Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72673 | ||
You ask 'is this clear?' No. But what an interesting paraphrase! And Acts 22:16 says, "Now why do you [singular] delay, arise [singular] and be baptized [singular], and wash away [singular] thy sins [plural], calling [singular] on his name [singular, I'm not sure of the point of all this grammar stuff, but it makes as much sense as your use of it]." It would be interesting to see the Tim Moran paraphrase of Acts 22:16. Seriously, you can do better than this: "If you repent (protasis), and since you have repented be baptized (apodosis), you will receive forgiveness of sins" (Loose paraphrase). Let me see if I have this right. The crowd was pricked in the heart and asked what to do. The apostles responded, "Repent for the forgiveness of sins, and because you have already repented, therefore you will be already saved because salvation is based on repentance alone. Now everyone go get baptized for no particular reason" [my paraphrase of your paraphrase] Am I getting the gist of it? Your explanation seems to be lacking a certain something. Your explanation is intended to take people's attention off of baptism, right? But Acts 2 says that 3,000 were baptized because they understoood Peter to say, "Repent ye, and let each of you be baptized,...for forgiveness of sins." But you say they didn't need to, right? By the way, you got one part right. The word "for" is from the greek EIS which is always prospective. Grammatically, 'forgiveness' would follow repentance. What you didn't get right is that repentance is made visible in an obedient faith seen in baptism. Frankly, I find the one about the thief on the cross to be a much better explanation for not being baptized [even though Jesus wouldn't utter a word about it until after the resurrection, Mt. 28:18-20]. Water doesn't save, works don't save, faith alone doesn't save, the preacher doesn't save, but I'll tell you what does: an obedient faith (Romans 1:5; 16:26) that gets in the water and trust in the atonement of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift that is received at a particular point in time. You say at the point of repentance, others say at the point of 'faith only', Peter says at Baptism (1 Peter 3:21), others say when you get sprinkled as a little bitty baby. Whose right? Something tells me you're not a translator for the Lockman Foundation [I learned that such sarcasm is acceptable after reading a number of post by the moderator]. Nothing personal. |
||||||
2 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 72699 | ||
Perhaps you can help me with a question I have yet to have substantially answered by one who holds the view on baptism that you do: Where was the church of Jesus Christ between the third century or so and the Anabaptists of the late 16th century? If I am understanding you correctly, you claim that since the Great Commission, immersion in water is a necessary element of truly being saved. If that is the case, we have a serious church history problem on our hands. Namely, there would be NO church history between the times I mentioned above. Since virtually everyone who carried the name of Christian was "sprinkled as a little bitty baby" (and even adult converts were almost always sprinkled), where was the church? Did everyone claiming to be a Christian for at least 1300 years really go to hell? Wouldn't this mean that the church God promised Peter and the other apostles would prevail actually died out? If so, explain how God would do something in history he had never, ever done before: let His people disappear off the face of the earth. If you disagree that the church died out, please point out to me where we can historically find it during the Middle Ages, or else help me understand how all those sprinkled "Christians" were part of the true church without meeting the requirements you claim the Bible makes. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72853 | ||
Where was the church? Historically, I don't know where the Christians were. I suppose YOU can 'historically' point to the church of Jesus Christ. Do YOU find the 'historical' church in the words of the post-nicene fathers? If so, you must think the reformers were just a lot of troublemakers. Perhaps the true Christians were driven underground-figuratively speaking. Remember how, later on, the 'historical' church had fits when common people wanted to read the Bible? Some of those people were called heretics because they made the Bible available to other common people. The 'historical' church burned some of those people and made people afraid to speak out against the Pope. The inquisitors confiscated property of heretics who didn't believe like the Pope and.... Anyway, that's the only 'historical' church. Suffice to say, I know where the true church was not. I still believe 'the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.' That doesn't stop Satan from trying. Maybe it's coincidental, but Paul did speak of an apostasy (2 Thess 2). If you think the Holy Roman Church is the church of the Bible, I think you are mistaken. Going along with the apostasy was warning that God would send a deluding influence upon those "who did not receive a love for the truth" (2 Thess 2). It is a "mortal sin" to "add to or take away from" God's Word. With the help of Constantine, the written history of "the church" gives a picture of something quite different than that church we find in the Bible. Perhaps we can correspond again. Good day. |
||||||
4 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Reformer Joe | 72865 | ||
"Historically, I don't know where the Christians were. I suppose YOU can 'historically' point to the church of Jesus Christ. Do YOU find the 'historical' church in the words of the post-nicene fathers?" I certainly do. The church certainly isn't infallible, but the redeemed of God had to have lived within the visible church, or else the church did not exist at all. "If so, you must think the reformers were just a lot of troublemakers." Not at all. Well,I guess they WERE, but that is the kind of trouble we all could use. However, the Reformers didnot think that Nicea was the end of the church. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and the rest pointed to problems that developed much later than the 4th century. The Reformers set out to REFORM a church that had taken some very wrong turns, not to RESTORE a church that had ceased to exist. "Perhaps the true Christians were driven underground-figuratively speaking. Remember how, later on, the 'historical' church had fits when common people wanted to read the Bible? Some of those people were called heretics because they made the Bible available to other common people. The 'historical' church burned some of those people and made people afraid to speak out against the Pope. The inquisitors confiscated property of heretics who didn't believe like the Pope and.... Anyway, that's the only 'historical' church. Suffice to say, I know where the true church was not." You are talking about the interim between Nicea and the Reformation like it was the span of a few years or something. There was a period of about 1200 years between the two. The problems of the RCC that the Reformers pointed out did not spring up overnight. "If you think the Holy Roman Church is the church of the Bible, I think you are mistaken." Take a look at my user name. Read my profile. Do you honestly think I am an advocate for Roman Catholicism? But since you are praising the Reformers and the way they restored the church, please explain to me why Luther and Calvin not only did not get re-baptized after their coversions, but also defended infant baptism. If these men were Christians to be admired and are in heaven now, how did they get there without immersion? --Joe! |
||||||