Invalidating God's word

[Guojing]

I understand that's what you believe.

But you already said you have not met any, including yourself, that actually believes they can claim that promise.

So how can it be only me that believes that?

I believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
I do not believe in reading one passage of the Bible and isolating it from the rest of the scriptures, thus reaching my conclusion based on what I think that scripture is saying.
Is that a practice of yours?

My practice is to ask of every scripture passage.

Who is speaking?

Who is the scripture addressed to?

How would they have understood it?

 

[jas3]

This did.

No, it didn't, but I doubt I'm going to get a straight answer on whether you think the early Church was just the Apostles or all of the believers present at Pentecost.

Do you deny that the Church of the fourth century which promulgated the Nicene Creed was "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"?
Is what you asked.
Do I deny that the fourth century clergy declare itself the true church and "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"? No.

How can anyone deny that the Church of the fourth century which promulgated the Nicene Creed declare itself the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"?

Think of your question this way, Do you deny that the head of the Catholic church is the Pope?
The pope (Latin: papa, from Ancient Greek: πάππας, romanized: páppas, lit. 'father') is the bishop of Rome and the visible head[a] of the worldwide Catholic Church. He is also known as the supreme pontiff, Roman pontiff[c] or sovereign pontiff.

I do not deny that the head of the Catholic church declared himself Pope.
He declares himself father, and millions accept him as father.

I'm not going to play along like you don't know the difference between is and is declared to be. Again, I don't feel like you're going to give me a straight answer here.

I did not declare any primary source a claim.
Rather, I refered to claims as claims.

This is a distinction without a difference. Anything within a primary source that records a doctrine or practice as having apostolic origin, you can just label a "claim" and then dismiss it.

Is it that you want to be in the right, hence you made up your mind that any disagreement is wrong.
Would that not mean that in your mind you are never wrong, because regardless of any evidence, you dismiss it on the basis that you want to believe what you accept, because you want to?

Of course not, I'm willing to be convinced that something is an authentic teaching of the historic Church if I'm shown evidence of it. In the past few years I've been convinced of the traditional views of baptismal regeneration, the conferral of grace through sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, the indefectibility of the Church, and many other things. I was wrong, and I was shown that I was wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I must not have met most of those folk, because I have seen more posts that deny water baptism as having anything to do with the new birth, but instead relates to being born from the womb of one's mother.

If you look at the denominational makeup of the folks here at CF you will discover that there are lots of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, etc. All of these denominations believe and teach that Jesus was talking to Nicodemus in John 3 about water baptism.

The fact that a majority of a population holds a particular view on a topic does not necessarily make it true.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Recall that the 120 in the upper room saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

I would disagree. Contextually, only the twelve received tongues of fire. I shall marshal my evidence.

There is NO EVIDENCE any of the 120 present in the upper room were present on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2 makes clear ONLY the twelve disciples now called Apostles were present.

In Acts 1 prior to Jesus ascension and the gathering of the 120 in the upper room, Luke states, “Gathering them together, Jesus commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

All the witnesses of Jesus ascension then go to Jerusalem per Jesus' command to the upper room. This is a few days prior to Day of Pentecost. Notice there is a time to time difference between the upper room meeting and the day of Pentecost which will occur "not many days from now."

On the same day Jesus ascended into heaven we have a listing of the 120 present in Jerusalem 1) each disciple by name, 2) women, 3) Mary 4) others and 5) Matthias and Barsabbas Justus, of whom Matthias was chose to replace Judas. Luke now calls the Matthias and the Eleven for the first time “apostles.” (1:26) And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.

The major question here is who are the "they" in vs. 1? Is it the 120 from the upper room a few days before, or is it just the twelve disciples on this specific day of Penetocst.

Evidence from Acts 2 indicates that only the 12 disciples now called apostles are present when the Holy Spirit descends upon them with the pillar of fire and the ability to speak known unlearned languages. This is evidence by:

1) the text explicit states “only Peter and the eleven” (Acts 2:14) were present speaking in tongues.

