Religions > Bible > Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name??
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2007 05:14:16 PM |
| Object: |
Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
My answer No to both questions, what is your opinion.
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
09 Jan 2007 06:36:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:53:54 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<rj37q2lrm0t8p5qa25266saobjnq5mqn5a@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:14:03 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:59:08 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<q723q2t5d5ah6je5l6a6dsa3405roe7h8i@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:27:55 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:20:52 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<09v2q2dig5vcjpf81kj3mbo9vmtcl88ifd@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:14:59 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:31:03 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<3jb1q29pfnj832mgnehgor6k1pms1op7p4@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:51:29 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:31:28 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<mnj0q2dh49phnuun8nbh751686dnrn7865@4ax.com>:
...
Ok. Let me try to explain. Originally, God gave us the perfect free
will. We were free to choose anything we want without the possibility
of sinning to suffer the consequences of sin. Ever since the fall, the
original perfect free will was corrupted by sin. As the result,
everything a sinner chooses always leads to sin and causes suffering.
As long as a sinner follows his corrupted free will, he will
ultimately choose hell. There is no possibility of heaven. It's free
fall to hell. Only when a sinner gave up his corrupted free will by
believing and following God's will to make himself a believer of God,
can there be salvation waiting for him. So it's always God's will that
brings salvation, it's always the sinner's corrupted free will that
brings hell. There you go. Predestination and free will can work
together with no problem.
No logic, either. Believe what you want. Since there is no evidence for
any of these things it doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, you are
still committed to predestination.
Of course. God's authority in the matter of salvation should never be
questioned, but I'm gradually improving my understanding of free will
as well. There doesn't have to be any conflict between them. Too bad
you can not understand my logic.
The problem with that assertion is that it implies that we know what
God's authority is. The Bible isn't much of a guide at all. There are
too many conflicting concepts in it in this area.
I don't understand what you mean by "God's authority", but I do know
God's authority is shown in the will of God. As long as we follow the
will of God, I don't think we need to worry about God's authority.
You don't know what the will of God is. You have been told by someone
else, who had no evidence to support his claim, that you could find
God's will in the particular religious scriptures that you adhere to.
The majority of the world does not accept the religious scriptures that
you claim include God's will. Most of them think that some other
scriptures show God's will.
There is no way to show that the Koran is superior to the Hebrew
Scriptures or to the Christian ones. There is no way to show that Hindu
scriptures are not better than all of them.
Unless you look for the fulfillment of prophecy.
I realize that Christians claim that such prophecies were fulfilled in a
way they want it to be, but they have two problems: most of the
prophecies were as vague as anything that Nostradamus ever made and
there is no evidence that these prophecies were fulfilled.
The first one was and so were others and more will be. It was Jews
that spoke of the prophecies, then Christians and both still do.
Neither group has a "problem" with prophecies being "vague."
Aside from the fact that Jews do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. Since that is the case, show me, from the text alone, who is
right, the Christians or the Jews.
We all know that it is impossible to prove either correct or incorrect.
The
unlearned and unstable wrestle with them but that is their problem.
There is evidence that prophecies have been and will continue to be
fulfilled but no amount of evidence will suffice for those who are
puffed up with their own versions of world wisdom. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
10 Jan 2007 05:18:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:36:05 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:53:54 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<rj37q2lrm0t8p5qa25266saobjnq5mqn5a@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:14:03 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:59:08 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<q723q2t5d5ah6je5l6a6dsa3405roe7h8i@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:27:55 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:20:52 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<09v2q2dig5vcjpf81kj3mbo9vmtcl88ifd@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:14:59 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:31:03 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<3jb1q29pfnj832mgnehgor6k1pms1op7p4@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:51:29 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:31:28 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<mnj0q2dh49phnuun8nbh751686dnrn7865@4ax.com>:
...
Ok. Let me try to explain. Originally, God gave us the perfect free
will. We were free to choose anything we want without the possibility
of sinning to suffer the consequences of sin. Ever since the fall, the
original perfect free will was corrupted by sin. As the result,
everything a sinner chooses always leads to sin and causes suffering.
As long as a sinner follows his corrupted free will, he will
ultimately choose hell. There is no possibility of heaven. It's free
fall to hell. Only when a sinner gave up his corrupted free will by
believing and following God's will to make himself a believer of God,
can there be salvation waiting for him. So it's always God's will that
brings salvation, it's always the sinner's corrupted free will that
brings hell. There you go. Predestination and free will can work
together with no problem.
