salutethehill
by hatchet, axe, and saw
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,248
- Likes
- 5,051
Bible Topic Thread (merged)
- Thread starter JZVOL
- Start date
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
"The Rapture," A Bad Term?
It is interesting to note that the New Testament does use at least two other words to describe the return of our Lord, and once again no distinction is made. They are: apokalupsis, "revelation" and epiphaneia, "appearing." Both of these Greek words are used as the hope of the church (1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:1,8; Titus 2:13; 1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13) and in clear second coming passages (2 Thess. 1:7; 2:8).2 It would seem very strange then for the writers of the New Testament to use at least three different words interchangeably to describe two different events that are separated by seven years. In other words, it would be confusing to use these three words to speak of two different events without distinguishing the two events. We would expect them to use different words for different events (such as rapture and second coming maybe?). How are we able to distinguish what Scripture does not?
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Pauls point to the believers at Thessalonica is that they need not worry about their dead loved ones. Jesus will resurrect them when he returns. He says that this will take place at "the coming of the Lord." There is no hint that this is any different than the coming which everyone was expectingthe one that Jesus told his apostles would take place "after the tribulation" (Matt. 24:29). We would also expect that the eschatology Jesus taught them would be the same as what Paul was teaching, unless we have reason to believe differently.
It is primarily this lack of evidence for multiple comings that is the basis for post-tribulationism. When it is realized that there is only one coming, post- is the only position. All agree that Christ is coming after the Tribulation, so if there is only one coming (or one stage of his coming as some prefer to call it), then the rapture must occur after the Tribulation.
2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
As mentioned earlier, a frequent charge against post-tribulationism is that they fail to distinguish between rapture passages and second coming passages; however, since we never find the word rapture in the Bible, what we label as a rapture or second coming passage will depend on our view of eschatology. If we believe that the church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation then any passage speaking of Christ coming in judgment will be labeled a second coming passage and any passage which speaks of his coming as a hope for the church will then be labeled as a rapture passage. This can at times be arbitrary and even circular. However, there is at least one passage which positively links the two as one event. In 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Paul clearly states that God will give the believers rest when Jesus comes in flaming fire, dealing out retribution (v. 7,8). Then he goes on to say that the unbelievers will pay the penalty, "when he comes to be glorified in his saints on that day" (v. 9,10). There is no other conclusion than that the coming for the saints and the coming to execute vengeance are the same coming.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Paul is making a point here. He stresses in verse 3, "let no one in any way deceive you" (which is a double negative in the Greek, a very strong negation). He says this as if someone would try to tell them otherwise. But he is very emphatic for them not to be deceived, because it will not happen until these things happen first. "It will not come" is in italics in the KJV and NASB, thus signifying that it was supplied by the translators. However, it necessarily is demanded by the rules of grammar in the Greek and is thus translated by every major translation.
Furthermore, if we follow Pauls flow of thought from verse one to verse two, he seems to link the "coming of our Lord" with the "day of the Lord." Not only is this the most logical way to understand this passage, but in my opinion it fits best with all of the other "day of the Lord" passages which will have bearing later in the discussion.
Finally, it would seem strange for Paul to tell them that the antichrist must come first if he knew they would not be around to see it. Why even say this at all? Why not tell them that the rapture must come first? It seems that he is warning them that this is what the church is to look for. Also, as we will see in chapter 7, this is how the early church understood this.
Revelation 20:4-5
That this is taking place after the Tribulation is obvious. People are sitting on thrones reigning with Jesus. Both sides are in agreement at this point. But what to me seems equally clear is that the Bible states this is the first resurrection. If the rapture is to be preceded by the resurrection of believers (1 Thess. 4:15-17; 1 Cor. 15:52), and this is the first resurrection, then the rapture must be after the Tribulation.
For a pre-tribulationist this cannot really be the first resurrection. If the rapture takes place before the Tribulation, and the resurrection takes place before the rapture, then the first resurrection had to take place at least seven years before this time. They will usually say that this is the third or fourth phase of the first resurrection, which neither this nor any other passage teaches. The literal reading of this passage is that there has been no resurrection before this (aside from the Lord himself, of course). I fail to see what would be the significance of saying, "This is the first resurrection," if there had already been several resurrections of believers prior to this time. The book of Revelation was written to churches, who had hope of a future resurrection. When they read, "This is the first resurrection," the most natural thing for them to assume is that this is the one they were waiting for.
