Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 61 of 163 (558266)
04-30-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 12:23 PM


Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
"For if we sin willfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the truth, THERE REAMINS NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"
That quote is from Hebrews 10:26 where the writer was addressing a group of people who had assembled together. So he was talking to saved people not the unsaved.
I believe from the Word and experience the writer knew what he was talking about. That if a person willfully commits a sin after he has been saved there will be severe punishment.
EMA writes:
but there is a sin UNTO DEATH. There is no reason to believe this relates only to non-believe
Ananias and Sapphira proved there is a sin unto death. They lied to the Holy Spirit, and the church.
They were believers.
EMA writes:
Here is the problem you have with that manner of thinking. You and no Calvanist can provide me with any scripture, that says or implies that WE OURSELVES AS CHRISTIANS AND FREE THINKING PERSONS cannot remove ourselves from that status by wilfull disobedience
I would like for you to explain what Jesus was talking about in the following verses.
John writes:
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
What is your definition of eternal life?
What is your definition of never perish?
What did Jesus mean in verse 28 when He said I give unto them eternal life?
Did Jesus mean it was a gift and you could not earn it? See Rom 6:23
What did Jesus mean when He said they would NEVER perish?
What did Jesus mean when He said neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand?
It sounds to me like if you decided to get unborn again after you have been born again it would be impossible as you would be more powerful than God which He claimed to be in verse 30.
You are the product of your earthly father and mother. You were born to them.
Is there any way you can cease to be their child?
If a person is born into the family of God by the Spirit of God as Jesus told Nicodemus in John chapter 3 please explain how that person can be unborn.
It is no easier to cease to be a child of God than it is for you to cease to be the product of your earthly parents.
I await your explanation with great anticipation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 12:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 1:43 PM ICANT has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 62 of 163 (558268)
04-30-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
04-30-2010 1:26 PM


I would like for you to explain what Jesus was talking about in the following verses.
John writes:
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
He meant that on one or anything BUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FREWILL could take this gift away from you, but you can
It sounds to me like if you decided to get unborn again after you have been born again it would be impossible as you would be more powerful than God which He claimed to be in verse 30.
You are the product of your earthly father and mother. You were born to them.
Is there any way you can cease to be their child?
No there is not but you can be taken away by the judge and finally executed out of their control, while still there son, correct
When did you cease to be their son, even by the sin unto death. Even in death you are still their dead son
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 1:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 2:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 63 of 163 (558270)
04-30-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 12:59 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
sure he did you just werent paying attention. Mark 16:16. He that is believes and is Baptized SHALL be saved, he that believeth not is condemned.
Mark writes:
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Where does that verse say he that is not baptized shall be damned?
I believe Mark 16:16 but you don't.
EMA writes:
Belief is a precondition to baptism, the proper candadate for Baptism to BE VALID IS ONE THAT BELIEVES. If the person does not believe, dunking someone in water is not baptism and not valid. This why Christ left baptism off of the latter part of the statement.
Are you saying that a person can go to heaven without being baptized?
EMA writes:
Question. is it necessary to believe to be properly baptized, Yes or No
It is not only necessary to believe the facts but a person must be a born again child of God.
Jesus set the example. Baptism did not change anything about Him it was only an announcment.
EMA writes:
Question. If a person is dunked in water not believing Christ, does this constitute a scriptural baptism in Christ?
A person can be dunked under water until he/she drowns and it will not make them a born again child of God. So dunking a person in water does not constitute a scriptural baptism in Christ.
I did my thesis on Baptism in college.
The elements of scriptural baptism are:
A proper subject. A born again child of God.
The proper authority. A scriptural new testament Church.
An administrator appointed by a scriptural NT Church.
EMA writes:
Question. Can a person obey christ and be saved in Mark 16:16 without believing and being baptized?
There is nothing to obey in Mark 16:16.
A person that is born again is saved according to Mark 16:16 as not doing that is the only thing that will condemn them.
A person that is born again and is baptized is saved according to Mark 16:16.
There are no requirements in Mark 16:16 that a person has to be baptized in order to be saved as not being baptized does not condemn them.
EMA writes:
It is you you ole calvinist that is subtracting form Gods word, ha ha, just alittle fun there, but you are indeed subtracting form his word
Then please point out my additions to God's Word.
