 | Drawing the line | Col 2:21 | Tim Sheasby | 34789 | ||
Sin is missing the mark. That is not just falling short but also going beyond. God has given us commands and guidelines to protect us but for many men that does not seem enough. Jesus criticised the Pharisees for enforcing their traditions when they had no right to do so. I believe many Christians are guilty of the same thing. For example God's word tells us that drunkenness is a sin. He does not tell us not to drink, just to not get drunk. We however think we know better than God and so we make a law "thou shalt not drink alcohol". I have been in congregations that have "dress codes" for service. I do not mean unofficial traditions either, I mean actual documented dress codes. One man at one of these congregations said that "we have to draw the line somewhere". My reply was "God draws the lines, not us!" Another man at the same congregation said that his son-in-law had left the church because of the dress code (he didn't see why he had to wear a tie on Sunday). I grew up in an environment where we were told "thou shalt not dance", "thou shalt not drink alcohol", "thou shalt not go to movies". Where is our freedom in Christ? If God tells me to do or not to do something then I will do my best to obey, however, when a man makes that law and condemns me for disobeying his law then I have a serious problem. Let's go back to Bible principles again. Let's use God's guidelines instead of our own inferior ones. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
114 | Drawing the line | Col 2:21 | Tim Sheasby | 35127 | ||
Amen. I want to re-itterate my understanding of legalism. I believe it is law dependence instead of law obedience. To try to obey God's law, and teach others to do so, is not legalism. Legalism is where I trust in my own ability to keep these laws and thus "earn" my salvation. Legalism is also where men make laws for God and bind them on others. Legalism allows no difference of opinion. Legalism does not forgive or understand different levels of understanding. Even when there are doctrine that are very clear to us there are some who just cannot seem to understand. But we get impatient. We fail to understand that when a major life belief is challenged and shown to be false it is traumatic to change. I recently went through such an experience and it took months to get over my preconceptions. However, once this process starts we often then start questioning ALL the doctrines we have ever held dear. This can either make or break a Christian's faith. In my case, Praise God, this has been cathartic for me. I am not just being blown about by every wind of doctrine but have, for the first time in 30 odd years as a Christian, become more of a Berean and now spend more time in God's word than ever. This is liberating but sometimes puts me at odds with my bretheren -- they have not come to the point of separating tradition from doctrine. I need to have the patience with them that God has had with me. In His Service Tim Sheasby |
||||||
115 | Order of events at the 2nd Coming? | 1 Thess 4:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22699 | ||
The problem arises when we believe our opinion to be right. I recently preached to a small house church that meets near my home. The point of that lesson is that no-one has a corner on truth. We all strive for it but I doubt there is a single person who has an absolute and perfect understanding of all scripture. I have to admit that I often come across overly dogmatic and have to fight to keep my own mind open. Viewpoints can change and indeed should change since that is evidence of growth. Not "blown about by every wind of doctrine" but clear headed, prayer guided study of the word and a "sincere love of the truth". I do not know all truth, neither does my father or mother, or Tim Moran, or Nolan, or anyone else (hope you don't mind me using your names). I hope that this forum will help us all honestly seek the truth. Defend your position but be ready to withdraw and change sides if your position becomes indefencible. Tim |
||||||
116 | The man of lawlesness | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22317 | ||
Who is the man of lawlesness? | ||||||
117 | The man of lawlesness | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22330 | ||
Thanks. I just posted some discussion we had recently at Bible study about the "antichrist" in 1 John 2. Those views are probably more controvercial but I would appreciate your input. | ||||||
118 | What is an apostate? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22829 | ||
From Eastons Bible Dictionary: HERESY From a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Galatians 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Peter 2:1). From: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia APOSTASY a-pos'-ta-si, a-pos'-tat (he apostasia, "a standing away from"): I.e. a falling away, a withdrawal, a defection. Not found in the English Versions of the Bible, but used twice in the New Testament, in the Greek original, to express abandonment of the faith. In Christ Tim |
||||||
119 | anti-christ revealed before rapture? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22830 | ||
From another posting of mine with slight revisions: One of my brethren believes the man of lawlessness to be the antichrist to be the Pope had an interesting argument based on his own linguistic studies. He said that the word antichrist is made up of the name Christ prefixed with the Greek preposition 'anti'. Anti, he said, does not mean 'against' in Greek but rather 'in the place of'. Since the Pope claims to be 'The Vicar of Christ' (or the one who stands in the place of Christ) he points out that it logically follows that the Pope is the antichrist. Further to this he expressed the idea that the "beast" of Revelation is the Catholic Church. I do know that they no longer preach the gospel as it is written in the Bible and believe the Pope has authority to supercede the Bible. The Pope has, according to their doctrine, the power of spiritual life and death. Is this not 'anti'-in the place of-Christ? Is this not the man of lawlessness? The jury is still out for me as I study further but if this conclusion is true then the man of lawlessness has already been revealed a long time ago. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
120 | Per 2Thes 2:3 isn't the rapture postrib? | 2 Thess 2:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22832 | ||
I did a posting on Matthew 24 that deals with my personal view on tribulation. I don't use the term rapture personally but assuming you are referring to the second coming then I believe this to be post tribulation since I believe we are already living in post tribulation times. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |