Bible Topic Thread (merged)

[OrangeEmpire]

Be careful. I've used that logic and keep getting attacked for doing so.

I have no idea how that is not a legitmate question, my pastor does it.

When I lived in Kentucky my Pastor, not the church I grew up in, also read from the Greek.

:question:

 

[Fine Vol]

therealUT said he took a break because someone said Catholics were false teachers. I never saw that so I was asking for a clarification.

IS HE CATHILIC?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

IS HE CATHILIC?

TRUT, heck yeah!

Also he is married to a Southern Baptist!

I love him!

:air_kiss:

 

[Fine Vol]

TRUT cant be wachin that foosball foosball is the devil

 

[OrangeEmpire]

 

[WA_Vol]

Which do you beleive?

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Which do you beleive?

I believe that the earth is about 4-5 billion years old.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I believe that the earth is about 4-5 billion years old.

I have to mention this, it is silly but I think it will be great for this topic.

As I have previously mentioned, I grew up in a scary ultrasupermega legalistic church. Straight Doctrine, KJV reading, no relationship with God kinda of church.

Pastor had a sermon on this very topic, how old is the Earth?

Do you know what his prime example was?

When we finally landed on the moon, the lunar module had "legs" with pads of them. The theory was since the Earth was billions of years old that Moon dust would be feet thick.

Well when the lunar module landed it was only 2-3 inches deep, thus confirming the Biblical story that the Earth is 5-6000 years old.

I love it!

:blink:

 

[salutethehill]

Sorry it took so long to get on here today guys. Work was crazy, my brother-in-law is in town visiting and I am just now on the computer. I only have a half hour or so so I want to get straight to it. I want to analyze OE's post, "Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation" post (#486). Have your bibles ready folks, it's a long one.

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.).

I don't have the time right now to post what needs to be said regarding these scriptures, but I will have them on here over the weekend (probably Sunday afternoon or so) and I want to ask a question. Does the Bible point out right now that there are external acts we must do for salvation? Check out Matthew 25:31-46 (it's a long one, but hear me out):
31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Is giving food, drink, hospitality, clothing and visiting them when they're sick and in prison "external acts"? Jesus plainly says that those who do these things will enter heaven, and those who do not do these things will go to hell. Is repentance not an external act? You must change your life to turn away from sin, and that definitely isn't just done on the inside. Is confession an external act? You also say that "Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone". Please show me based on the passages following this statement does it specifically say "grace and faith ALONE". None of them say that. I agree with what each of those passages say. I also agree and believe in what Jesus says in Mark 16:16.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
That's why I know I'll be saved by faith through God's grace, because I did what Christ told me to do because I have faith in him.

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?

I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again. Did Peter say you must have faith at Pentecost (Acts 2)? No, therefore by this logic, faith is not required for salvation. Peter did not tell those at Pentecost or those in Acts 3 to confess anything either, so by this logic Romans 10:9-10...
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
...does not need to be done in order to be saved. There is no biblical record of Philip or Paul talking about repentance to the eunuch or to the Philipian jailer, so does that mean that what Peter said in 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.
...and Acts 3:19...
19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
...is irrelevant? It should be pointed out that repentance, which no one seems to argue is necerssary to salvation, is only mentioned 5 times in the Acts conversion stories. Baptism, by the way, is mentioned directly in 9 of the conversion accounts.

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.

Paul and his crew speak of baptism in Acts 16:15:
15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
Acts 16:33 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Acts 18:8 8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.
Acts 19:3 3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?” So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
He also speaks of water baptism in his epistles at least 8 times. The message Paul presented in 1 Corinthians 15 indeed pertains to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That's the good news Paul preached. But he also preached that we have to respond to it through baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 he does say that he was sent to preach, not to baptize, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. In fact, he said he DID baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus in the 3 preceeding verses (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). He also implies in verse 16 that he may have baptized others. To imply that Paul did not baptize is completely erroneous. And it should be mentioned that the people in 1 Corinthians had a problem with sectarianism by aligning themselved with those that taught them rather than being united in following Christ. Paul was glad he did not baptize more than a few people because then more people might have been saying they wanted to follow him rather than Christ. Also, if baptism is "in no way efficacious for salvation", as you put, then why do Mark 16:16 and 1 Peter 3:21 clearly state otherwise?

Wow, this is taking longer than I thought so I'm going to break it up. More to come...

 

[salutethehill]

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 penitent woman, the paralytic man, the publican and the thief on the cross were all under the old law. Their sins were forgiven before the old law was nailed to the cross. I spoke about this in depth in an earlier post. After the death and resurrection, Christ's New Testament began:
Hebrews 9:16-17 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
which is when he told us baptism saves (Mark 16:16, see previous post). The Bible doesn't tell us specifically that the apostles were or were not baptized, but to follow the biblical plan of salvation they must have been as there was opportunity in John 3:22, John 4:1 and Acts 2:41.

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).

I've also already responed to this post. The giving of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner does not imply salvation. In Acts 11:15 Peter says, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." If they were saved when the Holy Spirit fell upon them or if the Spirit fell upon them as a result of them being saved, then they were saved before Peter had a chance to give them the message. Therefore, they weren't saved through Peter's message. Of course, that means they weren't saved by faith either, because faith comes by hearing God's Word...
Romans 10:17 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
...and they hadn't had a chance to hear it yet. In Acts 8 it says Philip preached in Samaria and many believed and were baptized (verse 12). Based on that verse, you would have to agree that they were saved because they believed. And yet, in verses 15-16 we see that, even though they were saved, they did not have the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. So you can be saved without having this aspect of the Holy Spirit.

More in a minute.

 

[salutethehill]

I'm going to split this next paragraph up.

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.

I'm with ya' buddy :good!: . So why we can focus on Ephesians 2:9...
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
... and ignore Mark 16:16?
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

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.

With ya' here, too. So why do you say that your interpretation of Acts 15 and Romans 4 (that no external acts are necessary for salvation) contradicts the general teaching of the Bible?
Matthew 25 (See earlier post)
Hebrews 5:8-9 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
Revalation 20:12 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[a] and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

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.

Baptism is not a ritual, but an appeal and a cause for rejoicing (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 8:39). Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:34 plus many other verses that I have repeatedly mentioned all make up more than just individual passages but also the general teaching of the Bible.

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).

Check out Matthew 26:28.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins(the greek being "eis aphesin ton amartion").
This scripture is the exact same phrasing as Acts 2:38 (for the remission of sins = greek "eis aphesin ton amartion"). Are you implying that Jesus shed his blood BECAUSE sins were forgiven? I don't think so. As far as singular baptize, that stresses the individual necessity of it.

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.

In this same sense you could turn that around and say that baptism IS mentioned in Mark 16:16 therefore it IS required. Why didn't Jesus say, "Whosoever believes in me shall be saved" and leave out baptism? As far as trying to "throw out" Mark 16:16, keep in mind that John 3:36 says this:
36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
It's the exact same phraseology and it commands obedience, and NO ONE would throw out John chapter 3!! I have heard that some translations change obey to believe again, even though it's not even CLOSE to the same Greek word and there's no chance it could possibly mean anything other than obedience. Man will, however, do anything to uphold their theology sometimes.

Guys, this'll have to do for tonight. I have to be up at 5:30 tomorrow morning, it's midnight and the wife is shooting me dirty looks (computer's in the bedroom). So much for that "I only have a half hour" stuff. I'll try to finish this up tomorrow night, when I get back in town, but probably more like Sunday afternoon. I especially want to touch on that last statement

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

You know, I hear this a lot. What does that mean? What is it required for, if not salvation? Isn't that what it's all about. If it's not required for salvation, then what is it required for?

 

[salutethehill]

I hit the wrong button and accidentally posted that thread without telling everyone to have a great weekend. I'll touch on the stuff I neglected when there's more time. Good night everyone.:hi:

 

[BigPapaVol]

You know, I hear this a lot. What does that mean? What is it required for, if not salvation? Isn't that what it's all about. If it's not required for salvation, then what is it required for?

