Results 1 - 20 of 83
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tara1 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who is Greater Jesus Christ or the Fathe | John 14:28 | Tara1 | 124559 | ||
Hi Frank, Read John 17:20,21. First, I would like to know why you use Yahshua, as does a Bible I have (The Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition) when I understand it should be:The name Jesus (Gr., Iesous´) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The Assemblies of Yahweh of Bethel, Pennsylvania say their reason is: "Eliminating the vowel points from the name found in Num. 13:16 it is conclusively confirmed that the best transliteration into English is Yahshua." This manke no sense to me at all. Green's Hebrew Interlinear has the vowel points for that name found in Num. 13:16 and it's Yoshua, thus the English name of Joshua. Yes, I believe it's correct that the name for Jesus in Hebrew is that same name found in Number 13:16. Just wondering, no big deal. Any ideas. The least that we can learn from your illustration is that the true followers of Christ are to attain a unity that is compared with this unity existing between Jehovah and his Son Jesus Christ. John 17:20,21 clearly agrees with your thought where it says, 20 “I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word; 21 in order that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth." This is no doubt God’s will for all his creatures to whom eternal life is promised, and this perfect unity between God and his only-begotten Son is the high standard of unity for them. Unity is possible only where there is agreement in thoughts and in action. The solid basis on which such unity can be built is the properly understood Word of God, the Bible. It is this truth that makes men free and unified. “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31, 32) The disciples of Jesus agreed with his teachings and his actions. They became one with him. This brought about a change in their lives and they followed their Master. On the other hand, the Pharisees disagreed with Jesus’ teachings and deeds. Their pride and the wrong interpretation of the Scriptures hindered them from coming into unity with him. So it is today Tara1 |
||||||
2 | Question for Jehovah's Witness friend | John 14:28 | Tara1 | 124161 | ||
Hello Ray, When there is a choice of alternatives, as when punctuation becomes vital, what the Bible itself says must be permitted to direct. (When the Bible was first written, there was no such thing as punctuation.) I know I’m not telling you anything here, just letting you know I agree with you. And the same principle holds true in beginning names with capital letters; it is up to the translator as to what use he makes of these. Thus, if like you, believe the holy spirit to be the third person of a Trinity will, of course, capitalize “Holy Spirit,” as at Acts 1:8, which reads (NEB): “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” But notice Ray, in the actual account when Jesus’ words were fulfilled, what do we read? “This will happen in the last days: I will pour out upon everyone a portion of my spirit.” (Acts 2:17, NEB) Where is the capital letter? It is not there! Why not? Because God could not pour out a portion of a coequal God; “spirit,” as used here, clearly could not refer to a person. Since this text relates to the very thing Jesus foretold at Acts 1:8, it must follow that he did not have a person in mind when he spoke of his apostles as receiving holy spirit, and so in Acts 1:8 it should not have been capitalized either. All of this is in harmony with the words of John the Baptist that, while he baptized with water, the coming One “will baptize you with holy spirit.” (Mark 1:8) One cannot be baptizing with another person but one can baptize others with water or with an active force, which is what God’s holy spirit is. So, as translators we must let the rest of God’s Word direct when there is a choice between renderings. Just thought I would write something on capitalization. Now to answer your question. :-) And you Ray wrote: We on this forum do not make Jesus greater than the Father. We have only said that Jesus humbled Himself and came to earth in the likeness of men, yet being God. Ray, “yet being God”. By capitalizing theos we understand “Almighty God Jehovah”. The Bible teaches that Jesus is indeed theos but only the Father is Almighty theos, thus being the true theos. Without question Jesus is to be loved, and honored (worshipped if you will) as the Son of the Almighty theos. He willingly left his heavenly position in the spirit realm became a mere man and died on behalf of mankind as a redemptive offer that was accepted by the Almighty theos. John 3:16 Just think about it, if the Almighty theos himself came to the earth and was to “prove that he could stay loyal to his Almighty theos”, what do we have? An illogical scenario. You Ray, ask me: In comparing Luke 14:7-24 and Matthew 22:1-22, who is "giving" the wedding feast? In the Kingdom Hall of heaven who will fill that wedding hall? What will be required of the guests? Well, “the master” providing the meal represents Almighty Jehovah theos; “the slave” extending the invitation, Mighty theos Jesus Christ; and the “grand evening meal,” the opportunities to be in line for the Kingdom of the heavens. What will be required of the guests? First, they have to be invited. Those first to receive the invitation to come in line for the Kingdom were, above all others, the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day. However, they rejected the invitation. Thus, beginning particularly at Pentecost 33 C.E., a second invitation was extended to the despised and lowly ones of the Jewish nation. But not enough responded to fill the 144,000 places in God’s heavenly Kingdom. So in 36 C.E., three and a half years later, the third and final invitation was extended to uncircumcised non-Jews, and the gathering of such ones has continued into our day. Tara |