No logic, either. Believe what you want. Since there is no evidence for
any of these things it doesn't matter. As far as I can tell, you are
still committed to predestination.
Of course. God's authority in the matter of salvation should never be
questioned, but I'm gradually improving my understanding of free will
as well. There doesn't have to be any conflict between them. Too bad
you can not understand my logic.
The problem with that assertion is that it implies that we know what
God's authority is. The Bible isn't much of a guide at all. There are
too many conflicting concepts in it in this area.
I don't understand what you mean by "God's authority", but I do know
God's authority is shown in the will of God. As long as we follow the
will of God, I don't think we need to worry about God's authority.
You don't know what the will of God is. You have been told by someone
else, who had no evidence to support his claim, that you could find
God's will in the particular religious scriptures that you adhere to.
The majority of the world does not accept the religious scriptures that
you claim include God's will. Most of them think that some other
scriptures show God's will.
There is no way to show that the Koran is superior to the Hebrew
Scriptures or to the Christian ones. There is no way to show that Hindu
scriptures are not better than all of them.
Unless you look for the fulfillment of prophecy.
I realize that Christians claim that such prophecies were fulfilled in a
way they want it to be, but they have two problems: most of the
prophecies were as vague as anything that Nostradamus ever made and
there is no evidence that these prophecies were fulfilled.
The first one was and so were others and more will be. It was Jews
that spoke of the prophecies, then Christians and both still do.
Neither group has a "problem" with prophecies being "vague."
Aside from the fact that Jews do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. Since that is the case, show me, from the text alone, who is
right, the Christians or the Jews.
We all know that it is impossible to prove either correct or incorrect.
Were do you come up with these statements that you come up with? "We"
do not all know that it is impossible to either correct or incorrect.
Of course it is; assuming oif course that the person you are
communicating with is honorable and honest. If you are refering to
fools who cannot be convinced of anything because they are fools; then
I agree with you.
You say that "Jews" do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. That's what you say. But you did not say whether you meant
100% of the Jews and you did not define what a Jew is. What is a
"Jew?" Is it someone that belongs to the current version of the
Jewish church which is not the same as the one that existed in
Christ's time? Is a Jew a decendent of Jacob? Wasn't a Jew those to
whom the oracles of God were given - they are all dead as are Jacob's
(Israel's) sons. Isn't a Jew who is one inwardly; not one who is
outwardly? What is a Jew? The same trick is used when people
describe Christians. What is a Christian?
Besides who cares whether a Jew thinks Jesus was the Messiah. They
had their chance and blew it. Remember, Jesus came as the Messiah to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel and they rejected the Messiah.
The King came to His kingdom and was rejected. So he left. He is not
the Messiah on the earth during this dispensation He will return to
His kingdom at a future date. For you to argue that a something about
Christ is not valid because a Jew says so is paramount to saying that
a Democrat believes something because a Republican says so.
You proved what I said earlier (below) to be true. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
The
unlearned and unstable wrestle with them but that is their problem.
There is evidence that prophecies have been and will continue to be
fulfilled but no amount of evidence will suffice for those who are
puffed up with their own versions of world wisdom. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
10 Jan 2007 08:03:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:18:24 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<t3raq21h18j7aci0ibuvmj1cc3eobqdiij@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:36:05 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
....
Aside from the fact that Jews do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. Since that is the case, show me, from the text alone, who is
right, the Christians or the Jews.
We all know that it is impossible to prove either correct or incorrect.
Were do you come up with these statements that you come up with? "We"
do not all know that it is impossible to either correct or incorrect.
The evidence does not exist to prove either interpretation to be correct
or incorrect.
Of course it is; assuming oif course that the person you are
communicating with is honorable and honest. If you are refering to
fools who cannot be convinced of anything because they are fools; then
I agree with you.
How can it be, the evidence isn't sufficient to prove either side.
You say that "Jews" do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. That's what you say. But you did not say whether you meant
100% of the Jews and you did not define what a Jew is. What is a
"Jew?"
The people who did not accept the teachings of the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity.
Is it someone that belongs to the current version of the
Jewish church which is not the same as the one that existed in
Christ's time?
How many Jews of the First Century accepted the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity?
Is a Jew a decendent of Jacob? Wasn't a Jew those to
whom the oracles of God were given - they are all dead as are Jacob's
(Israel's) sons. Isn't a Jew who is one inwardly; not one who is
outwardly? What is a Jew?
It's a religion as well as those who are Israel's descendants.
The same trick is used when people
describe Christians. What is a Christian?
No trick is intended or can be found. The majority of Jews of the first
century rejected Christianity.
Besides who cares whether a Jew thinks Jesus was the Messiah.
Those who are claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy tend to
get peeved when the majority of the people to whom the prophecy was
given tell them that this was not the fulfillment.
They had their chance and blew it.
So you say.
Remember, Jesus came as the Messiah to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel and they rejected the Messiah.
So Christianity says, as you may be aware, Judaism considers that
interpretation to be absurd.
The King came to His kingdom and was rejected. So he left. He is not
the Messiah on the earth during this dispensation He will return to
His kingdom at a future date. For you to argue that a something about
Christ is not valid because a Jew says so is paramount to saying that
a Democrat believes something because a Republican says so.
Just as well the other way around. Jews rightfully ask who Christians
are to make claims about the fulfillments of Jewish prophecies.
You proved what I said earlier (below) to be true. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
Not in the way you think.
The
unlearned and unstable wrestle with them but that is their problem.
There is evidence that prophecies have been and will continue to be
fulfilled but no amount of evidence will suffice for those who are
puffed up with their own versions of world wisdom. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
10 Jan 2007 09:55:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:03:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:18:24 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<t3raq21h18j7aci0ibuvmj1cc3eobqdiij@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:36:05 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
...
Aside from the fact that Jews do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. Since that is the case, show me, from the text alone, who is
right, the Christians or the Jews.
We all know that it is impossible to prove either correct or incorrect.
Were do you come up with these statements that you come up with? "We"
do not all know that it is impossible to either correct or incorrect.
The evidence does not exist to prove either interpretation to be correct
or incorrect.
What evidence does not exist? Who says? What is evidence?
Of course it is; assuming oif course that the person you are
communicating with is honorable and honest. If you are refering to
fools who cannot be convinced of anything because they are fools; then
I agree with you.
How can it be, the evidence isn't sufficient to prove either side.
What evidence? If there is evidence, why isn't it sufficient? What
prevents either side from being right? From whose point of view?
You say that "Jews" do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. That's what you say. But you did not say whether you meant
100% of the Jews and you did not define what a Jew is. What is a
"Jew?"
The people who did not accept the teachings of the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity.
A new brand of Jew; a new definitioon for Jew. I see why evidence
means nothing. Simply redefine words as you go along and no evidence
can prove anything. One is not one its three. Now wait its two.
Tomorrow one means six and so on.
Is it someone that belongs to the current version of the
Jewish church which is not the same as the one that existed in
Christ's time?
How many Jews of the First Century accepted the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity?
Who cares? How is that relevant to anything? How many people
accepted Adolph Hitler? How many people rejected Adolph Hitler? Does
either groups acceptance or denial prove what he was or wasn't or that
he was what he was or wasn't what he wasn't? What would be the
acceptable number? Would twelve be enough? How about thousands? How
about millions? What number pleases you?
Is a Jew a decendent of Jacob? Wasn't a Jew those to
whom the oracles of God were given - they are all dead as are Jacob's
(Israel's) sons. Isn't a Jew who is one inwardly; not one who is
outwardly? What is a Jew?
It's a religion as well as those who are Israel's descendants.
Okay, it is a religion. Is it a right or a wrong religion? Are its
doctrines right or wrong? Who says?
The same trick is used when people
describe Christians. What is a Christian?
No trick is intended or can be found. The majority of Jews of the first
century rejected Christianity.
Who says? Did you count them yourself? Do you beleive everything
that propagandists say? What about the arguement that most of the
Jews became Christians, that the remaining Jews died out, and that the
current Jews stem from the Khazars and are not really Jews? What
about the argument that the current form of Judaism didn't come to be
until the 13th century. What is true? What about the argument that
no living Jew can really trace his ancestry back to Jacob? There's
all kinds of crap out there. What is true?
Besides who cares whether a Jew thinks Jesus was the Messiah.
Those who are claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy tend to
get peeved when the majority of the people to whom the prophecy was
given tell them that this was not the fulfillment.
Why? First of all they would have to prove that they were the people
to whom the prophecy was given. None of them are alive. Those who
claim to be descendents can not prove it. So why get mad. People
ought to be free to practice whatever religion they want to practice.
