Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22640 | ||
James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Works is not the same as law either. Bible says "not faith alone" you say "faith alone". I believe the Bible. Tim |
||||||
62 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22635 | ||
When speaking to baptized believers, as is the case throughout the epistles, it is not always necessary to talk about the birth process which is in effect what Baptism is. The truth of Ephesians 2:8-9 cannot cancel the truth of Mark 16:16 or 1 Peter 3:21. Even more convincing, now that I think of it, is Romans 6:1-11. Note especially Rom 6:3-4 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Also there are a whole string of conversion examples in Acts -- 10 cases that I know of -- that ALL include baptism but not belief, though I think belief can be assumed on the basis of the kind of people they were. Tim |
||||||
63 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22631 | ||
More Clarification. The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, given in the NT by the outpouring in Acts 2 (on the Apostles) and Acts 10 (on Cornelius and his household) is not the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is automatically received when one believes and is baptized. Being able to speak in tongues or heal is not the seal of the Holy Spirit but an outward manifestation for the purpose of witness. In Acts 2 it supported the preaching of Peter and the other Apostles. In Acts 10 it showed Peter that the Gentiles were to be accepted as brethren. And in other places it was used for the same purpose. The indwelling Spirit, however, is our guarantee from God that we are one of His people. Tim |
||||||
64 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22629 | ||
The Greek word 'eis' can NOT mean "because of". One of the wonderful things about Greek is that is is far more explicit than English. Certainly in English 'for' can mean 'because of' but in Greek, the word 'eis' does not carry this meaning. Furthermore -- though I believe I have shown ample evidence that baptism is an essential element of salvation I can also show that 'faith alone' is not enough to save you. In fact the ONLY verse in the entire Bible that mentions 'faith alone' (Do the search yourself if you doubt this) is in James 2:24 -- You see that a man is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE. (NASB, emphasis mine). The root meaning of the word 'eis' is 'into'. This passage should have, more properly, been translated "Repent and be baptised INTO the remission of sins." Correct translation in the first place would have removed all doubt about this issue. Proper interpretation cannot be based on ambiguous English words -- It must be based on proper translation of the original language. I have a dear brother in my congregation who has just finished 3 years ministerial training. There are at least 7 other members of the congregation (including myself) who have had training that included a study Koine Greek. We have already had to correct interpretation of this young man because of conclusions based on poor or ambiguous English translation of Scripture. To rephrase your last statement: "Hence, this verse, properly interpreted, indicates that water baptism IS CONCURRENT WITH the salvation experience." Tim |
||||||
65 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22497 | ||
Not a Mormon and in no way believe that you have to have Apostles hands laid on you to be saved. Have never given any indication that this is what I believe. There has still not been a single argument that holds up against the very command of Christ that those who believe AND are baptized will be saved. I believe it is both SCRIPTURAL and SAFE to preach that you have to be BAPTIZED to be saved. But you also have to BELIEVE. Baptism alone does not save, neither does faith (Read James). And finally BAPTISM is NOT a work. It is a submission. It is something done TO you not something you do to yourself. Those who say it is a work totally misunderstand what this is about. If I go to the doctor to get an injection the injection is not MY work. It is the DOCTORS work. I simply allow him to do it. Simple logic. You have to make a decision for yourself. All of us, and I include myself, must be very sure that we are not simply following the traditions we have grown up with but are lovers of truth 2 Thess 2:10 Phil 2:12 "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;" Tim |
||||||
66 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22493 | ||
Ok, Joe. Let's look again. There are definately 2 different things here and the terminology has indeed become muddled. The one aspect is one that imparts miraculous ability of one kind or another -- speaking in tongues, healing etc. The other is the 'indwelling' or internal gift of the Spirit. The first happened to the apostles and Cornelius prior to baptism and to the Samaritans some time after baptism. The purpose for this aspect was to provide proof and support to the young church as they had no New Testament in book form as we have it today. The other aspect is sometimes called the gift of the Spirit or the Seal of the Spirit and relates to an "internal" manifestation if you will and this is received at the point and instant of baptism. Manifestations of the first order, I believe, have passed away (1 Corinthians 13:8-10) since we have received the complete revelation of Gods word in the Bible as we hold it today. Tim |
||||||
67 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22491 | ||