Also, if the church is not included in this resurrection, then John never does mention the resurrection of the church. Why would he leave out such an important event, especially when it was to the church that he was writing? He would have left them wondering where they fit into this picture. Of course, the way in which one views the order of the book of Revelation has a bearing on the discussion, but this will be dealt with in the next chapter.
1 Corinthians 15:50-55
This passage and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 are probably the two most common passages people think of in relation to the rapture. We often hear it said that we will be caught up "in the twinkling of an eye" (verse 52). However, I think it will come as a surprise to many that the rapture is nowhere mentioned here. All it states is that a trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised and we will be changed. Thats it! This passage leaves us on the earth with changed bodies. Of course, I am not denying that Paul is describing the same thing here as in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, as was pointed out earlier, the reason we connect the two is because of the similar events that are taking place.
It is also interesting that Paul begins this discussion with his statement about how the living will inherit the kingdom (v. 50). We know that this will take place at the second coming. It seems as though Paul is saying, "Even the living will be changed in order to enter the kingdom in glorified bodies." This entire chapter is about the resurrection and Paul had already stated that you must first die to receive a glorified body (vv. 35-38, 42-44). Then he states in verse 50 that you cannot inherit the kingdom with a mortal body. The question naturally arises, "So what about those who are still alive when Christ returns? Will they be excluded from the kingdom?" Paul goes on to reveal the answer to this mystery by basically saying, "Look, those who are still living will not have to die to receive an immortal body but will be transformed while they are still alive." Not everyone will have to die first, but everyone will be changed (v. 51). He goes on to say that this is because the perishable must put on the imperishable and the mortal must put on immortality (v. 53). When Jesus returns, even those who are still alive and in their mortal bodies must be changed in order to inherit the kingdom, because it is itself imperishable (v. 50).
If the resurrection of "those who are Christs at his coming" takes place at the rapture, then Johns "the first resurrection" (Rev. 20:5) also takes place at the rapture, or it isnt even mentioned here. It would seem strange that what John called the first resurrectionas if it were a very significant eventwould be completely overlooked by Pauls discussion of the order of resurrections. If indeed "those who are Christs at his coming" is a reference to the second coming, then either Paul does not mention the rapture (which would seem equally as unlikely, since he is writing to the church), or the rapture occurs at the second coming. That the latter is true is demonstrated by statements in the book of Revelation showing that those who die during the Tribulation would by all means be included in "those who are Christs." This is seen in passages such as Revelation 6:11; 7:14; 12:11, 17; 14:12; 17:6; 20:4.
Part I
It is interesting to note that the New Testament does use at least two other words to describe the return of our Lord, and once again no distinction is made. They are: apokalupsis, "revelation" and epiphaneia, "appearing." Both of these Greek words are used as the hope of the church (1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Tim. 4:1,8; Titus 2:13; 1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13) and in clear second coming passages (2 Thess. 1:7; 2:8).2 It would seem very strange then for the writers of the New Testament to use at least three different words interchangeably to describe two different events that are separated by seven years. In other words, it would be confusing to use these three words to speak of two different events without distinguishing the two events. We would expect them to use different words for different events (such as rapture and second coming maybe?). How are we able to distinguish what Scripture does not?
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Pauls point to the believers at Thessalonica is that they need not worry about their dead loved ones. Jesus will resurrect them when he returns. He says that this will take place at "the coming of the Lord." There is no hint that this is any different than the coming which everyone was expectingthe one that Jesus told his apostles would take place "after the tribulation" (Matt. 24:29). We would also expect that the eschatology Jesus taught them would be the same as what Paul was teaching, unless we have reason to believe differently.
It is primarily this lack of evidence for multiple comings that is the basis for post-tribulationism. When it is realized that there is only one coming, post- is the only position. All agree that Christ is coming after the Tribulation, so if there is only one coming (or one stage of his coming as some prefer to call it), then the rapture must occur after the Tribulation.