I would take exception to your use of verbs. I think Jesus "was" the
fullfilment of prophecy and "will be" the fullfilment of prophecy for
the decendents of Israel would be more accurate. But whether Jews or
Gentiles believe one way or the other is of little importance. What
matters is after they hear the evidence that Jew or Gentile accepts
the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and believes that God raised Jesus from
the dead. Then they are church of God and the Messiah stuff doesn't
matter in the sense that the prophecies of the kingdom no longer apply
to them.
They had their chance and blew it.
So you say.
No you said it. You said they rejected the Messiah. I beleive that
some did not; but that many did. How many lost sheep of the house of
Israel existed? How many converted? What are the numbers?
Those who did not convert did blow it because they did not get saved;
but those that are indeed of the lost sheep of the house of Israel
will get another chance. All Israel will be saved.
Remember, Jesus came as the Messiah to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel and they rejected the Messiah.
So Christianity says, as you may be aware, Judaism considers that
interpretation to be absurd.
No. Some people that practice the religion of Judaism see it that way.
Others who practice that form of religion see it another way. People
believe what they want to beleive.
The King came to His kingdom and was rejected. So he left. He is not
the Messiah on the earth during this dispensation He will return to
His kingdom at a future date. For you to argue that a something about
Christ is not valid because a Jew says so is paramount to saying that
a Democrat believes something because a Republican says so.
Just as well the other way around. Jews rightfully ask who Christians
are to make claims about the fulfillments of Jewish prophecies.
Who cares? The Jews get to beleive what they want to beleive and so
do the Christians. Obviously the older Christianity knows more and is
more accurate than the younger form of Judaism. So what. Everybody
has a right to chose. No problem for the real Jews; but the pretend
ones and the counterfiet ones have a problem - same goes for
Christians.
You proved what I said earlier (below) to be true. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
Not in the way you think.
Yea they do. John thinks about baseball because John wants to think
about baseball. Mary thinks about babies because she wants to think
about babies. What they think about is what they beleive. People
beleive what they want to beleive and think what they want to think
because they are people.s That's just the way life is.
The
unlearned and unstable wrestle with them but that is their problem.
There is evidence that prophecies have been and will continue to be
fulfilled but no amount of evidence will suffice for those who are
puffed up with their own versions of world wisdom. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
11 Jan 2007 06:51:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:55:58 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<6obbq2h840tbi0kc8ditnr3jvar26ctij7@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:03:16 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:18:24 -0500, in free.christians
Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com> wrote in
<t3raq21h18j7aci0ibuvmj1cc3eobqdiij@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:36:05 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
...
Aside from the fact that Jews do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. Since that is the case, show me, from the text alone, who is
right, the Christians or the Jews.
We all know that it is impossible to prove either correct or incorrect.
Were do you come up with these statements that you come up with? "We"
do not all know that it is impossible to either correct or incorrect.
The evidence does not exist to prove either interpretation to be correct
or incorrect.
What evidence does not exist? Who says? What is evidence?
There is no evidence to support the claim that Isaiah's 'prophecy' was
about Jesus.
Of course it is; assuming oif course that the person you are
communicating with is honorable and honest. If you are refering to
fools who cannot be convinced of anything because they are fools; then
I agree with you.
How can it be, the evidence isn't sufficient to prove either side.
What evidence? If there is evidence, why isn't it sufficient? What
prevents either side from being right? From whose point of view?
There is no evidence.
You say that "Jews" do not accept the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. That's what you say. But you did not say whether you meant
100% of the Jews and you did not define what a Jew is. What is a
"Jew?"
The people who did not accept the teachings of the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity.
A new brand of Jew; a new definitioon for Jew. I see why evidence
means nothing. Simply redefine words as you go along and no evidence
can prove anything. One is not one its three. Now wait its two.
Tomorrow one means six and so on.
Is it someone that belongs to the current version of the
Jewish church which is not the same as the one that existed in
Christ's time?
How many Jews of the First Century accepted the schismatic sect now
known as Christianity?
Who cares? How is that relevant to anything? How many people
accepted Adolph Hitler? How many people rejected Adolph Hitler? Does
either groups acceptance or denial prove what he was or wasn't or that
he was what he was or wasn't what he wasn't? What would be the
acceptable number? Would twelve be enough? How about thousands? How
about millions? What number pleases you?
