Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | FTimA | 64195 | ||
You must look at God's word as a whole. Excluding all of the teaching on baptism is a grave error. John the baptist would not have had to prepare the way if baptism wasn't necessary. Even his baptism was null and void after Jesus died. Read Acts 19:1-5. Why did these men need to be baptized into Christ if they had already been baptized into "John's baptism". They evidently had already believed. Read the examples of conversion in Acts, the 3000 on Pentecost, the Philippian jailor, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius and his household, Lydia, Saul of Tarsus! How many examples are necessary to prove what God's word says is true? | ||||||
2 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | BradK | 64200 | ||
FTimA, I concur that we "must look at Gods' word as a whole". I think where we may part in our understanding is the book of Acts. If we only look at this this book, it would be hard to conclude otherwise. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Acts is a doctrinal book nor is it viewed as such by scholars. Its' focus is more historical and provides a transition between the Gospels and Epistles. This is not in any way to say that there is not truth or eternal principles contained in it. Given this, I would not and do not take specific doctrine, i.e. salvation from it. If it is "doctrinal", then what of the great Systematic Theology of Paul in Romans? With your view, do you not see a contadiction? I believe this accounts for our difference of interpretation and therefore application. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
3 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | FTimA | 64206 | ||
First of all I don't believe in private interpretation (1 Peter 1:20, 21). I believe that God has a purpose behind His word and that it is unique and singular. If you do not accept Acts as a God inspired writing do you also exclude Luke? Acts is a crucial book of the bible for it reveals to us the establishment and growth of the church. I know the books of the bible are not arranged in chronological order. I would have to check but it is possible that Acts was written before the gospels. If this is true how could it be a transition between gospels and epistles? | ||||||
4 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | BradK | 64215 | ||
FTimA, Brother, please don't hear what I'm not saying! I did not intend to convey that I reject Acts as an inspired writing! It is very much part of the WHOLE inspired word of God. What I said was that I do not view it as DOCTRINAL in its' focus. To repeat, I view its' primary intent as a historical bridge between The Epistles and the Gospels. This also is not intended to oversimplify its' significance. For time sake, the account by Luke picks up where the Gospels leave us(post-resurrection), the start of the Church, and Pauls' conversion and entrance onto the scene. The whole of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the inspired word of God. Hopefully this clarifies. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
5 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | FTimA | 64216 | ||
If I misunderstood please forgive me. I cite 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Notice that the word doctrine is in all caps. If Acts is scripture then isn't Acts profitable for doctrine? |
||||||
6 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | BradK | 64220 | ||
Hi FTimA, I think that 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is a great reference point. In understanding proper interpretation of scripture there are some general guidelines. We need to know 1) who's speaking;2) who's being spoken to and;3) what's being spoken about. Consider with Acts, if doctrinal practice is being taught, then we should follow it. The "doctrine" of salvation would be taught and practiced as in 2:38, etc. Could we not also expect to see the "doctrines" of healing, tongues, raising of the dead(Dorcas-chap.9),and being unharmed by poisonous snakes in effect and pacticed today?(and I realize there are good believers who would agree with some of these) If Acts is profitable for doctrine in this manner, would not Mark 16:16-18 (debatable though it is) also provide our "doctrine" as believers in the Body of Christ. Any thoughts on this? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
7 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | FTimA | 64233 | ||
I would agree with all except the "doctrines" of healing, tongues, raising of the dead(Dorcas-chap.9),and being unharmed by poisonous snakes in effect and practiced today. Spiritual gifts were given to the Apostles and only them on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1). They alone had the power to pass on a spiritual gift through the laying on of hands. Simon the sorcerer, after seeing this power, wished to purchase it. When the Apostles died this power was gone. When all those that had received a gift died, the gifts ceased to exist. By this time there was a written record of God's New Testament. Prior to this the word was spoken and the purpose of spiritual gifts was to confirm what was spoken was of God. The Corinthians had a problem understanding this purpose (1 Cor 12-14). I know this may open an issue for debate so word your questions well. Yes, Mark 16:16-18 are words spoken by Jesus Himself. Why would they not be considered doctrine? |
||||||