2) countering the accusation the Apostles are drunk, (Acts 2:15) Peter states "these men are not drunk." The Greek οὗτοι is a plural masculine demonstrative pronoun only referring to males, as “these MEN are not drunk.” If Luke wanted to refer to “both men and women not being drunk” he would have used Ταῦτα the neuter form of the pronoun. And if Luke only wanted to refer to women as in “these women are not drunk” he would have used αὗταί or the feminine form of the demonstrative pronoun.

The pillar of fire is at least a divine marker indicating the 12 disciples have the authority to begin Christian baptism. The pillar of fire demonstrates apostolic authority where as the speaking in tongue demonstrates the unleasing of the Holy Spirit and can be bestowed on any believer.

3) vs. 42 places emphasis only on the Apostles and nothing of the 120. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1 Pet 3.21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Water Baptism is symbolic of Spirit Baptism, which is the acceptance of believers into the Church community. Being baptized into somebody's name means you're willing to be identified with him. This is a common sense definition of "baptism." (see 1 Cor 1.13; 10.2)

John's Baptism was associated with John in his call to bring Israel to repentance. Jesus' Baptism was commonly known as "Spirit Baptism," but was actually baptism into the name of Jesus. Being batized in Jesus' name could fall short of what it meant, however, since people could perform the ritual and still not identify, spiritually, with Jesus.

And so, Jesus' Baptism is also called "Spirit Baptism," because in identifying with Jesus we should identify with Jesus spiritually. But even John's Baptism was supposed to be spiritual. We just don't call it "Spirit Baptism" until Jesus' Baptism, because his Spirit Baptism is distinct from the Law, and relies solely on a spiritual connection to Jesus, as opposed to works men did under the Law.

This is fairly typical of American Evangelical "speak" when it comes to hermeneutics. It is the THREE "S" SISTERS OF INTERPRETATION....SPIRITUALIZE, SYMBOLIZE, AND SIGNIFY. Specifically designed to add goobity-gook-goof ball terms into the conversation so nothing in the post can be affirmed or denied.

 

[CoreyD]

But you already said you have not met any, including yourself, that actually believes they can claim that promise.

For one thing, you are adjusting my words.
I do not know if there are individuals here who believe they can claim that promise.
I have not met anyone here who thinks they have been selected for that role. They simply believe they will go to heaven.
In other words, they do not understand the purpose for going to heaven.
That is different to saying I have not met anyone who believes they can claim that promise.

Never mind that though. That's a non issue, as I am not addressing that. I am addressing this:

Being born again has no link to Matthew 19:28. That was a promise given only to the 12 apostles of Christ.

You can be born again but still not a recipient of the promise given to them in that verse.

This is what you believe.

However, the purpose of being born again is to becomes annointed sons of God for the purpose of being heirs to the kingdom - kings and priests.
So there is a direct link to being born again, and Matthew 19:28.
All who are born again are recipients of the promise given to them in that verse.

Hence, not every Christian is born again, because the number is limited.

So how can it be only me that believes that?

I just explained above.
I hope you understand.

My practice is to ask of every scripture passage.

Who is speaking?

Who is the scripture addressed to?

How would they have understood it?

That's good.
Do you also ask what is this referring to? Or, are there other scriptures that make reference to this, that can shed more light on it?

 

[Guojing]

However, the purpose of being born again is to becomes annointed sons of God for the purpose of being heirs to the kingdom - kings and priests.
So there is a direct link to being born again, and Matthew 19:28.
All who are born again are recipients of the promise given to them in that verse.

I notice you keep mentioning this link to Matthew 19:28

Any scripture you are using to make a link like that or did you make that up?

 

[RandyPNW]

Agreed, and none of this so far is incompatible with baptismal regeneration.

That term "baptismal regeneration" is subject to different theological presuppositions. Are you saying that the act, apart from faith, produces regeneration?

Of course not. If one is dunked in the water, he is not really getting properly "baptized" unless there is faith to begin with! So when we do something--anything, that becomes a vehicle for a faith that responds to God's word we are able to produce something for God. We are even able to obtain Salvation by responding to God's word, whether by raising our hands, going down to the altar, confessing with our mouth, etc.

I do *not* believe Water Baptism was designed, however, to get saved. It is a picture of our Salvation when we got saved prior to Water Baptism.