||||||
3 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114493 | ||
Hello Searcher, I don't understand you guys. I show you what the Bible says and I'm told I'm "ignorant of Scripture....." Just show me where I'm wrong in my understanding of Scripture. Fact is, discussing deeper Scriptural thoughts are really far more interesting, such as current events fulling Bible prophesy. I don't want to push something on you that you don't want to discuss. Regardless, have a nice day, you and Colin. Tara1 |
||||||
4 | Five words: see also 1 Cor 14:2 | Rom 8:16 | Tara1 | 114491 | ||
Hello Ray, You make some interesting comments here and I guess you're right about "auto". Looking in several interlinears, I note some have what yours has and some have "autos". But regardless, it appears that either of these and be translated according to context as "itself or himself". One literal translations says "the very spirit", staying neutral perhaps. Tara1 |
||||||
5 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114460 | ||
Hi again, Here’s how I would put it. Jesus’ brother was Satan. For untold aeons of time Jehovah’s will was being done in the heavens before one of his spirit sons rebelled and became Satan. The book of Proverbs portrays God’s firstborn Son as wisdom personified and was “happy to do his Father’s will.” He became Jehovah “master worker” in the creation of all things. Pr 8:22-31; Col. 1:15-17. Fittingly, Jehovah later invited his firstborn Son Jesus, to share in the creation of humankind. “Let us make man in our image,” he declared, “according to our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) The expression “sons of the true God” first occurs at Genesis 6:2 but then again it occurs at Job 1:6, and here the reference is obviously to spirit sons of God assembled in God’s presence, among whom Satan, who had been “roving about in the earth,” also appeared. (Job 1:7; see also 2:1, 2.) Again at Job 38:4-7 “the sons of God” who ‘shouted in applause’ when God ‘laid the cornerstone’ of the earth clearly were angelic sons and not humans descended from Adam (as yet not even created). So, too, at Psalm 89:6 “the sons of God” are definitely heavenly creatures, not earthlings Satan is never referred to as God’s firstborn nor only-begotten Son of God. The Scriptures also indicate that the creature known as Satan did not always have that name. Rather, this descriptive name was given to him because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God. The name he had before this is not given. God is the only Creator, and ‘his activity is perfect,’ with no injustice or unrighteousness. (De 32:4) Therefore, the one becoming Satan was, when created, a perfect, righteous creature of God. He is a spirit person, for he appeared in heaven in the presence of God. (Job chaps 1, 2; Re 12:9) Jesus Christ said of him: “That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him.” (Joh 8:44; 1Jo 3:8) Jesus here shows that Satan was once in the truth, but forsook it. Beginning with his first overt act in turning Adam and Eve away from God, he was a manslayer, for he thereby brought about the death of Adam and Eve, which, in turn, brought sin and death to their offspring. (Ro 5:12) The Bible reveals that Satan later as a rival god appeared before Jehovah in heaven, challenging Jehovah to His face, saying that he could turn God’s servant Job, and by implication any servant of God, away from Him. He charged God, in effect, with unrighteously giving Job everything, along with full protection, so that he, Satan, could not test Job and show what was really in his heart, which, Satan intimated, was bad. He implied that Job served God primarily for selfish considerations. Satan made this point of his argument clear when he said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul. For a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch as far as his bone and his flesh and see whether he will not curse you to your very face.”—Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7 So, from a righteous, perfect start, this spirit son of God deviated into sin and degradation and lost his privileged status to continue being an approved “brother of Jesus” but became his arch enemy. Genesis 3:15 Tara1 |
||||||
6 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114459 | ||
Hi Thecurtman, You wrote Satan is not Jesus' brother. Gen. 3:15 is a reference between Jesus and satan, but nothing within this verse is relating them two as brothers. I'm writing: You offer well thought out comments in the following. I have to differ on your comment of Elohim being a “name” per se because it not only as you yourself show refers to different ones but Ps 83:18 tells what God’s one name is. So “elohim” is the Hebrew plural title of things or beings that are worshipped. A synonym would be “a mighty one” because of the way it is used in the Bible. You wrote: Elohim, which is one of God's many names, is also used for Idols-Exodus 34:17-"You shall make no molden gods for yourselves."