I am not the one adding baptism to God's requirement for salvation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 12:59 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 5:55 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 64 of 163 (558273)
04-30-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 1:43 PM


Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
He meant that on one or anything BUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FREWILL could take this gift away from you, but you can
There you go again adding to the Words of Jesus.
He did not say anything about your freewill being able to take away the gift from you.
In fact He said NO MAN that includes you.
EMA writes:
No there is not but you can be taken away by the judge and finally executed out of their control, while still there son, correct
When did you cease to be their son, even by the sin unto death. Even in death you are still their dead son
So there is no way you can cease to be the son of your parents.
Just as there is no way you can cease to be a child of God once you have been born into His family by His Spirit.
I am still waiting for the explanation of how a person can cease to be a child of God's after being born into His family.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 1:43 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 65 of 163 (558274)
04-30-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 12:23 PM


lets start he Jayswill. i think you are probably a very loving and consilliatory person. You want and hope for the best in things and people. So its no doubt that you have adopted this calvanistic teaching for that very reason.
My time is limited this afternoon. Let me see if concise replies will help our mutual understanding.
I am not "calvinist" to the point of what I observe in strict Calvinism.
Calvinists take all passages which seem to indicate punishment or discipline of Christians and interpret them to mean thay apply to FALSE Christians. I definitely am not Calvinist to that degree.
A Christian, for whom the problem of eternal redemption has been settled, may be punished by God in this life or even after the second coming of Christ.
Such punishment, however, is not the loss of the GIFT of eternal life. I don't think most Calvinists would agree with this.
Ive often said its easier to refute Atheistic and Catholic doctrine than it is to refute Calvinism, becasue Calvinism gets real close to t he truth and is almost indistinquishable from it, unless you have been trained to recognize its weaknesses
I have given you my reasons why I do not fall into one extreme on one side - hyper Calvinism. Now I will indicate that neither do I fall into the extreme on the other side - a hype Arminianism.
Arminism school points to many passages saying that they indicate divine punishment administered to real Christians. I would agree on many instances. In that regard I would say the Arminian understanding is correct against the Calvinist understanding that only "false" Christians would be punished by Christ.
Where I stop agreeing with Arminian school is that these instances refer to the loss of the gift of eternal life. For example, to be sent to the lake of fire forever is one thing. To be sent to "the outer darkness" is another.
That the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is associated with both the fire and the darkness does not prove that they are both eternal perdition but that they are both unpleasant.
Here I sense we are close to doing as I spoke, gravitating into a discussion about the assurance of salvation - the oft repeated direction of tens of thousands of Bible studies through the years.
But I do want to make some things clear.
For example in 1 cor 5:5 in should be easy enough to see that this is the purpose, that you turn one over to Satan, not that that will always be the result. Your reading into the verse something you as a very good person wants to see happen
I am not sure I follow you here. I'll think about it.
The record of what happened has little to do with my feelings. In First Corinthians the man was disciplined by Paul and the church. In Second Corinthians the man was restored to fellowship. That is unless we insist that a different man is being discussed in Second Corinthians, which I think is unlikely, but perhaps possible.
Whether a different believer or the same one, someone almost overcome with sorrow that he fell out of good favor with the church is restored and comforted. That is the record. My feelings have little to do with it.
Secondly, you are correct in assuming he did not become unborn as you put it. This why nothing is required but repentance, not rebaptism or being born again, so to speak.
I think we are on the same page here. Of course there is nothing forbidding him from being baptized again if he wishes.
But I agree, it is not necessary. But if one feels to renew such a confession to the Christian public I see nothing in the NT ruling that he CANNOT.
Over the course of decades of discipleship, I have been immersed more than once.
He is an erring child of God
Shall we say, uh, "welcome to the crowd." He should feel right at home. You and I are still erring here and there, I bet.
Me:
I do not believe that this forgiveness of the disciples echoed by God relates to eternal redemption. I do believe it relates to forgiveness for inclusion of fellowship in the church life on earth.
You:
Everything relates to redemption. One is either in a correct relationship with God or he is not. A person certainly has every opportunity in this lifetime to correct or mend their behavior, but there is a sin UNTO DEATH. There is no reason to believe this relates only to non-believers
Hmmm. This paragraph requires some meditation.
But for now let me say that a sin unto death should not be interpreted as a sin unto eternal damnation.
For a believer to be disciplined by physical death is not for him to be disciplined by eternal punishment.
I think, we may agree here ?
Now a person certainly has unforgiven sin and unconfessed sin. But as we know this is taken care of if we are doing our best to maintain a relationship with Christ. If however one WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ignores what they know to be true, "Him that knoweth to good and doeth it not it is sin"
Allow me to comment latter.
"For if we sin wilfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the truth, THERE REAMINS NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"
There is no reason to believe this applies to only non Christians, when this writer and so many others speak to Christians in the same manner
I think, possibly, you are making comments as if you anticipate what the standard Calvinist would be arguing.
I think it might help to first ascertain what it is that I in particular might believe here. I never intended to maintain that the discipline of the Hebrews verse can only refer to non-believers.
I have no problem taking it as it appears to be intended, to speak to a Hebrew Christian who was tempted to leave the new covenant church and return to Judaism. In other words, this word was specifically spoken to Jewish Christians who were tempted to forsake the church life and go back to the Old Testament sacrifices.
This is not possible. This is not necessary. And this is not right to do.
What benefit we can get from the application of this passage is important. But strictly speaking, I think neither of us was in this specific situation of trying to go back to offering bulls and goats in contradiction to the Gospel of Christ's one sacrifice once and for all.
Now the sinning willfully part can certainly be transfered to other areas of the Christian life. Maybe I'll comment further latter.
The scriptures make a clear distinction between unconfessed sin and wilfull deliberate sin
Okay.
Me:
I do not understand this passage to mean the lose of eternal redemption of one who has believed into Jesus Christ.
It is not necessary or possible or right to expect Christ to die more than once for the sins of the sinner. This passage does not mean that a man who is born again, who thereafter sins willfully is unborn again. Arminian theology takes it that way. But that is an error to do so.
Thee:
its not necessary for Christ to die again for a person that is already his child. repentance as in the Prodigal is all that is required
Here is the problem you have with that manner of thinking. You and no Calvanist can provide me with any scripture, that says or implies that WE OURSELVES AS CHRISTIANS AND FREE THINKING PERSONS cannot remove ourselves from that status by wilfull disobedience
I'll have to think about what you mean here. But since I am not postured to defend Calvinism wholesale, I may have no comment.
I take from Calvin what I think is true. And I take from the Arminian understanding what portions I think are true.
In fact that is what the scriptures directly state time and time again
1 John 5
16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
here a clear distinction is made between unconfessed sin and wilfull unrepentant sin of the brother. That sin even by a brother can and has lead up even to death. he is not here speaking about non-christians
I agree that John is speaking of a Christian brother.
The opposite would be ridiculous. To say that God would maintain and accept our wilfull disobedience in direct oppositon to his will, knowingly and usher us into heaven or into his grace is simply beyond reason. Again there is clear distinction between unconfessed, omission and wilfull disobedience
Nor am I implying that a person is unborn or can be born again. The prodigal amde a choice to come back. In fact it could have been just the opposite, he could have stayed and ided in that condition
The indirect implication and logical conclusion of the doctrine of ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED, regardless of how one acts, even unto death, implies that God ackowledges and accepts wilfull sin, especially from his children
Well start here, I hope I havent made you angry already, I know that temper of yours, ha ha
Temper ? Oh yes, sometimes with some of the skeptics here my temper does come out.
But here I think you are doing something quite expected and necessary. I think you are dealing with the weaknesses of something called the "One Saved Always Saved" argument.
Let me briefly see if this will concisely express what I see in the New Testament.
God's plan is to conform His redeemed people to the image of His Son. It is not nearly so much a matter of ushering us to a happy place called Heaven. It is more of transforming us "metabolically" into the image of Christ.
We can slow this process down. But we cannot STOP it altogether. IF God does not get through in this age He still has the age to come to work on us. Eventually, every redeemed sinner will be presented spotlesss before God matured, full grown and in the image of Jesus. We will be like Him.
Now, for the matter of punishment for this is important. God may punish us during the church age. God may punish us after the second coming in the age following the church age. Some of the unpleasant things spoken of happening to the Lord's servants concern His punishment of some of His people in the age to come.
By the time the eternal age begins, with the new heaven and new earth, all discipline and punishment of redeemed believers has been completed.
The extreme of Calvinism, I think, is that God would never punish a redeemed sinner after the second coming of Christ. That is wrong. He would.
The other extreme or Arminian thought is that all punishment of Christians during this age or after the second coming MUST be the loss of the gift of eternal life. This too is wrong.
God has great latitude. And there is a very large scope of things He can do to perfect His childen short of damning them forever.
That's all the time I have now. God bless with Himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 12:23 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 2:49 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 77 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 12:52 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 79 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-02-2010 10:37 AM jaywill has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 66 of 163 (558287)
04-30-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by jaywill
04-30-2010 2:06 PM


Here I sense we are close to doing as I spoke, gravitating into a discussion about the assurance of salvation - the oft repeated direction of tens of thousands of Bible studies through the years.
You are correct brother jaywill, but let us get through this preliminary issues, then we will tackel your much deeper ones. You bring up some interesting points that needs addressing
Ill get to your latest post as quickly as possible
I was joking about your temper, by the way
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by jaywill, posted 04-30-2010 2:06 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 9:22 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 67 of 163 (558348)
04-30-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
04-30-2010 1:53 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Where does that verse say he that is not baptized shall be damned?
In the first part of the verse you ole Calvinist you. Belief proceeds baptism, but Baptism is clearly a part of the requirements set out by Christ here in this verse. baptism, confession and repentance are all a part of the belief or faith process, they are not seperate from it, there a part of it
Baptism, confession and repentance are AN ACT OF FAITH OR BELIEF. Its all the same ICANT, with faith and belief as its source
Again it would make no sense to repeat baptism in the second half of the statement if someone doesnt believe in the first place.
I guess he thought people would be smart enough to see that, I guess not. Ha Ha
Let me try it with illustration, Ill move real slow (ha ha again).
if I said to you ICANT, drive by my house and take me to the store and Ill give you ten dollars and then followed it by saying, but if you dont come pick me up I will not give you ten dollars.
Now, do I need to be redundant and say both phrases, If you dont come pick me up AND YOU DONT DRIVE ME TO THE STORE, I will not give you ten dollars. It should be obvious that if you are not coming by, you are certainly not going to drive me to the store.
The passage is the same sort of illustration
The word AND in the sentence is a coordinating conjunction. The two items belief and baptism bring about salvation. Actually God does, but this is the method he has chosen
thus peter told the People on the day of pentecost the very same thing. "Repent and be baptized in order to recieve remission of sins". Acts 2:38 Two conditions that bring about salvation or forgiveness of sins
If it is a requirement in scripture to be baptized and other verses tell us what it is for, salvation and forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38,
Are you going to ignore the pattern the Apostles set out
Are you going to cherry pick scripture and ignore all it has to say about the purpose of Baptism?
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 1:53 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 11:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 05-01-2010 1:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 163 (558382)
04-30-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 5:55 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EAM,
EAM writes:
In the first part of the verse you ole Calvinist you.
Since I do not follow the teachings of John Calvin why do you refer to me as a Calvinist?
"God preordained...a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation. " John Calvin
I do not agree with this statement of John Calvin.
I believe that every person who will humble themself and receive the free gift offered by God for their salvation will receive eternal life and will spend eternity with God.
I do believe in total depravity because the Bible teaches it.
I do not believe in limited redemption. I believe in whosoever will.
I do not believe in Irresistible Grace. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentence.
I do believe in Perseverance of the saints as God gives eternal life. If it is eternal and the spirit is sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption there is no way it can cease.
So I do agree with 2 of the 5 principals of Calvinism.
Source: Calvinism: A Christian belief system about salvation
EMA writes:
Belief proceeds baptism, but Baptism is clearly a part of the requirements set out by Christ here in this verse. baptism, confession and repentance are all a part of the belief or faith process, they are not seperate from it, there a part of it
I agree they are all a part of the faith process.
But "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
Not believing is the only thing that condemns a person.
Produce the scripture that says you are condemned for not being baptized.
EAM writes:
Baptism, confession and repentance are AN ACT OF FAITH OR BELIEF. Its all the same ICANT, with faith and belief as its source
Confession and repentance is a part of belief. Baptism is an act which requires no faith only obedience to do it properly.
The Church is commanded to make believers, then to baptize them, and then to teach them the all things that Christ had taught the Church.
EAM writes:
The passage is the same sort of illustration
Your illustration has no comparison to the passage involved.
Mark writes:
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Why is there a conjunction between believeth and is baptized?
It stands to reason if one does not believe he will not be saved so why did Jesus say "but he that believeth not shall be damned"?
EMA writes:
The word AND in the sentence is a coordinating conjunction.
And you got that from your studies in Greek of the word kia. In Greek it is a simple conjunction joining the last phrase to the first phrase.
He that believeth shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.
No where does the Bible say he that is not baptized shall be damned.
Produce the passage that does.
Question,does Mark 16:16 say,"he that believeth not shall be damned?
Question, does Mark 16:16 say, "he that is baptized not shall be damned?
EMA writes:
thus peter told the People on the day of pentecost the very same thing. "Repent and be baptized in order to recieve remission of sins". Acts 2:38 Two conditions that bring about salvation or forgiveness of sins
Actually the text says:
Luke writes:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
It does not say in order to receive the remission of sins.
The Greek word eis translated for means into, unto, to, towards. In other words the remission of sins had already taken place at the point of belief.
EAM writes:
Are you going to cherry pick scripture and ignore all it has to say about the purpose of Baptism?
Hold on I never said baptism was not important.
You can not begtin service for Jesus until you are baptized, for Jesus said follow me. He walked 40 miles to be baptized by the man who had the authority to baptize, John the Baptist.
You can not be a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ if you have not been baptized by the authority of a scriptural New Testament Church as they are the only ones who has the authority.
It is very important but it has no saving power.
Why was Jesus baptized by John the Baptist?
Did He set the example for us to follow?
What was changed about Jesus by His baptism?
What happened at His baptism?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 2:47 AM ICANT has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 69 of 163 (558388)
05-01-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 5:55 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
you can't take Marc 16:16 ans say Baptism is required for salvation, doing so would be Denyin the antecendent (a logical fallacy)
Here is why:
The verse says :
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
So the first part is formed like a p implies q:
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved. ( p -- q)
Now denying P does not negate Q. So you cannot say
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved.
You are not baptized,
therefore you are not saved
To see how this is fallacious, we just have to take another more obvious example:
If you are a human, then you are mortal
A deer is not a human,
therefore, a deer is not mortal.
Now this is the very same fallacious logical procedure (denying the antecedent). Therefore it is a wrong usage of this passage to want to make it say baptism is required for salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 2:58 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 9:04 AM slevesque has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 70 of 163 (558393)
05-01-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
04-30-2010 11:55 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Since I do not follow the teachings of John Calvin why do you refer to me as a Calvinist?[/qs]
Yeah I know I was just joking
Produce the scripture that says you are condemned for not being baptized.
The sameone that says your are condemed if you do not believe. As I indicated and to which you paid no attention, baptism is simply a form of active faith. repentance is also a form of active faith or belief.
Not obeying the command in Mark 16:16 or its tenets, one or all constitues disbelief and therefore condemnation. If one starts the process of belief by a mental process but does not follow through with the command to be baptized he has exercised disbelief by not adhering to the rest of the passage
Confession and repentance is a part of belief. Baptism is an act which requires no faith only obedience to do it properly.
Wrong once again. All of the acts including baptism are a result of the mental process, I understand (mentally) the necessity of baptism to actually carry the act out. every command we obey or follow is an act of faith not a work, therefore belief.
Once again this is why christ was not redundant in his repeating of the second part, its all essentially belief.
When the scriptures says Abraham believed God andit was copunted as righteouness to him, a simple mental process was not what was under consideration. Abraham followed the instructionsof God through belief in action, which were acts of faith
Baptism is not only a mental process that I acknoweldge as an act o f faith it is also an action carried out by faith in God
Your illustration has no comparison to the passage involved.
This is called wave of the hand debating, you need to demonstrate why the illustration is invalid
It stands to reason if one does not believe he will not be saved so why did Jesus say "but he that believeth not shall be damned"?
Because baptism and its action are a part of an active faith or belief, they involve the same fundamental principle. So does confession, repentance and faithfulness. there not works by man to save himself as some assume, they are faith in action to Gods requirements
No where does the Bible say he that is not baptized shall be damned.
Produce the passage that does.
Question,does Mark 16:16 say,"he that believeth not shall be damned?
Question, does Mark 16:16 say, "he that is baptized not shall be damned?
Yes it does,
because baptism is belief in action
Your error is that you make an absolute distinction between belief and baptism and there is really none. They are just faith in action, like confession, repentance and faithfulness
Abrahams obedience in following Gods commands, even to sacrifice his son, were belief in action, even though there was a clear physical action involved, it was just a belief in God by following his commands
To seperate the two in Mark 16:16 is both simplistic and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of what faith actually is
The Greek word eis translated for means into, unto, to, towards. In other words the remission of sins had already taken place at the point of belief.
This is weird
you do realize you just demonstrated my point correct? Most people (calvinist) will say that the word EIS means BECAUSE OF. your saying and interpreting it correctly.
TWORDS and UNTO means that your are going to RECIEVE the remission of sins, when the commands are obeyed. You just refuted your own position on the greek word EIS
You can not be a member of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ if you have not been baptized by the authority of a scriptural New Testament Church as they are the only ones who has the authority.
I coudnt have said it better
It is very important but it has no saving power.
I agree again, because it is God that saves but we cannot be saved unless we obey his command of Baptism, which is actually belief in action. therefore, not being baptized AS COMMANDED is not believing in Gods wishes or desires, therefore condemnation results
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 04-30-2010 11:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 05-01-2010 10:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 71 of 163 (558395)
05-01-2010 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by slevesque
05-01-2010 1:30 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
you can't take Marc 16:16 ans say Baptism is required for salvation, doing so would be Denyin the antecendent (a logical fallacy)
this is human reasoning trying to explain biblical concepts, in this instance faith and belief. Human logic does not work here. For as i explained to ICANT, any response to Gods commands, is an action of faith or belief and this is what jesus was gettin at in Mark 16:16
They are both Belief and where there is no belief, whether by a lack of mental acknowledgment or in an inactive faith, (in this instance NOT following the command of baptism)condemnation is the result.
Now this is the very same fallacious logical procedure (denying the antecedent). Therefore it is a wrong usage of this passage to want to make it say baptism is required for salvation.
You would be correct if baptism were seperate from belief, it is not. It is an action of active faith and a requirement of God himself, not me
Again Belief is what is required, it just so happens that Baptism is just another expression of belief. without an active faith, in this instance Baptism, condemnation is the result
In short you cannot BELIEVE God without being baptized, because Baptism is what he requires as a part of Belief in this instance. They are inseprable, therefore immutable
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 05-01-2010 1:30 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 1:38 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 72 of 163 (558427)
05-01-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by slevesque
05-01-2010 1:30 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
So the first part is formed like a p implies q:
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved. ( p -- q)
Now denying P does not negate Q. So you cannot say
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved.
You are not baptized,
therefore you are not saved
To see how this is fallacious, we just have to take another more obvious example:
If you are a human, then you are mortal
A deer is not a human,
therefore, a deer is not mortal.
Now this is the very same fallacious logical procedure (denying the antecedent). Therefore it is a wrong usage of this passage to want to make it say baptism is required for salvation.
That's the first time I have seen someone use the formal rules of logic to interpret Mark 16:16. Interesting.
But don't you have two little conditions "believes and is baptized" ?
ie. (p & r) -- q ( I am rusty on the proper notation )
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 05-01-2010 1:30 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 1:40 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 149 by ICANT, posted 05-22-2010 3:48 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 73 of 163 (558432)
05-01-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 2:49 PM


You are correct brother jaywill, but let us get through this preliminary issues, then we will tackel your much deeper ones. You bring up some interesting points that needs addressing
Dear "Brother EMA",
Since you call me brother I have to assume that you do regard me a Christian brother.
Many of the real hard core Baptismal Regeneration people I have met in the past do not regard other Christians as "brothers" unless they are certain that they have been properly immersed in their water "With An Unnnnderstanding !!!" that this was for the remission of sins.
You seem a bit different because you acknowlege me as your brother in Christ. And I think your acknowledgement is correct.
From what I have seen of your beliefs I also have no problem in receiving you as my brother in Christ too.
But some real hard line Disciples of Christ - Church of Christ brethren I have debated, when you came down to it, DID NOT recognize me as a brother. I did not stop loving them for that reason. I still assumed that they were my brother.
I do not ask Christians what "kind" of Christians they are. I do not ask brothers what denomination or faction or other identification they carry. But from a few posts you do sound like someone enfluenced by the teachings of Alexander and Charles Campbell, and Walter Scott.
While in Boston in the 70 and 80s I ran into a very strong strain of Disciples of Christ saints identifying themselves as the Boston Church of Christ. They well trained and mobilized all thier members to be able to debate baptismal remission in thier water.
Does this ring any bells of familiarity ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 2:49 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 11:12 AM jaywill has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 74 of 163 (558445)
05-01-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2010 2:47 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
I will narrow my focus as you seem to miss a lot of my post.
Why did Jesus walk 40 miles to be baptized?
What change took place in the life of Jesus by His baptism?
What event took place after the baptism of Jesus?
Is the thief that was on the cross beside Jesus in heaven with Jesus today?
When was the thief on the cross baptized?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 2:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 12:15 PM ICANT has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 75 of 163 (558447)
05-01-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jaywill
05-01-2010 9:22 AM


Dear "Brother EMA",
Since you call me brother I have to assume that you do regard me a Christian brother.
Many of the real hard core Baptismal Regeneration people I have met in the past do not regard other Christians as "brothers" unless they are certain that they have been properly immersed in their water "With An Unnnnderstanding !!!" that this was for the remission of sins.
You seem a bit different because you acknowlege me as your brother in Christ. And I think your acknowledgement is correct.
From what I have seen of your beliefs I also have no problem in receiving you as my brother in Christ too.
But some real hard line Disciples of Christ - Church of Christ brethren I have debated, when you came down to it, DID NOT recognize me as a brother. I did not stop loving them for that reason. I still assumed that they were my brother.
I do not ask Christians what "kind" of Christians they are. I do not ask brothers what denomination or faction or other identification they carry. But from a few posts you do sound like someone enfluenced by the teachings of Alexander and Charles Campbell, and Walter Scott.
While in Boston in the 70 and 80s I ran into a very strong strain of Disciples of Christ saints identifying themselves as the Boston Church of Christ. They well trained and mobilized all thier members to be able to debate baptismal remission in thier water.
Does this ring any bells of familiarity ?
What actually goes on in and amoung my brothers and sisters in not actually known to everyone everywhere, because each congregation is autonomous and there is no headquarters.
We do have certain leading papers that tend to influence certain areas of the church. For example The Gospel Advocate has a big influence in the South where I m from.
If they taught their members to defend this then they taught them correctly. However:
The expression Baptisimal regeneration is a correct term, but it is misapplied and over exaggerated. One might as well use the term Confessional regeneration, Repentance regeneration or Belief regeneration
We believe like everyone else that it is the power of God that saves, "you are saved by Grace through Faith, that not of yourself, it is the gift of God" not physical elements like water. It just so happens that God has chosen Baptism as a part of that faith a s a direct command to be obyed. its still just Faith in action
Secondly and more to the point my brethren have made the expression in Acts 2:38, "For the remmision of sins" a command to be believed, when in fact it IS THE RESULT OF OBEYING CERTAIN COMMANDS, like repent and be baptized.
In my view they erroneously teach that if one does not understand fully that Baptism is for the remmision of sins (which it clearly is) that the Baptism is ineffective and unscriptual.
My response is that that expression while absolutley true, is not a command to be obeyed. secondly the efficacy of Baptism, that is, its power does not lie in what we know about it, but what we know and believe about Jesus Christ as Gods son.
IOW, God will DO what he promised (the forgiveness of sins), when we through faith obey the commands. The latter part is a promise to be accepted, not a command to be obeyed
Baptism is a two-fold response by the desciple of Christ, he is doing it as a response to the Gospel, because he believes Jesus is the son of God and because he recognizes that this is what God requires of him. hence:
"here is water what does hender me to be baptized"
Baptism and its meeting of the blood of Christ in that act of faith is certainly for the remmision of alien sins. Now, one would wonder why they do not understand this at baptism if taught correctly, but iF they do not, IS THE BAPTISM INEFFECTIVE, ABSOLUTLEY NOT. The power of God TO SAVE does not lie in what we understand, but what we do in acts of faith.
When he dipped in the river Jordan 7 times, I doubt he understood how doing this would cure his illness, but it did because he believed and acted on that belief, through following the instructions given to him.
Many of my brethren, like myself early on have believed and been taught that they are the only Christians, becaus ethey go this aspect correct, this is simply not true because, it is not a command to be OBEYED but it should be taught as it is presented in the scriptures
jesus said, "this is the blood of my covenant which is for many FOR THE REMMISION OF SINS. Jesus did not shed his blood because sins were already forgiven, but TWORDS, UNTO, the remmision of sins
Should we teach people that baptism is for UNTO, TWORDS the remission of sins, absolutley. if one does does not fully understand this at their baptism, because they believe Jesus is the son of God, is their baptism ineffective, absolutley NOT.
Can one simply mentally believe in Jesus and never be baptized, by NOT acting on that faith, through baptism and be saved, not according to Mark 16:16
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 9:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 1:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024