Is a Jew a decendent of Jacob? Wasn't a Jew those to
whom the oracles of God were given - they are all dead as are Jacob's
(Israel's) sons. Isn't a Jew who is one inwardly; not one who is
outwardly? What is a Jew?
It's a religion as well as those who are Israel's descendants.
Okay, it is a religion. Is it a right or a wrong religion? Are its
doctrines right or wrong? Who says?
The same trick is used when people
describe Christians. What is a Christian?
No trick is intended or can be found. The majority of Jews of the first
century rejected Christianity.
Who says? Did you count them yourself? Do you beleive everything
that propagandists say? What about the arguement that most of the
Jews became Christians, that the remaining Jews died out, and that the
current Jews stem from the Khazars and are not really Jews? What
about the argument that the current form of Judaism didn't come to be
until the 13th century. What is true? What about the argument that
no living Jew can really trace his ancestry back to Jacob? There's
all kinds of crap out there. What is true?
Besides who cares whether a Jew thinks Jesus was the Messiah.
Those who are claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy tend to
get peeved when the majority of the people to whom the prophecy was
given tell them that this was not the fulfillment.
Why? First of all they would have to prove that they were the people
to whom the prophecy was given. None of them are alive. Those who
claim to be descendents can not prove it. So why get mad. People
ought to be free to practice whatever religion they want to practice.
I would take exception to your use of verbs. I think Jesus "was" the
fullfilment of prophecy and "will be" the fullfilment of prophecy for
the decendents of Israel would be more accurate. But whether Jews or
Gentiles believe one way or the other is of little importance. What
matters is after they hear the evidence that Jew or Gentile accepts
the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and believes that God raised Jesus from
the dead. Then they are church of God and the Messiah stuff doesn't
matter in the sense that the prophecies of the kingdom no longer apply
to them.
They had their chance and blew it.
So you say.
No you said it. You said they rejected the Messiah. I beleive that
some did not; but that many did. How many lost sheep of the house of
Israel existed? How many converted? What are the numbers?
Those who did not convert did blow it because they did not get saved;
but those that are indeed of the lost sheep of the house of Israel
will get another chance. All Israel will be saved.
Remember, Jesus came as the Messiah to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel and they rejected the Messiah.
So Christianity says, as you may be aware, Judaism considers that
interpretation to be absurd.
No. Some people that practice the religion of Judaism see it that way.
Others who practice that form of religion see it another way. People
believe what they want to beleive.
The King came to His kingdom and was rejected. So he left. He is not
the Messiah on the earth during this dispensation He will return to
His kingdom at a future date. For you to argue that a something about
Christ is not valid because a Jew says so is paramount to saying that
a Democrat believes something because a Republican says so.
Just as well the other way around. Jews rightfully ask who Christians
are to make claims about the fulfillments of Jewish prophecies.
Who cares? The Jews get to beleive what they want to beleive and so
do the Christians. Obviously the older Christianity knows more and is
more accurate than the younger form of Judaism. So what. Everybody
has a right to chose. No problem for the real Jews; but the pretend
ones and the counterfiet ones have a problem - same goes for
Christians.
You proved what I said earlier (below) to be true. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
Not in the way you think.
Yea they do. John thinks about baseball because John wants to think
about baseball. Mary thinks about babies because she wants to think
about babies. What they think about is what they beleive. People
beleive what they want to beleive and think what they want to think
because they are people.s That's just the way life is.
The
unlearned and unstable wrestle with them but that is their problem.
There is evidence that prophecies have been and will continue to be
fulfilled but no amount of evidence will suffice for those who are
puffed up with their own versions of world wisdom. People beleive
what they want to beleive.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
06 Jan 2007 03:54:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:48:00 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:53:31 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<5tkvp2tksn34nc5959tev479iit95799up@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:57:20 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:04:36 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<nldup292epd53ob0f3sdu3b7ga2hh1n6kv@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:17:52 -0500, Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com>
wrote:
...
Eric,
Absolutely. God can only be what He is. There are three literal
things that God is; Spirit, Holy, and Love. That is His nature and
His children manifest spirit, holy, and love when they are in Him.
Love is the power of God for it is love that is released into the
world. Things are created spirit or made holy.
The god of this world is corrupted spirit; not holy and not love and
therefore the power exercised by the god of this world is the wrong
kind. God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power (dunamis),
and love, and a sound mind (2Tim1:7). The god of this world who is
Satan motviates by fear, counterfiet power, and the unsound mind.