(NKJV) It is used of Men-Psalms 82:6-I said, "You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High". It is also used of Angels-Psalms 8:5- For You have made him a little lower than the angels. (FYI: The word angels in this verse was translated from the Heb. word Elohim) Is Satan an Angel?? Yes, he started out as one of God's Mightest Angels high on the Chain-of-Command. He became fat headded, egotistical, prideful. Lost his position, I guess you could say he was 'terminated'. Took a third of the angels of heaven with him. Check out Isa. 12:9-15 and Rev. 12:7-17. I’m writing now, notice you say that Satan was ‘terminated’. If you mean what the word means (killed) then no, he is still very much alive today. Also if you do a little research you will find for accuracy sake that Lucifer is not in the Bible referring to Satan so that he has two names. You see, Satan filled the king of Babylon with the ambition to have complete domination over the earth, even over “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23) and “the stars of God,” the kings of the line of David sitting on the throne at Mount Moriah. This “king,” that is, the dynasty of Babylon, ‘lifted himself up’ in his own heart and was in his own eyes and in the eyes of his admirers a “shining one,” a “son of the dawn.” (In some translations the Latin Vulgate term “Lucifer” is retained. It is, however, merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel´, “shining one.” Heh·lel´ is not a name or a title but, rather, a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar.) (Isa 14:4-21) Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its “king” did though reflect Satan’s own ambitious desire. You wrote. And as far as Lucifer's orgin, check out Col. 1:15-18. Yes, Col 1:15-18 does describe the origin of Satan before he made himself Satan. You are right on in many of your comments here, thanks. Tara1 |
||||||
7 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114458 | ||
Hi Colin, If Satan were created by God then would he be a Son of God? Are the angels called sons of God. Is Jesus called The Son of God, only-begotten Son of God? I am merely trying to see what you believe the Bible says. Yes, too, I know what the definition of heretic is and if I disagree with someone I personally choose to display some of the nine fruits of God's spirit, love,kindness, mildness, self-control.-Gal 5:22 Then a meaningful Bible discussion can be enjoyed and the truth of the matter can be learned. Tara1 |
||||||
8 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Not Specified | Tara1 | 114432 | ||
Hi flinkywood (Colin) A while back, I showed where the Bible calls angels gods and then asked you a question. You have yet to respond Biblically to my question. Again my question remains and answers your next question as to whether or not Satan is Jesus' brother. Is Satan an angel? Where did Satan come from? And one more question; Can you accurately interprete the first prophesy of the Bible for me please, which answers your question? Tara1 |
||||||
9 | Is Satan Jesus' brother? Gen 3:15 | Gen 3:15 | Tara1 | 114437 | ||
Hi flinkywood (Colin) A while back, I showed where the Bible calls angels gods and then asked you a question. You have yet to respond Biblically to my question. Again my question remains and answers your next question as to whether or not Satan is Jesus' brother. Is Satan an angel? Where did Satan come from? And one more question; Can you accurately interprete the first prophesy of the Bible for me please, which answers your question? Tara1 |
||||||
10 | Five words: see also 1 Cor 14:2 | Rom 8:16 | Tara1 | 114426 | ||
Hi Ray, I have a question for you. You quote Romans 8:16 using a translation that translates outos (itself) as "himself" instead. My King James and the New American Bible, Darby, etc, clearly translate outos as what outos truly should be translated "itself". My question though is; were the King James translators dishonest in transmitting the Word of God? Or were the translators of the translation you used dishonest by using "himself". Fact is, someone was dishonest (perhaps the scribes who merely copied the Greek to Greek) and was trying to promote what wasn't original since we have two opposing lines of thought. Is the Holy Spirit a person and so someone chose to make it appear so by changing outos (itself) to himself? If you are sincerely looking for accuracy then, this is serious study, as this verse originally has absolutely no personification indicators attached. Tara1 |
||||||
11 | out of context? | 1 Cor 5:6 | Tara1 | 114229 | ||
The principle of the illustration tells us "no", it's true in other matters as well. That is the nice thing about "Bible principles". And "yes", the principle very well can apply to movies. That's the point of it all. Just "a little" or just "one scene" can ruin the whole show. :-) |
||||||
12 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114066 | ||
Hi Colin, Presumably you desire me to commit myself to a response that defies your definition of Christ's divinity. I hope I'm mistaken. I understand what the divinity of Christ is and unquestionably believe it since the Bible unequivocally teaches it. If indeed your understanding of Christ’s divinity is distorted that’s not my problem now is it? Likewise, if my understanding of Christ’s divinity is distorted, that’s not your problem. 1 Pet 3:8 tells you and me “Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” Therefore Jesus Christ is now a divine spirit who resides in the heavenly realm and died so as to lead you and me to God. I think that is simple to understand, don’t make it difficult. John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses of the entire Bible and plainly states that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. This I believe with all my heart mind and soul and hope to God you do too. Tara1 |
