Ask God for Me

[miknik5]

it can be shown that the Bible does not address these differences. If it did there would not be denominations. Each Christian thinks if everyone would interpret the Bible the way I do them there would not be any differences. You claim the Bible can clear up these differences but it has not.

The GOSPEL is spoken throughout the BIBLE...there is nothing that needs to be added to THAT TRUTH...

Here is a truth, every man is to grow up into all knowledge of the SON of GOD unto the full measure of CHRIST and then and only then will they be able to discern every wind of manmade doctrine (which is simply yeast) from THE FOUNDATION...

Ephesians 4

 

[miknik5]

The ones that are claiming water baptism is not necessary is supported by Scripture. There are passages that sound like it is a salvation issue, but when taken with the complete context, it isn't a salvation issue. Paul said: God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26)Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27)And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28)But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29)Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30)And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31)So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”Acts 16:25-31 (NKJ)

As well, in John 6, CHRIST´s words tell what one must do to do both the WILL and the WORK of GOD...


THE WORK OF GOD:
28 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.


THE WILL OF GOD

[URL='https://www.christianforums.com/bible/john/6:37/']37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.[/URL]

 

[Silmarien]

Paul certainly considered what Adam and Eve did as sin. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus certainly also believed in the literal genesis account John 5:46-47 and Mt 19:3-6.

If you don't believe in the literal accounts of genesis I commend you, they are ridiculous. However, this is just more confusion and Christians not knowing what the bible actually says. Also, if you take Genesis as allegorical then you seem to be in conflict in what Jesus believed.

It's really problematic to say that anyone who doesn't interpret Genesis literally doesn't know what the Bible says. It's also absurd to insist that people 2000 years ago must have interpreted things in the same way that modern literalists do--Paul presumably believed that Adam existed, but I don't think there's anyway to know how Jesus, who was intentionally cryptic and tended to speak in parables, actually viewed Genesis. We don't have that information, so it's not really valid to force snippets of the Gospels to fit with any modern reading at all.

If you're confused because not everyone reads Genesis literally, then I think the problem is that you're still trapped in a fundamentalist mindset. I would suggest treating a church that actually has more than 100 years of history behind it as the default picture of what Christianity really teaches, since then you can see both continuity throughout the centuries and ways in which the cultural assumptions of any given period might have influenced teachings. There's no reason to be confused by something like this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don´t really need anything...
And no that wasn´t what I said at all...

I said that those gnostic scripts jump ahead and discuss the teachings and sayings of JESUS...but do not start at the beginning...by stating the GOSPEL first...

Without the GOSPEL, in the hands of someone outside THE BODY, the writings are misleading...they imply that one need only follow the teachings of JESUS...and JESUS, therefore, is treated like every, and no different from other, wisdom teachers...

But that then leaves a person....truncated....not having entered in and therefore missing the BETTER PART...and certainly...not on THE FOUNDATION.

Even the apocryphal texts leave out the story of THE GOSPEL...but the writings are of those who had already come to know JESUS as the SAVIOR and the LORD

Take the Gospel of Thomas for instance...look how it begins,

The true sayings of the LIVING JESUS...if anyone interprets these sayings, they will certainly not taste death...

Misleading...

It is the reason why these types of writings did not make it into the canon of what is called THE BIBLE...

They left out the most important part...THE GOSPEL..and not a true understanding of who JESUS is...

So men will think that by reading and trying to interpret sayings (which are closed to those who are not born of THE SPIRIT) that somehow they can attain to a level of communication with GOD apart from THE SON...

And they can´t.

I don't know what to say to this so I will just leave it for now.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sin does require justice, but sin doesn't not send us to eternal punishment, the refusal of pardon of sin does.

This is like telling my wife after I abused her that all she had to do was to let me know she did not want to be abused. It is her fault that I abused her.

Morally bad things are sins. If not why?

Because morally bad things do not bring death to creation. Sin did.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nope that also isn´t what I said...
And again, I gave you the short of my testimony, sir...many pages back...

Testimony is not sufficient evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Again, who do the people say that I am will be the ever and always question...and there is one foundational answer upon which the BODY will be built....

Yet that foundation of Jesus are not the same for all Christians. It is not that people all believe in Jesus as the foundation but what they believe about that foundation. If what they believe is different then the foundation is different no matter that they all call it Jesus.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It really isn't. Many are baptized, even though they don't believe it is a salvation issue.

So your solution to this salvation issue is to wave your hand at it. Just say that these two different salvation doctrines are just not an issue.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nope, that is false.

I guess you are of the name it a claim it crowd? Just believe it is false and that will make it true.

 

[miknik5]

Yet that foundation of Jesus are not the same for all Christians. It is not that people all believe in Jesus as the foundation but what they believe about that foundation. If what they believe is different then the foundation is different no matter that they all call it Jesus.

Here is the difference between the two...those whose feet are planted firmly on THE FOUNDATION will REMAIN in HIM...and those whose feet aren´t on THE FOUNDATION, will go out from HIM..and by their going out they make it evident to those whose feet are on THE FOUNDATION, that they never began in what they should have began in...



1 John 2
2 John 1

 

[miknik5]

It's really problematic to say that anyone who doesn't interpret Genesis literally doesn't know what the Bible says. It's also absurd to insist that people 2000 years ago must have interpreted things in the same way that modern literalists do--Paul presumably believed that Adam existed, but I don't think there's anyway to know how Jesus, who was intentionally cryptic and tended to speak in parables, actually viewed Genesis. We don't have that information, so it's not really valid to force snippets of the Gospels to fit with any modern reading at all.

If you're confused because not everyone reads Genesis literally, then I think the problem is that you're still trapped in a fundamentalist mindset. I would suggest treating a church that actually has more than 100 years of history behind it as the default picture of what Christianity really teaches, since then you can see both continuity throughout the centuries and ways in which the cultural assumptions of any given period might have influenced teachings. There's no reason to be confused by something like this.

JESUS acknowledged Adamś son, Abel...therefore HE clearly did acknowledge a literal Adam...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So your solution to this salvation issue is to wave your hand at it. Just say that these two different salvation doctrines are just not an issue.

That's what I do---I just waive it away. And I've been in both kinds of churches, one teaching that baptism is a necessary part of entering the faith (i.e. The Christian Church/Church of Christ), and the other teaching that baptism is simply an act of obedience, post-faith (i.e. Southern Baptist). The thing is, neither church is just going to say that baptism is completely and utterly "optional," so I'm not sure what you're confusion on all of this is or why any of us should be bothered by it.

And so, after studying it all myself, I don't see a huge primary issue. No, really, it is an issue, but I think it should belong to the 'secondary' category that Paul was referring to in Romans chapter 14.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If both kinds of church end up baptizing new believers, what difference does it really make?

How do you know this is the case. I know Christians that are not baptized and are sure they are saved.

Either way, believers will be baptized in close relation to their acts and belief in the Christian faith. It makes no good sense to keep concerning yourself with an issue like this one with baptism where most Trinitarian Christians end up promoting a ritual that is agreed upon by both to be meaningful.

But if salvation is at stake why the confusion?

No, what you need to do is find a Trinitarian denomination that says you absolutely don't need to be baptized ever, or it teaches that baptized infants go to hell, or some other extreme. As it is, you're harping on trivialities here. So, just do yourself and us a favor and stop the silliness.

So non trinitarians are not real Christians? I did not know salvation was trivial.

Unitarians, Quakers, Christian Science do not teach baptism or do the practice and consider themselves Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you know this is the case. I know Christians that are not baptized and are sure they are saved.

I don't "know" that it is the case, but being that the New Testament writers weren't comprehensive on the subject of baptism, the best we can do is take ALL of the various comments in the New Testament about baptism, list them all, look at any additional intertextual contexts that may affect the implied meaning of each individual comment, read extra-biblical comments by patristric authors who came within a lifetime of the first century...........and make our best affirmation about what we think baptism is and when and how it should be done. The thing is, you're NOT REALLY going to find many Christian churches that say, "Well, you believe, so you can be baptized if you want to............or you can just waltz away and piddle for the next 50 years and not do so if you so please. Alright? Have a good salvation!" No, they're not going to say it like that.

But if salvation is at stake why the confusion?

Salvation isn't at stake on the issue of baptism and just about every Christian church that is worthy of the name in Trinitarian terms will assert that baptism is significant and should be done, regardless of whether it completes the entry to salvation or just accompanies it as a 'sign' that one has "decided to follow Jesus."

So, may you just need to get a fresh glass of relaxing lemonade, lay back in your recliner, and stop worrying about it all in OCD fashion, ay?

So non trinitarians are not real Christians? I did not know salvation was trivial.

I didn't say that, specifically. But yeah, if someone doesn't follow the idea that Jesus is Divine in nature, to at least some extent, and in a way that more or less comports with the New Testament teaching, then it's hard for me to say, "Hey you, you're going to Heaven!" So yeah, I do have serious questions about some groups who "name the name of Jesus."

Unitarians, Quakers, Christian Science do not teach baptism or do the practice and consider themselves Christians.

Why should I care about that? Most Trinitarian Christians are going to classify the 1st and the 3rd group as "pseudo-Christian cults," and the middle one as "fringe" Christianity. Of course, some might consider me to be "fringe" Christianity, but the final analysis might show differently, I think.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is like telling my wife after I abused her that all she had to do was to let me know she did not want to be abused. It is her fault that I abused her.

Not really.

Because morally bad things do not bring death to creation. Sin did.

Same thing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is like telling my wife after I abused her that all she had to do was to let me know she did not want to be abused. It is her fault that I abused her.

Because morally bad things do not bring death to creation. Sin did.

No, actually, God did---God brought death to Creation; but Satan instigated the process that worked through the choices of "Adam and Eve," thereby resulting in human mortality.

I guess you missed that part of the Genesis account. Time for you to read the account again, and maybe pay closer attention the next time around.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is DEFINITELY a consensus on how one is saved...and it is not through water baptism first....

You are wrong.

"Churches of Christ have a reputation for placing much stress on the need for baptism. However, we do not emphasize baptism as a "church ordinance," but as a command of Christ. The New Testament teaches baptism as an act which is essential to salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)."

Internet Ministries - The Churches of Christ...Who are these people?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The ones that are claiming water baptism is not necessary is supported by Scripture. There are passages that sound like it is a salvation issue, but when taken with the complete context, it isn't a salvation issue. Paul said: God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26)Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27)And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28)But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29)Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30)And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31)So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Acts 16:25-31 (NKJ)

This is your interpretation. Like I posted Churches of Christ interpret verses as it is essential to salvation. Who is right? There is no consensus and no way of knowing who is right. There are verses that also say it is required. Mk 16:16 or Acts 2:38 or Acts 22:16.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's really problematic to say that anyone who doesn't interpret Genesis literally doesn't know what the Bible says.

I never said this.

It's also absurd to insist that people 2000 years ago must have interpreted things in the same way that modern literalists do--Paul presumably believed that Adam existed, but I don't think there's anyway to know how Jesus, who was intentionally cryptic and tended to speak in parables, actually viewed Genesis. We don't have that information, so it's not really valid to force snippets of the Gospels to fit with any modern reading at all.

Like I said if you don't take the bible literally then great. I don't think it is reasonable to do so either. When you jumped in I was talking to people that do take the bible literally. This is who I was talking to. If whay the bible says is true then Jesus considered genesis literally true. He refers to Adam and Eve and Noah as real events and people.

If you're confused because not everyone reads Genesis literally, then I think the problem is that you're still trapped in a fundamentalist mindset.

I fully acknowledge some Christians don't believe in a literal interpretation. As I said above when you jumped in I was talking to people that do.

I would suggest treating a church that actually has more than 100 years of history behind it as the default picture of what Christianity really teaches, since then you can see both continuity throughout the centuries and ways in which the cultural assumptions of any given period might have influenced teachings. There's no reason to be confused by something like this.

Again, I am talking to people that believe the scriptures are literal and have never changed. If that is not you then this conversation is not for you.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Here is the difference between the two...those whose feet are planted firmly on THE FOUNDATION will REMAIN in HIM...and those whose feet aren´t on THE FOUNDATION, will go out from HIM..and by their going out they make it evident to those whose feet are on THE FOUNDATION, that they never began in what they should have began in...



1 John 2
2 John 1

You just can't understand what others are saying because your belief won't allow you to in my opinion.