Obedience

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I have to mention this, it is silly but I think it will be great for this topic.

As I have previously mentioned, I grew up in a scary ultrasupermega legalistic church. Straight Doctrine, KJV reading, no relationship with God kinda of church.

Pastor had a sermon on this very topic, how old is the Earth?

Do you know what his prime example was?

When we finally landed on the moon, the lunar module had "legs" with pads of them. The theory was since the Earth was billions of years old that Moon dust would be feet thick.

Well when the lunar module landed it was only 2-3 inches deep, thus confirming the Biblical story that the Earth is 5-6000 years old.

I love it!:blink:

That's pretty bad.:lol:

Have you heard the theory that God made the earth with the appearence of age in order to decieve all of those godless scientists? :wacko:

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

What I find most amusing of all is that the 6000 year old earth isn't even from the Bible itself. Around 1650 an Anglican archbishop named James Ussher published a commentary where he had calculated the dates for creation, which were later added into the margins of several of the study versions of the KJV. He calculated that all of the creation events took place during the week of Oct 18-24, 4004 BC, with Adam being created on Oct 23 at 9:00am.

Ussher ignored accepted Hebrew scholarship that there were several skipped generations in the genealogies. He also went on the assumption that the creation days were 6 consecutive 24 hour periods. Never mind that the 24 hour day is dependant on the sun, which didn't even exist until the fourth day.

Having said that, I do believe that the universe was created by God simply because the universe is too complex to have been formed by random chance. I just feel that carbon dating is a much more accurate way to date the earth than ancient genealogies.

 

[Lexvol]

Obedience

Correct. What people have to understand is this, most of the dogma set forth by "The Church Universal" was not clearly defined "enough" in the Bible, but rather was developed by the diets and councils of the early church. Arguments like baptism really fall into the category of traditional development. It was developed by early Christians trying to define their own movement. So they see and example of baptism in the bible, and say "every Chrisitian must do this as an outward sign of faith".

If you get too caught up in some of these particular aspects your run the risk of acting just like the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus' day, by putting the tradition before the spirit of the Text.

 

[salutethehill]

Obedience

I, too, am going to say correct and point out what Hebrews 5:8-9 says:
8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,
If obedience is required for salvation, and baptism is required for obedience, we can then see that baptism (but not baptism alone) is required for salvation.

 

[therealUT]

With all the discussion on baptism being key to salvation, do you believe that non-Christians go to heaven?

 

[Lexvol]

With all the discussion on baptism being key to salvation, do you believe that non-Christians go to heaven?

If that were in fact the case God is not a just and fair God. God without justice and fairness cannot be all good.

 

[JZVOL]

With all the discussion on baptism being key to salvation, do you believe that non-Christians go to heaven?

No.

 

[CSpindizzy]

No man comes to the Father except by Him. Can anyone point out anything scriptural that indicates otherwise?

 

[WA_Vol]

Which do you believe the bible or carbon dating?

They are clearly in disagreement over the age of the earth.

There's not much evidence in the Bible for the existence of dinosaurs, but there are clearly fossil evidence of them.

Again how do you resolve that?

 

[JZVOL]

Take a verse everyone knows, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten son that whoesover believeth in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life."

I highly doubt God is going to let someone who rejected His only son, who died on a cross for our sins, into His Kingdom.

 

[JZVOL]

Which do you believe the bible or carbon dating?

They are clearly in disagreement over the age of the earth.

There's not much evidence in the Bible for the existence of dinosaurs, but there are clearly fossil evidence of them.

Again how do you resolve that?

I always go with the Bible but that is a great question!

There are plenty of things the Bible doesn't mention that are real. I would assume nobody felt the need to mention animals that would become extinct or other things of that nature.

 

[WA_Vol]

I always go with the Bible but that is a great question!

There are plenty of things the Bible doesn't mention that are real. I would assume nobody felt the need to mention animals that would become extinct or other things of that nature.

the bible dates the earth to about 6000 years. Carbon dating dates the earth billions of years. That includes dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old.

Again how do you resolve this. Clearly one of them is wrong.