||||||
13 | why put the tree in middle of garden | Gen 3:3 | Tara1 | 114055 | ||
Makarios, Yea, yea, Makarios, you are probably right. This whole scenario probably had to have happened to settle an issue that needed settled once and for all time for all mankind and all the heavernly creatures; "God's right to rule", better known as God's universal soverignty. Tara1 |
||||||
14 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114051 | ||
Part 3 meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego. So the emphatic ords used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it. 1 I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the simplest details of Greek. 2 Its position is unemphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the third person. 3 The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis. 4 In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in Aramaic. 5 Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW E)IMI ). 6 For the construction see K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4. 7 For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed. 1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990). 8 As Noth mentions in a footnote. 9 Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos. 10 English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun is now treated as if it were always third person. Tara1 |
||||||
15 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114050 | ||
Part 2 Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of this kind in which Jesus uses the words eg eimi alone to identify himself: in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite naturally, with these words, which translate into English as 'It is 1'; and in 18:5, whale Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking the same words, which are naturally translated into English as 'I am he'. The syntactic difference between them is that in the former ego is the complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you see', and in the latter ego is the subject, the unexpressed complement being 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages ego eimi is the natural Greek response in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity. The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that the confident authority of Jesus's presence was such that he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30). The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi,5 which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was bom',6 if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction. For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you arc to say to the Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or 'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'. Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it.7 Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho an ... Ho an apestalke me, which translates into English literally as 'I am the being one',' and 'the being one has sent me'. Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as in most of the passages cited above; and ho an represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be hos esti,9 but the most natural translation into English of both would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' the verb having its basic |
||||||
16 | God refers to himself as "The great I Am | Ex 3:14 | Tara1 | 114048 | ||
Hello to you Emmaus, Kenneth L. McKay, who graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England, who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach, provides the following in relation to the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58": John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303) 'I am' in John's Gospel BY K. L. MCKAY, MA, FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' to the Greek words ego eimi.1 I wish briefly to draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this kind. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus's claims about himself by noting the 'I am' element common to them: 'I am the bread of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door' (10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words 'I am' in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else. In each case the Greek words used are ego eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the verb, also slightly emphatic,2 being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words, 'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements.The same principle applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase used adjectivally. With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, ego ek ton ano eimi, but in the immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is understood from the rest of the sentence: ego en to (i) patri kai ho pater en emoi estin.3 In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: ego en to(i) patri mou kai humeis en emoi kago en humin In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis, and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi ego humeis ou dunasthe elthein. |
||||||
17 | Does one bad apple spoil the bunch? | 1 Cor 5:6 | Tara1 | 114042 | ||
Hi Moby Dick, The Bible illustration found at 1 Cor 5:6 that a little leaven or yeast of badness will spoil the whole loaf or congregation is a true one and fits your "worldly saying" just as one bad apple in a basket, if not removed, will spoil all the apples in the basket. This requires that the congregation of God be kept clean from moral and spiritual uncleaness. Following are some more Biblical examples of where bad individuals brought congregational responsibility or accountability threatening punishment upon the entire group when the guilty ones were not removed at once. Leviticus 20:1-5; Numbers 16:19-35; Deuteronomy 21:1-9; Joshua 7:1, 11-26. Tara1 |