In the case of the crucifixtion and in the case of salvation it is the
pure exercise of free will; God's, Christs, and ours. I feel guilty
about mentioning our free will in the same sentence as God and
Christ's but it what God gave us because without it we could not be
who He would have us to be.
I disagree with the concept of free will, but reading your post, I
feel I may need to make some changes. I think there are two kinds of
free will. There is the sinner's free will, and there is the
believer's free will. The sinner's free will is a free choice in
serving sin. The believer's free will is a free choice in serving God.
The sinner will not feel free when he chooses to serve God. The
believer will feel horrible when he chooses to serve the sin instead.
So simply by being who we are, we will all freely choose our own
destiny.
That distinction is logically indefensible.
Why?
Because you failed to explain your two separate free will concepts that
you appear to have taken out of the air. Calvin and Luther never agreed
-- your attempt to make predestination compatible with free will would
have met with derision from both.
Since you cannot speak for EITHER Calvin OR Luther, I won't address
that. You should read the letters discussing the concept of "free
will" between Luther and Erasmus sometime, btw.
But the Bible calls us slaves. Slaves to sin or slaves to
righteousness.
Rom 6:15-20
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves
slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of
sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness ? 17
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed
from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18
And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness
.. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For
just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of
lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to
righteousness .
NKJV
We are NOT "free to choose God;" we can do so ONLY IF the Father draws
us.
John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and
I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV
John 6:65
5 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to
Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
NKJV
In both texts it is clear that there are THOSE WHO ARE NOT DRAWN BY
GOD and are NOT "FREE" to come on their own.
It is simple. When you sin your first sin, you belong to Satan. IN
THE CASE OF CHRISTIANS, we have been BOUGHT with a price, and we
BELONG TO JESUS. Again. . . We are OWNED, BOUGHT, PAID FOR.
Slaves don't get to "choose" who owns them.
BUT
Slaves CAN be good and faithful to WHICHEVER master they serve.
Methinks THAT is what Eric is referring to.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
07 Jan 2007 04:57:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:54:24 -0700, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:48:00 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:53:31 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<5tkvp2tksn34nc5959tev479iit95799up@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:57:20 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:04:36 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<nldup292epd53ob0f3sdu3b7ga2hh1n6kv@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:17:52 -0500, Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com>
wrote:
...
Eric,
Absolutely. God can only be what He is. There are three literal
things that God is; Spirit, Holy, and Love. That is His nature and
His children manifest spirit, holy, and love when they are in Him.
Love is the power of God for it is love that is released into the
world. Things are created spirit or made holy.
The god of this world is corrupted spirit; not holy and not love and
therefore the power exercised by the god of this world is the wrong
kind. God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power (dunamis),
and love, and a sound mind (2Tim1:7). The god of this world who is
Satan motviates by fear, counterfiet power, and the unsound mind.
In the case of the crucifixtion and in the case of salvation it is the
pure exercise of free will; God's, Christs, and ours. I feel guilty
about mentioning our free will in the same sentence as God and
Christ's but it what God gave us because without it we could not be
who He would have us to be.
I disagree with the concept of free will, but reading your post, I
feel I may need to make some changes. I think there are two kinds of
free will. There is the sinner's free will, and there is the
believer's free will. The sinner's free will is a free choice in
serving sin. The believer's free will is a free choice in serving God.
The sinner will not feel free when he chooses to serve God. The
believer will feel horrible when he chooses to serve the sin instead.
So simply by being who we are, we will all freely choose our own
destiny.
That distinction is logically indefensible.
Why?
Because you failed to explain your two separate free will concepts that
you appear to have taken out of the air. Calvin and Luther never agreed
-- your attempt to make predestination compatible with free will would
have met with derision from both.
Since you cannot speak for EITHER Calvin OR Luther, I won't address
that. You should read the letters discussing the concept of "free
will" between Luther and Erasmus sometime, btw.
But the Bible calls us slaves. Slaves to sin or slaves to
righteousness.
Rom 6:15-20
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves
slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of
sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness ? 17
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed
from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18
And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness
. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For
just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of
lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to
righteousness .
NKJV
We are NOT "free to choose God;" we can do so ONLY IF the Father draws
us.
John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and
I will raise him up at the last day.
