Results 101 - 120 of 144
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | When does Scripture apply to us? | John 17:12 | Dalcent | 132522 | ||
Can I ask why it is assumed that say, the passage in the Gospel of John (chapters 13-17) applies to all individual Christians; yet the passage is (mainly) a monologue addressed to the Apostles. What is the exegetical basis for assuming all scriptural teaching can be applied to any individual Christian, viz. has personal application. (Of course, I realize it is all profitable information; i.e. to hear what Jesus told his disciple would happen to them, but similarly it is interesting and informative to read chapter after chapter of the wrong advice given to Job). For example, John 14:26 states that the Holy Spirit will remind the disciples of everything Jesus has taught them verbally. Certainly, it is being said to the disciples in the first instance. John 14:30 'I will not talk with you much longer...' is specifically addressed to the disciples before His death. How do we deal with the whole issue of whether we can legitimately apply a Scripture to us? Contrarily, John 14:12 is addressed to all believers. 13:38 is about Peter and the rooster. If I thought 17:15 applied to me, it would be virtual blasphemy. What are the general principles for applying Scripture to ourselves, if others are being addressed. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
102 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132514 | ||
Greetings, Actually I meant arbitrator but you are right to point out my mistake. There is a problem with you contrasting: 'human interpretation rather than Divine' It is that this implies your interpretation guided by the Holy Spirit is divine. Whereas the Church's interpretation, which looks as much to the Holy Spirit for illumination, is human interpretation. This bias towards individualistic Holy Spirit guidance is unjustified. There are 28,000 Protestant denominations and they are often theologically in disunity. Clearly there are problems in Sola scriptura interpretations (compare Zwingli's and Luther's) to suggest an individual Christian is not always in practice led into all truth. The Bible calls the the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) Also it states first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). To conclude, I believe that the Holy Spirits guidance in leading the Church is best seen in the great councils of the Church starting with Acts 15's Council of Jerusalem and continuing through the definition of the Trinity (Nicea 325) and Christ's humanity and divinity(Chalcedon 451). The Church's first council, viz. the Council of Jerusalem shows the leaders of the church (James historically the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the apostles, etc.) arbitrating on what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. Acts 15:28 'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...' was the conclusion of the council. This is the Bible way, not individualism which leads to divisions. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
103 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132463 | ||
Thanks Colin, I am not sure what I believe about purgatory. If it even exists! Ultimately I am a man with very Eastern Orthodox theology in a Catholic setting. Of course, the Eastern Church Fathers were part of the Catholic Church before the great schism. I'm certainly not a person who claims to know everything nor would I say I've formed my 'mature theology'. Regards Steve |
||||||
104 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132461 | ||
Dear BradK, I suppose I do believe Catholic theology has more truth in it than other denominations. I certainly held the view, at the time, that when I was evangelical I had more of the truth. I believe most people think that their denomination has the best theology. I think this is normal. What has surprised me with these postings is I expected people would be challenged by the scriptures I presented, but everyone seems blind to any point I would make. I have seen and engaged in arguments in the past between evangelicals and JW's, evangelicals and the Word-faith movement, Pentecostals and Baptists etc and no light is ever generated: only heat. I call it ping pong with bible verses. What we can conclude from this I don't know, but as a Catholic at least I have a Church to appeal to as arbitrar. Anyway, around the turn of the seventh century Pope Gregory sent Augustine of Cantebury with the gospel of Christ to England, to the Anglo-Saxon race (not Baptist missionaries or Pentecostal missionaries) and I hold to the faith once delivered 'at least to my forefathers.' I know it is a different story for you Americans. For the record I have far more in common with conservative Protestants (like George W.) than with progressive liberal Catholics (like Kerry) who might as well be aliens. I don't so much have a chip on my shoulder against Protestants (actually conservative evangelicals); rather I have a lot of common ground to dispute with them! Best Wishes Dalcent |
||||||
105 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132457 | ||
Sorry Tim, I missed it. I do think that postings lack some of the crucial nuances of conversation I didn't mean to post twice, my computer hung up. |
||||||
106 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132453 | ||
Dear Tim, I'm only writing this to make a point but how do you defend against the charge that what you are saying is: If a Church father is in agreement with [my interpretation of] Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with [my interpretation of] Scripture. Scripture must always be filtered through a man's understanding before it has any meaning at all. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
107 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132450 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
108 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132449 | ||
