Posted on 10/10/2011 12:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
And if they willfully refused to follow the law regarding circumcision, what happened?
If ritual means nothing, as you claim, then why are these passages in sacred scripture?
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Acts 2:38 - "Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."
1 Peter 3:21 - "This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. I is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Acts 22:16 - "Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’"
Colossians 2:12 - "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."
Baptism washes away sins. Can one be saved without forgiveness of sins? Are you sure that rituals do nothing and are completely meaningless when the scriptures we both accept as inspired command us to perform them?
Yes, the gospel you profess is very strange and contra-scriptural indeed.
Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Well, you may want to check your Bible, my FRiend. This passage is not in most of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. It appears along with the snake handlers (is that going on in your group, also?) and the poison drinkers (please...).
"Acts 2:38 - "Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit."
"1 Peter 3:21 - "This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. I is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"
Peter is referring to a baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is not a water event removing dirt from the body, but the cry to God by a rescued believer, made possible through the resurrection of Jesus. Read it carefully.
"Acts 22:16 - "Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’"
No question, shortly after Pentecost a baptism like John's was conducted. But, as things move on in the story (go read the entire journal of Luke), baptism becomes more and more infrequent.
"Colossians 2:12 - "You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."
Paul is, of course, referring to baptism in the Spirit. Do you actually think his words "...raised with him through faith..." means that what brought you up out of water was faith? A person lowers you into a pool and faith lifted your body out? I have observed many baptisms and never seen this work. The guy always has to lift the person out. Paul is describing what is going on as you are immersed into the Spirit, adopted into the family. When you are lowered into the Body of Christ, you are raised with a faith you never had before.
"Baptism washes away sins. Can one be saved without forgiveness of sins? Are you sure that rituals do nothing and are completely meaningless when the scriptures we both accept as inspired command us to perform them?
Your first remark is not demonstrated as true. But, certainly the answer to the first question is "no". If, however, you read the entire argument Paul is making, there is no question that grace, creating faith, is all that is needed to be saved. The result will be the forgiveness of sin. Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace you have been saved (not baptism) through faith, and that (faith/grace) not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works (anything done by man), that no one should boast." Where is the ritual that saves again?
"Yes, the gospel you profess is very strange and contra-scriptural indeed.
You may wish to read the full message first, rather than listen to the party line...
Denying the plain words of scripture now? Mark 16:16 is in every single Bible I’ve ever read, including the ones I used as an evangelical (NIV and KJV included).
What other passages are we free to ignore as non-inspired?
Then you go on further to deny the plain words of scripture. This is our clue that you’re no longer to be taken seriously. Conversation over. Godspeed, FRiend.
It is incredibly sad that they keep repeating lies and expect us to believe anything they say.
That's one of the vilest of that group -- the sad thing is that they have no real belief except that they hate us. Nothing else. No love for Christ, nothing.
Indeed. No single group has been nastier to me since my conversion than Reformed/Calvinists. I still wonder how this approach attracts anyone to their warped brand of Christianity.
that’s the absurdity of a Calvinist POV: God’s not satisfied with damning a person before the beginning of creation, but after the person is dead, he’d have to resurrect him and tell him, “I’m going to punish you in hell forever because you perfectly—though you had no choice—followed the plan I set out for you since before the beginning of the world, all for my good pleasure and greater glory.” That’s just perverse piling on. And again we have to ask, “Glory before whom?” If all is created by God and determined by God, then there is no other “who” before whom glory, to whatever degree, is to be manifest and no context within which glory would even have any meaning. The whole thing is nothing more than an audience of one, the sound of that one’s hands clapping. Even Zen makes more sense than that.
That’s exactly what I meant when I called Dutchboy88’s position strange... what sort of god would take delight in dividing us into groups of winners and losers, and setting up the system such that we had no control whatsoever over the group to which we belong? That’s a god who takes delight in cruelty, which is contrary to love.
"The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."
A god that doesn't permit the means for everyone to reach repentance doesn't really desire everyone's repentance, does he?
What other passages are we free to ignore as non-inspired?"
Look carefully at the printed text. Most of the Bibles I own will bracket Mark 16:9 through 20 and state that the oldest mss. omit these verses. It is not me, my FRiend. I certainly don't want to ignore real Scripture. Just want to read real Scripture. Are you actually a snake handler?
Check also John 7:53 - 8:11. The so-called woman taken in sin is apparently an add-on to the real thing. I am looking at a Zondervan NIV and the margin says, "(The most reliable early manuscripts omit John 7:53 - 8:11)"
Then you go on further to deny the plain words of scripture. This is our clue that you’re no longer to be taken seriously. Conversation over. Godspeed, FRiend.
Far be it from me to deny the plain meaning of Scripture. I am simply following the argument of the writers and letting them tell us their story, the inspired (God-breathed) story, of redemption. Your system relies upon layers of men in pointy hats and bathrobes. Ours relies upon God, alone.
The conversation may be over, here. But, if God is pursuing you for your rescue, He will chase you to the ends of the earth. The Holy Spirit's wind blows where it will and no one can stop Him or resist His will. Grace to you, my FRiend.
Sure, all the Bibles I read include those footnotes as well. But do any of them say that the words are not inspired? Are the translators attempting to trick us, to see how Christian we really are, by throwing false teachings into the Bible and seeing whether we correctly reject them? You lose all credibility with posts like this one.
(and what the heck is with the multiple references to snake-handling? My father-in-law encountered snake-handling preachers in the back woods of Tennessee, and they most certainly weren’t Catholic, my FRiend)
Really, this is your story and you are going to stick to it!
You are the one that needs to do some re-Reading. Abraham was required to circumcise ALL of his males slaves as well. Were they descendents of Abraham? We don't know if the slaves were monotheistic, how does forced conversion fit in to your scheme?
I also refer you to the Greek New Testament (Fourth revised edition) Aland and Metzger (I trust even you recognize the name of Bruce Metzger). You might also check out "The Complete Word study New Testament, Parallel interlinear) Translated by Spiros Zodhiates, a Ph.D. Native speaking Greek Protestant.
You really are not enforcing your argument with you complete lack of scholarship.
Go ask any Jew, the descendants of A,I,J are considered Israel (Jacob’s name change). The rest of your remark has no meaning.
You have selectively read the spurious passage you claim proves salvation by baptism. Snake handling is in there, along with drinking poison. I encourage you to read the entire passage and if you cling to part of it, then cling to all of it.
And, your last post said the conversation was over. More interest?
Well, Metzger simply revised the Nestle 1927 version and his 4th (’93) was reprinted without change from ‘75 version. The Nestle text we used in Greek class was ‘77. NIV used Nestle. So, now what? This has little to do with whether the oldest mss. exclude the Mark passage.
You wrote:
“If you carefully read what I wrote you will notice that men do cooperate with God...once they are saved.”
If men are saved, then why would they need to cooperate? If you’re saved, it’s finished.
“Your system requires men to cooperate with God in order to be saved.”
God’s system requires men to cooperate with God to grow in love and obedience with or to Him.
Just going by what YOU wrote, when the error ipointed out YOU change YOUR story.
The rest of your remark has no meaning.
Because YOU have no answer (Again).
You are aware that it is BOTH versions i cited to you, and that proves your lack of scholarship
Is this an actual question? Does Rome actually believed that when a man is saved he is finished? Please re read my post. I said, that, "...men do cooperate with God...once they are saved." That is a biblical position and may collide with Rome's view, but I trust that even they are not that far off the reservation. "God’s system requires men to cooperate with God to grow in love and obedience with or to Him."
You first said man is finished when he is saved. Now you say he is required to cooperate to grow. I do not disagree with this last remark. But, what we are discussing here is whether that cooperation is induced by the man, alone (free will unaided by anything outside the man), or by God's operation on his soul/spirit. The biblical position is that nothing occurs by way of spiritual growth until and unless God operates upon him. I Cor 3:7 "So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anythig, but God who causes the growth."
It is God compelling (causing) the man to turn toward him. That you may not "feel" this compulsion is part of God's genius. Sometimes you might feel it. But, once we belong to Him, we are to strain toward Him with our whole soul's effort whether we feel it or not. But, we are never to forget that even this turning is energized, empowered by His Spirit's work in our lives. What do we have that we have not been given? I Cor 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God."
The Roman system is dangerously close to a "reward" system wherein grace is mangled into a prize for bringing myself under God's authority by an act of my will. Such a view is religion, but not Christianity. I have noted many times that this is what disqualifies Romanism, but you seem to return to this need to perform time and again.
But, here is a curious item...your own organization even recites the so-called Lord's Prayer (wrongly used) wherein you entreat God not to "...lead you into temptation". Do you simply say this because it is poetic or could He lead someone into temptation? Why ask God for this if the whole matter is a system wherein we are required to cooperate to merit the reward? If He could not do this (lead us into temptation), then why ask for it to not occur?
???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.