2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
As mentioned earlier, a frequent charge against post-tribulationism is that they fail to distinguish between rapture passages and second coming passages; however, since we never find the word rapture in the Bible, what we label as a rapture or second coming passage will depend on our view of eschatology. If we believe that the church will be raptured prior to the Tribulation then any passage speaking of Christ coming in judgment will be labeled a second coming passage and any passage which speaks of his coming as a hope for the church will then be labeled as a rapture passage. This can at times be arbitrary and even circular. However, there is at least one passage which positively links the two as one event. In 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, Paul clearly states that God will give the believers rest when Jesus comes in flaming fire, dealing out retribution (v. 7,8). Then he goes on to say that the unbelievers will pay the penalty, "when he comes to be glorified in his saints on that day" (v. 9,10). There is no other conclusion than that the coming for the saints and the coming to execute vengeance are the same coming.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Paul is making a point here. He stresses in verse 3, "let no one in any way deceive you" (which is a double negative in the Greek, a very strong negation). He says this as if someone would try to tell them otherwise. But he is very emphatic for them not to be deceived, because it will not happen until these things happen first. "It will not come" is in italics in the KJV and NASB, thus signifying that it was supplied by the translators. However, it necessarily is demanded by the rules of grammar in the Greek and is thus translated by every major translation.
Furthermore, if we follow Pauls flow of thought from verse one to verse two, he seems to link the "coming of our Lord" with the "day of the Lord." Not only is this the most logical way to understand this passage, but in my opinion it fits best with all of the other "day of the Lord" passages which will have bearing later in the discussion.
Finally, it would seem strange for Paul to tell them that the antichrist must come first if he knew they would not be around to see it. Why even say this at all? Why not tell them that the rapture must come first? It seems that he is warning them that this is what the church is to look for. Also, as we will see in chapter 7, this is how the early church understood this.
Revelation 20:4-5
That this is taking place after the Tribulation is obvious. People are sitting on thrones reigning with Jesus. Both sides are in agreement at this point. But what to me seems equally clear is that the Bible states this is the first resurrection. If the rapture is to be preceded by the resurrection of believers (1 Thess. 4:15-17; 1 Cor. 15:52), and this is the first resurrection, then the rapture must be after the Tribulation.
For a pre-tribulationist this cannot really be the first resurrection. If the rapture takes place before the Tribulation, and the resurrection takes place before the rapture, then the first resurrection had to take place at least seven years before this time. They will usually say that this is the third or fourth phase of the first resurrection, which neither this nor any other passage teaches. The literal reading of this passage is that there has been no resurrection before this (aside from the Lord himself, of course). I fail to see what would be the significance of saying, "This is the first resurrection," if there had already been several resurrections of believers prior to this time. The book of Revelation was written to churches, who had hope of a future resurrection. When they read, "This is the first resurrection," the most natural thing for them to assume is that this is the one they were waiting for.
Also, if the church is not included in this resurrection, then John never does mention the resurrection of the church. Why would he leave out such an important event, especially when it was to the church that he was writing? He would have left them wondering where they fit into this picture. Of course, the way in which one views the order of the book of Revelation has a bearing on the discussion, but this will be dealt with in the next chapter.
1 Corinthians 15:50-55
This passage and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 are probably the two most common passages people think of in relation to the rapture. We often hear it said that we will be caught up "in the twinkling of an eye" (verse 52). However, I think it will come as a surprise to many that the rapture is nowhere mentioned here. All it states is that a trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised and we will be changed. Thats it! This passage leaves us on the earth with changed bodies. Of course, I am not denying that Paul is describing the same thing here as in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, as was pointed out earlier, the reason we connect the two is because of the similar events that are taking place.
It is also interesting that Paul begins this discussion with his statement about how the living will inherit the kingdom (v. 50). We know that this will take place at the second coming. It seems as though Paul is saying, "Even the living will be changed in order to enter the kingdom in glorified bodies." This entire chapter is about the resurrection and Paul had already stated that you must first die to receive a glorified body (vv. 35-38, 42-44). Then he states in verse 50 that you cannot inherit the kingdom with a mortal body. The question naturally arises, "So what about those who are still alive when Christ returns? Will they be excluded from the kingdom?" Paul goes on to reveal the answer to this mystery by basically saying, "Look, those who are still living will not have to die to receive an immortal body but will be transformed while they are still alive." Not everyone will have to die first, but everyone will be changed (v. 51). He goes on to say that this is because the perishable must put on the imperishable and the mortal must put on immortality (v. 53). When Jesus returns, even those who are still alive and in their mortal bodies must be changed in order to inherit the kingdom, because it is itself imperishable (v. 50).
