Results 1 - 13 of 13
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132072 | ||
Tim, it may be clear to you that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but not to me. (You haven’t said which is the “one” baptism in Ephesians 4.) I believe salvation is accomplished by the HS, but at the time of water baptism. I’ve posted before, there’s nothing in the water that saves except an obedient believer. I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism. And, Acts 11:17-18 substantiates that the conversion of Corneluis was, indeed, a special circumstance. That Peter even went into the house of a Gentile was pretty special. The text gives reasons for that baptism of the HS. Salvation is not one of them. Other texts put salvation at the point one is buried with Christ in [water] baptism. [See more in my separate posts about the conversion of Cornelius.] For the reasons following I disagree with you concerning whether or not men are totally depraved at birth. (You say, all men are born sinners.) The scriptures you use seem to support your interpretation (Psalm 51, Romans 5, and others I’m sure, such as Romans 7:21-23), but I have to reconcile them with the following clear teachings from God’s word. Taken as a whole, scripture calls for a conclusion that men become sinners when they sin; they are not born sinners. What little I know about the marked difference in Western thought and Easter thought has been a great aid to understanding scripture, and I hope to learn more about that. The latter is more figurative. Psalm 51:5 is literally translated, “Behold in iniquity I was born and in sin my mother conceived me,” which can lend to the idea that David was born into an evil and sinful world. Indeed, all of us are, and cannot escape succumbing to the temptations Satan puts in our way. As it is written, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) The Word does teach that man becomes depraved and lost because of the sin he commits/practices, and he can do nothing on his own to reconcile himself to God. And, it follows that man is saved by God’s grace alone, as you say. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that man has a part to play in the plan of salvation. When he believes, he must obey. Check it out, my friends. Salvation IS conditional. It was for the Jews; it is for us. God has always required obedience. As an added consideration, I call to attention that the term “reconciliation” assumes there has been a “conciliation” Looking at the words in Genesis 8:21 “…although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth…”, I ask: isn’t this saying a man’s heart is not evil before he becomes a youth? And, Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” This text speaks for itself. Looking at Romans 9:11, “….children not having done any good or evil.” Seems pretty self-explanatory. Matt 19:14. “But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” It stretches my imagination to think Jesus would say that, if the children were totally depraved. I believe the children were (are) pure and sinless, as Christians become, through the blood of Christ, when they enter the Kingdom. (Col 1:13). All said, Luke 8:15 is really the only verse I need to tell me that man is not born totally depraved and is able to personally respond to God’s word in a righteous way. There are good and honest hearts for the word of God to be planted in. The text: “But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble [honest] and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” Thanks for discussing our differences with me, Tim. I expect we have others besides these two, but studying together is a step in the right direction. Both of us know about Paul’s admonition that there be no divisions among us, that we should think the same thing and speak the same thing. I also guess we both know that would happen only if we stick strictly to the text – nothing added – nothing deleted – no doctrines and commandments of men. Striving to please Him. J. Elkins |
||||||
2 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132078 | ||
Hello J Elkins, You wrote: "I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." I don't know how you could possibly say this. Acts 10:1-2 is a clear indication he was a believer before Peter got there. Steve |
||||||
3 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132079 | ||
Steve, what I hear you saying is that you think Cornelius was saved because of his belief, and before Peter got there. And if you are saying that, you are saying he was saved even before he received the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't quite plumb with the fact that Peter was to tell him words whereby he might be saved. I stand by my statement: "Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." |
||||||
4 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132140 | ||
Hello J Elkins, Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved. Nowhere in Acts 10/11 does one see that Cornelius believed after listening to Peter. What it says is that the Holy Spirit descended on them as He did at Pentecost. On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost? Believers. Steve |
||||||
5 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132212 | ||
Scripture says in Acts 11:13-14 “..and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” You say, “Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved.” I’ll leave it to the Forum readers to make judgment about this. Regarding your question, “On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost?” You answer “Believers”; I answer “Apostles.” Following is information I posted yesterday supporting why I answered Apostles. In Acts 1:15, the text says there were about 120 disciples in the upper room. In Acts 2, the text does not say all 120 received the baptism of the HS. Tracking the antecedent of the pronouns in Acts 2:1-4 leads to Acts 1:26. The pronouns “them” and “they” refer to Matthias and the eleven, and can be traced even further back to the 11 in Luke 24:49. In John 14, Jesus promises the baptism of the HS to the Apostles at their Passover Feast. To say the baptism of the HS was for all is to read into scripture something that is not there. I am not saying the Holy Spirit is not for all Christians; only that the baptismal measure of the HS is not for everyone. |
||||||