BROTHERS, 2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, My answer is that as a bible-college trained evangelical the deeper I got into the Bible the more problems I had in holding evangelicalism's system of bible interpretation. I used to make jokes about 'these are the verses in pale grey.' (say 2 Thess 2:15). I got fairly cheesed off with arguments that said, if you go to the 'original greek' this really says the opposite: black is white. The 'can you, can't you lose your salvation' issue subsumed by the sola fide position drove me mad. I hated the strained 'explanations' of difficult verses offered by my colleagues. I might be accused of many things but naivity isn't one of them. To be honest I lost faith that the Bible was coherent and threw it all in! All I can testify is that as a Catholic I now read the Bible with great peace and and found that read properly it is entirely coherent read in its plain sense. I find the interpretation of the early Church Fathers fits Scripture like a glove, viz. something that never happened for me with evangelical theology. I've come to a place where I'm satisfied with my study of the Bible rather than falling to bits. This is just a testimony and I don't mean to insult anyone but it is a truthful testimony. I can go through a hundred verses with an evangelical which I used to find untenable and they will deny the obvious meaning of the text in every case, like I cite 'the church of the living God, is 'the pillar and support of the truth' I'm wrong. If I cite the plain words of James 2:24 'not by faith alone' I'm told of course faith alone is taught here. If I say 'believe and be baptised and you will be saved' I told the be be baptised bit is superfluous. If I cite 2 Thess 2:15 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us' I'm told I'm mistaken and the verse is clearly validating Sola scriptura. If I cite that Paul (1 Cor 9:8) said that he must discipline his body lest 'after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified' the reply is Paul confirming that you can't lose your salvation. In my Christian walk I've wrestled with many issues and changed sides and back but here everyone just seems utterly certain their view is correct Ultimately I just can't accept that the conservative evangelical wing of Protestantism is handling scripture properly at all. None of this is meant to sound rude but while evangelical beliefs are meant to be extracted from the Bible yet I find often they have been imposed on the Bible. Is this not even a possibility, a typical human weakness? Your comment 'If a Church father is in agreement with Scripture, then I can agree with him. Otherwise, I'll go with Scripture' in practice doesn't allow for a radical ideology critique. If you think 'your pre-existing interpretation of Scripture' and 'Scripture' and one and the same thing then Church Father's won't get a look-in if your pastor, denomination, tradition, etc. has pontificated of the true meaning of Scripture. Thus, it is common to see critiques of Catholicism such as: Catholic doctrine vs the Bible (like the Bible is more than words on a page until its read by a living man). Why is the booklet never called 'Catholic interpretation versus Evangelical interpretation in the light of Scripture? It's always assumed how you interpret is 'Scripture' though many Catholic doctries are far more literal. To Him be the Glory Dalcent |
||||||
109 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132439 | ||
Hi there Tim, It is probably best to leave the discussion at this point. You can hardly expect a fairly conservative Catholic to take a face value a complex argument about Greek grammar that "disapproves" Catholic doctrine, especially when no Baptist friendly Bible translation follows it either. I know a Greek Orthodox Doctor of Theology (a native Greek speaker and Septuagint reader) so next time I see him I'll be interested in hearing what he makes of this. I'm simply not qualified to continue discussing this. Thanks for the time you spent answering this, Dalcent |
||||||
110 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132414 | ||
In this doctrine you go against the historical witness of the first centuries of Christian interpretation: the Church Fathers. You should seriously consider asking how they were so spot on in their Christological and Trinitarian theology, and yet not even understand how to get saved 'the baptist way.' Your biblical interpretation needs to be weighed up in the light of the history of theology. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
111 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132413 | ||
Sorry, I don't know and would be equally interested in finding out! | ||||||
112 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132412 | ||
Dear Tim, I still have to conclude that A.T.Robertson’s peculiar rendition remains eccentric as no English translation of the Bible (I’m aware of adopts it) adopts it, even the Baptist / evangelical versions such as my NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, viz. the work of hundreds of Greek scholars goes against A.T.Robertson's translation. I believe this ultimately puts the burden of proof on you. Yours in Christ, Dalcent P.S. I did go to the trouble of reading this: http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/Robertson2-38.html |
||||||
113 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132344 | ||
This remains very convoluted and sounds like an interpretation. The theologically Baptist 'Optimal Equivalence' HCSB doesn't chose to translate the verse in this way and they have a lot of Greek experts too. Can Robertson's logic be applied to Acts 22:16. Does his 'unbiased' reasoning lead to the conclusion he was after. In other words is he just a man with an agenda. Respectfully, Dalcent |
||||||
114 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132341 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism doesn't save us by 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' but only with 'an appeal to God'. Baptism and belief save, not baptism. It I baptise a unwilling unbeliever in some water the only effect will be 'the removal of dirt from the flesh' 'Baptismal regeneration' tends to be used as a perjorative as it doesn't emphasis that faith is needed too. Come on, I don't accept Luke 18:13, is the born-again sinner's prayer. Do you? Best Regards |
||||||
115 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132333 | ||
Hi there Tim, I have a limited knowledge of Greek, however none of my 14 Bible translations has chosen to translate the verse as you describe. Plus it is only one of many similar verses. I actually wrote my posting when I discovered the literal translation (in an Interlinear NT) of Titus 3:5 was the 'bath of regeneration' which certainly sounds like more like baptism then anything else. I have a library of the teachings of the Church fathers and baptismal regeneration has been the historic teaching of the same Churches (Catholic/Orthodox) whose ecumenical councils gave us the great Trinitarian and Christological formulas we all hold to. I would be interested in the theological history of the sinner's prayer doctrine. I would appreciate knowing when this doctrine "reappeared" in Christian history. Best Wishes |
||||||
116 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132326 | ||