If the resurrection of "those who are Christs at his coming" takes place at the rapture, then Johns "the first resurrection" (Rev. 20:5) also takes place at the rapture, or it isnt even mentioned here. It would seem strange that what John called the first resurrectionas if it were a very significant eventwould be completely overlooked by Pauls discussion of the order of resurrections. If indeed "those who are Christs at his coming" is a reference to the second coming, then either Paul does not mention the rapture (which would seem equally as unlikely, since he is writing to the church), or the rapture occurs at the second coming. That the latter is true is demonstrated by statements in the book of Revelation showing that those who die during the Tribulation would by all means be included in "those who are Christs." This is seen in passages such as Revelation 6:11; 7:14; 12:11, 17; 14:12; 17:6; 20:4.
Part I
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
Part II
Matthew 24:29-31
As was already pointed out, this passage has more similarities to the one rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:17) than any other passage in the Bible. However, since it explicitly states that it is "after the tribulation," pre-tribulationists claim that this is not the rapture, although they readily claim 1 Corinthians 15:52 as a rapture passage based on fewer similarities. Since they go to great lengths attempting to prove this, I must take some time in reaction to their position.
One reason they deny that this is the rapture is the claim that Jesus was talking to the Jews here, and this passage does not apply to the church. Well, Jesus was talking to the disciples (Matt. 24:3), and it is true that they were Jews. Naturally, the gospel had not been given to the Gentiles yet, so most everything Jesus said was to Jews. Jesus lived in Israel. Whenever he spoke he usually was talking to Jews. If Jesus talking to Jews makes a passage inapplicable to us, then that would take out most of the gospels. In this instance, though, he was talking specifically to the disciples in private (v. 3). These men were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). In my opinion they represent the church better than anyone. Furthermore, Jesus had already told Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church" in chapter 16 and given the disciples instructions for church discipline in chapter 18.
This discourse was prompted by their question, "What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (v. 3). The disciples were asking him what they should look for in connection with his coming. Jesus went on to describe the Great Tribulation.
The disciples lived after this awaiting his return and telling others about it. It does not seem reasonable to think that this was not really the coming they were to look for. Why answer them with a description of the Great Tribulation followed by a description of his coming in the cloudswith the sound of a great trumpet and the gathering his electif really they were going to miss all this by means of a pre-tribulation rapture? Would this not be what they went out and taught the church just a short time later?
Also, they asked him about events concerning sunteleias tou aionos, "the end of the age." Four chapters later, Jesus ends the Great Commission with the statement, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20, emphasis added) using the exact same words and speaking to the same people, and everyone applies the Great Commission to the church. Furthermore, they were instructed to make disciples, baptize, and teach until "the end of the age" (28:19-20). The most reasonable conclusion is that the church will be here until the end of the age.
Probably the main reason pre-tribulationists claim that this passage pertains only to Jews is that Jesus gives special instructions to those who will be in Judea at this time (Matt. 24:16-20). It seems that the reason he does so is because this is when the antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and set up the "abomination of desolation" (v. 15).
This is very central to this time period and even marks the midpoint of the seven years. It is a key event worth discussing whether we are talking to the church or to Israel. Also, the Old Testament was the only Bible the disciples had at this time. He naturally builds on what they already knew. They had read in the book of Daniel about this time of great distress "such as never was" and about the abomination of desolation (Dan. 11:31; 12:1-2, 11). Jesus is adding to the knowledge that they already had.
Since the antichrist will be in Judea at this time as he sets up the abomination in the temple, and immediately after this he will begin persecuting Gods people, then we would expect the Lord to give instructions for those who will be in Judea at this time. This does not make the entire discourse a "Jewish passage." Also, part of the disciples question was about the destruction of the temple (v. 3) which is in Israel.
It is also interesting that Jesus said in verse 9, "Then they will deliver you to tribulation" [emphasis added]. Tribulation, then, is not the "wrath of God" but is the persecution of man. Tribulation is what Christians suffer for being Christians.
Also, we have no reason to believe that what Jesus taught here is any different from what Paul later taught about the Lords coming (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:23, 50-52). If I was a firstcentury Christian and heard Paul talk about the parousia of the Lord for the first time, I would have no idea that he meant a completely different event. He uses the same words, describes the event in an amazingly similar manner, and gives us no reason to think he had anything else in view.
