Posted on 07/12/2011 6:58:08 AM PDT by marshmallow
“But, if one considers it again, what bath would Jesus have been speaking of? Baptism?”
No, he was speaking of washing feet.
“If baptism is a remission of sins, then Jesus is saying that when one has been baptized, one has no need to be baptized again.”
Baptism of water is in recognition of forgiveness that happens when Jesus baptizes one in the Holy Spirit.
“We are forgiven our sins when we repent of them, so we must always be repentant.”
We are forgiven when we believe the promise of Jesus:
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
When you believe Jesus, you are placed IN CHRIST. God judges the heart, not a list of individual sins. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already...”
It is a matter of adoption, not a series of court cases. Are you his child? Your son doesn’t cease to be your son every time he does wrong. And someone who is not your son will still not be your son, even if he does something right.
One of the errors of the Catholic Church - an error my Protestant parents also believed - is that God is an accountant, weighing how much good vs how much evil. He isn’t. He is your father, or not.
“1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” - Romans 8
Or as it is put in Hebrews 10:
For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
17then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
God is either your father, or not. He is not an accountant. You are his, or not. If you are his, then:
“...those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.”
“Called (ekalesen)
—Justified (edikaiwsen)
—Glorified (edoxasen).
All first aorist active indicatives of common verbs (kalew, dikaiow, doxazw). But the glorification is stated as already consummated (constative aorists, all of them), though still in the future in the fullest sense. “The step implied in edoxasen is both complete and certain in the Divine counsels” (Sanday and Headlam).”
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=008&verse=030
It is 1:30 AM here, and I’m up with a sinus headache, so I apologize if I’m not clear. I will try to write more tomorrow.
The comments of Barnes on Romans 1:17 are worth reading:
“16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
“Verse 17. For. This word implies that he is now about to give a reason for that which he had just said, a reason why he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. That reason is stated in this verse. It embodies the substance of all that is contained in the epistle. It is the doctrine which he seeks to establish; and there is not perhaps a more important passage in the Bible than this verse, or one more difficult to be understood.
Therein. In it—\~en autw\~—i.e. in the gospel.
Is the righteousness of God—\~dikaiosunh yeou\~—. There is not a more important expression to be found in the epistle than this. It is capable of only the following interpretations.
(1.) Some have said that it means that the attribute of God, which is denominated righteousness or justice, is here displayed. It has been supposed that this was the design of the gospel to make this known; or to evince his justice in his way of saving men. There is an important sense in which this is true, (Romans 3:26.) But this does not seem to be the meaning in the passage before us. For
(a) the leading design of the gospel is not to evince the justice of God, or the attribute of justice, but the love of God. See John 3:16; Ephesians 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 John 4:8.
(b) The attribute of justice is not that which is principally evinced in the gospel. It is rather mercy, or mercy in a manner consistent with justice, or that does not interfere with justice.
(c) The passage, therefore, is not designed to teach simply that the righteousness of God, as an attribute, is brought forth in the gospel, or that the main idea is to reveal his justice.
(2.) A second interpretation which has been affixed to it is to make it the same as goodness, the benevolence of God is revealed, etc. But to this there are still stronger objections. For
(a) it does not comport with the design of the apostle’s argument.
(b) It is a departure from the established meaning of the word justice, and the phrase “the righteousness of God.”
(c) If this had been the design, it is remarkable that the usual words expressive of goodness or mercy had not been used. Another meaning, therefore, is to be sought as expressing the sense of the phrase.
(3.) The phrase, righteousness of God, is equivalent to God’s plan of justifying men; his scheme of declaring them just in the sight of the law, or of acquitting them from punishment, and admitting them to favour. In this sense it stands opposed to man’s plan of justification, i. e. by his own works. God’s plan is by faith. The way in which that is done is revealed in the gospel. The object contemplated to be done is to treat men as if they were righteous. Man attempted to accomplish this by obedience to the law. The plan of God was to arrive at it by faith, here the two schemes differ; and the great design of this epistle is to show that man cannot be justified on his own plan—to wit, by works; and that the plan of God is the only way, and a wise and glorious way of making man just in the eye of the law. No small part of the perplexity usually attending this subject will be avoided if it is remembered that the discussion in this epistle pertains to the question, “How can mortal man be just with God?” The apostle shows that it cannot be by works; and that it can be by faith. This latter is what he calls the righteousness of God which is revealed in the gospel.