On the death of a testator it takes some time before the last will and testament is actioned. In the case of Jesus this happened 50 days later at Pentecost. In Acts 2:38 (for the umteenth time) Peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins". The 'for' here does not mean 'because of' but rather 'in order that' or 'so that' your sins can be forgiven. The grammar in the Greek indicates that repentance and baptism are PREREQUISITES to the forgiveness of sins. Salvation does not, and cannot come before baptism but rather at the moment of baptism. Tim |
||||||
68 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22488 | ||
1. Jesus is not walking around on earth today. He does forgive but has told us what we have to do to receive that gift. 2. Acts 2:38-41; Acts 8:12ff; Acts 8:13; Acts 8:36ff; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:1-5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21. And of course Ephesians 4:5 which reminds us that there is ONE baptism. 3. Not all who lived before Christ will be saved -- only the righteous. The righteous of old had a heart of repentance and obedience and so strived to do the will of God. Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" |
||||||
69 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22484 | ||
Legalism is not strict adherence to the laws of God. It is the imposition of traditions of men as if they were laws of God. The Pharisees were not condemned by Jesus for obeying the law but for binding tradition. However, I come from a very legalistic background and that may still echo in my life today. I pray not but have to face at least the possibility that it does. One point I did not mention in my previous posting is that historically alcoholic grape wine has been the only liquid element in the Lord's Supper until the American Prohibition era! Only after that did the concept of Grape Juice equals Fruit of the vine come into being. If Jesus held a cup of fermented alcoholic wine and said "I will not partake of THIS until I partake of it new with you in my Father's kingdom" was he not telling us what to use when remembering Him? If, as many argue, it is any by-product of the grape vine then why did he reject the wine offered him on the Cross and not the vinegar? To tell you the truth, I am still researching this for myself but when I think of Nadab and Abihu who offered strange fire and were struck dead for it I am forced to stop and think a bit more. They knew the correct fire to use but did not think it important so they used something else. Will you be condemned for using something else in the Lord's Supper? I really do not know. For my own conscience sake, though, I am forced to partake of the same element my Saviour used and we can be sure of one thing -- it was NOT grape juice but wine matured between 40 days and 3 years. It may or may not have been diluted with water but it was still essentially wine. Tim Sheasby |
||||||
70 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22482 | ||
Dear Nolan I have enjoyed many of your comments on other topics I have followed on this forum. 1. In regard to your answer on Mark 16:16 -- You cannot argue baptism out of the first phrase just because it is not repeated in the second. What Jesus says is very simple -- to be saved you must believe and be baptized. These are both requirements of Jesus. To be condemned unbelief alone is sufficient. This is an old and common argument against baptism but if Jesus didn't require us to be baptized before we could be saved why did he say we must? 2. I was sent to preach not to baptize . . . -- I never said baptism is the gospel, but it IS a requirement to take advantage of the redeeming blood of Christ. In the context of the passage you will see that Paul was talking about sectarianism in the Corinthian congregation -- "I am of Peter, I am of Paul, I am of Apolos, I am of Christ". You will notice that he does not say that he did not baptize anyone but that his primary mission was to preach. In Acts, when Paul preaches and people respond and ask "what must I do?" what does Paul tell them? He tells them to get baptized. Baptism is an essential link in the chain of salvation. If this one link is broken then the chain is broken. But, as in any chain, each link could be said to be carrying the load. Each link then in effect saves. Yes, Jesus blood saves us. Yes, grace saves us. Yes, faith saves us. But, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21 "baptism also saves us" |
||||||
71 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22478 | ||
A friend and brother in Christ of mine has written a treatise on the Lord's Supper and the elements thereof. He gave me a copy to read and progress is extremely slow. This is a tome of over 500 pages and explores not only the New Testament words involved but also goes into detailed research of Old Testament law relating to Passover (since this was the feast that the Lord's supper was instituted at). Further he has looked at everything he could get his hands on relating to Jewish traditions surrounding the Passover -- specifically the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishna. He concludes that the very phrase Jesus used in reference to the cup in Matthew, "this the fruit of the vine", is a term with very specific connotation to the Jewish reader of the day and specifically to the apostles eating that supper with him. This phrase comes from the Jewish blessing reserved solely for fermented grape juice (wine) that had been fermenting for a minimum of 40 days and was not more than 3 years old. I have debated this to some extent with my father who did