||||||
18 | Do i have to get baptized? | Luke 23:43 | Tara1 | 113657 | ||
Hello again Makarios, History is interesting isn't it? During the fifth century this debate took place actually started when a British monk named Pelagius made a trip to Rome. He was appalled at the corruption he saw there among so-called Christians, the cleric set out to spur men on to “more moral effort.” Man could not blame his weaknesses on ‘original sin,’ said Pelagius. “Everything good and everything evil . . . is done by us, not born with us.” Pelagian doctrine quickly became the talk of the day. But not for long. Church leaders viewed this abandonment of ‘original sin’ as heresy. And Pelagius unwittingly played right into their hands by favoring what was by then a popular custom, this infant baptism idea. Then bishop named Augustine saw this as a glaring inconsistency. ‘If infants must be baptized,’ argued Augustine, ‘what of those unbaptized?’ The seemingly logical conclusion was that such ones would suffer the fires of hell because they were unbaptized. This point apparently established, Augustine struck the fatal blow: Since unbaptized infants indeed suffered damnation, what else could account for this but ‘original sin’? Pelagian doctrine collapsed. A church council at Carthage subsequently declared Pelagius’ teachings heresy. ‘Original sin’ became as much a part of Catholicism as the confessional. And the church was now steered in the course of promoting mass conversions—often forced—to save people from the ‘fires of hell.’ Infant baptism went from being a popular custom to an official instrument of salvation, an instrument Protestantism would inherit. Augustine’s doctrine raised some embarrassingly difficult questions: How could a God of love cause innocent babies to suffer in hell? Would unbaptized babies receive the same punishment as hardened sinners? Coming up with answers has not been easy for theologians. Says Catholic priest Vincent Wilkin: “Some have committed unbaptized infants to the full fury of the flames of hell, others believed they were not consumed by the flames but merely heated to a temperature of real discomfort; others would make the discomfort the very tiniest possible in hell . . . Some would place them in a terrestrial paradise.” The most popular theory of all, though, has proved to be that the souls of unbaptized infants are housed in limbo. This word literally means “border” (such as the border, or hem, of a garment) and describes a region that supposedly stands on the borders of hell. For theologians, limbo is a very convenient notion. It at least modifies the horrifying specter of suffering infants. But like any man-made theory, limbo has its problems. Why is it not mentioned in Scripture? Can babies get out of limbo? And why should innocent babies have to go there in the first place? Understandably, the church makes a point of saying that limbo “is not official Catholic teaching.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia. For centuries Catholics basically held to the Augustinian viewpoint and ‘limbo proofed’ their children by baptism. However, since the 1950’s there has been a dramatic revival of the infant-baptism debate. Catholic scholars have begun expressing serious doubts that the practice is Biblical. Others admit that they can accept neither Augustine’s hellfire notions nor limbo. At first, though, conservative church leaders refused to budge. In 1951 Pope Pius XII made a speech to a group of midwives. Reaffirming the belief that “the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation,” he encouraged the midwives to perform the baptism rite themselves if it appeared likely that a newborn child was going to die. “Do not, then, fail in performing this charitable service,” he urged. Similarly, in 1958 the Vatican issued a stiff warning that “infants are to be baptized as soon as possible.” Still, controversy erupted again following the famous Vatican II council. In a surprise move, the church tried to straddle conservative and liberal positions. ‘Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation,’ said the council. Curiously, though, salvation was also possible for those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ.” As a follow-up, the church then revised the infant baptism rite. Among other things, priests now had the option of refusing baptism if the child’s parents failed to promise to raise him as a Catholic. Had the church finally moved away from Augustine’s doctrine? Some thought so and began to question the need for infant baptism. Then the Vatican issued its “Instruction on Infant Baptism,” which stated: “The Church . . . knows no other way apart from baptism for ensuring children’s entry into eternal happiness.” Bishops were ordered to “bring back to the traditional practice those who . . . have departed from it.” But what of babies who die unbaptized? “The Church can only entrust them to God’s mercy.” Tara1 |
||||||
19 | Do i have to get baptized? | Luke 23:43 | Tara1 | 113579 | ||
I don't know but Matt 28:19-20 does tell us the importance of being baptized. I was thinking I used the wrong text (Matt. 24:14) ?? Tara1 |
||||||
20 | where does the donkey speak? | Num 22:26 | Tara1 | 113571 | ||
Hi, Numbers 22:26-31. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |