Bible Topic Thread (merged)

#151
#151
Romans 6:3-5 is often used as a proof text for the claim that baptism is essential for salvation. It is a strong comparison between our baptism and Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. On the surface, one could conclude that from these verses, that baptism is part of salvation.

"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, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,"

Is this section of scripture teaching us that baptism is necessary for salvation? No, it is not. First, we know from the rest of scripture that salvation is by faith, not by faith and something we do Romans 3:28-30. Second, we can see from other scriptures that baptism follows faith. Take a look at Acts 16:30-33 where the Jailer specifically asks what he must do to be saved and where baptism fits in.

"and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household,"

If baptism were part of salvation, then Paul should have said, "Believe and be baptized and you will be saved." But, he did not. Also, consider Act 10:44-46.

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.' So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days"

These people were saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit was on the Gentiles and they were speaking in tongues. This is significant because tongues is a gift given to believers, see 1 Corinthians 14:1-5. Also, unbelievers don't praise God. They can't because praise to the true God is a deep spiritual matter that is foreign to the unsaved (1 Corinthians 2:14). Therefore, the ones in Acts 10:44-46 who are speaking in tongues and praising God are definitely saved and they are saved before they are baptized. This isn't an exception. It is a reality. This proves that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

The phrase "baptized into" occurs five times in the NT in four verses as found in the KJV and the NASB..

Romans 6:3, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?"

1 Corinthians 10:2, "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

1 Corinthians 12:13, "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."

Galatians 3:27, "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."

Baptism by immersion is a perfect symbol for this work of Christ with which the Christian is identifying himself. As Christ died and was raised to a new life, so to the Christian, in Christ, is said to have died (Romans 6:11; Colossians 3:3) and has a new life.

This is why the reference to baptism in the Bible is dealing more with "our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism."

In that ancient world of religious plurality in Roman gods, in the strict Laws of the Jewish system, and in the gods of different cultures, to be baptized was to make a bold statement of commitment to Christ as the risen Lord. It was not the water that saved, but faith in Christ and His work.​
 
#152
#152
JZVOL said:
This could cause more discussion because of different denominations but you can't be a former Christian. If you "heard" and "believed" then your name is written in the Book of Life and won't be taken out.
Romans 10:5-13
Ephesians 1:13-14 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the Word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having BELIEVED you were MARKED in Him with a SEAL, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a DEPOSIT GUARANTEEING our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession..."
Click to expand...
So what exactly does that make me? Believe it or not, there was a time when I was a highly devoted, almost fanatical fundamentalist christian. About a year and a half or so ago I walked away from that life by choice. I decided that I want nothing else to do with being a christian. My life is much happier now that I've gone back to being the sinner that I was. Are you saying that I was never a christian in the first place? I just don't buy that.
 
#153
#153
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
So what exactly does that make me? Believe it or not, there was a time when I was a highly devoted, almost fanatical fundamentalist christian. About a year and a half or so ago I walked away from that life by choice. I decided that I want nothing else to do with being a christian. My life is much happier now that I've gone back to being the sinner that I was. Are you saying that I was never a christian in the first place? I just don't buy that.
Click to expand...

If you accpeted Christ I'll see you in heaven.

Your choices are your own.

:good!:
 
#156
#156
therealUT said:
If a priest loses his ordination, then he cannot forgive sins. However, the sins he has forgiven, until that time, are still forgiven. Also, priests sin, just as the Apostles sinned.

Yes. Just as the Apostles were able to forgive sins after Jesus breathed upon them and empowered them to. Prior to that day, they were not empowered to forgive sins. That moment and onward, they were.

People can argue against this all they want. However, there is little to no Biblical argument against it. Also, consider the historical setting. The four Gospels that appear in the New Testament were not recorded until at least 60 A.D. Some not until the late 70s. Peter had been the Bishop of Jerusalem from 32 A.D. onward to around 50 A.D. when he departed for Rome. There he was the Bishop of Rome. New Bishops were being ordained during this entire period, ordained with the power to forgive sins. If this was seen as an antithesis to the teachings of Jesus, don't you believe it would have been addressed in these Gospels? Instead, you have Catholic Bishops and Popes, as well as Apostles, writing epistles about the authority bestowed upon them to forgive sins from the Gospel of John (70+ A.D.), the Epistles of Pope Clement I (90 A.D.), Tertullian (140 A.D.), St. Ambrose (200 A.D.), Augustine (400 A.D.), and on through two millenia.

