Posted on 10/22/2013 4:45:20 AM PDT by don-o
God is “agapic love,” the preacher said, and paused. “God”—I knew what was -coming, the man being mired in the -sixties—“is a verb.” He assured the congregation that as long as they were “doing agapic love,” that—left -undefined—was all they needed to do. I could hear around me the sighs of people who have heard something they wanted to hear.
“God is a verb” is about as much doctrinal complexity as many American Christians seem to want, vague and useless as it is. They do not want anything too precise and specific, for that means exclusive, intellectual, and binding, nor anything too old, for that means irrelevant.
Average Agnostics
The average American thinks that when lots of nice people follow different religions, no religion should claim to be true in such a way that the others must be false. Everyone is happier, and no one will start fighting, when religion is a matter of taste, enjoyed privately, like an ethnic food. No one minds if a Scotsman eats haggis, as long as he eats it behind closed doors, but no one would tolerate his attempt to make it the sole main course in the high-school cafeteria.
The non-religious will explain their dislike of doctrines by saying that we ought to live and let live, that people are different, that religion is a private matter, and the like. The religious will explain it in two ways. One type (the believer) will say that Christianity is a matter of the heart, or a personal relationship with Christ, or that he has no creed but the Bible.
(Excerpt) Read more at touchstonemag.com ...
So is water baptism part of the gospel or not? Is it required for remission of sins? Yes or no will do.
IF the gospel includes water baptism for the remission of sins, and Paul did not preach water baptism for the remission of sins, that HOW could he have been preaching the same gospel of Mark 16? If the gospel says water baptism is necessary, and Paul does not preach water baptism is necessary, then he is not preaching the gospel. Plain and simple.
Asked and answered.
If it is still unclear to you then may I suggest some further study of what Scripture has to say about it?
I thought that was what we were doing here: studying God’s word TOGETHER to see if those things are so. Because, you see, Paul thanked God he baptized so few. Because, he said, God did NOT send him to baptize, but TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. Now if baptism is PART OF THE GOSPEL, whereby our sins are REMITTED, and Paul didn’t baptize those people he preached the gospel to, then Paul wasn’t preaching that gospel at ALL. Which means those people who were not baptized were not saved. What kind of Apostle doesn’t do what he is COMMANDED to do?
Well, you are wrong that Paul did not teach baptism was unnecessary, but I will have to finish this later.
Maybe you could use the time to consider just answering a question straight out instead of dodging and ducking and misdirection.
Did you realize that Paul, the APOSTLE of the GENTILES and MINISTER of the BODY OF CHRIST NEVER ONCE, IN ANY OF HIS LETTERS, COMMANDS OR EVEN EXHORTS US TO BE BAPTIZED WITH WATER? Not once. As a matter of fact, in his later letters, written AFTER THE SETTING ASIDE OF ISRAEL, he states EMPHATICALLY that there is NOW but "ONE BAPTISM"(Eph. 4:5).
Are you sure that he was preaching the Mark 16 Gospel?
what is funny is i asked a simple question about the eunuch and couldn’t get a straight yes or no answer.
but since the Nicene Creed states exactly the faith expressed by the eunuch, everyone can see why no answer was provided.
Which gospel did the eunuch have preached to him? Do you even know? Or care?
i got a straight answer?????
for those in rio linda land, the question posed was “ was the eunuch in Acts 8 saved “
Yes or No?
It's mildly amusing to see folks here arguing with the Holy Fathers. This has been posted before.
Sola Scriptura In the Vanity of Their Minds
One snip
In this approach to Scriptures, it is not the job of the individual to strive for originality, but rather to understand what is already present in the traditions of the Church. We are obliged not to go beyond the boundary set by the Fathers of the Church, but to faithfully pass on the tradition we received. To do this requires a great deal of study and thought, but even more, if we are to truly understand the Scriptures, we must enter deeply into the mystical life of the Church. This is why when St. Augustine expounds on how one should interpret the Scriptures (bold not in original) [On Christian Doctrine, Books i-iv], he spends much more time talking about the kind of person the study of the Scripture requires than about the intellectual knowledge he should possess:
1. One who loves God with his whole heart, and is empty of pride,
2. Is motivated to seek the Knowledge of God's will by faith and reverence, rather than pride or greed,
3. Has a heart subdued by piety, a purified mind, dead to the world; and who neither fears, nor seeks to please men,
4. Who seeks nothing but knowledge of and union with Christ,
5. Who hungers and thirsts after righteousness,
6. And is diligently engaged in works of mercy and love.
all valid points against “sola scriptura” ( i ignored the shots against “Papism” )
since when do the Orthodox consider Augustine a saint?
Regardless, his deconstruction of the invention known as sola scriptura is spot on.
There is some amount of controversy about Augustine in the Orthodox Church. This may be of interest.
thanks for the link, i enjoyed reading it. i always appreciate your thoughtfulness and goodwill.
No, it is nothing of the sort - just the same old saws as always, still just as disreputable as when the Romans use them.
ok, let’s see how you do in defending “sola scriptura”.
Catholics have 27 books in their NT, and base this on Apostolic Tradition and the authority of the Church.
using only the Scriptures, please tell me how many books you have in your NT. please be specific in telling me book, chapter and verse where i can find the book of Acts as canonical, but the first epistle of Clement is not ( if it is not )
More red herring.
What happens whenever one became a believer in Jesus?
They were baptized.
Each and every verse in Scripture cannot possible account for all the doctrine regarding the Gospel. But, just take that little snippet you include in your post.
****When Paul was asked what one must do to be saved he replied “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, and your family”. ****
That is from Acts 16:33. What follows immediately after that statement from Paul?
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
They were baptized! It wasn’t the Holy Spirit who forgot to have him include baptism in order to be saved. Rather, it seems you forgot to include the whole passage.
Baptism is always connected to the forgiveness of sins and salvation.
Jesus was baptized because He came to take our place and take on our sins for our salvation. He said that one must be born again of water and the Spirit and in His baptism we see that he fulfills that Himself, since the Holy Spirit comes upon Him at His baptism.
In His baptism, we see what we all receive at our baptism when we die and are buried to sin and raised up a new creature free of sin and the wages of sin.
One baptism. Exactly. John baptized with water but there was coming, after Jesus ascended, baptism with fire, that is the Holy Spirit.
The Apostles had already been baptized by water and on Pentecost, they were baptized with fire.
Those who came after Jesus ascended received both at the same time. ONE BAPTISM.
You are not answering directly because rather than address what I have put to you, you come back with another misdirection.
It is not that you use Scripture, that would be silly, what else would you use? The dodge and misdirection comes from the way in which Scripture is used, without directly answering but throwing out a new question to chase after.
It’s an effective tactic which is why it is so often used here. It’s exhausting and time consuming to have to constantly try to pin someone down with a direct answer who only wants to pose red herring questions.
*****Are you sure that he was preaching the Mark 16 Gospel?****
Yes, Paul was preaching the very same Gospel as that of Jesus from Mark. There is only one Gospel and all the Apostles preached it. All of them were concerned with the unity of the believers and the consistency of the gospel being preached.
One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
But, Paul was concerned about the very thing that we see here so often on the religion threads on FR. That is that some follow him more closely than Jesus. Paul never lost sight of who the Good News was about.
You didn’t answer my question. When Jesus was baptized what sins did He have that needed washed away?
there you have the defense of “sola scriptura” in a nutshell. thanks for proving the point.
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.