his thesis on the use of wine in the New Testament. He disagrees with this view saying that this may be nit picking. My own research continues but one thing that concerns me is "whose example should we follow?" I have been partaking of the Lord's Supper with a group that uses alcoholic wine and unleavened bread (baked according to Old Testament formulas) because of my uncertainty on this matter. Since there was no way to preserve grape juice in those days, and the grape harvest was long past, the liquid element in the cup of Christ was clearly an alcoholic wine. If I know that this was the example of my Saviour I am not sure I want to take a chance on anything else. To argue that grape-juice and wine are both fruit of the vine and therefore the same is also suspect. The difference is not just in the alcohol content. There is another transformation that takes place in the fermentation of wine. The life and death of the yeast cells involved in the fermentation makes wine extremely rich in protien. It has a high number of the amino acids essential to life to the extent that a person could live a healthy life on bread and wine alone! Does this add new significance to the elements of the Lord's supper? I don't know for sure but for now that is the way I am going to go. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
72 | Weekly Communion? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Tim Sheasby | 22476 | ||
Footnotes are the work of men, not inspired words of God. Read them with caution. However, it would seem that the practice of the day was to partake of the Lord's supper once a week. Does this make it less for those who partake of it? Not for me. It is a weekly reminder of what my Saviour did for me. A weekly celebration of my salvation in Christ. Scripture is not specific on this so we only have early church tradition to go on. I'm going to go with that tradition but certainly can not bind that on anyone else. | ||||||
73 | Women's hair length and 1 Corinthians 11 | Amos 1:1 | Tim Sheasby | 22472 | ||
Have had a couple of VERY quiet days at work and so have been browsing several postings on issues of interest to me. In fact I believe we have had some interaction already on some of those. Don't know how a question on 1 Cor 11 got into Amos 1:1 but I have some thoughts on this matter. I grew us in an "anti" congregation of the church of Christ. This is an ultra conservative, legalistic, fundamentalist, splinter group of the church of Christ. In my late teens my whole family went through considerable trauma, both emotional and spiritual, which led us to re-evaluate some of our beliefs. One of the most sacred of these was the doctrine of the head covering. At our assembly hall we even had a rack at the entrance with several scarves or veils for visiting women to wear should they come without their own. We were almost offencive about it some times to the extent of pushing the covering into the hands of the offending women. That's background. What finally convinced me to change my mind? I attended Southern Africa Bible School, in Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa where students before me had done an in-depth exegesis of the passage in question. Without going into all the intricacies of that study it was interesting to note that the only place in the entire passage that an artificial covering was actually mentioned (in the original Greek this is) was in the very last verse -- 1 Cor 11:15 "but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." NASB. The covering in this verse is a veil but in all the other verses it is a generic 'covering'. The word 'for' in this verse is the Greek word for 'instead of'. So what this says is that a womans hair is given to her instead of a veil. The rest of the passage shows a distinction between long and short hair so this leads to the final conclusion that a woman who has long hair is effectively veiled and covered. Women must have long hair, men must have short hair. How long long is and how short short is is a matter of discernment perhaps but that, in a nutshell is my view. In Christ Tim Sheasby |
||||||
74 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | Tim Sheasby | 22470 | ||
In another posting on this passage I proposed the idea that this proscription is against a woman speaking "in the church". This is not the sanctuary or building. Neither is it the "church universal" or they could never speak again! This, I believe, refers to a specific gathering of the church -- that gathering where we gather to partake of the Lord's Supper. Tim |
||||||
75 | Should homosexuals be ordained? | Rom 1:27 | Tim Sheasby | 22466 | ||
Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" 2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Tim |
||||||
76 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22446 | ||
Yes, if you want to put it that way, Jesus ADDED a requirement for salvation. Mark 16:16 -- Believe and Be Baptized. Tim |
||||||
77 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | Rom 6:3 | Tim Sheasby | 22444 | ||
Let me clarify and rephrase: There are two aspects to our salvation. God's part was to pay for our sins by offering His Son, the perfect Lamb of God, as a sacrifice for our sins. Our part is to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism saves us by bringing us into contact with the Cleansing blood of Christ. Baptism brings us to the place where God's sacrifice can do its work. In Christian Love Tim |
||||||
78 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22443 | ||