Considering that the Bible did not even exist until 382 A.D., and the selection and list of books that would be represented in the Bible was by a council commissioned by the Catholic Church (the institution that now for 350 years had authorized the Sacrament of Reconciliation), I find it humorous that people even try to use the Bible to denounce the Catholic Church.

The most rationale argument that anyone can use against the Catholic Church would have to use evidence found from historical texts and gospels that are not contained in the book commissioned by the the Catholic Church. As the members who participated in the Council of Rome took great care to choose New Testament Scriptures that would support the Dogma of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Where does it say Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem and where does it say he transfered his membership to Rome and thus made that the headquarters of the entire church? Again, Jesus said none except him is the head of anything.

I will ask you yet again about references to the rock. It is not an actual rock just as Jesus is not a literal vine as we are not literal branches. In some warped way, you take that literal and think I am as well. That is not the case.

Jesus is referring to the fact that Peter's faith, conviction, commitment, instilled knowledge, etc. is the bedrock for which Christ has built the Church. I guess when Paul repeats this in Ephesians he must have misunderstood and saw the same thing as I when he said the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church and Christ is the cornerstone. Do you think Christ is a literal block there as well? He's literally a light? The literal rock of our salvation?

Sometimes it takes a little understanding of context and the original writing to understand what was written.

As for bishops and the church being in Rome where in ANY of Christ's teachings did he say there was only one head, one bishop, and a church that only can exist in Rome? I remind you that even the first few 'popes' are not historically proven. Many are assumed and little to no evidence can substantiate much of the Catholic Church's claim of these early leaders.

While you say the Bible did not exist until the 300's, that would be inaccurate since many of these books did exist much earlier. These letters were passed around and used as the early basis shortly after their writing. While they were not gathered together and declared canon of one book until much later, these were still in existence and used.

No matter what you say, no man can forgive sins to the level of what Christ was empowered to do. Again, I can forgive your sins and what you may do to me but it does not clear the path to Heaven. If you believe otherwise you dispute Christ's own words that there is no other path to the father except through Him...not a priest, not a bishop.
 
#158
#158
OrangeEmpire said:
There is only one Person Who can forgive your sin. There is only one Person Who paid for your sin. There is only one Person Who is your Mediator, and there is only one Person Who can give you eternal life. That Person is the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

"Jesus saith unto him (or you), I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1st John 5:13)
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Jesus, who is omnipotent, does not have the power to delegate his work through others?

Is not one of the reasons that God sent his son, was so that He may show us how to do His work?
 
#161
#161
StunnA N' Orange said:
OrangeEmpire said:
If you accpeted Christ I'll see you in heaven.QUOTE]

So you're saying if I sinned constantly and distanced myself from God he'd still accept me into his home? I have a hard time blieveing that. People can't just quit on him and expect to reap the benefits.
Click to expand...

If you are truly saved God will bring you back no matter how hard you live your life.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
 
#163
#163
CSpindizzy said:
Where does it say Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem and where does it say he transfered his membership to Rome and thus made that the headquarters of the entire church? Again, Jesus said none except him is the head of anything.

I will ask you yet again about references to the rock. It is not an actual rock just as Jesus is not a literal vine as we are not literal branches. In some warped way, you take that literal and think I am as well. That is not the case.

Jesus is referring to the fact that Peter's faith, conviction, commitment, instilled knowledge, etc. is the bedrock for which Christ has built the Church. I guess when Paul repeats this in Ephesians he must have misunderstood and saw the same thing as I when he said the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church and Christ is the cornerstone. Do you think Christ is a literal block there as well? He's literally a light? The literal rock of our salvation?

Sometimes it takes a little understanding of context and the original writing to understand what was written.

As for bishops and the church being in Rome where in ANY of Christ's teachings did he say there was only one head, one bishop, and a church that only can exist in Rome? I remind you that even the first few 'popes' are not historically proven. Many are assumed and little to no evidence can substantiate much of the Catholic Church's claim of these early leaders.

While you say the Bible did not exist until the 300's, that would be inaccurate since many of these books did exist much earlier. These letters were passed around and used as the early basis shortly after their writing. While they were not gathered together and declared canon of one book until much later, these were still in existence and used.

No matter what you say, no man can forgive sins to the level of what Christ was empowered to do. Again, I can forgive your sins and what you may do to me but it does not clear the path to Heaven. If you believe otherwise you dispute Christ's own words that there is no other path to the father except through Him...not a priest, not a bishop.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus must have been referring to Peter's commitment. I guess Jesus had already forgotten that Peter was the apostle who denied knowing him. Gotcha.

