Results 261 - 280 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | No proof that immerse is mans tradition? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77238 | ||
Do you have any evidence? I quoted a reputable source and you tell me to study more? You cannot have the respect of your fellow posters if you don't offer proof for your statements. The Lexical and Historical proof is on my side and you know it. If I'm wrong, then show me the evidence. Searcher, it is you who needs to study more. The earliest "tradition" is the tradition handed down to us by the apostles and prophets whom God inspired to write the Bible (1 Corinthians 11:1,2) It is sprinkling and pouring that represent the traditions and precepts of men. Have a good day. |
||||||
262 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77237 | ||
Dear John, The spiritually dead state is the result of choices one has made. The individual chooses where to set his mind (Romans 8), and he may do so at his discretion. Without knowledge, he may go the easy and carnal route. With increased knowledge, he may reassess his position, and decide it makes more sense to bow to the Creator. It is a choice. The one who is dead in sin, is not incapable of choosing to do the right thing. So many passages of the Bible support my position. Matthew 11, Jesus says, 'come to me all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." If you were right, the passage would not be set as an appeal followed by a promise; instead, it would state the promise as received, and it would then suggest you come to Him. Jesus appeals to the sinful, to the poor, to the sinner. Such appeals would be a waste of time if it isn't expected that men may choose to respond. Conversely, the Corinthians, born again, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, were quenching the Spirit and grieving the Spirit (1 The 5:19; Eph 4:30) by drawing up along party lines and by condoning sin in the church. Christians may indeed choose to do the unspiritual things. With that choice, they are not using spiritual discernment. |
||||||
263 | Is baptism an evidence of faith? | Romans | disciplerami | 77233 | ||
In response to Searcher56's multiple posting of Morant61's handling of Acts 2:38, I would like to repost the following: According to Morant61, Acts 2:38, for grammatical reasons is more accurately translated, "repent for the forgiveness of sins, and be baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" [I'm working from memory, but this is my best attempt to depict Morant61's position]. Consider the following, and I am glad to be corrected if I'm wrong. The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 in this mater is without merit for the following reasons: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
264 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77230 | ||
Dear Searcher, Nothing in the A.T. Robertson quote contradicts what I believe. Second, let me see if I understand Wallace correctly. Here is your "quote" of Wallace: "To begin, let us briefly recall that the original Greek for the cited passage is 'metanoesate kai baptistheto hekastos hymon'. Here, an aorist active imperative (second person plural) verb states a condition (protasis) upon which the fulfillment (apodosis) of another verb in the aorist imperative (third person singular) depends, and hence the mood and person establishes the force of that second verb as "each one of you must be baptized"." He's saying, 'repentance' is a condition upon which baptism depends, hence the grammar dictates that "each one of you must be baptized." Hmm, sounds like Wallace agrees with me. Attention everyone: The following poll is being taken for the benefit of Searcher56 so that he no longer misunderstand our position. Go ahead and raise your hand if you think baptism can be received without repentance. Hold on a minute....taking the count....no hands raised so far...still waiting....ok, poll is over. The # of people who believe that baptism doesn't first depend on repentance is 0 [zero]. Therefore, it appears that everyone agrees that repentance comes first. That seems to be the point of Robertson and Wallace. Do you have anything else? What was your point in quoting these two? Thanks and may God bless you as your search for truth. Disciplerami |
||||||
265 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77205 | ||
Repost, Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
266 | greatfullydead, Do we immmerse B4 eating | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77204 | ||
Searcher56, where does Mark 7:4 say anything about 'tables?' I've looked at the Greek and see nothing about 'tables?' The only thing mentioned in the Greek is the 'cups', 'utensils', and 'bronze vessels.' Is your question based upon a variant reading? Please respond and tell me from where the question about 'tables' comes. Thanks. |
||||||
267 | Does Mark 7:4 mention tables? | Mark 7:4 | disciplerami | 77203 | ||
Searcher56, where does Mark 7;4 say anything about 'tables?' I've looked at the Greek and see nothing about 'tables?' The only thing mentioned in the Greek is the 'cups', 'utensils', and 'bronze vessels.' Is your question based upon a variant reading? Please respond and tell me from where the question about 'tables' comes. Thanks. |
||||||
268 | On what grounds? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77202 | ||
On Acts 2:38 Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
269 | How do we remit | Matt 7:13 | disciplerami | 77201 | ||
2nd post. Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. |
||||||
270 | Please support you view. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77200 | ||
Hello Tim and Search and everybody else, The argument for parsing Acts 2:38 as you have shown is without merit, because: 1] No translation available has ever translated it such? You claim that the grammar rules are violated; if so, then your argument is not with me, but with every translation board known to man. Can you show me a single translation that has dared to translate Acts 2:38 as you have offered here? If you give no answer, we all must assume that the Greek scholarship is against you. 2] This argument you offer is old, and has been refuted many times. The two commands, “repent” and “be baptized,” are joined by the correlating conjunction “and.” It follows that if repentance is essential to salvation, so also is baptism. [I realize that you must conclude that repentence is not essential to salvation either, but we shall get to that]. 3] The sentence in Acts 2:38 is what's referred to as a Complex Compound Sentence, comprised of three sentences joined by the correlating conjunction, AND, a] Repent ye (AND)… b] Be baptized (3rd,singular, individually) each OF YE (humon, genetive 'of', plural) on the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of the sins OF YE (humon, genetive 'of, plural), (AND)… 1) in this second sub-sentence, it says 'let be baptized each individual of YE into the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins. c] YE shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 4] Here's where you take a twist by turning the preposition, EIS, into a causal meaning (because), you also make repentence unnecessary for the remission of sins. To be consistent then, you must say that repentence follows only as evidence that you are saved. Where you did argue by this novel translation that repentence is connected to forgiveness and baptism is not, you must now conclude that repentence and baptism are no more connected to forgiveness than the other: except now, they both follow. Here is how you really see this verse: a] “Because you have forgiveness of sins, you are commanded to repent (it is an imperative, as you pointed out) and commanded to be baptized (an imperative also) … or b] “Repent BECAUSE you have been forgiven of sins, and then you must go ahead and be baptized too, but NOT BECAUSE of your former forgiveness of sins…. [it is you who disassociated baptism from forgivess of sins, right?]. Now you must tell us why we must be baptized. All along, you've been disassociating baptism from forgiveness of sins, while connecting repentance to forgiveness of sins. Now your argument is that repentence follows too! Your argument has been that baptism follows. Now you must, to be consistent with your causal explanation for the preposition EIS, say that repentance isn't associated with forgiveness, not any more than baptism is! ! ! If you deal with anything in this response, deal with this. Explain how all along you can make the case that number and person only connects repentance and forgiveness, and baptism therefore follows. Then you introduce the causal argument for EIS and make repentance no more necessary for forgiveness than is baptism. Good day to you. Disciplerami |
||||||
271 | What does it mean? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77188 | ||
Hi Tim, To your question; "If Baptism is necessary for salvation, is that not salvation by works?" Answer: No. |
||||||
272 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77143 | ||
Hi John, "According to your interpretation of the "natural man" in 1 Cor 2:14, it would be impossible for those caught up in sin and error to repent! Why?" I'm having trouble communicating my position and that's my fault. I don't believe it would be impossible because the 'natural man' is not the 'depraved, hostile, alienated' person he is depicted to be. The 'natural' man is the person who has a choice, to "no longer go on presenting himself as a slave to unrighteousness" (Romans 6:12ff), and has chosen to put "man's interest before God's". The natural man can be the young Christian who temporarily lapses back into his sinful ways. With the rebuke of a caring brother (Matthew 18:15-18), he can be won back. See the problem with your position is that you say that God alone is able to give the courage to recognize that Tim and I don't have freewill. You mean that God has given you the courage to recognize that you don't have freewill? Why is it important that I recognize that I don't have freewill? Why does it take courage; and if it does, why doesn't God give it to me? Have a good day. |
||||||
273 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77126 | ||
I see that our positions are very close; not exactly, but close. Thanks for the response. Disciplerami |
||||||
274 | Why transliterate "baptizo"? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77125 | ||
To add to your point, the Catholic Enclyclopedia points that "immersion was unquestionably" the earliest practice, i.e. the New Testament pattern. Good day. |