Please forgive me for allowing my anger free reign, that was wrong of me. So, to set matters right, here are my arguments: 1. You said that we are saved by faith alone. -- James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE." NASB (emphasis mine) -- Acts 15 does clearly show that we are saved by grace. No argument there. Romans 4 also emphasised the fact that we cannot do enough work to EARN salvation. Our good works are not, and never will be, enough to save us. However, the debate is about what you have to do to RECEIVE this grace in the first place, and that is where baptism comes into force. Baptism is the transition from death to life and is symbolic of the burial of Christ. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and in the same way we have to die (Repent) be burried (baptism) and then rise to walk in newness of life Romans 6:3. 2. Peter's Sermon in Acts 3 does not mention baptism. -- In Peter's sermon in Acts 2 you will notice that he only mentioned baptism when the people, with conciences pierced by their guilt, asked "What must we do?". In Acts 3 this question was not asked. In EVERY place in acts where people come to the point of conversion baptism takes place. The only place you could show where this is not mentioned is the first account of the conversion of Paul. But in Paul's own recounting of that same event (same instance of conversion) Paul relates the words of Ananias in Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' 3. 1 Cor 15:1-4 does not mention baptism as part of the gospel. -- Neither does it mention faith, or grace. This is the gospel. As I pointed out in point 1 above, the problem is HOW to we take advantage of the gospel? What do we have to do to be saved? Our actions save us only in that they put us in the place where we can be saved by the blood of Christ. In 1 Peter 3:20-21 Peter tells how Noah was saved by obeying God's command. He was saved by the very water that destroyed everyone else! Peter also equates the water of baptism with the resurrection of Christ. 3a. Further you said 'Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.' -- Remember that Paul was talking to people who were already saved here. If they had already been saved by repenting and being baptized there was no need for him to tell them this -- they all knew it already. This is the situation throughout the epistles -- written to those who had already been saved so the mechanisims of the new birth did not necessarily need to be re-itterated. 4. The accounts of salvation without baptism all precede the death of Christ on the cross (including the thief on the cross). While Christ was still on earth, and before his New Testament had been instituted, He had all authority to forgive sins. Today the only way you can get forgiveness of sins in the first place is through the waters of baptism -- That is why every example of conversion in Acts includes baptism. You cannot get any clearer than that. 4a. There is no account of the Apostles getting baptized. -- True, but there is certainly room for their baptism to have taken place in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost along with the rest of the 3000. Remember that Peter's sermon on that occasion was inspired and therefore the message applied equally to him and the other apostles as it did to the crowd. 5. You state that Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. -- The Bible does not say that he was saved, just that he received the Holy Spirit as had Peter and the other Apostles on the day of Pentecost. If baptism was such a minor thing as you seem to imply then why did Peter immediately call for them to BE baptized? At the end of the day we must indeed use scripture to interpred scripture and there are some vital issues with this regard. There is still no argument whatsoever against the simple command of Christ in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptised will be saved". This alone should be sufficient but in Matt 28:19 Jesus says -- "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The force of the word Baptizing here is that this is the mechanism for making disciples. And of cours 1 Peter 3:21 clearly equates baptism with salvation. Again, I apologise for my previous posting and hope this will answer clearly your objections. In Christ who redeems us Tim |
||||||
79 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | Tim Sheasby | 22438 | ||
Why was Cornelius a special case? The fact that Peter had to defend his action in baptizing Cornelius shows why. If Cornelius had not received the Holy Spirit then Peter and those Jewish brethren with him would have had great difficulty in accepting Cornelius in the first place and getting the rest of the churct to accept him in the second place. A simple sign from God. The Samaritans in Acts 8 were baptized and had to have the Apostles come down and lay their hands on them so that THEY could receive the Holy Spirit. -- Baptized first, Holy Spirit second. This does not mean that they did not have the seal of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Ephesians 1 or the gift of the Holy Spirit Peter spoke of in Acts 2. This is talking about miraculous gifts of the Spirit like was received by the Apostles in Acts 2:1 ff and Cornelius in Acts 10. The events of Acts 2 and Acts 10 are unique in Scripture. Except for those two occasions it is seen that miraculous gifts are given by the laying on of Apostles hands. Tim |
||||||
80 | big sins / litle sins | Rom 3:23 | Tim Sheasby | 22346 | ||
So we ALL deserve to go to Hell. Thank God for his grace that offers us forgiveness of sins! Tim |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |