As you have noticed (and we agree), this website is pretty awesome. Why you would choose to not be a member or logged in is baffling to both of us. The process is simple and costs you nothing, unless you really feel the urge to pay then we will not deny you that request. Back on point, once you become a member you will wonder why you put up with this notice all this time and ask yourself, "What was I thinking?" Being a tWebber is too awesome to pass up.
So stop playing ninja trying to act all stealth and lurking about (we see you), do you really want to be seen as a "lurker". Its like you are peeking in people's windows while they undress. How naughty of you. Does your mom know what you are doing right now? She agrees you should just register or login already. Good job.
Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean - Page 2
I always find it amazing that after all the New Testament has to say folks always want to nit pick something into requiring some sort of ritual to be saved. What does this accomplish? It puts temporal power in the hands of those administering the ritual. Noting else.
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
I always find it amazing that after all the New Testament has to say folks always want to nit pick something into requiring some sort of ritual to be saved. What does this accomplish? It puts temporal power in the hands of those administering the ritual. Noting else.
Yep, after many verses saying just believe, some people will ignore all that and focus on one or two verses that COULD mean works are needed. Context means nothing. It's as if they WANT to make it hard to be saved.
If they want to "work" for their salvation then Jesus has this to say about what "work" is needed:
John 6:28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Sparko is correct. The eis is causative in this verse, as in "repent; be baptised because of the remission of your sins." The physical rite is not a magic action which causes one to be forgiven, but rather a sign that one has entered the church, the company of the forgiven.
Sparko is correct. The eis is causative in this verse, as in "repent; be baptised because of the remission of your sins." The physical rite is not a magic action which causes one to be forgiven, but rather a sign that one has entered the church, the company of the forgiven.
I agree with everything you said except the "Sparko is correct" part.
I agree with everything you said except the "Sparko is correct" part.
Yeah, that's because he is under the bus, nobody under the bus is allowed to be right, just like Brigham Young(even though I showed that D&C agrees with him, he was still left under the bus).
I keep telling people that I am always right, even when I am wrong. But nobody believes me.
emphasis mine
I'd believe you about that....'cept it'd probably crash the server
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. - William G. McAdoo
Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane. - Philip K. Dick
I agree with everything you said except the "Sparko is correct" part.
Is there not some sort of saying about broken clocks?
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
Sparko is correct. The eis is causative in this verse, as in "repent; be baptised because of the remission of your sins."
The NET has a note: "There is debate over the meaning of eis. . . . Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here."
Indeed, every single translation I could find that did not translate eis as "for" moved away from the causal sense. I suspect that, due to being uncomfortable with the implication of baptism as a "work," you are reading your own interpretation into the text.
The physical rite is not a magic action which causes one to be forgiven, but rather a sign that one has entered the church, the company of the forgiven.
It is neither a magic action nor a mere sign. It is a spiritual act involving both God and baptizand (which is why it cannot be done by proxy) which confers remission of sins (and prepares one for entrance into the Church). Through it we die to our old self and are raised up to walk in newness of life.
Why do you feel that it would be futile to try to find out how many posters agree with Sparko's version of what the verse means? It's not that hard to type a "yes" or a "no" or am I wrong about that?
I will not be voting
Because you disagree with Sparko's interpretation and you don't want anyone to know?
but I would like to know what you would do if the majority of people agreed with the "anti's"?
I would wonder by what reasoning they were dismissing what the Bible makes plain. I would probably ask them that.
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, she/he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
Sparko is correct. The eis is causative in this verse, as in "repent; be baptised because of the remission of your sins." The physical rite is not a magic action which causes one to be forgiven, but rather a sign that one has entered the church, the company of the forgiven.
Citations exist to back your opinion up?
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, she/he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
Thanks to OBP, Jedidiah and Cow Poke for the additional verses that support the FUTURE event that WILL occur IF something is done FIRST.
So is that 3 more "no" votes?
"I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's
religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently,
on the faults of other people's religions, she/he is in a bad condition."
-C.S. Lewis (Collected Letters Vol. 3 p. 209).
I've explained it already. I object to your proposed epistemology because, as you've already admitted, if it were we couldn't know anything for sure, thus destroying knowledge knowledge altogether. ...
[I thought we were waiting to see what we could see by the light of the lantern]
Feluven looks to see what the lantern's light has revealed
Spot: 18+8=26
Feluven has low-light vision, being...
Well that's simple to clear up then, and that's a good way of putting it. That's the answer I've been giving this whole time. God has hard-wired us to know Him by granting us innate knowledge of His...
I am familiar with the never-ending task. One must always be ready to reevaluate your conclusions. I too have spent several decades evaluating the evidence and seem to have come up with a...
The Scholarly Nutshell, #1
"Death With Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark"
by John Pilch
This is the introductory entry in a new series I've called "The Scholarly...
I've come back to you now, at the turn of the tide.
It's been over a year without any updates. Why? Well, that's simple - I'm a procrastinator. A huge one. If I don't keep on a schedule, I'll...
I confess…I’m an intellectual. I like to discuss Christian theology. I appreciate that the Christianity we live today was shaped by first the writers of the New Testament and lots of faithful people...
Tornados
Yesterday, 06:02 PM in Chaplain's Office