To see that this is the meaning, it is needful only to look at the connexion; and at the usual meaning of the words. The word to justify—\~dikaiow\~—means, properly, to be just, to be innocent, to be righteous. It then means to declare or treat as righteous; as when a man is charged with an offence, and is acquitted. If the crime alleged is not proved against him, he is declared by the law to be innocent. It then means to treat as if innocent, to regard as innocent, that is, to pardon, to forgive, and consequently to treat as if the offence had not occurred. It does not mean that the man did not commit the offence; or that the law might not have held him answerable for it; but that the offence is forgiven; and it is consistent to receive the offender into favour, and treat him as if he had not committed it. In what way this may be done rests with him who has the pardoning power. And in regard to the salvation of man, it rests solely with God, and must be done in that way only which he appoints and approves. The design of Paul in this epistle is to show how this is done, or to show that it is done by faith. It may be remarked here, that the expression before us does not imply any particular manner in which it is done; it does not touch the question whether it is by imputed righteousness or not; it does not say that it is on legal principles; it simply affirms that the gospel contains God’s plan of justifying men by faith.
The primary meaning of the word is, therefore, to be innocent, pure, etc.; and hence the name means righteousness in general. For this use of the word, see Matthew 3:5; 5:6,10,20; 21:32; Luke 1:75; Acts 10:35; Acts 13:10; Romans 2:26; 8:4, etc.
In the sense of pardoning sin, or of treating men as if they were innocent, on the condition of faith, it is used often, and especially in this epistle. See Romans 3:24,26,28,30; 4:5; 5:1; 8:30; Galatians 2:16; 3:8,24; Romans 3:21,22,25; 4:3,6,13; 9:30, etc.
It is called God’s righteousness, because it is God’s plan, in distinction from all the plans set up by men. It was originated by him; it differs from all others; and it claims him as its Author, and tends to his glory. It is called his righteousness, as it is the way by which he receives and treats men as righteous. This same plan was foretold in various places, where the word righteousness is nearly synonymous with salvation. Isaiah 51:5, “My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth.” 6, “My salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” Isaiah 56:1, “My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” Daniel 9:24, “To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.”
In regard to this plan, it may be observed,
(1.) that it is not to declare that men are innocent and pure. That would not be true. The truth is just the reverse; and God does not esteem men to be different from what they are.
(2.) It is not to take part with the sinner, and to mitigate his offences. It admits them to their full extent; and makes him feel them also.
(3.) It is not that we become partakers of the essential righteousness of God. That is impossible.
(4.) It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God’s plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. This is God’s plan. Men seek to save themselves by their own works. God’s plan is to save them by the merits of Jesus Christ.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=1#Ro1_17
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”
John 3
Too funny. I don't wade in very deep very often. But my stance would be that the scriptures are infallible, but we need to hear from God and apply them to our lives. For example, Jesus didn't call all to 'sell all and give to the poor'. But some He will call to that. If God does something that is outside/against of my biblical understanding, my hope is to stand by Him - not my previous doctrine.
Paul is an interesting case. When the first followers of Jesus rallied after His death, they picked a man to replace Judas, thus filling out the 12th spot. This was the church fulfilling a position. But God later picked a different man, Saul of Tarsus. The whole body of believers feared him (for good reason), but then God communicated to them that he was His man, and at some point he was accepted, and then recognized as one to whom God had called. Todays churches are even worse at accepting an outsider - recognizing God's obvious call on a life (or even a group) - just because it didn't come from within their structure.
That was going to be the next Scripture. Jesus is the Word of God Himself. He and His Word are one and the same. To attack Scripture is to attack Christ Himself.
If we take Sola Scriptura literally, that would invalidate it!
Have you ever noticed what God told Moses? "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book" Exodus 17:14 and "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." Exodus 24:7?? God commanded Moses to write in the book , the Book He ordained and Supervised. Notice what the Children of Israel rightly said of the Book - "the LORD hath said"??
Satan is the one who doubts God Word for he says "Hath God said"? in his Sophistry attack against Eve and Mankind that WORKED!!
pgyanke, there have been many who have attacked the Scriptures over the years. Many who have attacked Christ and tried to undermine Him. Of them, Jesus said "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction" Matthew 7:13.