As the Flood took away carnal men, so in Water Baptism we show that we have given up carnal living for living in the spirit of Christ. We've chosen to receive the Holy Spirit to be our guide in all things so that we do not live by our own independent mandates, but only by the mandates that God gives us.

So Water Baptism does not "regenerate" us. Rather, it is an act of faith that is part of our choice to live regenerated lives by the Spirit of Christ. It is a pledge to completely sublimate our personal choices to the counsel and recommendations of God.

The union of the two doesn't necessarily mean that water baptism simply becomes symbolic; the whole baptism is one.

I agree that "Spirit Baptism" appears to be a higher form of Water Baptism than John's Baptism, and yet remains connected to the ritual of Water Baptism. But it shows that the spiritual elements, though connected to the physical element of water, are distinct from and superior to the element of water. And we are told that the element of water itself is symbolic, the salvation through the Flood being symbolic of salvation through the waters of Baptism.

This is not saying, however, that Water Baptism saves us by water--only that the Flood waters symbolized Water Baptism in the Christian sense, which is spiritual and not strictly "water." Peter says that by denying that the water itself possesses the ability to cleanse from sin or to ritually guarantee physical resurrection/Salvation. That comes by faith in Jesus, which is what, then, the Water Baptism represents.

The differentiation between the baptism of John and that of Jesus is the presence of the Holy Spirit, but there's nothing to indicate that John's baptism is synonymous with all water baptism. In other words, the baptism of Jesus is not (baptism of John) + (baptism in the Holy Spirit), it's its own thing.

Right, John's Baptism, as I said, is a Water Baptism of repentance *under the Law of Moses.* Jesus' Baptism was a Water Baptism of repentance *under the terms of the Gospel,* which does not require ritual observances. These "sacraments," if you will, are designed to aid and abet Salvation by Faith, which relies exclusively on the atonement of Christ and not on anything we do to achieve that Salvation apart from committing to it in faith.

I think the rest of your response does follow from your premise that the baptism of John is synonymous with water baptism, but I think that premise is incorrect.

I'm not sure you have my views right, but that's okay. Sometimes my own views are a "work in progress."

 

[RandyPNW]

This is fairly typical of American Evangelical "speak" when it comes to hermeneutics. It is the THREE "S" SISTERS OF INTERPRETATION....SPIRITUALIZE, SYMBOLIZE, AND SIGNIFY. Specifically designed to add goobity-gook-goof ball terms into the conversation so nothing in the post can be affirmed or denied.

Paul said carnal elements do not save, and have no value if they are not based on faith in God's living word. Attention to the laws of Moses lost their "faith" value when the veil of the curtain was torn. Water Baptism is a ritual that obtains value in faith only when it is done to confirm that we are abandoning our old ways for following Christ.

If you wish to please God through rituals, it will only come through faith, and not by the mechanics of the rituals themselves. Rituals can always be performed apart from faith, and only faith pleases God.

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ....
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Do you see any of the "3 S's" in there that justify the Evangelical World believing in them? These things, ie "rituals" are only "a shadow of the things that were to come." In other words, they "signified" something, and were not things only in themselves. Paul was here speaking of the rituals of the Law of Moses, which "signified" Christian truth, which had come later.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Paul said carnal elements do not save, and have no value if they are not based on faith in God's living word. Attention to the laws of Moses lost their "faith" value when the veil of the curtain was torn. Water Baptism is a ritual that obtains value in faith only when it is done to confirm that we are abandoning our old ways for following Christ.

If you wish to please God through rituals, it will only come through faith, and not by the mechanics of the rituals themselves. Rituals can always be performed apart from faith, and only faith pleases God.

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ....
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Do you see any of the "3 S's" in there that justify the Evangelical World believing in them? These things, ie "rituals" are only "a shadow of the things that were to come." In other words, they "signified" something, and were not things only in themselves. Paul was here speaking of the rituals of the Law of Moses, which "signified" Christian truth, which had come later.

You still fail to make the distinction between the Means of Grace and a human work.

 

[CoreyD]

Good morning Jan.
You probably are getting ready for church, on your way, or there already.
Whatever the case, have a good and safe morning.

No, it didn't, but I doubt I'm going to get a straight answer on whether you think the early Church was just the Apostles or all of the believers present at Pentecost.

jas3 said:
What a bizarre claim. I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say with this - are you quibbling over calling the post-apostolic, ante-Nicene Church "early"? Or are you actually claiming that "the Church" as it's referred to in the New Testament is only referring to the Apostles?

Traditionally, the period from the death of Jesus until the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles is called the Apostolic Age, after the missionary activities of the apostles. According to the Acts of the Apostles the Jerusalem church began at Pentecost with some 120 believers, in an "upper room," believed by some to be the Cenacle, where the apostles received the Holy Spirit and emerged from hiding following the death and resurrection of Jesus to preach and spread his message.

I gave a straight answer to your question, Jan... unless you wrote something that's different to what's on your mind.
Would you like to change the question, because I understand it to be asking if i am claiming that the Church in the "NT" only refers to the apostles.
The article says "the period from the death of Jesus until the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles is called the Apostolic Age, after the missionary activities of the apostles".

Thus, rather than it being a claim, it is a fact that the Apostolic Age ended with the death of John, and the Church in the "NT" was made up of the 12 apostles; as well as all the disciples newly converted during that period, along with those among the 120. (Entire book of Acts of the Apostles)

I did straightforwardly answer your question.
Sometimes an answer is not what we are looking for, but that sometimes happens when we think there is only one answer that is correct, or we ask a loaded question with the view that the answer will be in our favor.
I'm not saying that's the case here, but it does happen.

I'm not going to play along like you don't know the difference between is and is declared to be. Again, I don't feel like you're going to give me a straight answer here.

I do know the difference. However, if someone is trying to get me to say that a religious group or organization is either false or true, I do not give them either.
I would rather they determine that for themselves, based on the evidence that I give them.

If a person believes something is true, the onus is on them to show that it is true. Not demand that I either admit it is true, or deny it.
What I will say is what I know from the scriptures to be true, and I can say with certainty that the first century Christian congregation was the one, holy, catholic (Does not refer to any particular denomination, including Roman Catholic), and apostolic Church.

Subsequent to that Church, apostasy sprung up, and what followed was a deviation from the teachings of Christ and his apostles - resulting in a spiritual darkness which Jesus allowed. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
The fourth century was no different.

In fact, not only were there teaching that invalidates the word of God, like forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:1-3), and infant baptism, but centuries later, there were cruel atrocities that included violence, and inhumane torture of people who loved God and his word the Bible. Even exhuming persons' remains in order to burn them.
The families of these victims would have suffered also.

However, the atrocities had started prior to the fourth century... as early as the 300s A.D.
Christian Atrocities: Three Centuries Of Pagan Persecution

I just give the body of facts - the evidence, and persons can determine for themselves who or what is... or not.

This is a distinction without a difference. Anything within a primary source that records a doctrine or practice as having apostolic origin, you can just label a "claim" and then dismiss it.

I can demonstrate this to be false.
Please provide a primary source that records infant baptism as having apostolic origin.

I have a source here, which says...

Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that 1st-century Christians did not practice it, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of infant baptism. Others, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of exclusion of infant baptism, believe that they did, understanding biblical references to individuals "and [her] household" being baptized as including young children.​

​

The earliest extrabiblical directions for baptism, which occur in the Didache (c. 100), are taken to be about baptism of adults, since they require fasting by the person to be baptized. However, inscriptions dating back to the 2nd century which refer to young children as "children of God" may indicate that Christians customarily baptized infants too. The earliest reference to infant baptism was by Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in his work Against Heresies. Due to its reference to Eleutherus as the current bishop of Rome, the work is usually dated c. 180. Irenaeus speaks of children being "born again to God." Three passages by Origen (185–c. 254) mention infant baptism as traditional and customary. Also Augustine of Hippo referred the baptism of children as an apostolic tradition.​

Are you saying that everyone should agree with your opinion? On what basis, may I ask?

Of course not, I'm willing to be convinced that something is an authentic teaching of the historic Church if I'm shown evidence of it. In the past few years I've been convinced of the traditional views of baptismal regeneration, the conferral of grace through sacraments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, the indefectibility of the Church, and many other things. I was wrong, and I was shown that I was wrong.

I'll keep this in mind for when I speak to you on another occasion.

 

[RandyPNW]

You still fail to make the distinction between the Means of Grace and a human work.

We were originally talking about Water Baptism. A "means of grace" would have to be defined, as well as a "human work." In my lifelong experience as a Christian, both nominal and spiritual, I've learned that our experience determines how we define various Christian terms and phrases.

God is gracious by His very nature, and impartial. He shows grace to all.

If we're talking about grace that brings regeneration and Salvation (Eternal Life), then the means is expressing our faith in, and compliance with, the atonement of Christ. Only Christ could provide it, but we can put our faith in it such that we're willing to live by it.

And so, the "means of grace" in this regard is our choice to believe Christ's proposition and to respond to it in obedience. That is, we choose to live in partnership with Christ, deferring to his Spirit in essential matters of loyalty and morality.

Unless we acknowledge God as the ultimate authority in all things we will weaken His moral requirements. If we do not fully submit to Him as Lord we will not obtain from Him the virtues that enable us to be like Him.

This then is our "human work." it is not substituting our own moral works for the virtues that come only through the atonement of Christ. Unless we choose to have Christ as our head, we will not have his virtues. And if we do not have his virtues we cannot show true faith with God.

So we *choose* to believe, and this is our "human work." It is the means of grace by *choice.* And yet, the virtue comes from Christ alone when we turn our human nature over to him, to be ruled by his nature.

I hate to cheapen the idea, but let's use the common question: "What would Jesus do?" If we have accepted the proposition that God has made to us that we embrace His Son's nature, then we already know, internally, what Jesus would do. We have all of the virtues to approach each situation properly, and are informed of this by the living word of God speaking to our conscience on a regular basis.

So what is the means of grace? Is it confessing sins? Is it confessing Jesus as Lord? Is it raising our hand to the preacher, and going down the aisle to accept Jesus? Is it choosing to go to church? Is it getting Water Baptized? Is it choosing to live for the Lord?

It is all these things, because in each instance a person can be choosing to conform to God's proposition that we exchange our own independent nature for an enlightened, spiritual nature, contingent upon accepting Jesus' lordship.

His priorities are taken 1st, along with the human nature that comes with it. We choose to live by it in all of the decisions we make. The means of grace. The means of pleasing God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And so, the "means of grace" in this regard is our choice to believe Christ's proposition and to respond to it in obedience. That is, we choose to live in partnership with Christ, deferring to his Spirit in essential matters of loyalty and morality.

Your definition for "Means of Grace" AIN'T EVEN CLOSE. Anyone who would spend 32 seconds on a internet search would understand.

 

[RandyPNW]

Your definition for "Means of Grace" AIN'T EVEN CLOSE. Anyone who would spend 32 seconds on a internet search would understand.

I do understand. I was still contributing to my last post.

It is, as I said, often a difference of views over how we please God and how we get saved, or regenerated. Those committed to church structure and spiritual exercises wish to place importance on ritualistic works, which in my experience sometimes becomes a legal approach to Salvation.

Not my cup of tea, even though I was raised up in it as a Lutheran. Water Baptism doesn't save. The Sacraments are *not* the means of grace, unless we define the term differently.

You, on the other hand, seem committed to exposing "spiritual" approaches to reformation as a fraud, or "phantom-like?" I guess the Holy Spirit isn't something you can nail down, doctrinally? It has to come through rituals, creeds, and spiritual exercises?

 

[bbbbbbb]

You still fail to make the distinction between the Means of Grace and a human work.

I frequently encounter the term "Means of Grace" as well as other terms such as "Moral Law". However, I have yet to find either of those terms in the Bible nor do I find any definition as to what those terms encompass. As we all know, "sacraments" are virtually always consider to be "Means of Grace". The Catholic Church maintains that there are seven of these, but Protestants typically maintain there are two of the, although some add footwashing as a third.

