Mark 16:16...aorist participle? [Archive]

Socrates

May 9th 2003, 01:08 AM

Is it important? Mark 16:16 was very likely not part of the original manuscript. As JPHolding shows at www.tektonics.org/baptismneed.html#mark16 :

External evidence. The two earliest parchment codies, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus, plus 2 minuscules and several versions and manuscripts, do not contain verses 9-20. Two important early Christian writers testify that these verses are not found in Mark: Eusebius (Quaestiones ad Marinum I) says that they are not in "accurate" copies of Mark and are missing from "almost all" manuscripts; Jerome (Epistle CXX.3, ad Hedibiam) testifies that almost all Greek manuscripts of his time lack vss. 9-20. Many manuscripts that do have these verses "have scholia stating that older Greek copies lack them," and other textual witnesses add "conventional signs used by scribes to mark off a spurious addition to a literary text." There are also several variant endings of Mark in circulation. Our vss. 9-20 are the most common, but there is also a "short" ending, and seven Greek manuscripts with both the long and short ending.

Internal evidence. There is a sudden change in subject from verse 8 (the women) to verse 9 (Jesus). Mary Magdelene is introduced as one from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons, as though she had not been introduced in the Gospel before. The form, language, and style "militate against Marcan authorship." There are seventeen non-Marcan words or Marcan words used in a non-Marcan sense. There is no instance of the typical Marcan stylistic transitions or methods (such as beginning a phrase with a parataxis). Overall, the passage has the "distinct flavour of the second century" and appears to be a pastiche of material taken from other Gospels. [See for this data Markan commentaries by Brooks (272-3), Lane (601-4), and Anderson (358).]

And it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration anyway, and those who argue for it commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. The first part of Mark 16:16 is an implication: if a person believes and is baptized then he will be saved. It is invalid to argue from this that anyone who is not baptized will not be saved. The second part is an explicit statement that unbelief results in condemnation.

To demonstrate the fallacy, examine the following statement which is in the same logical form: ‘Whatever has feathers and flies is a bird, but whatever does not have feathers is not a bird.’ This statement does not teach that there are no flightless birds.

Jaltus

May 9th 2003, 12:15 PM

So, let me get this straight. If the aorist conveys completed action, then the verse states "He who believes" (completed action
) and "He who is baptized" (completed action) will be saved (future tense.)

Yup.

Socrates,

The external evidence is a lot bigger than that against the inclusion. You have but touched the tip of the iceberg. Washingtonius has a unique ending, with the short ending, long ending, and an added ending in the middle of them.

Socrates

May 9th 2003, 12:37 PM

Jaltus:The external evidence is a lot bigger than that against the inclusion. You have but touched the tip of the iceberg. Washingtonius has a unique ending, with the short ending, long ending, and an added ending in the middle of them.Thanx for that :thumb: Where can this additional information be found? :huh:

doogieduff

May 9th 2003, 01:24 PM

Jaltus, Socrates:

So you guys are stating that this verse does show baptism for salvation, but you don't believe that it is in the original?

Jaltus

May 9th 2003, 01:59 PM

Uhh, no.

I am saying that it states that whoever has completed faith and completed baptism is saved.

It does not say that whoever has not completed faith and not completed baptism is unsaved.

You cannot take the opposite of the verse. If p then q does not mean if not p then not q.

Socrates,

I'll write up the full text critical issue on the longer ending next week or whenever I have a chunk of time. I have done work on this passage during my doctoral research, so I am qualified to let you know what is going on here.

doogieduff

May 9th 2003, 03:48 PM

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92161#post92161)
Jaltus:

Uhh, no.

I am saying that it states that whoever has completed faith and completed baptism is saved.

Me too!

It does not say that whoever has not completed faith and not completed baptism is unsaved.

I think it does. Let's remember the aorist rules. You yourself said,

"Instead of undefined, it is better to say that the aorist conveys the action as a complete action, seen as a single thing."

This means the completed action is both being baptized and believing.

You cannot take the opposite of the verse. If p then q does not mean if not p then not q.

I'm not taking the opposite of the verse, actually you are. I'm taking the aorist particples and applying what they mean in the first part of the verse. You're saying that we must argue from the opposite because you say "It says that those who don't believe are condemned. It doesn't say those who aren't baptized aren't saved." You're trying to justify the first part of the verse by arguing the opposite of the second part. The truth of the matter is the first part of the verse speaks baptism for salvation no matter what the second part of the verse says. Actually, the fact that the second part of the verse says that only one of the two is needed for condemnation supports what I believe, in that both are needed for salvation, and the lack of one results in condemnation. Does it matter which one? No. Why do they use belief in the verse then? That's simple. Belief comes first. Who, in their right mind, is going to get baptized before they even believe? Obviously, one who doesn't believe, won't get baptized, and obviously, one who doesn't believe is already condemned and the baptism is therefore useless.

Jaltus

May 9th 2003, 05:17 PM

Again, no.

Belief should lead to baptism, but it is the belief that is in question, not the baptism. The second half of the verse says without belief there is no salvation, it does not say without baptism.

You do a wonderful job of misrepresenting what I write.

This verse says, paraphrased, "if you believe and are baptized, you are saved, but if you do not believe you are not saved."

It does NOT say anything about what happens if NOT baptized. Therefore, it is wrong to make conclusions that if you are NOT baptized you are NOT saved.

I think baptism is commanded, but I do not think it is a requirement for salvation, only belief (faith) is.

doogieduff

May 9th 2003, 06:23 PM

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92314#post92314)
Jaltus:

Again, no.

Belief should lead to baptism, but it is the belief that is in question, not the baptism. The second half of the verse says without belief there is no salvation, it does not say without baptism.

You do a wonderful job of misrepresenting what I write.

No jaltus. You have yet to deal with the aorist aprticiples in the first part of the verse. You're arguing from the opposite of the second part of the verse, and this is exactly what you told me not to do! Deal with what the first part of the verse teaches. The aorists in this verse teach baptism for salvation. It's crystal clear.

This verse says, paraphrased, "if you believe and are baptized, you are saved, but if you do not believe you are not saved."

It does NOT say anything about what happens if NOT baptized. Therefore, it is wrong to make conclusions that if you are NOT baptized you are NOT saved.

I think baptism is commanded, but I do not think it is a requirement for salvation, only belief (faith) is.

So you want to argue from the lack of evidence. It doesn't work that way. You're right, it does not say anything about what happens if NOT baptized in the second part of the verse, but that doesn't mean anything. The first part of the verse tells us what happens if not baptized: not saved. If the second part of the verse said "But those who aren't baptized, will be condemned" you wouldn't throw out the "belief" in the first part, because that's foolish. You would teach that belief and baptism are needed because of the aorists.

Socrates

May 10th 2003, 01:20 PM

Doogie

Obviously both Jaltus and I are saying:[list=1] It's not part of the original of Mark, which makes it questionable that one should base any doctrine on it.

And anyway, there is nothing in it to say that lack of baptism implies lack of salvation. If so, then produce it, rather than incorrigibly committing a beginner's logical fallacy. I also rather doubt that Doogie is in any position to instruct Jaltus about aorists![/list=1]

doogieduff

May 11th 2003, 12:27 AM

Today @ 10:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92821#post92821)
Socrates:

Doogie

Obviously both Jaltus and I are saying:[list=1] It's not part of the original of Mark, which makes it questionable that one should base any doctrine on it.

And anyway, there is nothing in it to say that lack of baptism implies lack of salvation. If so, then produce it, rather than incorrigibly committing a beginner's logical fallacy. I also rather doubt that Doogie is in any position to instruct Jaltus about aorists![/list=1]

I'm not instructing Jaltus on aorists. I asked him what hey mean, and according to his definition, Mark 16:16 shows baptism for salvation. Both "he who believes" and "he who is baptized" are aorists, and both actions must be completed before the future action (salvation) takes place. Correct me if I'm wrong. You cannot argue from lack of evidence in the second part of the verse, nor can you argue from the opposite of the second part of the verse. What does the first part of the verse teach grammatically? If it doesn't teeach baptism for salvation, please let me know. I fully agree with the second part of the verse. I'm not denying it. According to the first part of the verse, both belief and baptism are needed for salvation. If one of those is taken away, then salvation is taken away. So the second part of the verse is true. You take away belief, and salvation is lost. We don't need it to explicitly tell us that lack of baptism condemns us, because we already know that it does by the first part of the verse. Why did they not include it in the second part of the verse? As I've said already, and it makes perfectly good sense, who is going to get baptized if they don't believe? Belief naturally comes first, and without it, baptism is useless as you need both.

Socrates

May 11th 2003, 04:02 AM

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93240#post93240)
doogieduff:
Correct me if I'm wrong.

With pleasure :teeth:

You cannot argue from lack of evidence in the second part of the verse, nor can you argue from the opposite of the second part of the verse.