||||||
275 | disciplerami, support forgiveness last. | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77119 | ||
I said, check any translation [except for the one Searcher56 Version] and check out Acts 2:38. It all fits very nicely. Keep trying. Disciplerami |
||||||
276 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77117 | ||
Thanks for the insight. Disciperami. | ||||||
277 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | disciplerami | 77116 | ||
" Even if Paul was referring to "we" as the apostles and himself, it does not relegate the "saints" to an infrerior group." I would not say they were 'inferior' because they did not hold apostolic or prophetic office. And why couldn't the letter be read alound, and the saints decide if "the shoe fits, wear it." Some of the saints were undoubtedly unspiritual. Chapter five is where Paul rebukes the church for tolerating "the man who had his father's wife." So those people are saints and they are acting in a manner unbecoming of a Christian. You ask, "the Spirit that who is from God"? Of course not!" I would disagree because, while it is true that all saints receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, not all had the supernatural gifts of prophecy, revelation, tongues. etc. It doesn't make them inferior, but less informed until they receive the epistle. About the 'enligtening' from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not 'enligthen' separate and apart from the 'sword of the Spirit', the Word. It behooves every believer to equip himself with the Word of God, or there is no enlightenment. It appears that the 1 Corinthian letter served to enlighten the Corinthians, judging by the tone of the 2 Corinthian letter. You write, "What Paul says about the natural man cannot be said of any person who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit." I have to agree with Tim Moran that Paul does refer to the Corinthians in this manner (1 Cor 3:1). Tim writes the following: Here is where context helps answer the question. The word 'spiritual', or 'pneumatikos', is used 4 times in 1 Cor. 2-3. Twice in 1 Cor. 2:13 - "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." Once in 1 Cor. 2:15 - "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man?s judgment:" And, once in 1 Cor. 3:1 - "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly?mere infants in Christ." 1 Cor. 2:13 and 2:15 bracket the verse you quoted, and form a contrast between 'spiritual' and 'natural'. Yet, in 1 Cor. 3:1, Paul says that he could not address them as 'spiritual'. We are agreed that Paul was writing to Christians. So, why couldn't he address them as 'spiritual'? Because, they were acting 'worldly', and not 'spiritual'." This last statement of yours indicates the weakness in your argument: "While it is true that we all too often act and think as if we were natural men, nevertheless, we retain the ability to understand spiritual things for we are never devoid of the influence and power of the in dwelling Spirit of God." Exactly right! The Corinthians, NEW CREATURES that they were, were acting unspiritual. They needed to repent and begin discerning the matters of life with spiritual emphasis. I'm glad to have your response. Have a good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
278 | disciplerami, must it be immersion? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77114 | ||
Hello Searcher56, This is an important question. I imagine if you do a word search you might find the answer. Just type in baptism over on the right side of the forum page and do a little reading. But I don't mind giving you an answer but it's a good question [and not everyone knows the answer; although I think you do, you sly one :)] The word means to immerse: innovations like sprinkling and pouring are only found in extrabiblical writings. The Catholic Encyclodia states: "Three forms of ablution have prevailed among Christians, and the Church holds them all to be valid because they fulfill the requisite signification of the baptismal laving. These forms are immersion, infusion, and aspersion. THE MOST ANCIENT FORM USUALLY EMPLOYED WAS UNQUESTIONABLE IMMERSION [emphasis mine]." (Catholic Enclopedia online, "Baptism") The word means "immerse" and the most ancient writers, and foremost authorities agree, that baptism is by immersion. Have yourself a good day. disciplerami |
||||||
279 | Are we saved with change of heart? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77112 | ||
Oh yeah?! Well what if he dies just moments before the guy standing at his door was to preach the saving message of the Gospel to him? What then, huh? If God "is patient, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance," then why sit and quibble over hypothetical 'what ifs' when God has stated clearly: You must hear to believe, and if you believe, to be saved you must repent, confess and be baptized. If the person's heart is right, he will be saved. Have a good day! Disciplerami |
||||||
280 | disciplerami, are they saved or lost? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77111 | ||
Please restate, the sentence structure is broken and hard to understand. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [29] >> |