Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
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 | 72729 | ||
You write that Tim is too much the Christian gentleman to respond. I guess that means you are not a Christian gentleman when you do what Tim would not do. You write: "Those of us who have been around a while have seen dozens of shooting stars come and go. They show up here, try to make a name for themselves, post a few messages lacking in substance, and then, when they don't get the respect they've done nothing to earn, they disappear. Will you be one of them? I don't know. But if you could demonstrate one tenth the wisdom, discernment, knowledge, patience, and care that Tim has, I for one might be interested in what you have to say." My aim is not to "score points" and I'm not trying to "earn" your respect. Judging by your visceral, mindless response, I doubt that I would want it. This is, I presume, a place of ideas. But when someone speaks an idea that doesn't conform to the modern mantra, you and others start saying things like, "you're just a newcomer, a lot of us have been around a lot longer than you, start showing the big men on campus a little respect, say what we say and after a while you will have our respect." Tim may be a gentleman in every way, except his talent is lacking when it comes to explaining Scripture. You speak of Tim's wisdom, but I see no wisdom in twisting the Acts 2:38 passage. There is zero justification for the way Tim Moran mangled the words of Peter. And how unkind of you to jump to his defense and then give him none. The Lockman Foundation has the best word-for-word translation available, I'm surprised that people on this forum aren't offended by Tim's mangling of Scripture. The "shooting stars" you mention may be more than that, they may be burning just as bright but they've gone to more fertile fields, where eyes and ears are open. Good day. |
||||||
2 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72877 | ||
Greetings, disciplerami; If God requires baptism for salvation then it seems he has placed enormous practical obstacles before the new believer. Below are some statements that seem to follow from your position. If you could show that any of them are incorrect, it might help to understand your position. 1. One cannot baptize oneself. There are no examples or any mention of such a thing in the Bible. 2. If one cannot baptize oneself, then God has ordained that no one can or will be saved without the participation of another human being. Of course, God is sovereign and can save anyone he pleases, but that fact offers no guidance for those who are earnestly seeking him. 3. If the participation of another human being is required, it would be helpful to know whether or not that person is qualified for the job. For example, I wonder if a non-believer or an unsaved person can baptize. Can a Hindu who knows the right words or a huckster posing as an evangelist or an unsaved preacher who thought it an attractive line of work baptize? Jesus' commission was to his disciples, not to unbelievers. And there are no examples in the Bible of unbelievers baptizing. So it seems the baptizer must be a saved believer. 4. If the baptizer must be a saved believer, then the new believer must know what only God and the would-be baptizer know - whether or not the baptizer is saved. If we just assume that God will always provide a saved baptizer, then we have to assume that everyone who ever responded to a huckster's alter call is deluded and condemned (even though Paul said in Phillipians 1:15-18 that it's the message, not the messenger). Or, we could assume it is only necessary that the new believer earnestly seek a qualified baptizer, but the Bible gives no guidance. In Acts, the people who were told to be baptized were told in person by a qualified baptizer; so this problem never arose. 5. Unlike the examples in Acts, not everyone comes to faith in the presence of a qualified baptizer. So new believers who come to faith in Jesus in isolation are not saved. Persons who are given a Bible or hear a passing missionary or listen to a Christian radio station and believe are stuck in limbo if no qualified baptizer (whatever that may be) is nearby. They must wait for one to show up or go seek and hope to recognize one. There can be no battlefield or deathbed conversions; the thief on the cross was the last one. 6. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was not very forthcoming. He quoted Joel - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" - without qualification. But he should have added "and, oh, by the way, Joel's words aren't really applicable anymore. Not only do you have to call upon the name of the Lord, but now that you have killed Jesus, you also have to be baptized to be saved". To mention baptism as a requirement only after the main message was kind of a bait-and-switch tactic. We can't accept that Peter was guilty of shady dealings; Tim's explanation of Acts 2:38 solves that problem. Or, we could assume that Joel's message was only to his OT listeners and that it was no longer valid or sufficient by the time Peter quoted it. But then we're back in the same dilemma. Why would God inspire Peter to quote an invalid or insufficient prophecy? I don't expect you will change my mind (although forum members have changed my mind in the past, so is is possible). Nor do I expect to change yours. But since this a "place of ideas", I assume you might be willing to support yours by showing me my errors Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
