- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To WhiteMateria,
You seem to have lost the plot with your last post.
I am not sure where you are coming from. You seem confused and now have retorted to acusation rather than providing a reasonable argument of points.
I will leave you to it and I pray that God will take away whatever is blinding you in order for you to experience a moment of clarity, that you may embrace the truth in that time.
Quote (t8 @ July 09 2005,06:20) To WhiteMateria, You seem to have lost the plot with your last post.
I am not sure where you are coming from. You seem confused and now have retorted to acusation rather than providing a reasonable argument of points.
I will leave you to it and I pray that God will take away whatever is blinding you in order for you to experience a moment of clarity, that you may embrace the truth in that time.
I am well aware of what you are trying to do. You hope to lead me away from setting forth scripture that goes against your own beliefs by providing this side track into some areas that have already been addressed. (I've already prepared for such deceptions and such is the reason why I make short postings each time I post in these topics. So that I can finish one point and move on to the next.) However since you have only halfway addressed such scripture and ignore others I feel the time was well spent to answer and address your own concerns at hand. The last few postings have been for your own benifit and not really anyone elses. Do not fret for scriptural postings can still be posted in this topic yet. When you use scripture out of context it is very easy to show the folly without really trying that hard. Do I have to set straight the muddle of confusion that you throw up for others to get confused with. Do you think you can keep up? We shall be back on track as of tommorrow with more of a Critical look at Heaven.net's own reasoning.I see you never got past the word rubbish even when I showed you examples right after it. It shows a bad effort on your part. Try again!
Go ahead my friend. It's just that I have not found your points to be reasonable. I gave you a good reply, but instead of using scripture to point out any possible errors in my reply you just said 'rubbish', which is not going to convince me or anyone else here of what you are teaching.
Show the error in my replies if you believe them to be error. 'Rubbish' doesn't cut it for me.
In this discussion you made certain accusations of unsound teaching with the Trinity pages on Heaven Net, when I replied you said 'rubbish'. What am I suppose to think?
A good reason will go a lot further.
Quote (t8 @ July 09 2005,06:42) Go ahead my friend. It's just that I have not found your points to be reasonable. I gave you a good reply, but instead of using scripture to point out any possible errors in my reply you just said 'rubbish', which is not going to convince me or anyone else here of what you are teaching. Show the error in my replies if you believe them to be error. 'Rubbish' doesn't cut it for me.
In this discussion you made certain accusations of unsound teadchin with the Trinity pages on Heaven Net, when I replied you said 'rubbish'. What am I suppose to think?
A good reason will go a lot further.
Read the posting again. There is no reason to repeat points that have already been made. So you believe Jesus, John, and Paul but you do not believe God himself? Was it not God who inspired the written Word to write Exodus. That is placing Jesus before God… Are you allowed to do that? And I have also already addressed the angel issue with Nick Hassan. It shows you are not paying attention. I will wait for you to catch up on the required reading since you are behind.To WhiteMateria,
I am surprised that you haven't figured it out yet. I believe Paul, John, and Jesus. I also believe that their teachings do not contradict scripture, in particular the places where men have supposed to have seen God. When you read on, many such accounts speak of the angel of the Lord. I readily agree that not all accounts have such full explanations, but I am hardly going to reject Paul, John, and Jesus teachings because an explanation may lack a full account. On the contrary it is easy to see that many have seen God's representives, that is what I believe and is what scripture shows.
I see no contradiction with Paul, John, and Jesus teachings and the Old testament as you do.
There is no contradiction in truth. No man can see God, but many have seen whom God has sent.
Hi M,
If you seek to find fault with the Word of God then you will find many “apparent” contradictions. But the Word belongs to God. He wrote it through men and He guards it jealously. It is God's choice to not make everything immediately obvious. He expects a certain amount of effort on our part to tease out the truth.[Prov 25.1-4]
If you were walking with Jesus and you heard him say “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” would you stay with him or leave as most did? That statement was challenging to faith and only those who were already committed stayed showing a deeper level of faith. Were the disciples shown to be cannibals? No.
But we need to accept the existence of God to start our journey. We need to understand how He showed His powers by His work among the Jews and His predictions made through His prophets. We need fear and awe to find Him.white… I would also add that a contradiction is a very precise item, that is to say… a paradox is not a contradiction, a mystery is not a contradiction, a contradiction is a violation of the law of noncontradiction which states that a thing cannot both be and not be (and here is the really important part!) at the same time and in the same relationship… a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship is just another way to say it….. one has to show that there is absolutely no way for there to be a reconciliation of the texts in question in order to prove, conclusively, that a contradiction has actually taken place…. I haven't seen that happen yet white… the closest the Bible comes, IMHO, are the numbers used in some of the OT… but these can also be resolved without proving that the Bible contains contradictions…..