Have you trusted the Lord Jesus Christ for your Salvation and in Him Alone??
One who does not love His Word may not be of Him. Do you Love Him??
For the most part this is the first attack to entice people into the cults and false religions. "Hath God said?????" Create doubt of God's word leaves an opening to fill in the blanks with false and destructive teachings.
Very good. ScriptureCatholic is often an excellent source for refuting Protestant claims that Catholics are anti- or at least non-Scriptural.
"Religious authority" becomes a problem when people follow that authority regardless of whether or not that person's teachings are aligned with scripture.
So you do not think the New Testament is God breathed? If you think it is, how can you possibly say the writers of same were not 'assigned' that task?
Don't change the discussion. Of course, Scripture is God's Word and It accomplishes His purpose. We're talking about Sola Scriptura here... the doctrine that gives all authority to Scripture alone. Show me in Scripture where Jesus commanded his followers to write the New Testament so the future Church (some 300 years later) would be able to have something to follow...
I can show you where they said themselves that they didn't bring the written Word with them but rather the living Word of their testimony and instruction in Tradition (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, Rom 10:17, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Cor 11:2, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:35, John 21:25). That is the authority given the Church and it is from this authority that the New Testament was written.
This isn't a "chicken and the egg" scenario... if having the New Testament is the requirement for the Church then there was no Church until the Gospels and Epistles were written and compiled (beginning 30 years after Christ's ascension and ending 300 years later with the Canon of Scripture). Rather, an honest view of history shows that Christ gave us His Church (Matt 16:18) and His Church gave us the New Testament.
Now, why would Jesus be speaking simply of washing feet?
As one who believes that every single thing recorded in Scripture has a message or a lesson for us, I am always wondering, why?
Why did Jesus do that?
Why did Jesus say that?
Obviously, I do not believe that baptism is merely a symbolic gesture, it is always tied to remission of sin.
Baptism and reception of the Holy Spirit start us on the road, and by the grace of both we in fact stay on that road, that narrow path to heaven.
What you presented is Scripture that seems to support a Sole Fide and Once saved always saved doctrine.
I could easily cut and paste or link to Catholic sites that use Scripture to support a different doctrine.
Without Jesus, crucified, died and risen, man has no hope of eternal life. I agree completely that it is only by Jesus that one can be saved.
We learn that in the Gospels.
But, the rest of the NT is how one is to live in Christ and what happens when one doesn’t.
Why is all this written, if one need only hear the Word and believe it?
We are called to be doers of the word, and we know that sin creates a chasm between us and God, so it must also create a chasm between us and His Word.
Repentance, confession and forgiveness are gifts from God, for our benefit. He is not an accountant ready with his list of assets and liabilities, but we are certainly going to stand in judgement for our lives, whether for evil or for good.
God never turns His face away from us, but we can, by our actions turn our hearts away from Him. Confession reminds US of our sinfulness, reminds US that we are to be constantly on guard against Satan, lest he lead us astray and reminds US that we have been bought at a great price, one that we can never repay, but one that we can certainly reject.
We are constantly told to hold fast, endure, repent, believe, in what is a ongoing lifetime process. Jesus’ sacrifice is indeed a once for all thing because Jesus as God is not bound in time as are we.
IOW, Jesus’ sacrifice was needed only once, but our reception of it is ongoing.
Jesus is perfect, we are not and will not be perfect until we rest in Him.
The fact that we are having this conversation illustrates exactly what is stated in this thread. Why Sola Scriptura does not work in the real world. That we all depend on someone else for our understanding of the Bible. So the question is, who do we believe?
Jesus? Of course, but as we see here, between you and I, on one small subject there is no agreement on what Scripture teaches and what are our obligations as Christians.
Well said. God bless you.
Since you posted from this guy, I will assume you agree with the doctrinal statement from Southern Evangelical Seminary. Nice to see you coming around.
What our Roman Catholic friends are likely to miss from this article is that he is talking about aids to Biblical interpretation that make interpretation sound; not a rejection of the classical definition of sola scriptura.
But the one major part this "philosopher in training" ignores in his multi-level interpretive scheme is the Bible itself. By piling on layers of understanding required to complete the exegesis of a passage ... he has in fact rejected the doctrine of the clarity of scripture. The Bible was written in common language for average people to read and the text presents the message of salvation in an understandable way.