6 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132215 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! Concerning Acts 2:1-4, there simply isn't any way to grammatically 'prove' that 'they' and 'them' only refer to the disciples. But, there isn't anyway to prove that they don't either. However, I believe that the context makes a strong case for the inclusion of all in the room. Note Peter's use of the prophecy from Joel. Acts 2:16 - "No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 ”‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy." It would be odd to say the least that Peter would quote a reference to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on 'all' people in support of only the Disciples receiving the Holy Spirit baptism. :-) What is not in dispute though, and you have not addressed it as of yet, is that Acts 2:38-39 clearly says that the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is for 'you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.' This certainly doesn't indicate that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the disciples. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 132235 | ||
You are TOO quick, Tim! I think I followed the rules of grammar perfectly to plead my case of "the Pronouns applying to the Apostles." I don't have a problem with Joel's prophecy. Don't you think the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the whole world through the Apostles preaching and laying on of their hands? I have spent some time this afternoon preparing a doc addressing Acts 2:38. Alas, it is 6,015 characters, and I must cut it by more that 1000 chars before I post it! Have to stop and do other things right now. (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you go to Bible Studies on Wednesday evenings, too) Talk later. J. Elkins |
||||||
8 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 132246 | ||
Greetings J. Elkins! You may have followed English rules perfectly, but Greek handles pronoun agreement a little differently. Greek does not use the same sort of word order that we require in English. Therefore, the 'nearness' of a pronoun to a noun is not the determining factor in deciding if a pronoun is in fact the antecedent of a particular noun. In Greek, the form of the words is the determining factor. A pronoun must agree with it's antecedent in both gender and number. In this case, the 'all' of Acts 2:4 is plural in number and masculine in gender. Therefore, it could be refering to either the disciple of 1:26 or to the 120 brothers of 1:15. That is why I said that a case could be made either way. As far as Joel is concerned, I don't believe that the Apostle's preaching or laying on of hands has anything to do with the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe, in accord with Acts 2:38, that everyone who believes will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - whether or not an Apostle is there at all. :-) p.s. - Before you ask about baptism in Acts 2:38, I have posted many times on this verse that the Greek indicates that the statement about baptism is an apositional phrase and is not required to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - as is also evidenced by Cornelius. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133052 | ||
Because of my very limited knowledge of Greek, I cannot confirm or deny your comments about the language. However, it seems logical that, for scripture in its translated form – in this case English, the English grammar rules should apply, and I would expect a Spanish version to follow Spanish grammar rules. Surely, the translators would have considered and compensated for the difference in grammar rules between the two languages. In any case, setting my argument for pronoun usage aside, I would still believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for only the Apostles because it was promised to them in John, they were told to wait for it in Luke, and in Acts 2:14, Peter stood up with the eleven; then said these are not drunk; then said, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel. (Should we also have some question whether or not “these” in Acts 2:15 applies to the eleven?) Miriam-Webster says: “Apposition, noun, 1 a : a grammatical construction in which two usually adjacent nouns having the same referent stand in the same syntactical relation to the rest of a sentence.” But, you’re not saying about Acts 2:38 that “repent” and “be baptized” have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the sentence. IMO, what you do say doesn’t quite have the ring of truth to it. If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism. |
||||||
10 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133063 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! You can check the Greek in any legitimate Greek grammar. :-) You wrote: "If repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, so is baptism." Yet, Acts 10:45 conclusively disproves this statement! :-) p.s. - Thanks for the correction! I did use the wrong term. Instead of 'appositional', I should have used 'parenthetical'. :-) You will have to excuse me my friend. I am not as young as I once was! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
11 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133266 | ||
I make mistakes, too, and usually plead early onset of senility. Don't you wonder, if you are supposed to have been baptised with the Holy Spirit and have the same gift the Apostles and Cornelius had, why the HS would let you say anything that is in error? I expect it's time for me to find a legitimate Greek grammar and learn how to use it. I have been depending on a learned friend of mine to help me out in this area. You've talked me down, Tim. Practically everything I've said you've called "speculation," in spite of the fact that I gave you scripture to support all I said. At this point, I could only start repeating the things I've said in recent postings. I'll just ask our readers to refer to my notes under main topics "Why was the thief saved without baptism," 8/21/04, and "Created 'in' Christ," tms57mi, 6/16/03. Maybe I will think of something to say later that might persuade you to revisit my position that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles. As I see it, you are teaching two baptisms instead of one, provided you do teach that water baptism is a command of our Lord that must be obeyed. :-) With sincere concern for those who could find themselves on the wrong end of II John 9. J. Elkins |
||||||
12 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Morant61 | 133267 | ||
Greetings Jelkins! I just had a birthday, so I might start claiming senility! :-) Concerning speculation my friend, I just have a very high standard for what I will accept as Scripture. If you could show me a Scripture that actually says that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was only for the Apostles then I would believe you. Until then, it is just speculation to claim something based only upon inferences. :-) I would be glad to pick the topic up later if you wish! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
13 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | jelkins | 133353 | ||
acknowledged. | ||||||