I was looking at your earlier post where you stated the confusion that exists in churches re salvation…. I will have to say I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point….
But to the points you rasied…. I think there is ample info out there re the fact that the Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration… here are some answers to this verse… though you, as a former Christian, may already be aware of the answers to the questions raised by the verses you mention…
“Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:
1. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43).
2. The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized after they were saved (Acts 10:44–48).
3. Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1, 2)—a strange omission if baptism were necessary for salvation.
4. Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16)—an impossible thanksgiving if baptism were essential for salvation.
5. Approximately 150 passages in the NT state that salvation is by faith alone. No verse or few verses could contradict this overwhelming testimony.
6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth.
What then does verse 16 mean? We believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.
William MacDonald; edited with introductions by Arthur Farstad, Believer’s Bible commentary: Old and New Testaments (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995 by William MacDonald.“16:16. In response to the preaching of the gospel, whoever believes and is baptized, a baptized believer (lit., “the one who believed and was baptized”), will be saved (soµtheµsetai; cf. comments on 13:13) by God (implied) from spiritual death, the penalty of sin. A single Greek article governs both substantival participles, linking them together in describing the inward, efficacious reception of the gospel by faith (believing) and the outward, public expression of that faith in water baptism.
Though the New Testament writers generally assume that under normal circumstances each believer will be baptized, 16:16 does not mean that baptism is a necessary requirement for personal salvation. The second half of the verse indicates by contrast that one who does not believe the gospel will be condemned by God (implied) in the day of final judgment (cf. 9:43-48). The basis for condemnation is unbelief, not the lack of any ritual observance. Baptism is not mentioned because unbelief precludes one’s giving a confession of faith while being baptized by water. Thus the only requirement for personally appropriating God’s salvation is faith in Him (cf. Rom. 3:21-28; Eph. 2:8-10).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.As far as the last 2 verses you mention… and really, it goes for Mk 16:16 as well…. The issues raised can often be solved by always taking into consideration the context, the immediate context as well as the entire book, as well as who the book is primarily addressed to…. For instance some confusion regarding justification is solved when realizing that the synoptics do not use the word group justificare in the forensic sense of the word, while Paul does, that is, he uses it in an eschatological sense…re to speak of the nature of a person’s standing before God in judgment, and James uses is in a way that is intended to emphasize that a person is only truly justified when their lives reflect what a truly justified person’s life should… namely good works…. So Acts, taken as a whole does not teach that the mere mouthing of the word “Lord” results in salvation….. and Lk 18:42 isn’t even talking about salvation, as the ESV clearly shows Luke 18:42 ESV And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”
As far as the parable of the sheep and goats go… well this too has to be taken in accord with Jesus’ other words on salvation…. For instance He also says, in regard to what works one must do to be saved John 6:28-29 ESV Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” (29) Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
So anyway, the issues you bring up do go to show that every Christian ought to have at least a minimal course in hermeneutics so as to not get tripped up by these seeming contradictions…. For the old adage is true…. A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext….. which reminds me of another example of the dangers of not using the proper tools in biblical exegesis… it seems a person wanted divine guidance for a particular problem they were having… they decided to open the Bible randomly and let their finger fall where it may land in order to “hear from the Lord”… the first time this was tried their finger landed on “and Judas went and hanged himself”… thinking that this must be some mistake the “method” was tried again… this time landing on “go thou and do likewise”… frustrated one more attempt was made, this time the “message” was “what thou doest… Do quickly”… lol…..
blessings
Hi E,
Rom 6.3
” Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus have been baptised into his death?”
So how could he baptise into his own death? It had not occurred yet. How could the good thief be baptised into the death of Jesus who was alive and conversing with him?
Peter, in Acts 10, commanded the gentiles be baptised immediately that the Spirit had manifested in them-it was not unnecessary in his Spiritual understanding.
Paul baptised, but he left that easy work to others and preached the gospel.Acts 16 supports your view about belief does it not
Acts 16.29f
“.. he fell down before Paul and Silas and after he brought them out, he said
'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'
They said
' Believe in the Lord Jesus , and you will be saved'so far so good
v33
” And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and IMMEDIATELY HE WAS BAPTISED, he and all his household”So scripture indicates that true belief is not intellectual assent based on belief alone but baptism in water is not only necessary, but even urgent.
” Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”
This discussion should move to the appropriate forum.
Quote (epistemaniac @ July 15 2005,09:10) white… I would also add that a contradiction is a very precise item, that is to say… a paradox is not a contradiction, a mystery is not a contradiction, a contradiction is a violation of the law of noncontradiction which states that a thing cannot both be and not be (and here is the really important part!) at the same time and in the same relationship… a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship is just another way to say it….. one has to show that there is absolutely no way for there to be a reconciliation of the texts in question in order to prove, conclusively, that a contradiction has actually taken place…. I haven't seen that happen yet white… the closest the Bible comes, IMHO, are the numbers used in some of the OT… but these can also be resolved without proving that the Bible contains contradictions….. I was looking at your earlier post where you stated the confusion that exists in churches re salvation…. I will have to say I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point….
But to the points you rasied…. I think there is ample info out there re the fact that the Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration… here are some answers to this verse… though you, as a former Christian, may already be aware of the answers to the questions raised by the verses you mention…
“Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:
1. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43).
2. The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized after they were saved (Acts 10:44–48).
3. Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1, 2)—a strange omission if baptism were necessary for salvation.
4. Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16)—an impossible thanksgiving if baptism were essential for salvation.
5. Approximately 150 passages in the NT state that salvation is by faith alone. No verse or few verses could contradict this overwhelming testimony.
6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth.
What then does verse 16 mean? We believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.
William MacDonald; edited with introductions by Arthur Farstad, Believer’s Bible commentary: Old and New Testaments (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995 by William MacDonald.“16:16. In response to the preaching of the gospel, whoever believes and is baptized, a baptized believer (lit., “the one who believed and was baptized”), will be saved (soµtheµsetai; cf. comments on 13:13) by God (implied) from spiritual death, the penalty of sin. A single Greek article governs both substantival participles, linking them together in describing the inward, efficacious reception of the gospel by faith (believing) and the outward, public expression of that faith in water baptism.
Though the New Testament writers generally assume that under normal circumstances each believer will be baptized, 16:16 does not mean that baptism is a necessary requirement for personal salvation. The second half of the verse indicates by contrast that one who does not believe the gospel will be condemned by God (implied) in the day of final judgment (cf. 9:43-48). The basis for condemnation is unbelief, not the lack of any ritual observance. Baptism is not mentioned because unbelief precludes one’s giving a confession of faith while being baptized by water. Thus the only requirement for personally appropriating God’s salvation is faith in Him (cf. Rom. 3:21-28; Eph. 2:8-10).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.As far as the last 2 verses you mention… and really, it goes for Mk 16:16 as well…. The issues raised can often be solved by always taking into consideration the context, the immediate context as well as the entire book, as well as who the book is primarily addressed to…. For instance some confusion regarding justification is solved when realizing that the synoptics do not use the word group justificare in the forensic sense of the word, while Paul does, that is, he uses it in an eschatological sense…re to speak of the nature of a person’s standing before God in judgment, and James uses is in a way that is intended to emphasize that a person is only truly justified when their lives reflect what a truly justified person’s life should… namely good works…. So Acts, taken as a whole does not teach that the mere mouthing of the word “Lord” results in salvation….. and Lk 18:42 isn’t even talking about salvation, as the ESV clearly shows Luke 18:42 ESV And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”
As far as the parable of the sheep and goats go… well this too has to be taken in accord with Jesus’ other words on salvation…. For instance He also says, in regard to what works one must do to be saved John 6:28-29 ESV Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” (29) Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
So anyway, the issues you bring up do go to show that every Christian ought to have at least a minimal course in hermeneutics so as to not get tripped up by these seeming contradictions…. For the old adage is true…. A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext….. which reminds me of another example of the dangers of not using the proper tools in biblical exegesis… it seems a person wanted divine guidance for a particular problem they were having… they decided to open the Bible randomly and let their finger fall where it may land in order to “hear from the Lord”… the first time this was tried their finger landed on “and Judas went and hanged himself”… thinking that this must be some mistake the “method” was tried again… this time landing on “go thou and do likewise”… frustrated one more attempt was made, this time the “message” was “what thou doest… Do quickly”… lol…..
blessings
Hi E,
To say the Son of God is also part of the God he is a Son of, and was with as well in the beginning, is the most blatant compound oxymoron ever invented by men. It is an absolute contradiction in terms.Nonsense!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