Basically, what I am saying is that the eschatology Jesus gave Paul is the same as the eschatology he gave the other disciples here.
Furthermore, when we combine this with what Jesus went on to say about his parousia, it seems inescapable that he is speaking of the same event:
[27] For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. . . . [30] And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. [31] And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. . . . [37] For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, [39] and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. [40] Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. [41] Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. [Matt. 24:27, 30-31, 37-41]
Luke 17:26-31
In a very similar account in Luke, Jesus again compared his coming to the days of Noah and of Lot.
Here Jesus shows that God came in judgment on the same day that the believers were saved. Then he says that "it will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed" (v. 30). My point is that the rescue and the destruction both happen on the same day. Both the rapture of the church and the coming in judgment happen at the same time. When Jesus returns it will be a "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13) to those who know him and judgment to those who dont (2 Thess. 1:7-8).
Matthew 24:29-31
As was already pointed out, this passage has more similarities to the one rapture passage (1 Thess. 4:17) than any other passage in the Bible. However, since it explicitly states that it is "after the tribulation," pre-tribulationists claim that this is not the rapture, although they readily claim 1 Corinthians 15:52 as a rapture passage based on fewer similarities. Since they go to great lengths attempting to prove this, I must take some time in reaction to their position.
One reason they deny that this is the rapture is the claim that Jesus was talking to the Jews here, and this passage does not apply to the church. Well, Jesus was talking to the disciples (Matt. 24:3), and it is true that they were Jews. Naturally, the gospel had not been given to the Gentiles yet, so most everything Jesus said was to Jews. Jesus lived in Israel. Whenever he spoke he usually was talking to Jews. If Jesus talking to Jews makes a passage inapplicable to us, then that would take out most of the gospels. In this instance, though, he was talking specifically to the disciples in private (v. 3). These men were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). In my opinion they represent the church better than anyone. Furthermore, Jesus had already told Peter "Upon this rock I will build my church" in chapter 16 and given the disciples instructions for church discipline in chapter 18.
This discourse was prompted by their question, "What will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" (v. 3). The disciples were asking him what they should look for in connection with his coming. Jesus went on to describe the Great Tribulation.
The disciples lived after this awaiting his return and telling others about it. It does not seem reasonable to think that this was not really the coming they were to look for. Why answer them with a description of the Great Tribulation followed by a description of his coming in the cloudswith the sound of a great trumpet and the gathering his electif really they were going to miss all this by means of a pre-tribulation rapture? Would this not be what they went out and taught the church just a short time later?
Also, they asked him about events concerning sunteleias tou aionos, "the end of the age." Four chapters later, Jesus ends the Great Commission with the statement, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20, emphasis added) using the exact same words and speaking to the same people, and everyone applies the Great Commission to the church. Furthermore, they were instructed to make disciples, baptize, and teach until "the end of the age" (28:19-20). The most reasonable conclusion is that the church will be here until the end of the age.
Probably the main reason pre-tribulationists claim that this passage pertains only to Jews is that Jesus gives special instructions to those who will be in Judea at this time (Matt. 24:16-20). It seems that the reason he does so is because this is when the antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and set up the "abomination of desolation" (v. 15).
This is very central to this time period and even marks the midpoint of the seven years. It is a key event worth discussing whether we are talking to the church or to Israel. Also, the Old Testament was the only Bible the disciples had at this time. He naturally builds on what they already knew. They had read in the book of Daniel about this time of great distress "such as never was" and about the abomination of desolation (Dan. 11:31; 12:1-2, 11). Jesus is adding to the knowledge that they already had.
Since the antichrist will be in Judea at this time as he sets up the abomination in the temple, and immediately after this he will begin persecuting Gods people, then we would expect the Lord to give instructions for those who will be in Judea at this time. This does not make the entire discourse a "Jewish passage." Also, part of the disciples question was about the destruction of the temple (v. 3) which is in Israel.
It is also interesting that Jesus said in verse 9, "Then they will deliver you to tribulation" [emphasis added]. Tribulation, then, is not the "wrath of God" but is the persecution of man. Tribulation is what Christians suffer for being Christians.
Also, we have no reason to believe that what Jesus taught here is any different from what Paul later taught about the Lords coming (1 Thess. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15:23, 50-52). If I was a firstcentury Christian and heard Paul talk about the parousia of the Lord for the first time, I would have no idea that he meant a completely different event. He uses the same words, describes the event in an amazingly similar manner, and gives us no reason to think he had anything else in view.