What are you talking about? If the second part lacks evidence that non-baptism logically implies non-salvation, then it is useless as evidence for baptismal regenerationism.

What does the first part of the verse teach grammatically? If it doesn't teeach baptism for salvation, please let me know.

It doesn't teach it as a requirement.

Shall we substiture p = belief, q = baptism and r = salvation.

The verse is equivalent to the propositional schema:

p&q=>r & ~q=>~r, where ~ is the negation (not) and => means "(logically) implies".

I fully agree with the second part of the verse. I'm not denying it. According to the first part of the verse, both belief and baptism are needed for salvation.

No, it says that p and q are SUFFICIENT, not NECESSARY. This is basic logic. Only the SECOND clause explains what is necessary, because non-belief is sufficient for non-salvation is logically equivalent to be belief is necessary. Or in propositional notation, by contraposition, ~q=>~r == r=>p

If one of those is taken away, then salvation is taken away. Not at all. By the laws of logic, for ANY logical implication p=>q, if p is false, then we can draw no conclusion about q. That's why the second clause is needed -- without it, one can logically draw no conclusion about salvation from either non-belief or non-baptism from the first clause. But the second clause is explicit that unbelief is grounds for condemnation.

I suggest the AiG article Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v12n2_logic.asp) would be helpful, especially section 4) Conditional Statements and Implications. The logic is inescapable.

doogieduff

May 13th 2003, 12:37 AM

Yesterday @ 01:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93383#post93383)
Socrates:

With pleasure :teeth:

What are you talking about? If the second part lacks evidence that non-baptism logically implies non-salvation, then it is useless as evidence for baptismal regenerationism.

It doesn't teach it as a requirement.

Shall we substiture p = belief, q = baptism and r = salvation.

The verse is equivalent to the propositional schema:

p&q=>r & ~q=>~r, where ~ is the negation (not) and => means "(logically) implies".

No, it says that p and q are SUFFICIENT, not NECESSARY. This is basic logic. Only the SECOND clause explains what is necessary, because non-belief is sufficient for non-salvation is logically equivalent to be belief is necessary. Or in propositional notation, by contraposition, ~q=>~r == r=>p

If one of those is taken away, then salvation is taken away. Not at all. By the laws of logic, for ANY logical implication p=>q, if p is false, then we can draw no conclusion about q. That's why the second clause is needed -- without it, one can logically draw no conclusion about salvation from either non-belief or non-baptism from the first clause. But the second clause is explicit that unbelief is grounds for condemnation.

I suggest the AiG article Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v12n2_logic.asp) would be helpful, especially section 4) Conditional Statements and Implications. The logic is inescapable.

Grammatical evidence DOES show it for salvation. But you'd rather try and use logic to show it away. Let me ask you two questions.

1. If what I'm saying is true, that the first part of the verse shows baptism for salvation, then is the second part of the verse still true?

Most definitely! If BOTH baptism and belief are necessary, then lack of belief will condemn. It's fine!

2. Would a non-believer be baptized? NO! So arguing from the negative of the second part of the verse proves nothing! Isn't this a common fallacy? --> "Lack of proof is not proof." Just because it doesn't explicitly say "Belief and baptism will condemn", doesn't mean that baptism isn't required for salvation. Aorists in the first part of the verse show baptism and belief for salvation, and the second part of the verse stays consistent with this, as lack of belief does indeed result in condemnation. And like I've said before, a non-believer would not get baptized!

quetzalphoenix

May 13th 2003, 01:26 AM

Is it instructive here that the second half of the verse, which describes who it is that perishes, only negates pisteuo? It would appear natural that Mark would say ha de apistesas kai ouk baptistheis katakrithesetai or something similar if he wanted to affirm that baptism is a sufficient cause for salvation.

On a side note, I think that from a biblical theological perspective, we can see that baptism is normative for entrance into the covenant and for the usual means of salvation....but I agree that 1) the shorter ending is to be preferred text-critically and literarily and that 2) this verse should not be the foundation for an entire theology of soteriology.

quetzalphoenix

May 13th 2003, 01:27 AM

oops. it appears that i was redundant. looks like the conversation is pretty much concluded in jaltus and joelkaki's favor.

GrayPilgrim

May 13th 2003, 02:14 AM

Hey, redundancy can be helpful, as your restatement served to put their conclusions into a better and sharper light.

GP

doogieduff

May 13th 2003, 09:40 AM

Yesterday @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=94980#post94980)
quetzalphoenix:

Is it instructive here that the second half of the verse, which describes who it is that perishes, only negates pisteuo? It would appear natural that Mark would say ha de apistesas kai ouk baptistheis katakrithesetai or something similar if he wanted to affirm that baptism is a sufficient cause for salvation.

On a side note, I think that from a biblical theological perspective, we can see that baptism is normative for entrance into the covenant and for the usual means of salvation....but I agree that 1) the shorter ending is to be preferred text-critically and literarily and that 2) this verse should not be the foundation for an entire theology of soteriology.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that a non-believer would not get baptized? Also, and maybe I'm foolish, but if indeed he did write in the second part of the verse that BOTH lack of baptism and lack of belief results in condemnation, wouldn't this be confusing and partially false? It would imply that a lack of BOTH would condemn and would not stay consistent with the first part of the verse that only lack of one would condemn. And of course, Mark, being anything BUT a fool, realized that belief would always come first and that a non-believer would not get baptized, and wrote what he did. I don't know why, but this seems so logical to me, and stays consistent grammatically.

joelkaki

May 13th 2003, 07:17 PM

And besides, (though Jaltus could correct me on this) my Greek textbook tells me that the aorist participle does not have to be completed for the action of the main verb is. It says that there is not time significance to the aorist participle, thus you cannot say that both belief and baptism MUST be done before "will be saved."

Joel

doogieduff

May 13th 2003, 10:04 PM

Today @ 04:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95553#post95553)
joelkaki:

And besides, (though Jaltus could correct me on this) my Greek textbook tells me that the aorist participle does not have to be completed for the action of the main verb is. It says that there is not time significance to the aorist participle, thus you cannot say that both belief and baptism MUST be done before "will be saved."

Joel

Aorists ARE complete actions.

Socrates

May 14th 2003, 12:57 AM

Doogie:Grammatical evidence DOES show it for salvation. But you'd rather try and use logic to show it away. Not at all. One can't escape the fact that the logic is against you. You can't pretend that grammatical evidence is in your favor when you have committed the faulty logic of misreading sufficient conditions as necessary ones.

Once more: if p then q; p is sufficient for q and q is necessary for p. Same goes for compounds -- if p and q then r, the conjunction (p and q) is a sufficient condition for r, not a necessary one.

When this is reversed validly, it must always be the denial of the consequent. So if p then q; if not-q then not-p. For a compound if p and q then r, this is reversed by if not-r then not-(p and q). Now, by De Morgan's therorem, not(p and q) is not-p OR not-q.

To spell this out:

If we had only the first clause, "if you believe and are baptized, you are saved", to determine the criteria for non-salvation, it becomes: "If you are not saved, it is EITHER because you do not believe OR you are not baptized." That's why the second clause is necessary, because it explains which one of these conditions it is "if you do not believe you are not saved".

Jesus, the Logos, certainly understood logic!

doogieduff

May 15th 2003, 01:12 PM

05-13-2003 @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=95762#post95762)
Socrates:

Doogie:Grammatical evidence DOES show it for salvation. But you'd rather try and use logic to show it away. Not at all. One can't escape the fact that the logic is against you. You can't pretend that grammatical evidence is in your favor when you have committed the faulty logic of misreading sufficient conditions as necessary ones.

Once more: if p then q; p is sufficient for q and q is necessary for p. Same goes for compounds -- if p and q then r, the conjunction (p and q) is a sufficient condition for r, not a necessary one.

When this is reversed validly, it must always be the denial of the consequent. So if p then q; if not-q then not-p. For a compound if p and q then r, this is reversed by if not-r then not-(p and q). Now, by De Morgan's therorem, not(p and q) is not-p OR not-q.

To be honest with you, I don't understamd all your p's, q's, and r's. Use the words "belief" "baptism" and salvation" and I can probably understand what you're saying.

To spell this out:

If we had only the first clause, "if you believe and are baptized, you are saved", to determine the criteria for non-salvation, it becomes: "If you are not saved, it is EITHER because you do not believe OR you are not baptized." That's why the second clause is necessary, because it explains which one of these conditions it is "if you do not believe you are not saved".

Jesus, the Logos, certainly understood logic!