Also, simply because the letters and gospels existed as early as 60 A.D. in no way means that the Bible existed then. The Bible was compiled in 382.

Also, there were over 20 other gospels floating around early Christians during this period, and countless letters and epistles. Therefore, the selection of the books for the New Testament was a very thorough and intense process. So, again, why would the Catholic Church choose books that, as you apparently believe, so obviously contradict their teachings?
 
#165
#165
therealUT said:
Are you saying that Jesus, who is omnipotent, does not have the power to delegate his work through others?

Is not one of the reasons that God sent his son, was so that He may show us how to do His work?
Click to expand...

Sorry Trut, I am going to have to play stupid on this one. :question:

God/Jesus/Holy Spirit works through all sorts of people.

I don't believe God/Jesus/Holy Spirit grants other persons to forgive sins.
 
#167
#167
StunnA N' Orange said:
I'm not sure he understands the term "imagery."
Click to expand...
I completely understand imagery. Jesus turned to Simon and said, "You are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church." So, either Jesus is telling Simon that the Church (what is now known as the Catholic Church) will be founded by him (rock/foundation), or he is telling Peter that he is the rock, yet, he will build his church on another rock. That doesn't make too much conversational sense.

Also, he clearly states that "I will give you (speaking to Simon Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I guess Jesus was just joking.
 
#168
#168
OrangeEmpire said:
Sorry Trut, I am going to have to play stupid on this one. :question:

God/Jesus/Holy Spirit works through all sorts of people.

I don't believe God/Jesus/Holy Spirit grants other persons to forgive sins.
Click to expand...
But you have no problem with him granting the power of baptism to pastors?

I really am at a loss for words, since no one on here seems to think too highly of the Gospel of John and Jesus' own words from his own mouth.

Oh, except that CSpin seems to think that the inclusion of the word "if" would change the whole meaning.
 
#169
#169
therealUT said:
Yes, Jesus must have been referring to Peter's commitment. I guess Jesus had already forgotten that Peter was the apostle who denied knowing him. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

We considering we're talking about Christ who selected Peter and a few others for an intended purpose and as you said gave power to bind and to be the rock to build his church, how does his denial matter? I guess that all-knowing concept was thrown out the window according to you...gotcha.

therealUT said:
Also, simply because the letters and gospels existed as early as 60 A.D. in no way means that the Bible existed then. The Bible was compiled in 382.

Also, there were over 20 other gospels floating around early Christians during this period, and countless letters and epistles. Therefore, the selection of the books for the New Testament was a very thorough and intense process. So, again, why would the Catholic Church choose books that, as you apparently believe, so obviously contradict their teachings?
Click to expand...

Um, you DO know these letters are what compose the New Testament right? So it did not matter whether they were individual or compiled into one book. They existed, were used, and were spread throughout the known world.

And what are you talking about contradicting? What tangent are you drifting on? I am speaking of the books we now refer to as the New Testament. No where in anything I said did I speak on any other books beside what is in our current New Testament. Every verse I have quoted and referred to is all in our current New Testament. Perhaps if you'd stay focused on what was actually said instead of assuming what people are saying, this discussion would be much more beneficial.
 
#171
#171
therealUT said:
But you have no problem with him granting the power of baptism to pastors?

I really am at a loss for words, since no one on here seems to think too highly of the Gospel of John and Jesus' own words from his own mouth.

Oh, except that CSpin seems to think that the inclusion of the word "if" would change the whole meaning.
Click to expand...

?

Not following the Book of John statement.............

:blink:
 
#174
#174
therealUT said:
I completely understand imagery. Jesus turned to Simon and said, "You are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church." So, either Jesus is telling Simon that the Church (what is now known as the Catholic Church) will be founded by him (rock/foundation), or he is telling Peter that he is the rock, yet, he will build his church on another rock. That doesn't make too much conversational sense.

Also, he clearly states that "I will give you (speaking to Simon Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I guess Jesus was just joking.
Click to expand...

Actually he did not say "you are the rock". A simple referral to the original Greek would clear this up for you.

Again I refer you to the two Gospels that refer to the man who built on the rock and the one on the sand. Jesus gave a blanket statement to ANYONE and not to Peter that they would be the man building on the rock...keep in mind this same story uses the same greek word that Christ later says is the rock he'd build his church. Simple concept of foundation. Simple concept and so simple Paul even referred to it in Ephesians as saying all apostles and prophets at that time were the foundation or rock. No where does it give prominence to Peter and to him only. Actually Christ repeatedly dispels who is the 'favorite' and plays it down each time he was asked. Scripture backs it up and it is fact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top