Basically, what I am saying is that the eschatology Jesus gave Paul is the same as the eschatology he gave the other disciples here.
Furthermore, when we combine this with what Jesus went on to say about his parousia, it seems inescapable that he is speaking of the same event:
[27] For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. . . . [30] And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. [31] And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. . . . [37] For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. [38] For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, [39] and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. [40] Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. [41] Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. [Matt. 24:27, 30-31, 37-41]
Luke 17:26-31
In a very similar account in Luke, Jesus again compared his coming to the days of Noah and of Lot.
Here Jesus shows that God came in judgment on the same day that the believers were saved. Then he says that "it will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed" (v. 30). My point is that the rescue and the destruction both happen on the same day. Both the rapture of the church and the coming in judgment happen at the same time. When Jesus returns it will be a "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13) to those who know him and judgment to those who dont (2 Thess. 1:7-8).
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
Part III
2 Peter 3:8-15
This passage has traditionally been understood to be describing events after the Millennium. Because of this, the "day of the Lord" has been understood to continue through the Millennium with these events taking place at the end. It is difficult to understand in this way when it is described as coming "like a thief" (v. 10). Plus this phrase "like a thief" is usually used with reference to the second coming of Christ. Also, Peter seems to be describing an event that the believers are presently waiting for (v. 12, 14) and which is connected with God’s promise (v. 9). Furthermore, he states that Paul wrote of these things in his letters as well. All of this does not support a post-millennial event. Their basis for a post-millennial understanding is the reading "burned up" in verse 10 (KJV, NASB). This is translated from the word katakaio. The idea is that if the earth is going to be burned up at this time, then this could not take place before the Millennium, because Christ is going to rule on this present earth for a thousand years during the Millennium.
However, the reading "burned up" is probably not original. There are several variant readings in the Greek manuscripts, and many translations favor the reading heurethesetai such as the NIV and NET, "laid bare;" the NLT, "exposed to judgement;" the NRSV, "disclosed;" and the NAB, "found out." This is also the reading favored by the NA27/USB4 Greek Text.
On the translation "celestial bodies" for stoicheia in verses 10 and 12, it comments:
Grk "elements." Most commentators are agreed that "celestial bodies" is meant, in light of this well-worn usage of stoicheia in the second century and the probable allusion to Isa 34:4 (text of Vaticanus). See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 315-16 for discussion.
If we accept the reading of these translations, then the passage is not saying that the earth will be burned up but that the heavenly bodies will be dissolved, and the earth and mankind will alone be left before God. This is quite in harmony with Jesus’ description of the second coming. Alluding to Joel 2:31, he said that the sun and moon will be darkened and the powers of the heavens will be shaken (Matt. 24:29). Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:14 add that during this time the sky is rolled up like a scroll (compare "the heavens will disappear," 2 Peter 3:10).
The Old Testament ties the darkening of the sun and the moon with the stars as well in passages such as Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7-8, and Joel 2:10; 3:15. Isaiah 60:2 states that darkness will cover the earth before the glory of the Lord appears. Joel 2:2, Zephaniah 1:15, and Amos 5:18-20 describe the day of the Lord as a day of darkness.
So if the events in this passage take place at the second coming, and if these events were what the believers in this epistle were to look for, then our hope and our expectation is the second coming. That the latter is true is evident in such places as verses 9 and 10: "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise . . . but the day of the Lord will come."
If we follow Peter’s flow of thought, it as though the promise in view here is fulfilled in the day of the Lord. The church is to be looking for and expecting the event described in this passage. Verses 12 and 14 state that we should be waiting for and hastening the coming of this day.
The conclusion we must draw, then, is that the church is expecting to see these events take place and should strive to be ready when they happen. This would hardly be applicable with a pre-tribulation rapture scenario.
2 Peter 3:8-15
This passage has traditionally been understood to be describing events after the Millennium. Because of this, the "day of the Lord" has been understood to continue through the Millennium with these events taking place at the end. It is difficult to understand in this way when it is described as coming "like a thief" (v. 10). Plus this phrase "like a thief" is usually used with reference to the second coming of Christ. Also, Peter seems to be describing an event that the believers are presently waiting for (v. 12, 14) and which is connected with God’s promise (v. 9). Furthermore, he states that Paul wrote of these things in his letters as well. All of this does not support a post-millennial event. Their basis for a post-millennial understanding is the reading "burned up" in verse 10 (KJV, NASB). This is translated from the word katakaio. The idea is that if the earth is going to be burned up at this time, then this could not take place before the Millennium, because Christ is going to rule on this present earth for a thousand years during the Millennium.
However, the reading "burned up" is probably not original. There are several variant readings in the Greek manuscripts, and many translations favor the reading heurethesetai such as the NIV and NET, "laid bare;" the NLT, "exposed to judgement;" the NRSV, "disclosed;" and the NAB, "found out." This is also the reading favored by the NA27/USB4 Greek Text.
On the translation "celestial bodies" for stoicheia in verses 10 and 12, it comments:
Grk "elements." Most commentators are agreed that "celestial bodies" is meant, in light of this well-worn usage of stoicheia in the second century and the probable allusion to Isa 34:4 (text of Vaticanus). See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 315-16 for discussion.
If we accept the reading of these translations, then the passage is not saying that the earth will be burned up but that the heavenly bodies will be dissolved, and the earth and mankind will alone be left before God. This is quite in harmony with Jesus’ description of the second coming. Alluding to Joel 2:31, he said that the sun and moon will be darkened and the powers of the heavens will be shaken (Matt. 24:29). Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:14 add that during this time the sky is rolled up like a scroll (compare "the heavens will disappear," 2 Peter 3:10).
The Old Testament ties the darkening of the sun and the moon with the stars as well in passages such as Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7-8, and Joel 2:10; 3:15. Isaiah 60:2 states that darkness will cover the earth before the glory of the Lord appears. Joel 2:2, Zephaniah 1:15, and Amos 5:18-20 describe the day of the Lord as a day of darkness.
So if the events in this passage take place at the second coming, and if these events were what the believers in this epistle were to look for, then our hope and our expectation is the second coming. That the latter is true is evident in such places as verses 9 and 10: "The Lord is not slow concerning his promise . . . but the day of the Lord will come."
If we follow Peter’s flow of thought, it as though the promise in view here is fulfilled in the day of the Lord. The church is to be looking for and expecting the event described in this passage. Verses 12 and 14 state that we should be waiting for and hastening the coming of this day.
The conclusion we must draw, then, is that the church is expecting to see these events take place and should strive to be ready when they happen. This would hardly be applicable with a pre-tribulation rapture scenario.
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
Ok, here is a link to a very interesting website.
http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/
What now, we need to go back and discuss baptism/salvation, correct?
http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/
What now, we need to go back and discuss baptism/salvation, correct?
TennTradition
Defended.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,919
- Likes
- 822
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3 -- note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8, 7:4, 10:38-39; Luke 3:16, 11:38, 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5, 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2, 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance.
It does not appear water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. Those passages refer to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3 -- note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8, 7:4, 10:38-39; Luke 3:16, 11:38, 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5, 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2, 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance.
It does not appear water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. Those passages refer to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13).
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
TennTradition
Defended.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,919
- Likes
- 822
salutethehill
by hatchet, axe, and saw
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,248
- Likes
- 5,051
OK, one more and then I'm done for the night. After this it's off to the grocery store with my wife and the youngun and then more recovery on the couch (OK, I'd be on the couch anyway, but still).
Water Baptism vs. Spiritual Baptism
This is a fantastic question as there are 2 examples of baptism in the Spirit in the Bible. This was a supernatural event that bestowed miraculous gifts on the Apostles.
It happened once at pentecost to show the audience that the Apostles were worth listening to...
Acts 2:15,16 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
...and once at Cornelius' house to show the Jews that the Gentiles deserved to receive salvation:
Acts 10:44-48 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Is this baptism of the Spirit all that is essential to salvation today? Well, we see in Ephesians 4:5 how many baptisms are in the church today:
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
There is no miraculous Holy Spirit baptism today, and baptism of water is when the Spirit is given to the Christian:
Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit[/B].
We see in John 3:5 that water baptism requires both physical immersion...
5 Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
...and the Spirit who does the adding to the body:
I Corinthians 12:13 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodywhether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freeand have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
Titus 3:5 mentions washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit:
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Does that "washing" involve water? Look at Ephesians 5:26
26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
In John 3:23 John the Baptist chose a spot to baptize because there was much water there:
23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
Matthew 3:16 has Christ coming up from the water when he was bapized:
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Acts 8:36-39 has the eunuch and Philip going down into water and coming up out of it:
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?