3 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | disciplerami | 72888 | ||
Greetings, Let me answer the questions that I can. You write: "One cannot baptize oneself. There are no examples or any mention of such a thing in the Bible." Answer: BY DESIGN, GOD PLACED LIMITATIONS. YOU CANNOT BE SAVED UNLESS YOU BELIEVE. THAT IS A LIMITATION. YOU CANNOT BE SAVED UNLESS YOU REPENT (LK 13:3; ACTS 2:38; ROM 6:23). ANOTHER LIMITATION! THE COMMAND TO BE BAPTIZE IS IN PASSIVE TENSE, THEREFORE, BY DESIGN, GOD INTENDED THAT IT TAKE TWO. JESUS HAD TO BE BAPTIZED 'TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.' THAT HE HAD TO HAVE JOHN BAPTIZE HIM WAS GOD'S DESIGN. SINCE JESUS SAID PREACH THE GOSPEL UNTO ALL CREATION, WHY NOT GO AHEAD AND BAPTIZE THEM WHEN YOU ARE TEACHING THEM? THAT'S WHAT PHILIP DID IN ACTS 8. BEING A LIMITATION IS NOT A PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT THE PAUL DID WITH THE JAILER IN ACTS 16. You write: "If one cannot baptize oneself, then God has ordained that no one can or will be saved without the participation of another human being. Of course, God is sovereign and can save anyone he pleases, but that fact offers no guidance for those who are earnestly seeking him." Answer: 'WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED. HOW THEN SHALL THEY CALL UPON HIM IN WHOM THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED? AND HOW SHALL THEY BELIEVE IN HIM WHOM THEY HAVE NOT HEARD? AND HOW SHALL THEY HEAR WITHOUT A PREACHER? AND HOW SHALL THEY PREACH UNLESS THEY ARE SENT? GOD DESIGNED HIS SAVING MESSAGE TO BE TRANSMITTED FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER. THE ONE BAPTIZES THE OTHER. NOT A PROBLEM. You write: "If the participation of another human being is required, it would be helpful to know whether or not that person is qualified for the job. For example, I wonder if a non-believer or an unsaved person can baptize. Can a Hindu who knows the right words or a huckster posing as an evangelist or an unsaved preacher who thought it an attractive line of work baptize? Jesus' commission was to his disciples, not to unbelievers. And there are no examples in the Bible of unbelievers baptizing. So it seems the baptizer must be a saved believer." Answer: THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT THE BAPTIZER HAS TO BE SQUEAKY CLEAN. A 'HUCKSTER' CAN BAPTIZE A PERSON. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS IN THE HEART OF THE BAPTIZER, BUT WHAT IS IN THE HEART OF THE ONE BEING BAPTIZED. IF THE BAPTIZER IS NOT MORALLY PURE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BAPTISM OF A TRUE SEEKER. You write: "Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was not very forthcoming. He quoted Joel - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" - without qualification. But he should have added "and, oh, by the way, Joel's words aren't really applicable anymore. Not only do you have to call upon the name of the Lord, but now that you have killed Jesus, you also have to be baptized to be saved". To mention baptism as a requirement only after the main message was kind of a bait-and-switch tactic. We can't accept that Peter was guilty of shady dealings; Tim's explanation of Acts 2:38 solves that problem. Or, we could assume that Joel's message was only to his OT listeners and that it was no longer valid or sufficient by the time Peter quoted it. But then we're back in the same dilemma. Why would God inspire Peter to quote an invalid or insufficient prophecy?" Answer: THERE IS NO 'BAIT AND SWITCH' IN PETER'S WORDS. YOUR QUARREL IS NOT WITH ME BUT WITH PETER. PETER ACCURATELY QUOTED JOEL AND THEN ENLIGHTENED THEM TO KNOW GOD'S INTENTION. ALL IN THE MATTER OF A SHORT SERMON, HE CONVINCED THEM OF THEIR NEED FOR SALVATION. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY WERE TO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD. SPECIFICALLY, THAT ENTAILED REPENTANCE AND BAPTISM. PAUL USED THE JOEL PASSAGE IN ROMANS 10:13. FROM PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 'CALLING ON' GOD FOR SALVATION INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF FAITH: BELIEF, CONFESSION, AND BAPTISM (CHAPTER 6). Good day. |
||||||