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 ...
Christians know Jesus had no sin in Him, but He bore the sins of the world on the cross. He who knew no sin became the sin bearer. Jesus said the reason He was baptized was to fulfill all righteousness.
i am quite enjoying jvette’s excellent defense of the historical Christian faith.
i wonder if cynicalbear or smvoice can name any Christian who believes baptism was some worthless ritual that one goes thru after accepting Jesus as Savior between 95ad and the 16th century? anyone?
think about what this says about the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ! the Jews are able to keep to their doctrine for over 2,000 years, the Muslims keep their faith for 1,400 years, but the pillar of truth, the Church, didn’t understand baptism for 1,500 years!! the Muslims laugh at such a thought. the Mormons love this theory that the Church went “apostate”!
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
the reason no bible translates the passage this way is the statement is illogical. how can you have received forgiveness of sins already ( past tense ) but still haven’t received the Holy Spirit ( future tense )?
how creative can you be with Acts 22:16? did Paul not have to wash away his sins in baptism because his sins were already forgiven? here i thought it was just the Jehovah Witnesses that like to play greek gymnastics!
Quite the opposite - The point is made moot, simply because the Protestants, their scholarship wholly disregarding your declarations and magisterium, have come to precisely the very same set of books as canon (NT), in spite of their being vast and varied, wherein that determination has been continually questioned and upheld.
That this argument has been bandied about, over and over, time and again, lends nothing more to the argument, so go to the interwebs and seek it out if you remain ignorant to it's principles.
Therein proving in itself that it cannot be that pillar of truth.
The understanding that you claim is faulty without knowledge of the Mikvah, which is what this 'baptism' IS. One would know it is not only for ritual purity (which in fact, proves the Protestant position, in so far as they know), but also for many other things. One would know. for instance, that Yeshua's mikvah was a consecration as a priest, and the start of his ministry. John knew he was not worthy to perform that consecration as a Levite.
There is also a parallel that I am toying with, but cannot yet prove - but it also could have been the High Priest's mikvah after sending away Azazel... If it was Yom Kippur, then that too can be layered on top of the consecration.
It certainly isn't about magic water.
Would there be a national cleansing for a Nation of Priests?
Yes, that is what Yom Kippur is - The cleansing of the nation.
And THAT is the baptism that Israel was going through when Christ came to them the first time. They were getting prepared to become that Nation of Priests and a blessing to the world: Abrahamic Covenant. But first they had to be baptized (cleansed) before approaching God. And on it went, including Penetecost, when Peter spoke to all gathered (Israel) and offered them the kingdom if they would accept Christ as their Messiah, at which time He would have returned to set up His Kingdom. Is this right?
But we know that they, as a nation, did NOT accept Him as Messiah. Only the little flock of believers and those who came into the little flock in the early part of Acts. True?
Yes.
Yes.
SO, if baptism is a cleansing rite, to be performed by a Nation of Priests, and according to the Abrahamic Covenant, ISRAEL is His Nation of Priests, then what good is baptism to Gentiles?...
Another thing mikvah is used for is adoption into Israel. You seem to see Israel as different from gentiles. There are not two things. There is one thing - Israel. The prophets have always said that she is to inherit the gentiles... she is to go get them and bring them into the covenant.
And btw, I DO believe with you about the baptism of fire - And I do believe that it is the fulfillment of what 'one baptism' is. Mikvah (water baptism) is far more utilitarian, used for many things (not done just once, or with one purpose, though spiritual cleanliness is the theme). Every time one goes to enter the temple, for instance, one must first enter the mikvah, and one is given a white robe when one comes out. That should ring a bell or two...
I am very serious about one not being able to understand baptism without knowledge of the mikvah.
...and if God is NOT building a NATION OF PRIESTS right now, but a BODY OF BELIEVERS, and Paul was commissioned, as the apostle of the Gentiles, to bring to that Body all the information needed for it, then we can understand WHY he was glad he had baptized so few; that he wasn’t sent to baptize, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL, which is EXACTLY what he said in 1 COr. 1:14,16,17. THe Gospel,WHICH, when believed, places a person, by the Holy Spirit, INTO that BOdy of believers.
So why do Gentiles practice water baptism today?
He was glad he baptized so few because few could claim to be his disciples - If you recall, folks were claiming to be disciples of many different people - What Paul is saying is that ALL are disciples of Yeshua, not any other - I have explained that before. All must emulate HIM, all must keep HIS words.
And adoption into Israel makes all of us able and part of that nation of priests. How is it that you are able to forgive those who hurt you without being a priest? Only YHWH can forgive. Only priests can intercede. Yet when you forgive the debt is written off.
Yeshua is building his body - And he is building a nation of priests. It is all one thing. One bride. One body. One nation.
You ARE Israel - if not by blood, then by adoption.
That is why Christ SAID "Go NOT into the way of the Gentiles" (Matt. 10:5), but ONLY to Israel (v.6), and "But he answered and said, I am NOT sent BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL."(Matt. 15:24). He was sent to ISRAEL FIRST.
No, 'The House of Israel' is different than the House Judah, and is different than Gentiles. 'Israel' is ALL of Israel, both houses and those who have been adopted. The covenant is made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel.
There is only ONE thing. There are not two Gospels, any more than there were two Torahs (which is where the Roman idea of oral tradition comes from).
Once THEY had accepted Him, THEY were to go to the Gentiles with the good news of salvation. But they didn't.
Yes they did. When Judah rejected him, as prophesied, he gave the covenant duty to lo ammi, 'Not My People', to bring it to the Gentiles.
They continued to reject and reject until God finally blinded them and temporarily set them aside in Acts 28. Yes, Gentiles could be adopted into Israel, if they became proselytes, or blessed Israel. Either way, in order for them to approach God, they HAD to go through Israel. And it will be so again, one day.
It is so even now.
So why do Gentiles practice water baptism today?
No 'gentile' practices valid baptism - Gentile means 'without covenant' Mikvah is adoption into the covenant, by it's nature - adoption into the House of YHWH... into Israel... that all Israel may be saved.
But what is happening is not understood, because the baptism that is practiced is a pagan thing - as our papist FRiends insist, 'magic water' that washes away your sins... Protestants get it more correct - an outward sign of an inward grace - but without understanding that it is a mikvah, the greater understanding is lost, which is why our papist FRiends can beat you with it so.
I did answer that question in my earlier post #156.
If you did not understand what I said then, maybe this will clarify.
The sins of Jesus were not His but ours. He took them to Himself the moment He was incarnated in the womb of Mary.
That was His mission.
the “Protestant scholarship” you refer to, at it’s core, relies on Catholic Sacred Tradition. ( of course they aren’t intellectually honest enough to put it as bluntly as i did )
No Protestant has ever been able to determine from the Scriptures themselves what comprises the canon.
You will have to prove that - I myself have read and studied all of the NT psuedepigrapha, not believing in any authority, and I rightly rejected all that others have before me. Likewise with the OT, albeit that I am fond of some which others have discarded (not to say I am satisfied to call them scripture).
Within my own criteria, I was certainly able to approve the same books as the protestants, and that with certainty.
What I DID come away with is a profound distaste for the whole idea of 'canon' in the first place, it being a Roman invention imposed upon Hebrew thought... A slick bit of sophistry where none is needed, and where no authority was given.
my friend, unless you know already what the Apostolic Faith is, you can’t measure any written book to determine if it is Scripture or not. without the witness of the Church testifying that these books convey the same faith it received from the Apostles, you would have no clue. thank God He left us a Church led by the Holy Spirit that has the authority to declare which books are Scripture and which are not.
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.