The problem that you have there is that the verse is speaking about
the lost sheep of the house of Israel; not Gentiles or the church of
God. Jesus came to call out the lost sheep of the house os Israel
ands that is who He was speaking to and about as evidenced by the last
part of the sentence concerning the resurrection. The body of CHrist
does not experience a resurrection since the dead are "raised" (not
resurrected" and the living are "changed" at the "parusia" which
occurs before the resurrections. Jesus was speaking in the then
present about his future kingdom on the earth.
NKJV
John 6:65
5 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to
Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
Note the word "Therefore" and the context and to "whom" he spoke and
"who" reacted to what He said. What he said was not spoken to the
body of CHrist which is saved by grace; not works.
NKJV
In both texts it is clear that there are THOSE WHO ARE NOT DRAWN BY
GOD and are NOT "FREE" to come on their own.
Not clear at all if you read the passages in context.
It is simple. When you sin your first sin, you belong to Satan. IN
THE CASE OF CHRISTIANS, we have been BOUGHT with a price, and we
BELONG TO JESUS. Again. . . We are OWNED, BOUGHT, PAID FOR.
That's too complicated. People are born in sin because the life of
the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) and the sin nature is
transmitted in the blood. Our blood cannot be cleansed of sin; nor
our flesh. We are new spiritual creations when we are saved and it is
that part of us that is holy, spirit, incorruptible and without sin.
In Romans, your quote above, we are not literal slaves but figurative
slaves as the passages say. We are not servants; we are sons. Israel
was the servants of God and we are the sons of God. We can chose to
be "doulos" (bond slaves) of the Lord Jesus Christ as Paul did or bond
slaves to something else. In the OT the doulos was freed with
benefits after seven years and remained a doulos because he loved his
master. That is the Christian's option but the unbeleiver does not
have that option.
Slaves don't get to "choose" who owns them.
That's not true. The "doulos" has that option. Don't confuse Jewish
slaves with slaves of other nations. A doulos is bound by love while
a slave is bound by circumstance (Ex 21 & Deu 15).
BUT
Slaves CAN be good and faithful to WHICHEVER master they serve.
Methinks THAT is what Eric is referring to.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
......
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
08 Jan 2007 08:20:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:57:19 -0500, Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:54:24 -0700, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:48:00 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:53:31 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<5tkvp2tksn34nc5959tev479iit95799up@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:57:20 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:04:36 -0500, in free.christians
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
<nldup292epd53ob0f3sdu3b7ga2hh1n6kv@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:17:52 -0500, Bible Bob <biblebob@saintly.com>
wrote:
...
Eric,
Absolutely. God can only be what He is. There are three literal
things that God is; Spirit, Holy, and Love. That is His nature and
His children manifest spirit, holy, and love when they are in Him.
Love is the power of God for it is love that is released into the
world. Things are created spirit or made holy.
The god of this world is corrupted spirit; not holy and not love and
therefore the power exercised by the god of this world is the wrong
kind. God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power (dunamis),
and love, and a sound mind (2Tim1:7). The god of this world who is
Satan motviates by fear, counterfiet power, and the unsound mind.
In the case of the crucifixtion and in the case of salvation it is the
pure exercise of free will; God's, Christs, and ours. I feel guilty
about mentioning our free will in the same sentence as God and
Christ's but it what God gave us because without it we could not be
who He would have us to be.
I disagree with the concept of free will, but reading your post, I
feel I may need to make some changes. I think there are two kinds of
free will. There is the sinner's free will, and there is the
believer's free will. The sinner's free will is a free choice in
serving sin. The believer's free will is a free choice in serving God.
The sinner will not feel free when he chooses to serve God. The
believer will feel horrible when he chooses to serve the sin instead.
So simply by being who we are, we will all freely choose our own
destiny.
That distinction is logically indefensible.
Why?
Because you failed to explain your two separate free will concepts that
you appear to have taken out of the air. Calvin and Luther never agreed
-- your attempt to make predestination compatible with free will would
have met with derision from both.
Since you cannot speak for EITHER Calvin OR Luther, I won't address
that. You should read the letters discussing the concept of "free
will" between Luther and Erasmus sometime, btw.
But the Bible calls us slaves. Slaves to sin or slaves to
righteousness.
Rom 6:15-20
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?
Certainly not! 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves
slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of
sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness ? 17
But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed
from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18
And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness
. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For
just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of
lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members
as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to
righteousness .
NKJV
We are NOT "free to choose God;" we can do so ONLY IF the Father draws
us.
John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and
I will raise him up at the last day.
The problem that you have there is that the verse is speaking about
the lost sheep of the house of Israel; not Gentiles or the church of
God.
You may pretend that if you wish, but there is NOTHING in the text
anywhere to support you.
Jesus came to call out the lost sheep of the house os Israel
ands that is who He was speaking to and about as evidenced by the last
part of the sentence concerning the resurrection. The body of CHrist
does not experience a resurrection since the dead are "raised" (not
resurrected" and the living are "changed" at the "parusia" which
occurs before the resurrections. Jesus was speaking in the then
present about his future kingdom on the earth.
Jesus was raised (resurrected) from the dead and we Christians will be
too.
Sorry if you don't think you will be.
John 6:65
5 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to
Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
Note the word "Therefore" and the context and to "whom" he spoke and
"who" reacted to what He said. What he said was not spoken to the
body of CHrist which is saved by grace; not works.
NKJV
The point is that "no one can come" to Jesus. He didn't say "none of
you can come," but NO ONE can come unless. . ."
In both texts it is clear that there are THOSE WHO ARE NOT DRAWN BY
GOD and are NOT "FREE" to come on their own.
Not clear at all if you read the passages in context.
In context, NO ONE CAN COME unless it is granted by the Father.
It is simple. When you sin your first sin, you belong to Satan. IN
THE CASE OF CHRISTIANS, we have been BOUGHT with a price, and we
BELONG TO JESUS. Again. . . We are OWNED, BOUGHT, PAID FOR.
That's too complicated.
For you perhaps. Not for us Christians.
People are born in sin because the life of
the flesh is in the blood (Lev 17:11) and the sin nature is
transmitted in the blood. Our blood cannot be cleansed of sin; nor
our flesh. We are new spiritual creations when we are saved and it is
that part of us that is holy, spirit, incorruptible and without sin.
We are totally cleansed, and are a "new man." OWNED BY JESUS.
In Romans, your quote above, we are not literal slaves but figurative
slaves as the passages say. We are not servants; we are sons.
We are both. We were bought with a price and we will be ADOPTED as
sons, but we are still (according to the Bible) bondslaves or
servants, bound, owned, and paid for by Jesus.
Israel
was the servants of God and we are the sons of God. We can chose to
be "doulos" (bond slaves) of the Lord Jesus Christ as Paul did or bond
slaves to something else. In the OT the doulos was freed with
benefits after seven years and remained a doulos because he loved his
master. That is the Christian's option but the unbeleiver does not
have that option.
That is because the unbeliever is not owned by Jesus; he is a slave to
sin.
Slaves don't get to "choose" who owns them.
That's not true. The "doulos" has that option. Don't confuse Jewish
slaves with slaves of other nations. A doulos is bound by love while
a slave is bound by circumstance (Ex 21 & Deu 15).
We are called slaves by scripture, and we are told we were BOUGHT with
a price. That is good enough for me.
I'll stick with scripture.
IN Christ Jesus,
Checker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "old man joe" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
02 Jan 2007 02:56:19 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2007 15:14:16 -0800, wrote:
My answer No to both questions, what is your opinion.
opinions are from people not rooted in the Bible.
ceremonial Baptism does not save from eternal death. that would be
salvation by works.
ceremonial Baptism is as the Bible says in Mt. 28:19 and is a
requirement given by Christ Himself. not to do so is to reject the
counsel of God as the Pharisees did. Lk.7:30
true believers do not reject the counsel of God, and therefore are
water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
as He says in Mt. 28:19
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does Baptism save? Does it have to be in Jesus Name?? |
02 Jan 2007 07:05:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:56:19 -0500, old man joe <not@home.com> wrote:
On 1 Jan 2007 15:14:16 -0800, wrote:
My answer No to both questions, what is your opinion.
opinions are from people not rooted in the Bible.
The Bible was PENNED by people, joe.
ceremonial Baptism does not save from eternal death. that would be
salvation by works.
True.
ceremonial Baptism is as the Bible says in Mt. 28:19 and is a
requirement given by Christ Himself. not to do so is to reject the
counsel of God as the Pharisees did. Lk.7:30
true believers do not reject the counsel of God, and therefore are
water baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
as He says in Mt. 28:19
It is an acto of OBEDIENCE to Jesus.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