His a priori assumption that the reader comes to the text of the Bible with an insurmountable problem on multiple levels is NONSENSE.
But then again, he needs to put something down on paper if he is going to get a PhD.
The Bible disagrees with you...
[KJV] Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
I didn't believe I was changing the discussion. I was asking a question that logically followed from you claiming the apostles were not "assigned" to write books of the bible. If you agree that scripture is "God breathed", then obviously they were "assigned" to do it.
Good grief.
Have you trusted the Lord Jesus Christ for your Salvation and in Him Alone??
One who does not love His Word may not be of Him. Do you Love Him??
Get off your high-horse there, Kimosabi... no one is attacking Scripture here. The discussion regards the incorrect doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Now, if you can be the first to ever find it in the Bible, I would welcome the citation and see the error of my ways... but you would be the first. You see, if Sola Scriptura was intended for us by Christ then the Bible Itself should proclaim it! It's a false argument to suggest that the Bible is the soul authority on Itself (even though Scripture actually identifies the Church as the pillar and bullwark of the truth) when those who appeal to Scripture Alone can not find it in Scripture.
Good luck.
The discussion is Sola Scriptura... therefore, show me in Scripture where the Apostles were instructed to write books and letters for the faithful to follow. Did the early Church have a different mandate than Sola Scriptura?
Of course they wrote at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that isn't in question here. The point is that we know that what they wrote is Scripture from non Scriptural sources!
Good grief.
We found something on which to agree...
The fact is, no where in Scripture is there an explicit instruction for them to write a manual for those who they lead to Christ and no where is there a list of which of their writings should be retained and included in the group of writings we call the Bible. Much more importantly, though, no where does Christ explicitly or implicitly state that the collection of Scriptures the Apostles used included writings that shouldn't be a part of the Scriptures. If the book is paramount, then Christ would without a doubt have at least pointed out portions of Scripture that were not inspired but had been included in Scripture when it was translated into Greek. Indeed, if it takes a scholar to recognize why those books are not genuine, Christ would have made sure the Apostles spoke clearly and often about their being works of men and not works of the Holy Spirit. At least, that is, if the book is paramount and supposed to be the final authority in all matters of faith and morals. That nothing can contradict Scriptures is not nearly the same as Scriptures alone being sufficient.
Those books Catholic Bibles include are all inspired by the Holy Spirit and have been retained as the Word of God by His Church for over two thousand years. Jewish leaders dropped some books that were included in the Septuagint because they clearly referred to Christ, and in order to hide their real reason for doing so dropped other books as well. That they would do whatever sort of rationalizing it took to hide the truth is understandable given their refusal to acknowledge Christ. But if those who argue in favor of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura don't have the same goal, why do they deny the validity of Scripture as it was at the time of Christ? They are, in reality, arguing against themselves to a large extent since their argument is made in defense not of the Scripture as it existed and was read by Christ and preached from by the Apostles, but only a subset of what Christ and the Apostles obviously accepted as Scripture. That’s not really Sola Scriptura at all, that's "Scriptura I-Lika" used to support each individual making "Sola Yourselfa" interpretations.
If someone honestly believes in Sola Scriptura let them defend the Bible as it existed at the time of Christ rather than the Bible as gutted by Luther. Let them argue that those things the that the Apostles never denied and never questioned don't matter and that the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is wrong to believe the Old Testament. If they intend to throw out portions of Scripture and argue Sola Scriptura on behalf of the balance, let them be pure in their doctrine and throw out the rest of the books Luther refused to accept. Throw out Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and whatever else Luther didn't think should be included in the Bible. Then, with both a gutted Old Testament and gutted New Testament let them argue Sola Scriptura, because as long as they defend only a subset of Scripture they defend the indefensible, that is, they insist that Scripture is paramount but only to the extent that they are allowed to gut Scripture before saying so.
I pray, I feel the Holy Spirit in my life, I even prayed about and was granted several things in my life that physicians have themselves called unexplainable miracles. Since it took me years of study to realize that Sola Scriptura wasn't a fact, I completely understand where those who still accept that doctrine are coming from. I pray that others here honestly have given their lives to Christ and are honestly and earnestly following him and that whether or not they agree with any of my views they will be blessed as they study His Word.
Regards
See Post #57
Regards
I know what you mean. I'm terrible for that bad practice...
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.