Please show me your scriptural basis for "Means of Grace". Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your definition for "Means of Grace" AIN'T EVEN CLOSE. Anyone who would spend 32 seconds on a internet search would understand.

I have done far more than a 32 second internet search for "Means of Grace". Curiously, I do not consider Wikipedia to be in the same league as the Bible. Have you done a 32 second search in the Bible for "Means of Grace"?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I have done far more than a 32 second internet search for "Means of Grace". Curiously, I do not consider Wikipedia to be in the same league as the Bible. Have you done a 32 second search in the Bible for "Means of Grace"?

Hyperbole...buddy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Faulty reasoning would be something like this. "There is too much suffering and evil in the world for there to be a good God. Therefore the Bible cannot be right".
That is faulty logic, because it is based on an assumption that a good God cannot allow suffering. It also uses limited knowledge as though it is ultimate knowledge.

Sure. On a superficial level, I can agree with you on that.

Another is, "God did hideous things according to me standards, and therefore the Bible can't be true."
Equivalent : I don't like the sea, therefore the sea is bad, or it don't exist. Faulty reasoning.

Again, on a certain level, I can agree with you here too.

If one wants to determine the validity of the Bible, one needs to avoid using emotional biases and look at the evidence that can be verified.
For example, Is x possible if y is not true? If not, then y must be true.

This is where it gets tricky, because NOW you're actually moving to the area of Epistemology and not merely analyzing some simple, discernible factors of identity and difference between conceptual entities. So, while it is usually best to identify and reduce biases as much as possible, one can't really fully get out of one's own subjective perceptual view. And moreover, "evidences" are almost always open to interpretations and have to be discussed and evaluated on many academic levels for verification of explanations to fully adhere and be seen as "true."

So, validation the Bible in juxtaposition with the concept of "evidence" is not a clear and straight conceptual application that can be made.

Faulty reasoning cannot invalidate the Bible.
If there is enough evidence the Bible is true. Lack of evidence for everything in the bible, does not invalidate the Bible.
If there is no evidence, either externally, or internally, then there is no basis for believing the Bible, except one just believes... which is not a valid basis.

Lack of evidence for the Bible doesn't necessarily invalidate it, that's true. But your last paragraph here has some vague and inconsistent notions built into it, especially the part where you've said, "If there is enough evidence the Bible is true." The problem, epistemologically, is that it becomes a personal measure as to what constitutes sufficient evidence for each individual person.

I would suggest you read some books/sources on the various forms and problems in Epistemology, as well as some more on forms of Logic, and forms of Truth.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Please show me your scriptural basis for "Means of Grace". Thank you.

That's simple. Probably take me a minute and 32 seconds.

Scripture is the primal Means of Grace....ink and paper.

Baptism contains the Word of God....water and the word Eph. 5:26 just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the Word

Okay it took me 2 minutes.

 

[RandyPNW]

I frequently encounter the term "Means of Grace" as well as other terms such as "Moral Law". However, I have yet to find either of those terms in the Bible nor do I find any definition as to what those terms encompass. As we all know, "sacraments" are virtually always consider to be "Means of Grace". The Catholic Church maintains that there are seven of these, but Protestants typically maintain there are two of the, although some add footwashing as a third.

Please show me your scriptural basis for "Means of Grace". Thank you.

It appears the brother is "anti-Zwingli," which is less oriented than Luther was in terms of practicing Christianity through sacraments. I'm neither pro-Luther nor pro-Zwingli in my theology, though there are elements in both which I find of great value. I don't think anybody who has contributed to theology is perfectly balanced, except for those commissioned by Jesus to found the Church, ie the Apostles--not perfect, but accurate.

There is a differentiation, in my mind, between finding Salvation or Regeneration through a sacrament like Water Baptism and experiencing Christ through a sacrament like the Eucharist/Communion. Like Zwingli, I find these "Sacraments" of symbolic value only, that they do not *mediate* grace through them, as if we "put in a quarter and get a little song."

Rather, we practice these things for their inherent value. For Water Baptism that is for the purpose of public demonstration of our commitment to Christ. For the Eucharist that is for the purpose of remembering what Christ did to give us his spiritual life and the hope of resurrection.