I agree here to an extent. If we only had the first part of the verse, the aorists teach that both are needed for salvation, so we could logically come to the conclusion that lack of just one would result in condemnation. The second part of the verse supports this as lack of just one part, BELIEF, results in condemnation. Now, and correct me if I'm wrong, if Mark did indeed write "He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned" then this would not follow grammatically with the first part of the verse, BECAUSE this says that lack of BOTH are needed for condemnation, and this is not true according to the first part. Mark, being wise, saw this contradiction, and knew that lack of one would result in condemnation, he realized a non-believer would NEVER get baptized, and wrote that lack of belief results in condemnation, and stays true to its context.

RevSteve45

May 15th 2003, 01:32 PM

Doggieduff,

Yes, it is. Here it is in the original Greek:

ho (the) pisteusas (having believed) kai (and) baptistheis (having been baptized) sothesetai (shall be saved), ho (the) de (and) apistesas (having not believed) katakrithesetai (shall be condemned).

The verbs pisteusas and baptistheis and apistesas, are all verbs, nominative singular masculine participle aorist active.

In His Service,
RevSteve45

nfactor13131313

May 15th 2003, 05:46 PM

Doogie,

I think that the point being made is that the verse would have been saying what you think it's saying if it had used baptism in the second clause instead of belief.

Listen how it reads that way and I think you'll see the big difference more clearly:

(paraphrasing) "If you believe and are baptized, you'll be saved. If you are not baptized, though, belief isn't enough."
That's essentially how you are reading the text, but let me ask you this then. If the author did intend to say that belief without baptism would be sufficient for salvation, how could that have been expressed and how would you rewrite the verse using the same convention of "if this, then that... if not this, then not that..."?

Nathan

joelkaki

May 19th 2003, 02:36 PM

Aorists ARE complete actions.

Such may be your opinion, doogieduff, but I have heard some Greek professors say otherwise. And even if that is the case here, Socrates has totally invalidated your claim.

Joel

joelkaki

May 19th 2003, 02:41 PM

To be honest with you, I don't understamd all your p's, q's, and r's. Use the words "belief" "baptism" and salvation" and I can probably understand what you're saying.

I would suggest taking a course in logic. I only had the first year regrettably but we did deal with this. Essentially Socrates is saying this:

If p then q. If you have p then you will have q. And that means that if you do not have q, then you do not have p, because p necessitates q. That does not mean that if you do not have p, then you do not have q logically. Now, in Mark 16 (which, as he noted, is spurious) obviously, there is not just a p and a q, but rather three things--p, q, and r. Hopefully that helps a little bit as to what p's and q's means.

Joel

doogieduff

May 20th 2003, 01:31 AM

Today @ 11:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101275#post101275)
joelkaki:

I would suggest taking a course in logic. I only had the first year regrettably but we did deal with this. Essentially Socrates is saying this:

If p then q. If you have p then you will have q. And that means that if you do not have q, then you do not have p, because p necessitates q. That does not mean that if you do not have p, then you do not have q logically. Now, in Mark 16 (which, as he noted, is spurious) obviously, there is not just a p and a q, but rather three things--p, q, and r. Hopefully that helps a little bit as to what p's and q's means.

Joel

I would suggest taking a course in THEOLOGY.

This doesn't help me much. Is that what you're saying?

p=believes
q=baptized
r=saved

So...

If p and q then r. If not p then not r.

This is what I see from Mark 16:16. And I agree!

Socrates

May 20th 2003, 05:01 AM

joelkaki correctly said:

I would suggest taking a course in logic. I only had the first year regrettably but we did deal with this. Essentially Socrates is saying this:

If p then q. If you have p then you will have q. And that means that if you do not have q, then you do not have p, because p necessitates q. That does not mean that if you do not have p, then you do not have q logically. Now, in Mark 16 (which, as he noted, is spurious) obviously, there is not just a p and a q, but rather three things--p, q, and r. Hopefully that helps a little bit as to what p's and q's means.

doogieduff:I would suggest taking a course in THEOLOGY.It wouldn't help if it didn't include logic. And that's the trouble with the Campbellite "Church of Christ" and ultradispensationalist schools. But there are plenty of courses in theology which will teach you just what Joel and I are saying.

doogieduff:This doesn't help me much. Is that what you're saying?

p=believes
q=baptized
r=saved

So...

If p and q then r. If not p then not r.

This is what I see from Mark 16:16.Indeed, this is a correct propositional representation.

doogieduff:And I agree!Do you really? You are also trying to argue "If not q then not r", which is a logically invalid deduction from the above.

joelkaki

May 20th 2003, 10:12 AM

I would suggest taking a course in THEOLOGY.

This doesn't help me much. Is that what you're saying?

p=believes
q=baptized
r=saved

So...

If p and q then r. If not p then not r.

This is what I see from Mark 16:16. And I agree!

I am not disputing the fact that theology courses are important, but we need logic as well to rightly reason through things. Not that everyone has to take an actual logic course, but when it comes into theological discussions, it is helpful.

Socrates explains above.

Joel

doogieduff

May 20th 2003, 11:07 AM

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101923#post101923)
Socrates:

doogieduff:This doesn't help me much. Is that what you're saying?

p=believes
q=baptized
r=saved

So...

If p and q then r. If not p then not r.

This is what I see from Mark 16:16.Indeed, this is a correct propositional representation.

doogieduff:And I agree!Do you really? You are also trying to argue "If not q then not r", which is a logically invalid deduction from the above.

You're trying to argue that it also says If p then r, and it doesn't say that either. It says if p AND q then r.

RevSteve45

May 20th 2003, 12:49 PM

PLEASE!

Enough with the ps, q's & r's already!

All that Jesus is teaching here, is that belief, baptism, & salvation, all go hand-in-hand. A person who believes & is saved, is baptized as well, for that is the command of Jesus. Water Baptism is a testimony to the church, that a person has believed upon Jesus.

As to the second half of the verse, the condition for being "damned" is NOT "not baptized, but "believeth not." If a person does not believe, it does not matter whether he or she is baptized or not. Believing upon Jesus is what is required to be saved, not baptism. Baptism is of no value unless it FOLLOWS belief upon Jesus.

It is important to recognize, as well, that, while being baptized in water is a commandment of Jesus, it does not save us. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that he baptized very few people:

1 Cor 1:14-17, I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (KJV)

Apparently, Paul was saying that, while he did baptize believers, he considered the FAR more important part of his ministry to be preaching the Gospel. That is what saves a person, by obeying the Gospel & believing in Jesus. Baptism comes afterward, but it does not save us. It simply testifies that we ARE saved:

1 Pet 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (KJV)

The response of a Holy Spirit enlightened conscience, causes us to be baptized in water, as we obey the command of Jesus, and show the church that we have believed in Jesus.

In His Service,
Steve

doogieduff

May 20th 2003, 05:20 PM

Today @ 09:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102253#post102253)
RevSteve45:

PLEASE!

Enough with the ps, q's & r's already!

All that Jesus is teaching here, is that belief, baptism, & salvation, all go hand-in-hand. A person who believes & is saved, is baptized as well, for that is the command of Jesus. Water Baptism is a testimony to the church, that a person has believed upon Jesus.

"Water baptism is a testimony to the church." <-- Where is this in scriptures?

It is important to recognize, as well, that, while being baptized in water is a commandment of Jesus, it does not save us. Paul said in 1 Corinthians that he baptized very few people:

Jesus never commanded the gentiles to be baptized!

Apparently, Paul was saying that, while he did baptize believers, he considered the FAR more important part of his ministry to be preaching the Gospel. That is what saves a person, by obeying the Gospel & believing in Jesus. Baptism comes afterward, but it does not save us. It simply testifies that we ARE saved:

Actually, Paul was the only one in the Bible to preach belief on the death burial and resurrection for salvation. Everytime Peter preached his gospel, it was"Repent and be baptized."

Warcraft3

May 20th 2003, 05:47 PM

Hey Socrates:

Nice job on the whole logic issue:thumb: As a former tutor in math, physics, and engineering I think you did an excellent job explaining it.

Russ

Warcraft3

May 20th 2003, 06:00 PM

Actually, Paul was the only one in the Bible to preach belief on the death burial and resurrection for salvation.
Wrong wrong wrong. Read the book of Acts again, Pauls message was no different than that of the apostales.

Everytime Peter preached his gospel, it was"Repent and be baptized."

Wrong again. I recommend you retract that statement before someone quotes a sermon from Peter in Acts chapter 3 (I believe its chapter 3) showing your statement to be false.

Now some mis guided souls :tongue: here disagree with some of my views on Scripture (:cheers: Hi there Socrates:teeth: ) but to say that Peter and Paul preached different gospels......For crying out loud man, you dont have a scriptural leg to stand on. And to then use Paul to support your views on water baptism just doesnt make any sense.

I mean Paul water baptized people himself, so he hardly thought the practise was for some other "dispensation".

I mean if YECs and OECs both think something in scripture is plainly obvious........then maybe you should take a look at it again.:cool:

Russ

joelkaki

May 20th 2003, 06:19 PM

Jesus never commanded the gentiles to be baptized!

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them whatsoever things I have commanded you, for lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus here tells them to make disciples of ALL THE NATIONS (Gentiles would be included) and to BAPTIZE them. Gentiles were to be baptized.

Joel

RevSteve45

May 20th 2003, 07:33 PM

Water baptism is a testimony to the church." <--Where is this in scriptures?

Is that the toughest objection you can come up with? Peter said it:

1 Pet 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (KJV)

Peter said that we are baptized as the result of a "good conscience towards God." It is our public testimony that we have believed upon Jesus Christ for salation. At that time, we have a chance to "confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus," (Romans 10:9) before other believers.

Some churches use the formula, "Buried in the likeness of His death (as the believer goes down into the water), Raised in the likeness of His resurrection" (as the believer comes up out of the water), on the basis of these verses:

Rom 6:3-4, Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. (KJV)

In His Service,
Steve

doogieduff

May 21st 2003, 12:05 AM

Today @ 03:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102476#post102476)
steadele:

Wrong wrong wrong. Read the book of Acts again, Pauls message was no different than that of the apostales.

Peter never preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ FOR SALVATION. Paul did. Peter ALWAYS preached baptism for the remission of sins. Paul never did. <sarcasm>Yeah you're right, their message was identical!<sarcasm>

Wrong again. I recommend you retract that statement before someone quotes a sermon from Peter in Acts chapter 3 (I believe its chapter 3) showing your statement to be false.

This is really faulty logic. You're basically saying that if Peter preached once, and our record of that does not include "repent and be baptized" then he didn't preach that. That's terrible. Paul preached "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation" to the Phillipian Jailer. Every other time he preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. Your logic tells us that Paul DIDN'T preach the DBR ofJesus Christ for salvation because of what he preached in Acts 16. Do you see how foolish that is? You have to admit that we do not have the entire dialogue which happened in these situations, and there's a good chance Peter preached baptism in Acts 3 and Paul preached DBR in Acts 16. How do we know this? It's what they preached EVERY other time!

Now some mis guided souls :tongue: here disagree with some of my views on Scripture (:cheers: Hi there Socrates:teeth: ) but to say that Peter and Paul preached different gospels......For crying out loud man, you dont have a scriptural leg to stand on. And to then use Paul to support your views on water baptism just doesnt make any sense.

I mean Paul water baptized people himself, so he hardly thought the practise was for some other "dispensation".

I mean if YECs and OECs both think something in scripture is plainly obvious........then maybe you should take a look at it again.:cool:

Russ

I think I do. We'll continue in the Dispy section!

doogieduff

May 21st 2003, 12:14 AM

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102486#post102486)
joelkaki:

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them whatsoever things I have commanded you, for lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (Matthew 28:19-20)

Jesus here tells them to make disciples of ALL THE NATIONS (Gentiles would be included) and to BAPTIZE them. Gentiles were to be baptized.

Joel

A good exegesis, joelkaki, shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Matthew 15:24
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jesus was sent for the Jews...

Matthew 10:5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

What? Jesus commands the twelve to not go the gentiles?! This can't be joelkaki. Oh wait, it is. Look carefully at what else Jesus asks them to do...

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Is this what happens when you preach the Great Commission joelkaki? And why not?

Was Peter at the Great Commission of "go to all nations"? Of course...Peter definitely knew the Great Commission was only for the Jews. After Acts 9, God tried to explain to him that he was done dealing with the nation of Israel, but Peter didn't understand at first, because he was so bent on following Christ's earthly commands. Let's look:

Acts 10:9-18
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate.

When God was dealing with the nation of Israel, He had dietary laws. Peter obviously followed these restrictions as he refused the food God gave to him. But God let him know that it was ok now to eat those things once prohibited. We press on...

Acts 10:19-20
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you.
20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

As Peter was still questioning this vision, God realized he was still firm on following Jesus' Great Commission, so he sends him and asks him to doubt nothing for He knows he is about to eneter the house of a gentile. We press on..

Acts 10:27-28
27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.
28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

You see, even Peter knew it was unlawful for a Jewish man to go to one of another nation. Who do you think knew more about the Great Commission you or Peter? Probably Peter considering he spent every day with Christ personally soaking up everything He said. Look to those who were there to teach you...

Jesus didn't command the gentiles to be baptized!

doogieduff

May 21st 2003, 12:18 AM

Today @ 04:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102548#post102548)
RevSteve45:

Is that the toughest objection you can come up with? Peter said it:

1 Pet 3:21, The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (KJV)

I never said baptism WASN'T the answer of a good conscience towards God, it most definitely is. But, it's also the way God asked man to show faith and in turn be saved. Look again at YOUR verse and what Peter said..."There is also an antitype which now SAVES us--baptism (NKJV)"

Warcraft3

May 21st 2003, 01:17 AM

Doggieduff:

doggieduff said, Actually, Paul was the only one in the Bible to preach belief on the death burial and resurrection for salvation.
And I replied:

Wrong wrong wrong. Read the book of Acts again, Pauls message was no different than that of the apostales..

Then doggieduff said:
Peter never preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ FOR SALVATION. Paul did. Peter ALWAYS preached baptism for the remission of sins. Paul never did. <sarcasm>Yeah you're right, their message was identical!<sarcasm>

How in the world do you read Peters words and not see that he is preaching the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you not think that after Pentecost Peter had figured it out? The Holy Spirit fell on those at Pentecost and spoke through Peter as he preached. The message was the same message the Holy Spirit gave to Paul. They were preaching the same message, empowered by the same spirit. Just read Peters words, they are very clearly teaching the same message.

Doggieduff also said:
Everytime Peter preached his gospel, it was"Repent and be baptized."
And I replied:
Wrong again. I recommend you retract that statement before someone quotes a sermon from Peter in Acts chapter 3 (I believe its chapter 3) showing your statement to be false.
And he answered:

This is really faulty logic. You're basically saying that if Peter preached once, and our record of that does not include "repent and be baptized" then he didn't preach that. That's terrible.
Im just saying that your claim about Peter is false. He did not mention baptism every time.

Paul preached "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation" to the Phillipian Jailer. Every other time he preaches the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for salvation. Your logic tells us that Paul DIDN'T preach the DBR ofJesus Christ for salvation because of what he preached in Acts 16. Do you see how foolish that is?
I think you are missing the point here. Just because Paul did not use the exact words "death, burial, and resurrection" does not mean he did not imply it when he said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation". And why is this? Because if you believe on the Lord Jesus then you do believe he died and rose again. You do not attack Paul for not specifically spelling everything out, yet when Peter does not specifically spell everything out (but implies it) you jump all over him and accuse him of preaching another gospel. There is nothing in the phrase "repent and be converted" which implies that baptism is necessary for salvation. True conversion is a process which occurs AFTER one is saved. But nothing in Peters statements implies the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

You have to admit that we do not have the entire dialogue which happened in these situations, and there's a good chance Peter preached baptism in Acts 3 and Paul preached DBR in Acts 16. How do we know this? It's what they preached EVERY other time!
Woah woah woah. Hold it right there. A good chance? In other words you do not know for sure. EVERY other time? Exactly how many examples of sermons by Peter and Paul do we have in the book of Acts? Maybe a handful at best? So we in fact do not know every instance of what they preached, as you admit. So then a good way to settle the question of whether or not Peter and Paul preached two different gospels would be to look at the early church. You will find that none of the early church writings imply two different gospels.

Russ

Socrates

May 21st 2003, 03:44 AM

In this case, I totally agree with Steadele :thumb:. The messages of Peter and Paul differed only because their audiences were different. That is, Peter in Acts 2 did not have to justify the Creation, Fall and the coming Messiah to the Jews, because they already knew that! But Paul in the Areopagus first preached the Resurrection, and the Greeks said "What is this babbler talking about?" So Paul went back to Creation, referring the unknown God, to build the foundation, and only after that did he mention judgment by Jesus who was raised from the dead.

The ultradispensationalists mistake different means of communicating the Gospel with different Gospels. But there is only one Gospel in the NT. After all, Paul also contrasts "THE gospel" with "ANOTHER gospel". Ergo, there is only one true gospel and any other one is a false gospel. Also, Jude 3: I ... urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." Note that it was THE faith, singular (definite description), not more than one faith.

There is no doubt that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was the core of the messages of both Peter and Paul. Baptism was never a means salvation, but always an outward sign performed by people who were already saved.

It's a shame that ultradispensationalists must rely on fallacious logic applied to textually dubious passages to make their case. :shocked:

joelkaki

May 21st 2003, 10:11 AM

A good exegesis, joelkaki, shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

Matthew 15:24
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Jesus was sent for the Jews...

Matthew 10:5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

What? Jesus commands the twelve to not go the gentiles?! This can't be joelkaki. Oh wait, it is. Look carefully at what else Jesus asks them to do...

Of course, at that time, the ministry was focused on the nation of Israel. They went to the Jew first and then also to the Greek. But remember, Jesus did minister to some Gentiles. But yes, before Christ's resurrection and subsequent appearance to his disciples, they primarily went to the Jews. But then in Matthew 28:19-20 Christ told them to go to ALL NATIONS. It seems that you forgot to deal with the fact that it explicitly says that ALL NATIONS were to be discipled AND BAPTIZED.

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;
18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Is this what happens when you preach the Great Commission joelkaki? And why not?

No. First of all, that is a spurious text, and therefore cannot be used to base your entire point on. Secondly, if it is not spurious, those were things peculiar to the apostolic age.

Was Peter at the Great Commission of "go to all nations"? Of course...Peter definitely knew the Great Commission was only for the Jews.

Hmm, but it said, "all nations."

After Acts 9, God tried to explain to him that he was done dealing with the nation of Israel, but Peter didn't understand at first, because he was so bent on following Christ's earthly commands. Let's look:

Acts 10:9-18
9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.
13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate.

When God was dealing with the nation of Israel, He had dietary laws. Peter obviously followed these restrictions as he refused the food God gave to him. But God let him know that it was ok now to eat those things once prohibited. We press on...

Acts 10:19-20
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you.
20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."

As Peter was still questioning this vision, God realized he was still firm on following Jesus' Great Commission, so he sends him and asks him to doubt nothing for He knows he is about to eneter the house of a gentile. We press on..

Acts 10:27-28
27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together.
28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

You see, even Peter knew it was unlawful for a Jewish man to go to one of another nation. Who do you think knew more about the Great Commission you or Peter? Probably Peter considering he spent every day with Christ personally soaking up everything He said. Look to those who were there to teach you...

Jesus didn't command the gentiles to be baptized!

What you have said up there are the consequences (obviously) of your Acts 9 views. But notice in Acts 2, there were other people than just Jews, there were Gentiles there, and their tongues were spoken by the apostles, and many believed, and were baptized.

Joel

George Blaisdell

May 21st 2003, 11:58 AM

Soc's writes:

> p=believes
> q=baptized
> r=saved

> So...

> If p and q then r. If not p then not r.

> This is what I see from Mark 16:16.

> Indeed, this is a correct propositional representation.

> doogieduff:

> > And I agree!

> Do you really? You are also trying to argue "If not q then not r", which is a logically invalid deduction from the above.

Interesting thread. Everyone seems to agree that r = salvation and not-r = comdemnation. Whereas the text states that not-p yields condemnation, leaving open the issue of not-q yielding not-r.

iow, lack of baptism may not get you condemned, but it will not get you saved either. Salvation is union with Christ, and we enter Christ by baptism. What everyone here seems to think is salvation is the call of spiritual awakening - The 'free ride' of the expeirience of God. It is the confirmation of this experience in our lives and bodies that constitutes pistis, which results in salvation, after the whole of it, and in the future...

And everyone seems to be losing sight of that pesky future for WILL BE saved... We all seem to slip back into our "are saved" language of theological presuppositioning... [Even HAVE BEEN saved!] Even casting doubt on the authenticity of the passage to affirm our own views...

Changing the Bible when it disagrees with us is risky stuff! [Aw shucks, that probably was a later add-on! We can ignore THAT! So what else can we find here that actually agrees with us?]

geo

Socrates

May 22nd 2003, 01:58 AM

Today @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103199#post103199)
George Blaisdell:

Interesting thread. Everyone seems to agree that r = salvation and not-r = comdemnation. Whereas the text states that not-p yields condemnation, leaving open the issue of not-q yielding not-r.

iow, lack of baptism may not get you condemned, but it will not get you saved either.

And was anyone claiming otherwise? The whole point is that one can draw no conclusion from this passage about what happens to those who are not baptized, only to those who don't believe.

Salvation is union with Christ, and we enter Christ by baptism. What everyone here seems to think is salvation is the call of spiritual awakening -

I think it is what the Bible says: being "born again".

And everyone seems to be losing sight of that pesky future for WILL BE saved... We all seem to slip back into our "are saved" language of theological presuppositioning... [Even HAVE BEEN saved!]

And your point is?? There is a future aspect to one's salvation, in that one has already passed from death into eternal life, and in the final glorification (Romans 8:30).

Even casting doubt on the authenticity of the passage to affirm our own views ... Changing the Bible when it disagrees with us is risky stuff! [Aw shucks, that probably was a later add-on! We can ignore THAT! So what else can we find here that actually agrees with us?]

Nonsense. Perhaps you would care to actually refute the evidence against its authenticity?

George Blaisdell

May 22nd 2003, 11:54 AM

[post#51 ]
Soc's writes:“

> George Blaisdell:

> > Interesting thread. Everyone seems to agree that r = salvation and not-r = comdemnation. Whereas the text states that not-p yields condemnation, leaving open the issue of not-q yielding not-r.

> > iow, lack of baptism may not get you condemned, but it will not get you saved either.

> And was anyone claiming otherwise? The whole point is that one can draw no conclusion from this passage about what happens to those who are not baptized, only to those who don't believe.

Methinks we may be finding ourselves aflounder in the muckeries of logic... What it says logically is:

1. If BOTH, then salvation
2. If no faith, then condemnation.

Now do you agree with me that not-salvation > condemnation - That condemnation is but one subset of the category of not being saved? Or do you disagree and affirm that if one is not saved, one is condemned?

But from the logical form:
IF [A+B] Then C,
we can conclude that:
IF EITHER not-A OR not-B then not-C [not-salvation].

You are arguing that because not-A is attested to be R [condemnation] that we cannot say that not-B is therefore also not-R. I agree, but you are speaking of R, and the subject in question is C.

> > Salvation is union with Christ, and we enter Christ by baptism. What everyone here seems to think is salvation is actually the call of spiritual awakening -

I think it is what the Bible says: being "born again".

I agree, in the rebirth that is given in baptism into the body of Christ, where we are baptized into Christ's death by triple immersion, in the name of each of the three hypostacies of the One God, and are reborn upon arising from the waters in the Holy Spirit, as the baptism of our Lord by John in the River Jordan so clearly attests... And in this, we are born again unto salvation, if we remain faithful unto the end... [All quite Biblical...]

> > And everyone seems to be losing sight of that pesky future for WILL BE saved... We all seem to slip back into our "are saved" language of theological presuppositioning... [Even HAVE BEEN saved!]

> And your point is?? There is a future aspect to one's salvation,

Well, no, actually...

My point is that salvation is in the future, and as Paul says, we are given an earnest of the life of the age to come... That for us to be glorifying in our having been called unto salvation, in the holiness of the experience of that very holy calling, is to utterly lose the purpose of the calling, which is unto repentance, that we may begin the actual "running of the race", may actually enter into the arena of conflict with powers and principalities [etc, as Paul says] that rule our souls, to root them out and put them to shame, by the power of Christ in the faithful obedience of our actions to Him...

> in that one has already passed from death into eternal life, and in the final glorification (Romans 8:30).

The deeds of the saints, or to speak biblically, the Acts of the Apostles, glorify God, and God glorifies those called to be apostles in His actions in them. Paul was the first outside the 12... This is earthly glorification, unto the final salvation - This is the earnest of salvation - And Paul lived in great suffering, [that he should fill in for the insufficiency of the suffering of our Lord upon the cross], for the Church, and indeed he regarded such suffering as of no account whatsoever... Such was his glory, described so sequentially in Romans 8:30, and in which he did not boast, but in the children he fathered, the saints of the Church...

> > Changing the Bible when it disagrees with us is risky stuff!

> Nonsense.

Spoken like a true neo-Scholastic!

> Perhaps you would care to actually refute te evidence against its authenticity?

Perhaps not.

The RCC is reported to have had hot topics in the middle ages concerning the number of angels that would fit while dancing on the head of a pin... Many were the arguments from scripture - Although granted, not much HARD evidence. The only difference I can see 'tween you and them is the HARD evidence which you allege - That is a matter I will avoid. The Church that gave us the Gospel attests it's authenticity without any dissention, and the Church is the ground and pillar of truth, and nowhere in the Bible do you find scientific evidence and the arguments pertaining thereunto to be the ground and pillar of truth, nor do you find scientific methodology proving faith. St. Thomas tried it in his summa theologica, but that is the western tradition of faith by proof...

geo

doogieduff

May 22nd 2003, 03:57 PM

Yesterday @ 07:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103097#post103097)
joelkaki:

Of course, at that time, the ministry was focused on the nation of Israel. They went to the Jew first and then also to the Greek. But remember, Jesus did minister to some Gentiles. But yes, before Christ's resurrection and subsequent appearance to his disciples, they primarily went to the Jews. But then in Matthew 28:19-20 Christ told them to go to ALL NATIONS. It seems that you forgot to deal with the fact that it explicitly says that ALL NATIONS were to be discipled AND BAPTIZED. What you have said up there are the consequences (obviously) of your Acts 9 views. But notice in Acts 2, there were other people than just Jews, there were Gentiles there, and their tongues were spoken by the apostles, and many believed, and were baptized.

You're right! There were gentiles there! But, this only supports what I believe and puts the burden proof back on you. The Gentiles present in Acts 2 were proselytes. (Acst 2:10) What is a proselyte joel? A gentile converted to a Jew. I'm guessing you're not an ethnic jew, do you have to proselyte before you can be saved? Now let's go to Acts 10.

Acts 10:44-45
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

You have just shown us joel that in Acts 2 gentiles were saved! So now, you have to answer why they were so surprised that gentiles were saved!? It obviously wasn't because gentiles were now saved, but rather, it was before baptism!

I firmly believe that Jesus did mean what He said, "Go to all nations!" But, what we have to figure out apologetically, is what were they supposed to do or go to in these "all nations." I've clearly shown in my exegete that they were supposed to go to all nations, find fellow jews and/or proselytes and preach to them the gospel.

No. First of all, that is a spurious text, and therefore cannot be used to base your entire point on. Secondly, if it is not spurious, those were things peculiar to the apostolic age.

Explain to me joel how you decipher in that verse what's appropriate for that age and what's not? You claim that everything but the casting out demons, etc... is for us. You have no leg to stand on. Guess what? Just as all that casting out of demons and such was peculiar to that age, so was baptism!

Act9_12Out

May 22nd 2003, 04:57 PM

Doogie,

Good point...

Christ's initial commission in Matthew 10 was limited in it's scope. The second commission in Matthew 28 and Mark 16 is also limited in scope. It is easy to understand Matthew 28 and Mark 16 when we see how God commissions believers. For instance,

Isaiah 66
66:19
I will set a sign among them; and those among them who escape I will send to the nations: to Tarshish and Pul and Lud, who draw the bow, and Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off who have not heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they shall declare My glory among the Gentiles.
66:20
Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the Lord, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.

Just as they were commissioned in Isaiah 66 to "go into all the nations" and to "bring all their brethern to Jerusalem," the Great Commission of Matthew 28 is the same. The Apostles were to go into all nations proclaiming the good news of the circumcision. They were to make proselytes of ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles. That's why the circumcision believers with Peter were astonished...

Acts 10
10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
10:45
And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

They were astonished, not because Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, but rather, because these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit before they became proselytes. The Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles before they had been water baptized. Peter continued with the only message he knew...

Acts 10
10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
10:47
"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Sounds a lot like Acts 2:38... Hmmmmmmmmmm.....

Nice job Doogie, keep up the good work...

--Jeremy

George Blaisdell

May 22nd 2003, 05:01 PM

Doggieduff writes:

> "[Acts 10: 45] And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also."

> You have just shown us joel that in Acts 2 gentiles were saved! So now, you have to answer why they were so surprised that gentiles were saved!? It obviously wasn't because gentiles were now saved, but rather, it was before baptism!

The pouring out of grace is salvific [e.g. it is "unto" salvation, meaning moves toward], but it is not salvation. You simply cannot point to examples of the action of grace and declare salvation - There is such a thing as discipleship, both in the Bible and today, and the apostles themselves were disciples for three years, under the best teacher possible... Paul expressed his utter dread at the consequences to himself should he turn away from Christ and the Evangel...

Christianity was still very much a Jewish sect at this time, albiet a persecuted one, and the Jews with Peter were astonished that non-Jews were also receiving the Holy Spirit.

47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they entreated him to tarry certain days.

Very sensible for them to do... The falling upon them of the Holy Spirit is clearly the call to be baptized - So that we might "exegete" that IF the Holy Spirit should fall on you, you should also be baptized.

Isn't that what the Bible plainly says here?

geo

Act9_12Out

May 22nd 2003, 07:47 PM

Geo,

You said,

The pouring out of grace is salvific [e.g. it is "unto" salvation, meaning moves toward], but it is not salvation. You simply cannot point to examples of the action of grace and declare salvation - There is such a thing as discipleship, both in the Bible and today, and the apostles themselves were disciples for three years, under the best teacher possible... Paul expressed his utter dread at the consequences to himself should he turn away from Christ and the Evangel...

Acts 10:45 is not "pouring out of grace" as you suggest. The Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household because they believed. Are you implying that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 was not salvific? They had the Holy Spirit, but were not really saved? You continue,

Christianity was still very much a Jewish sect at this time, albiet a persecuted one, and the Jews with Peter were astonished that non-Jews were also receiving the Holy Spirit.

This is false. Joel has already shown a number of non-Jews who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Gentile salvation was nothing new. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit before baptism was something new. They were "astonished..." You comment on Acts 10:47,

Very sensible for them to do... The falling upon them of the Holy Spirit is clearly the call to be baptized - So that we might "exegete" that IF the Holy Spirit should fall on you, you should also be baptized.

You force this idea into the passage. Peter commanded baptism for the remission of sins in Acts 2:38. This is follows John's ministry where John preached "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:1-4). Peter went on with the only method of salvation that he knew. "Who can forbid water..." You continue,

Isn't that what the Bible plainly says here?

No.

--Jeremy

geo [/QUOTE]

George Blaisdell

May 22nd 2003, 10:31 PM

geo:
The falling upon them of the Holy Spirit is clearly the call to be baptized - So that we might "exegete" that IF the Holy Spirit should fall on you, you should also be baptized.

Jeremy:
You force this idea into the passage.

The Apostle Peter: [Acts 10]
47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?"

This clearly shows that baptism is in water, and that those in Peter's party, the Jews there, should also baptize gentiles, who receive the Holy Spirit just as they have. Clearly, I am not forcing anything here, yes?

Then -

48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

And this pretty well says that because the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit upon the occassion of Peter speaking [the Evangel] to them, that he commanded that they be baptized. Nothing forced there either, yes?

And of COURSE you MUST believe that water baptism in the name of the Lord is NOT the Jewish baptism, because the Jews were ruthlessly persecuting those who performed this baptism, yes? That the baptism in water which Peter commanded is a Christian baptism, and not a Jewish one, yes?

So that the reception of the Holy Spirit upon the apostolic teaching of the gospel is the clear signal that they [the gentiles] should be baptized. So that

IF YOU are a gentile...
And IF you receive the apostolic teaching of the Evangel
and IF you receive the Holy Spirit while hearing the apostolic evangel
q.e.d.THEREFORE you should be baptized.

I cannot find any evidence of 'forcing' as you accuse me of... This is just what the passage states. Peter COMMANDED that the gentiles be baptized BECAUSE they had received the Holy Spirit upon hearing him preach the gospel to them, just like the Jews also received the Holy Spirit.

Maybe you were reading another passage...?

geo

Act9_12Out

May 23rd 2003, 12:39 AM

Geo,

You say,

geo:
The falling upon them of the Holy Spirit is clearly the call to be baptized - So that we might "exegete" that IF the Holy Spirit should fall on you, you should also be baptized.

Jeremy:
You force this idea into the passage.

The Apostle Peter: [Acts 10]
47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?"

This clearly shows that baptism is in water, and that those in Peter's party, the Jews there, should also baptize gentiles, who receive the Holy Spirit just as they have. Clearly, I am not forcing anything here, yes?

Yes you are forcing this idea... As Doogieduff has already pointed out, the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter. As Peter is preaching yet another miraculous sermon (Acts 10:34-44), the Holy Spirit interrupts him before he can say, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Why did the Holy Spirit interrupt? Because the body of Christ had already started at Paul's conversion. Paul was saved before he was water baptized, even though Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized for salvation.

Acts 22:12-16
22:12
Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
22:13
came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
22:14
Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
22:15
For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
22:16
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Ananias was a Jew, and commanded Paul to be baptized to have his sins washed away. However, Paul received the Holy Spirit when he received his sight (Acts 9:18; 22:13). Paul was already saved when Ananias went on with the only message he knew... "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins..." This is why the Holy Spirit interrupted Peter... The body of Christ started at Paul's conversion, and water baptism was no longer necessary for salvation. You continue,

And this pretty well says that because the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit upon the occassion of Peter speaking [the Evangel] to them, that he commanded that they be baptized. Nothing forced there either, yes?

Again, the reason Peter commanded baptism was because that's all he knew... Ananias did the same... You continue,

And of COURSE you MUST believe that water baptism in the name of the Lord is NOT the Jewish baptism, because the Jews were ruthlessly persecuting those who performed this baptism, yes? That the baptism in water which Peter commanded is a Christian baptism, and not a Jewish one, yes?

Water Baptism in the name of the Lord for salvation (Acts 2:38) is for believing Israel. This baptism originated in Numbers 19 "for the water of purification from sin." God was making for Himself a kingdom of Priests... You continue,

So that the reception of the Holy Spirit upon the apostolic teaching of the gospel is the clear signal that they [the gentiles] should be baptized. So that

IF YOU are a gentile...
And IF you receive the apostolic teaching of the Evangel
and IF you receive the Holy Spirit while hearing the apostolic evangel
q.e.d.THEREFORE you should be baptized.

Strange logic... Especially since the circumcision Apostles were preaching faith works for salvation... You continue,

I cannot find any evidence of 'forcing' as you accuse me of... This is just what the passage states. Peter COMMANDED that the gentiles be baptized BECAUSE they had received the Holy Spirit upon hearing him preach the gospel to them, just like the Jews also received the Holy Spirit.

No, Peter commanded water baptism because that's all that he understood. Peter believed that water baptism was an essential part of the salvation process. If believers went out to Peter, and by faith were water baptized, then they would have their sins forgiven... You continue,

Maybe you were reading another passage...?

No, my accusations still stand. You have taken this passage out of it's context and attempted to make it a pre-text. You must deal with Peter's command of water baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), Ananias commanding Paul to be baptized to "wash away his sins," and Peter's explaination of "the antitype which now saves us... Baptism."

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

George Blaisdell

May 26th 2003, 01:02 AM

Christ is Risen!

> Jeremy writes:

geo:
The falling upon them of the Holy Spirit is clearly the call to be baptized - So that we might "exegete" that IF the Holy Spirit should fall on you, you should also be baptized.

Jeremy:
You force this idea into the passage.

The Apostle Peter: [Acts 10]
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

geo:
This clearly shows that baptism is in water, and that those in Peter's party, the Jews there, should also baptize gentiles, who receive the Holy Spirit just as they have. Clearly, I am not forcing anything here, yes?

Jer:
The Holy Spirit interrupted Peter.

geo:
No, the Holy Spirit affirmed Peter... You force "interruption", which is nowhere in the text.

Jer:
As Peter is preaching yet another miraculous sermon (Acts 10:34-44), the Holy Spirit interrupts him before he can say, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

geo:
You are rewriting the scripture, my friend. None of this is there...

Jer:
Why did the Holy Spirit interrupt?

geo:
The Holy Spirit prepared the way for the illumnination of the darkened understandings [of the Jews there] that He descends upon the gentiles just as He does upon the Jews, and that therefore Peter is correct that they should not be refused baptism [water]...

Jer:
Because the body of Christ had already started at Paul's conversion. Paul was saved before he was water baptized, even though Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized for salvation.

Sheer nonsense - Show me the scripture where it says "Paul was saved without being baptized."

There is none.

And then you contradict yourself by saying that Ananias DID baptize him for salvation.

I'm gonna bail out on this one, Jer - It is just headed into a big ol' argue-fest, and I will leave you with it... The last words are all yours...

Truely He is risen!

geo

Act9_12Out

May 26th 2003, 07:36 AM

Geo,

You say,

Jer:
The Holy Spirit interrupted Peter.

geo:
No, the Holy Spirit affirmed Peter... You force "interruption", which is nowhere in the text.

I force nothing. Peter says he was interrupted...

Acts 11
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

It seems to me that Peter was just starting to preach... You continue,

Jer:
As Peter is preaching yet another miraculous sermon (Acts 10:34-44), the Holy Spirit interrupts him before he can say, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

geo: You are rewriting the scripture, my friend. None of this is there...

See above... Compare Acts 10 to Peter's miraculous sermon in Acts 2, culminating in verse 38. You continue,

Jer:
Why did the Holy Spirit interrupt?

geo:
The Holy Spirit prepared the way for the illumnination of the darkened understandings [of the Jews there] that He descends upon the gentiles just as He does upon the Jews, and that therefore Peter is correct that they should not be refused baptism [water]...

To quote you... "geo:
You are rewriting the scripture, my friend. None of this is there... " You continue,

Jer:
Because the body of Christ had already started at Paul's conversion. Paul was saved before he was water baptized, even though Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized for salvation.

Sheer nonsense - Show me the scripture where it says "Paul was saved without being baptized."

There is none.

I asked that you compare the account in Acts 9 with Acts 22. Let's read it...

Acts 9
9:17
And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
9:18
Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

Ananias said he was sent "that Paul would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Now, when did Paul receive his sight and become filled with the Holy Spirit in relation to water baptism?

Acts 22
22:12
Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
22:13
came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
22:14
Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
22:15
For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
22:16
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Paul received his sight and was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being water baptized. You continue,

And then you contradict yourself by saying that Ananias DID baptize him for salvation.

I never said Ananias baptized Paul for salvation. I was making the point that this was the message Ananias was preaching. Ananias, like Peter, believed that water baptism was a necessary element in salvation. As stated before, God started the dispensation of Grace and changed the method of salvation. This is why God interrupted Peter and saved Cornelius and his household prior to being water baptized. You continue,

I'm gonna bail out on this one, Jer - It is just headed into a big ol' argue-fest, and I will leave you with it... The last words are all yours...

That's too bad Geo... I'm sorry if you feel discussing the word of God is arguing... Yes, He is risen! Praise God!

--Jeremy

George Blaisdell

May 26th 2003, 01:23 PM

Geo,

You say,

Jer:
The Holy Spirit interrupted Peter.

geo:
No, the Holy Spirit affirmed Peter... You force "interruption", which is nowhere in the text.

> I force nothing. Peter says he was interrupted...

Acts 11
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.

geo
Nothing about interruption here - This is how it works - If I were a holy Father like Peter or Paul, and was talking to you, as I would begin to speak, the Holy Spirit would fall upon you, that you would know the truth - And obviously I am not a holy father!

I mean, anyone can talk, but the apostles came in power, and that power was the power of the holy spirit, for God sent them unto the nations, and for the Holy Spirit to fall upon those with whom they were speaking was not some rare event, and was certainly not an interruption so as to prevent their verbal malfeasance, as you seem to be arguing here. I mean, you seem to be arguing that the Holy Spirit kind of said "Oops! That uninformed Peter is about to stick his foot in his mouth and say something wrong! So I had better hurry up and fall upon the gentiles before he does so." If you are asserting this kind of event, we have little to discuss, for it is waaay too far out in la-la land to seriously discuss.

Had there been this kind of action of the Holy Spirit, it would have been Peter that would have been overcome, as Saul, who was most certainly engaged in malfeasance, was overcome, struck down, and blinded...

Jer
It seems to me that Peter was just starting to preach...

Perhaps you can see now that this is not unusual, for he goes on to take note of it and remark it to the Jews there that this is JUST LIKE THEM, [how the Holy Spirit fell upon them when Peter had been speaking to them, just like the gentiles now are receiving this same Holy Spirit falling upon them]... And what is the unforced conclusion that Peter draws?

[Acts 10]
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

Jer:
As Peter is preaching yet another miraculous sermon (Acts 10:34-44), the Holy Spirit interrupts him before he can say, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

geo:
You are rewriting the scripture, my friend. None of this is there...

Jer
See above... Compare Acts 10 to Peter's miraculous sermon in Acts 2, culminating in verse 38.

I see nothing about interruption anywhere - There is a really good Greek word for interruption - And it is not there... None of the words in any of those passages translate as "interruption" - The passages simply describe the normal workings of the Holy Spirit in the actions of the Apostolic Church when Apostles would speak. Sometimes it is before they speak, sometimes during, sometimes later, sometimes much later - That's how things are in the Apostolic Church, the body of Christ...

Jer:
Why did the Holy Spirit interrupt?

geo:
The Holy Spirit prepared the way for the illumnination of the darkened understandings [of the Jews there] that He descends upon the gentiles just as He does upon the Jews, and that therefore Peter is correct that they should not be refused baptism [water]...

Jer:
To quote you... "geo:
You are rewriting the scripture, my friend. None of this is there... "

geo:
You are right - It is here:
10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

When someone receives the Holy Spirit, THAT is the proof that they are ready for baptism... And they receive the Holy Spirit when the Apostles are speaking to them.

Jer:
Because the body of Christ had already started at Paul's conversion. Paul was saved before he was water baptized, even though Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized for salvation.

Sheer nonsense - Show me the scripture where it says "Paul was saved without being baptized."

There is none.

Jer:
I asked that you compare the account in Acts 9 with Acts 22. Let's read it...

Acts 9:17
And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
9:18
Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.

Ananias said he was sent "that Paul would receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Now, when did Paul receive his sight and become filled with the Holy Spirit in relation to water baptism?

Most certainly yes! And the relation was by way of PREPARATION for Holy Baptism, whereby he was to enter the body of Christ. The Apostolic Church did not baptize the blind and unspirited, but healed the blind, and preached to them that the Holy Spirit come upon them, as was the common practice, and this so that they COULD be baptized into Christ...

Acts 22:12
Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there,
22:13
came to me; and he stood and said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And at that same hour I looked up at him.
22:14
Then he said, 'The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth.
22:15
For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
22:16
And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

Paul received his sight and was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to being water baptized.

That prepared him for baptism, just as the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the gentiles via Peter prepared them for baptism.

Look, Jer' - If an Apostle preaches the Gospel to you in person, and the Holy Spirit does NOT fall upon you, you are not ready for baptism. That's just how it is...

And then you contradict yourself by saying that Ananias DID baptize him for salvation.

Jer:
I never said Ananias baptized Paul for salvation.

You see to think that salvation consists in the falling upon someone of the Holy Spirit, and this is not the case - Clearly in these passages, for every time that it happens, when the apostle preaches the word and it is received by the hearing of faith, which is the descent of the Holy Spirit, they are THEN baptized [yes, in water] and given the SEAL of the Holy Spirit, the Chrism of the Christing oil...

Jer:
I was making the point that this was the message Ananias was preaching. Ananias, like Peter, believed that water baptism was a necessary element in salvation. As stated before, God started the dispensation of Grace and changed the method of salvation. This is why God interrupted Peter and saved Cornelius and his household prior to being water baptized.

geo
All of which is forced, and not true...

geo:
I'm gonna bail out on this one, Jer -

Jer:
That's too bad Geo...

geo:
Against my better judgement, I responded to your post -

When anyone comes up with the idea that the Holy Spirit interrupted an apostle so as to prevent him from telling someone to be baptized, when the actual purpose of the action of the Holy Spirit is to indicate their preparedness by Him for baptism, I tend to regard the possibility for communication sketchy at best.

You surprised me with your good response, so I set aside my prejudice.

Yes, He is risen! Praise God!

--Jeremy

geo

Act9_12Out

May 28th 2003, 08:44 AM

Geo,

Since you do not believe the Bible is the final authority, we have no basis for truth. I will follow you out the door and bail on this one too...

--Jeremy

George Blaisdell

May 28th 2003, 11:15 AM

Jer' writes:[/b]

Geo,

Since you do not believe the Bible is the final authority, we have no basis for truth.

--Jeremy

The Bible is a book - It is the holy writ of Christ's apostolic Church. Outside the living Tradition of its Origin, the Holy Spirit, it is just a book. You see, the problem is that probably most folks on this forum would agree with you, that it is the FINAL authority. [Orthodoxy teaches that God, and not scripted sheaves sanctified by Him, is the final authority. We worship God, not the Bible...]

Now all these folks would say: 'Well sure, the Bible is the final authority - And that is why we have this forum, for we take debate of theology utterly SERIOUSLY... And how else can we better understand the authority of the Bible than by engaging in endless debates about what it means?'

And what I am saying is that it does one no good to raise one's Bible high overhead as the FINAL authority when you have thousands of western denominations teaching that everyone is individually responsible for their own interpretation of its meaning... And hence all this division of opinion, this endless chasing of the latest wind of changing doctrine, this sanctification of DEBATE as the REAL authority, and the Bible itself as but nominal authority...

Where is worship in debate? Where is worship in everyone reading the Bible for him/herself and drawing conclusions and arguing with everyone else about what the words mean? Yet that is what we find in the west... And the predictable results are that there are thousands of denominations, all of them differing from one another, and all teaching that we have to study and make up our own mind about what the FINAL authority means, and every point of view has its advocates and opponents.

The JWs believe that the Bible is the FINAL authority, you know... They just have a differing set of opinions of what it means, and have their own scholars to back up their claims, with their own research, and on and on...

This is not the road to Biblical Truth... It doesn't matter how much you "prove" someone wrong. They keep on believing as they already did. And the ones that don't are the really mathmatically minded robots whose opinions change with every new insight...

Fortunately, the Bible itself gives us the cure for this problem you point out, when you rightly complain "We have no basis for truth." For not only does the Bible itself prescribe the basis of truth, indeed its very foundation, but also its support, its raising up into view, holding truth aloft... Now what might this be? What is this Biblical ground and pillar of truth?

It's the living body of our Lord, Jer... The household of God, h ekklesia, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. We do not go outside the Church for truth, for Christ-God wrought salvation upon this earth in His Holy Body the Church, each person a temple of the Holy Spirit, into which we enter by Christ's baptism into Christ's death unto His holy resurrection. This is where we find truth, and indeed Truth, for this is where Truth resides, in the Person of our Lord and Savior.

The great and early controversies that tried to divide the body of Christ are pretty much safely in the past now, yet new ones challenge us in the present, and indeed many are re-runs of the old, yet it is the apostolic Church where we find truth, and not outside Her, for as we sing each Liturgy: "Thou art our God... We know no other than Thee..."

The problem you will find with your understanding is that the Bible which you treasure as your final authority states clearly that the pillar and ground of truth is the Church, and not the Bible... Remember that Ethiopian eunich whom Peter asked if he understood what he was reading? And do you remember his reply?

That is a Biblical truth...

geo

John Reece

May 28th 2003, 01:26 PM

George,

Re:

It's the living body of our Lord, Jer... The household of God, h ekklesia, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. We do not go outside the Church for truth, for Christ-God wrought salvation upon this earth in His Holy Body the Church, each person a temple of the Holy Spirit, into which we enter by Christ's baptism into Christ's death unto His holy resurrection. This is where we find truth, and indeed Truth, for this is where Truth resides, in the Person of our Lord and Savior.

I agree 100% with the closing sentence of the quote above, to which I have added bold emphasis.

And I agree with your comments regarding the futility and divisiveness of claiming the Bible as the final authority.

I have just one question:

Does your definition of the One True Church include the Roman Catholic Church, or only the Eastern Orthodox?

John

George Blaisdell

May 28th 2003, 10:36 PM

John Reece writes:

> George,

> And I agree with your comments regarding the futility and divisiveness of claiming the Bible as the final authority.

It is so patently obvious that it only needs be looked at to be proven - This list glorifies arguments - The more you post, the more 'points' you get... The more threads you start, and on and on, and we even have a 'Boxing Ring' for debaters to duke it out... And nobody persuades anybody... We are all just figuring it all out on our own authority, and arguing with each other - THAT is the state of the western Church[es]... And everyone wants to preach, and nobody wants to worship, and worship services are a few songs out of the hymnal and a pastoral prayer and benediction, and a BIG sermon...

Good western theologians have figured out ways to 'interrogate' the Bible, to get it to answer questions that arise in the reading of it, and yet even they disagree in their findings...

Nowhere in the Bible do you find thousands of denominations each clamoring for the primacy of their own interpretation...

Nowhere...

> I have just one question:

> Does your definition of the One True Church include the Roman Catholic Church,

It did until 1054AD - When Rome ended Her communion with all the rest of Christianity [The other apostolic Churches in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.] and persecuted Orthodoxy in the west out of existence, and then invaded the east, sacked Constantinople, murdering thousands upon thousands of Christians, then stayed for 70 years there and looted the empire and the Churches, taking wealth out of there by the shipload steadily for all those 70 years, and then left Her weakened horribly, to be overrun by the Islamic Turks, leaving the mess we have to this day in the Middle East, and the heart of Orthodoxy moved east into Russia...

Our Churches,[ the eastern communion of Churches] and the western Papal autocracy, have not been in communion for a thousand years. We, the Eastern Orthodox, are the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - We do not recognize Rome as a part of us, and have not for a long time.

Pope John-Paul calls us the "Primitive Church", and wishes to be one communion with us, but only at the price of capitulation to subservience to the papacy in Rome. That will not happen, and Rome will not go back to the 7 ecumenical councils that defined the Church prior to 1054.

The Roman chapter is the saddest of all in Christianity - Our sister was lost, and we pray for Her every day...

> or only the Eastern Orthodox?

Yes... We have kept the faith unchanged for 2000 years... We are the Church of the Apostles - Even our Bible, the Apostle's Bible, is the Bible they used, the LXX... However battered and variant the readings... We are the Church of the holy martyrs - many millions martyred in the 20th century - more that all those lost in the first 4 centuries...

We don't debate theology - We teach it - The debating was all worked out in the first 800 years... And yes, it is the fullness of the faith, unless you get into the Russian gulags, the death camps of Stalin, where so many millions of Christians were sent and died, and there you find the Church stripped of all the outward ornament, glorifying God in the face of ghastly dehumanization and faceless death...

The Tsar's family was thrown into a mine shaft to die, and the songs of the liturgy for the dead were heard coming out of that hole in the ground for days...

Wow - I kind of went off on one... Did I answer you?

geo