Of course! and the whole of creation is now exalted to a new glory by this unique event. And to be deliberately controversial I will cite God using (viz. imbuing mere matter with powerful spiritual reality) "relics": Elisha's bones to raise a corpse (2 Kgs 13:20-21) Elijah's mantle to divide water (2 Kgs 2:14) And Paul's clothing healing the sick (Acts 19:11f). |
||||||
117 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132321 | ||
Dear BradK I recently responded to a post (my first for a long time) saying 'What constitutes a christian marraige?Do people who marry in a Catholic churchand later become christian in acceptanceof Jesus Christ for salvation are they married in the eyes of God?If yes why are the other six sacraments not accepted as surely if one is wrong they all are.Should these people have their marraige santified by an evangelical ceremony etc to be valid in the eyes of God?' I responded by asserting my belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour and posted some paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Nicene Creed to prove to Moey that I am a Christian. I was then asked whether I knew if I was saved. I responded basing my response on the Cross of Christ. At this point I was assailed by a vicious anti-Catholicism, or an ugly display of Catholic bashing as Hank the Baptist put it. So yes, several people did claim I was not a Christian! I removed my Profile's reference to having recently completed my MA in Catholic Theology - this month in fact, it was pretty fresh in my mind - and will write a more modest or humble profile soon. I see no reason not to debate deep theological issues in a forum environment. Is the forum meant to discuss biblical triva or simply be a mutual agreement society. It is doubtful whether one can accurately judge "tone" in a posting. Dalcent |
||||||
118 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132307 | ||
Don't give me ‘the thief on the cross wasn't baptised’ objection because frankly an exception proves nothing. God can save who he wills and baptism (even where only an ordinance) is obviously normative for Christians. The Catholic Church has always recognized the ‘baptism of desire.’ Nevertheless, bi-millennial Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has always recognized that baptism is the normal entry into the Christian-fold and is for the remission of sins (as in the Nicene creed and other creeds) I appreciate that some cannot accept plain, literal readings of scripture, because they believe their fundamental slant on theology is 'definitely correct' and verses not fitting such as ‘be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...’ (Acts 2:38) need allegorising, “metaphoricalising”, spiritualising, call it what you fancy: I call it not rightly dividing the word of truth. My conclusion, is that some understandings of Christian theology cannot accept that God uses matter (in this case, the WATER of baptism) to impart spiritual realities. They prefer to think God sends His grace through the spiritual dimension only. Their fear, is that if God exalts matter in this way, it makes water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. something ‘magical’. However, I believe that not only is this sacramental view (that God uses physical matter imbued with spiritual realities as avenues of His grace) ubiquitously biblical but it is also entirely fitting. God chooses to deal with human beings in this way because has created us with both spirituality and materiality. To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
119 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132305 | ||
It should be especially be noted in the conversation between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch that he says, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" as he chooses to enter into the Christian fold. Why not does he not get ‘led in the sinner's prayer’ to salvation. (Maybe one could do some research on the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s 2,000 year doctrine of baptismal regeneration before they suggest I’m preaching novelty). Consider also the following verses: Gal 3:27 For all of you who were BAPTIZED into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all BAPTIZED into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Col 2:12 having been buried with Him in BAPTISM, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. For anyone able to read the Bible in its plain sense, rather than through their preconceptions, it is obvious that Titus 3:5's 'bath of regeneration' is referring to the baptismal tank of regeneration. This is of course entirely consistent with the rest of the NT. Some will argue that aforementioned references to 'baptisms' are metaphors for regeneration through the born-again prayer. There is no excuse for this butchery of the plain sense of scripture. On the other hand, is the born-again prayer really truely biblical? Why is this prayer entirely absent from the Bible. There are loads of prayers in the Bible, such as the Lord’s Prayer; how can the prayer ostensibly needed to ‘save humanity’ be absent in a 1089 chapter book. Even the slimmest tract has a example prayer. Yet, God chose not to put one in His Bible because it isn’t how He intended the Christian to receive the New Birth. (Romans 10:8-10 IS NOT a prayer, and such a profession is entirely consistent with the faith verbalised and internalised accompanying Baptism). To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
120 | Titus 3:5 and washing of regeneration | Titus 3:5 | Dalcent | 132304 | ||
Titus 3:5’s, 'washing of regeneration' if translated literally (i.e. see any Interlinear NT) is the 'bath (loutrou) of regeneration.' The key to understanding the doctrine of baptismal rebirth is to understand that baptism must be obviously be accompanied by belief. As the scriptures literally says in Mark 16:16 ‘He who HAS BELIEVED AND HAS BEEN BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.’ Also, 1 Peter 3:21 literally teaches ‘Corresponding to that, BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’ Although, some strangely object, this must obviously mean ‘baptism doesn’t save you.’ It is the clear unequivocal teaching of scripture that baptism is concomitant with remission of sins: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins... Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on His name.' When your sins are remitted, you are right with God: When you are baptised your sins are remitted. Whoa betide the man who puts off his baptism for months or years believing this is biblical. Biblical baptism is administered as entry into the Christian walk, on the first day and scripture teaches it remits sin (obviously by appropriating the benefits of Christ’s atoning death on the Cross). To Him Alone be the Glory |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |