Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: jrcannon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What about the thief on the cross? | 1 Pet 3:21 | jrcannon | 5281 | ||
Yes, it is, what exactly is your question? Is it if the criminal on the cross can be saved by a statement of faith, why can't I? Is baptism really a necessary requirement to be saved, especially in light of what happened that day on the cross when the thief was forgiven? Is this what you are illuding too? A little more clarity so that a proper answer can be given. | ||||||
2 | Is baptism needed for salvation? Part 0 | 1 Pet 3:21 | jrcannon | 2610 | ||
Okay, I have read through your response, but you didn't answer one vital question, in fact, you ask the very same from me. Let's cover your points one by one. 1. You are right in that those verses you point out speak nothing to the necesity of baptism, but talk about the root core of the salvation process, it is grace through faith. But it doesn't end there, nor can it end there, otherwise you "leave out" unrefutible evidence that baptism is a necessary component of that salvation. You need also be careful to not take out of context these verse and truly examine what the teachings are here. You will find that a majority of these verses deal with the problems between Jew and Gentile and the fact that Gentiles are not circumcised. 2. You point out the fact that Peter refers to baptism at pentecost in chp 2 but not in chp 3. Well, let me turn the point back around once more and ask you the same thing as I asked before, if baptism is not important to salvation, why did he include it in chp 2? To answer your question, probably the reason why is two fold, first a great deal of them probably already heard it in chp. 2 and second, the were dragged away before they had a chance to finish. What would he have said if he would have been able to finish? 3. Your next point you should go back and re-study before everything else. He did speak about baptism and he did baptize. Be care you don't take out of context what he says in 1 Cor. chp 1. He did baptise which he himself points out, but the message that he is getting across is that it is not important who baptized you, in authority issues, but that the body of Chirst is one. He is not down playing baptism at all, in fact I think it is a reinforcement of the idea that baptism is between the person and God and no one else. Don't put things into this passage that are not there. One last thing for this point before I go onto the next, if he wasn't referring to baptism, what was he talking about in Romans 6? 4. In this point, you fall into a very common trap, those were all before pentecost which I stated in my previous note. Jesus had the power to forgive sin as he was, and is God. Only the father has the power to forgive sin, and thus we see several examples of Jesus not only healing but forgiving sin. You should note that all of those occurrances happened after a demonstration of faith by the person, healed for forgiven. What is baptism? Is it not a demonstration of faith? 5. This one is probably your best point and it is the hardest to refute, however, I challenge you to find where it says they were saved, even though they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Further, if you read on, you will note that they were baptized immediately. Just because a person is filled with the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean that they are saved. We do not have evidence that makes that abundantly clear, you are going on assumption, and not evidence. But like I said before this is the most compelling of your argument so far. However, if it is just this one point, with all of the other evidence that points to the necessity of baptism, assumptions are not enough. 6. If I were to take the same way of examining scripture as you have, then our faith alone does nothing for us, as James 2:26 states. Faith by itself is dead, james tells us, and thus if our faith is dead, how can we ever receive that grace of God? This is a feeble argument that shows no study of the truth in that passage. Don't look to interpret and harmonize, search for the truth and nothing but the truth, being careful to rightly divide the word and give an accurate representation of what is written and not what is assumed or what we want to believe. |
||||||
3 | This is true... | Col 2:16 | jrcannon | 2600 | ||
Yes, you are making sense, however, be sure that you do not put us in such as a position as to make it seem like we are his slaves. You should also be careful not to misuse the word "predestined" that Paul uses in the new Testament. Further examination of these passages are needed (Rom. 8, Eph 1) in order to better understand. I am not going to lay out for you my viewpoints on this historically controversial subject, but I would like to invite you to study these passages further and don't just take them a first glance value. You would be cheating yourself. | ||||||
4 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | jrcannon | 2227 | ||
I am curious as to where you find that the apostles kept the sabbath long after Jesus' resurrection? I do not find anywhere where it states that the apostles continued to observe the sabbath. We do see throughout acts that they went to the synagogue to teach and reason with the scriptures, but not that they observed the sabbath. Further, the sabbath was never changed to Sunday. The meaning of the sabbath is completely different to that of the first day gathering of the first century christians. You may want to study exactly what each day means and what it represented, then ask the question, why don't Christians observe the sabbath also? I personally think you will find the answer to why Christians do not observe the sabbath is found in Colossians 2:16. In terms of why the first century Christians met on the first day of the week, you may also want to be aware of literary devices used by Luke when he refers to their coming together. | ||||||