Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Baptized | Matthew | G. Preston | 232325 | ||
BradK, You are not challenging me.... perhaps G-ds Word. I am surprised you need references. I am aware there are different conclusions on baptism and I don't understand why; The KJV Bible speaks volumes on Baptism. I invite consideration of the following; Mark 16 Acts 2 and 22 1 Peter 3 Galations 3 Romans 6 There are many others. This is so basic I will not addres it further. |
||||||
2 | Baptized | Matthew | BradK | 232327 | ||
Hello Preston, What I'm "challenging" is your conclusion regarding baptism as being essential to salvation! You come across as if there's nothing to discuss. I'm not clear on why you're surprised I need references? Our gracious hosts, The Lockman Foundation have set forth terms of Use and About Postings. One of the specific rerquirements if you will is that our posts be biblically based and that we support them from scripture! It's not a foregone conclusion. You don't understand why there are different conclusions on baptism? Perhaps because it's not as cut-and-dry as you believe? The Church has historically taken the position that salvation is by grace through faith- and that baptism is not a requirement. (Sola gracia, sole fidei). Inviting consideration is one thing but studying and exegeting passages is another. One must consider the context and the usage of a word in a passage before arriving at it's meaning. Are you certain of the meaning of baptism in Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3-4? If so, on what basis? If you view this as being so basic that you won't address it further, that's fine. However, I cannot and will not believe what you say, simply because you say it! That is where I challenge you, not God's Word! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | Baptized | Matthew | G. Preston | 232328 | ||
BradK, The Bible says it. Not me. The church is not always right and are often out of step with G-d's word. Please be consistent with the rule and give me references that baptism is not necessary and we can have a good dialogue here, which will be helpful. To this time you have shared no bible references which support your contention that baptism is not necessary. Please do so. I am afraid some mix the process of getting prepared...the heart...with receiving eternal salvation. |
||||||
4 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232329 | ||
G. Preston, The problem is that you are not actually defending your view. This simple fact is that historical Christianity takes the stance that you are misreading the passages that you are simply listing in passing. Now you suggest that agreed upon historical interpretation of the church can and has been wrong. Fair enough. That is entirely possible. However, when the vast majority of Christianity throughout history says that you are wrong in how you are reading those passages, the burden of proof is on YOU to unpack those passages and show us how they do in fact support your thesis. Being dismissive and acting as if you ought not have to defend your notion in such detail gives the impression that you are both unable to defend your position from scripture and also that you are unaware of how historical Christianity has interpreted this issue. This is not to mention that you are coming across as a bit haughty and unwilling to take the time and explain things to those not gifted with the insight you are apparently privy to. Summary, when you go against the history of Christianity on a doctrine, its possible that you are right, but the burden is on you to give a very detailed exposition of passages to SHOW that you are right. You don't get to dismissively throw out some references and act like all interpretors of scripture through out history are stupid. Well...you can do that but it only makes people not take you seriously. I say all this hoping it will prompt us to discussion of particular passages as this forum was meant for. You are correct that scripture contrary to your opinion has not been strongly supplied yet, though some has. I would put forward two places in scripture for starters. Romans chapter four where Paul excessively stresses that Abraham was saved by faith at the moment of faith without any external ritual such as circumcision. Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, Rom 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. Now, two remarkable things are here relevant to the question. First, Paul stresses that he was justified by faith at the moment of faith with no other ritual aid. Second, he asserts this was written as a pattern for all who would follow after him by faith. So it seems clear to me, that Paul is arguing that we are saved by and at the moment of faith and not after the aid of any ritual. The second passage is ofcourse the theif on the cross where Christ himself assures us that the theif would be in heaven with no baptism. A simple yet powerful display that baptism does not save us. Ofcourse the passages you listed need to be discussed but this post is already too long and I'd rather let you show a willingness to discuss passages prior to putting in the effort of tackling them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Baptized | Matthew | G. Preston | 232336 | ||
Beja, I have not said that baptism saves us...one thing at a time for us to be constructive...where did you get this? |
||||||
6 | Baptized | Matthew | BradK | 232337 | ||
Hello Preston, Here's what you said, "I don't believe you have accepted Christ, if you have not been baptised. The two go together, I submit. So why would anyone want to take the chance with their eternal salvation?,..." How else are we to understand this statement? Did you not mean what you said? Maybe you're want to mince words, so, no you technically didin't say that "baptism saves us". However, to say that someone has not accepted Christ if they have not been baptised begs the question! What do you mean by this? Possibly you can explain it with more clarity so as to be constructive? I suggest when you post, you say what you mean. Please own what you said and take responsibility for it my man! IMO, you are coming across with seeming incredulity and side-stepping questions created by your own posts. This does nothing toward being constructive in the least. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||