37 Then Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.
As I said earlier, we see in Ephesians 4:5 there is one baptism (see above). The Holy Spirit is obtained at the point of baptism, Acts 2:38 (see above), which is a literal act of obedience in which we are immersed into water (see above). We are not being immersed into water to remove the filth from the flesh. We do it as an answer of a good concience toward God, 1 Peter 3:19 (I mentioned this scripture in a very recent post). As I said, Jesus was literally immersed into water to fulfill all righteousness:
Matthew 3:13-16 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
As I said, this is probably it for tonight but I'll be back tomorrow. Please feel free to PM me if you want to talk about it even more privately. I really enjoy this and I appreciate you guys taking the time to read it.
Good night guys. :hi:
Water Baptism vs. Spiritual Baptism
This is a fantastic question as there are 2 examples of baptism in the Spirit in the Bible. This was a supernatural event that bestowed miraculous gifts on the Apostles.
It happened once at pentecost to show the audience that the Apostles were worth listening to...
Acts 2:15,16 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? 7 And He said to them, It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
...and once at Cornelius' house to show the Jews that the Gentiles deserved to receive salvation:
Acts 10:44-48 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter answered, 47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
Is this baptism of the Spirit all that is essential to salvation today? Well, we see in Ephesians 4:5 how many baptisms are in the church today:
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
There is no miraculous Holy Spirit baptism today, and baptism of water is when the Spirit is given to the Christian:
Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit[/B].
We see in John 3:5 that water baptism requires both physical immersion...
5 Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
...and the Spirit who does the adding to the body:
I Corinthians 12:13 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one bodywhether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or freeand have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
Titus 3:5 mentions washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit:
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
Does that "washing" involve water? Look at Ephesians 5:26
26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
In John 3:23 John the Baptist chose a spot to baptize because there was much water there:
23 Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized.
Matthew 3:16 has Christ coming up from the water when he was bapized:
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
Acts 8:36-39 has the eunuch and Philip going down into water and coming up out of it:
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?
37 Then Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.
As I said earlier, we see in Ephesians 4:5 there is one baptism (see above). The Holy Spirit is obtained at the point of baptism, Acts 2:38 (see above), which is a literal act of obedience in which we are immersed into water (see above). We are not being immersed into water to remove the filth from the flesh. We do it as an answer of a good concience toward God, 1 Peter 3:19 (I mentioned this scripture in a very recent post). As I said, Jesus was literally immersed into water to fulfill all righteousness:
Matthew 3:13-16 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
As I said, this is probably it for tonight but I'll be back tomorrow. Please feel free to PM me if you want to talk about it even more privately. I really enjoy this and I appreciate you guys taking the time to read it.
Good night guys. :hi:
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
sea of orange
The Orange Farmer
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Messages
- 246
- Likes
- 0
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
Lexvol
I'm Your Huckleberry
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 22,284
- Likes
- 241
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
You know the answer to that already-- don't you -- The version question can in my small mind be answered easily if a person believes the core doctrine of scripture when that person will compare KJV with any version including the NKJV, as you know that WE fundamental's and really anyone who study's much that --THE Blood--THE Diety of Christ-- The Virgin birth--the way of salvation, are doctrines that if you start changing a few words here or there can drastically change the meaning of a verse and will allow room for cultism to take hold --
Without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sins-- when a version takes out the blood from a passage I have no trust in that version -- when version changes the word VIRGIN to Young girl shall conceive then I think we have a difference between Virgin and young girl --- If CHRIST was not born of a Virgin then is not different than you and I --
One Door,one faith, one baptism, one LORD,one GOD,one word of GOD,--- A whole lot of one's so I would think they would be one word of GOD ..
The greater question for all that areopcorn: is the minute after you die where will you be all the debate and cute replies will be useless then --- You can make a lot of mistakes and be wrong about alot of things but if your wrong about salvation "YOU AIN'T COMING BACK TO FIX THAT" Evg. Billy Mitchell ends nearly every sermon with that quote. Where will you be a hundred years from now that's the question
Huh?
What does debating on an internet web board have to do with my salvation?
:blink:
OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 60
CSpindizzy
Five Star Recruit
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,352
- Likes
- 542
VN Store
