Invalidating God's word

[RandyPNW]

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

1 Peter 3.in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 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. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It's not "non sequitur"--rather, it's a matter of figuring the syntax. I'm not at all discounting what you're saying--just trying to explain it in the greater context of John's Baptism and Jesus' Baptism.

So look at the passage. It is talking about "water" beyond question--not just the Flood, but the *waters* of the Flood. That "water" symbolizes Water Baptism. The suggestion then is that Water Baptism saves you, but how does it save you?

We know it does not save us by the ritual itself. We know that water has no property by which to save us at all! We know that only Christ saves us.

Then why the "water?" In the light of Jesus' greater Baptism in the Spirit we know that Water Baptism alone was insufficient, although it continued to be practiced after Jesus' Baptism was introduced. His baptism sort of united the two baptisms into one, indicating that the Water Baptism really symbolically represents the Spirit Baptism, which was said to be greater.

Mark 1.8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

So it is the "water" that symbolized Spirit Baptism, and not just the Flood, because it is the water that was in common with both the Flood and Jesus' Baptism. And Peter then continues to state that the water doesn't save at all through its physical ability to clean from pollution.

"...not the removal of dirt from the body."

The indication is that "water"--yes, the waters of the Flood, symbolize Spirit Baptism by which Jesus saves us through the application of his resurrection life.

 

[CoreyD]

In post #10, you quoted @The Liturgist five times, the last of which began with the following: That said, baptism, for infants, children and adults, is the normal way of reception into Christ’s church, and it grieves me that some denominations like the Quakers and Salvation Army do not celebrate it, and still others, the “credobaptists” refuse the font to infants and those with mental disabilities.

You responded,

The later "church" had these beliefs.

Later refered to after the Apostolic Age.​

Was that around the 13th century or so?

This was a question to determine a point of reference from the poster.​

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.

Do you deny that the Church of the fourth century which promulgated the Nicene Creed was "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"?

Do I deny that the fourth century clergy declare itself the true church and "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"? No.

Do you consider every historical primary source to be "claims" instead of "evidence," or is that only when you don't agree with what they teach?

Evidence for what?
A claim that I saw an alien ship, is not evidence I saw an alien ship.
I hope you understand that in relation to your question Jas.

 

[CoreyD]

Moreover, Corey, my statements, couched as they have been within the contexts of a portion of Pascal's thinking, stand, and they will continue to stand. They will stand because, unlike a number of people here, I have hundreds of sources supporting my statements. It's not my fault if the same people who disagree with me also fail, or outright refuse, to engage my sources. In such an atmosphere, particularly one arbitrated by fundamentalist type thinkers on both the Right and the Left, it becomes a waste of time since none of what I will state will be taken seriously or as having any academic substance.

The irony in all of this is that I'm more than willing and able to engage THEIR sources and, what's more, I will and do apply critical analysis to THEIR sources in order to bring out the strengths and weakness of their viewpoints, interpretations and paradigms.

Is there a thread, or are there threads where persons refused to engage? I know it happen. I'm just interested in addressing your interests, in a thread where the subject is appropriate.

So, in this case of the matter of the "validation of the Bible" which you're bringing up, I can immediately land into it with critical, analytic sensitivity and ask you, "What is your working definition of "validation of the the Bible" and how did you either come by it through drawing upon other sources, or how did you, yourself, derive it and built it and come to understand your definition as being 'true' and fully applicable?''"

I would be happy to answer your questions in the appropriate thread... which isn't this one.

If all you're intending to imply is that both the Science and the Bible don't have to be seen as being in absolute conflict, then I can stop you right there because I already agree with you at some level on that notion. However, if by this you mean to imply that no one else outside of both you and me should have not reasons to see the Bible (as well as various Church Dogmas/Doctrines at any given time) as being invalid, whether partially or in whole, then there is a very long list of issues that can be brought up, and that list can be made all too easily these days.

I am of the opinion that you should question, and or challenge both the Bible and various Church Dogmas/Doctrines.

This is all I'm attempting to say, and I've already given you 3 examples of the sorts of issues that come up that, for many folks, invalidate both the Bible and, overall, the Christian Faith. Of course, both you and I, in different ways, can disagree with those invalidating evaluations made of the Bible and the Christian Faith.

You can't invalidate the Bible with faulty reasoning, often based on lack of, and limited understanding, Philo.

Much could be said here, but I don't like writing more than a few hundred words in any one single post.

I don't mind if you write a thousand words on your interests, so long as they fit the thread title.

 

[CoreyD]

Actually, many, if not most, folks here come from traditions which stress that the new birth is accomplished with the baptism by water of an individual, usually as an infant. These folks hardly concern themselves about exegetical matters.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there a thread, or are there threads where persons refused to engage? I know it happen. I'm just interested in addressing your interests, in a thread where the subject is appropriate.

I've been on here too long to remember exactly where and when. But if one were to peruse the many threads I've either created or posted in over the years, I'm sure examples could be readily seen. For now, let's not worry about exactly who and how anyone has refused to engage.

I would be happy to answer your questions in the appropriate thread... which isn't this one.


I am of the opinion that you should question, and or challenge both the Bible and various Church Dogmas/Doctrines.


You can't invalidate the Bible with faulty reasoning, often based on lack of, and limited understanding, Philo.

This is where the rub is, isn't it? In your estimation, which criteria, which angle on Critical Thinking, and which view on Hermeneutics, along with other opinions on the array of Christian Theologies, do you think constitute........................... good reasoning?

And, in your view, what is faulty reasoning that invalidates the Bible?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

Either way, it is a stretch to make the comparison. The water of the Flood destroyed all life on earth except that in the ark. It was the ark by which life was saved, not the water. The same could be said concerning the Exodus through the Red Sea. The waters of the Red Sea exterminated Pharaoh's army and did not save a single life. The Israelites were saved from the waters by a miraculous act of God's grace.

 

[Guojing]

Not at all. Baptism is a work, pure and simple. It requires human effort, albeit not on the part of the infant.

Alright, if its pure and simple there, why would you think they were discussing at Acts 15, whether physical circumcision is a work or not?

Why won't that be equally pure and simple that its a work? That is not even counting the fact that it will be extremely painful to the Gentile recipients

 

[CoreyD]

But you said that you don't think you will be sitting on one of the 12 thrones.

I did? I must have been sleep writing.
No. I did not say that because I would not say I "don't think".
I would say, I am not going to be sitting on one of the 12 thrones, because I am not chosen and called to the role of king and priest.

So what makes you different from the other Christians you met here that you believe are claiming Matthew 19:28 for themselves? Are you not "born again" then?

I have not met anyone on here who does not think they are born again Christians.
Do you consider yourself a born again Christian? If so, why?

From my knowledge of scripture, God anointed with holy spirit those whom he chose as adopted sons who would be sons or heirs of the kingdom.
Ephesians 1:5

He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Galatians 3:29

Now if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to the promise.

God indicates through the spirit, to the persons he selects that they have been selected - annointed by holy spirit. Romans 8:15-17, 23, 29

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. Acts 2:2-4
Cornelius and his relatives and friends also spoke different tongues. Acts 10:44-46
All others who received their anointing would have been given some indication as the spirit enabled them.

I know that I have not been anointed with holy spirit for this reason, and another - the fact that God's purpose is not to adopt the entire earth of believers as his spiritual sons who will be heirs with Christ.
There are only a select few. Luke 12:32.

What has happened, for one thing, to cause many to believe that "we" and "all" in the letters of the early followers apply to them, is the teaching that all good people go to heaven to be with God, and so, everyone wants to be born again Christians.

 

[Guojing]

I did. I must have been sleep writing.
No. I did not say that because I would not say I "don't think".
I would say, I am not going to be sitting on one of the 12 thrones, because I am not chosen and called to the role of king and priest

Thanks for clarifying.

So it is no longer about whether one is born again or not, but whether one is chosen and called to the role of king and priest.

Anyone else you met here in these forums who think that because they are chosen to that role, they will be one of the 12 thrones?

The point that I am trying to make to you, if we go back to my original point, is that if Matthew 19:28, since there are only 12 tribes and 12 thrones, the them that was referred there, it is only for the 12 apostles of Christ, with Matthias replacing Judas.

It makes no sense to think that more than 1 person will be on each throne.

 

[CoreyD]

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

Peter did compare baptism to persons being saved through the waters of the flood. Thus showing that water baptism likewise saves. How? Not by washing away dirt from our skin, but by making a pledge to God, for a clean conscience.
In other words, water baptism indicates that you have pledge allegiance to God.
So water baptism makes public that one has dedicated their life to God, and no longer belong to themselves.

Is that how you see it Jas?

 

[CoreyD]

Thanks for clarifying.

So it is no longer about whether one is born again or not, but whether one is chosen and called to the role of king and priest.

Oh, you mean the main purpose is not being born again, but being kings and priests?
Well, one can't be a king and priest, if God has not selected that one, and unless one is baptized in water, and holy spirit (spirit anointed by God), one is not destined for the kingdom of heaven.

Anyone else you met here in these forums who think that because they are chosen to that role, they will be one of the 12 thrones?

II have met no one that think they have been chosen for that role.
Those who think they are born again simply believe they will be in heaven. I have not met anyone who knows why God selected persons to go to heaven, and if asked, they are not able to tell you, because, like all... or the majority of us, from the time we could say "mama" we were taught that all good people go to heaven, and all bad people go to hell.
The earth is left out, and people do not even involve it in God's purpose.
Some people even think there are trees and edibles in heaven, and animals go there as well.

The point that I am trying to make to you, if we go back to my original point, is that if Matthew 19:28, since there are only 12 tribes and 12 thrones, the them that was referred there, it is only for the 12 apostles of Christ, with Matthias replacing Judas.

It makes no sense to think that more than 1 person will be on each throne.

There is scriptural reason for why the number 12 there is symbolic, and not literal.
I can show you if you like, but in another thread.

 

[Guojing]

Oh, you mean the main purpose is not being born again, but being kings and priests?
Well, one can't be a king and priest, if God has not selected that one, and unless one is baptized in water, and holy spirit (spirit anointed by God), one is not destined for the kingdom of heaven.

My original question to you has nothing to do about being born again.

II have met no one that think they have been chosen for that role.
Those who think they are born again simply believe they will be in heaven. I have not met anyone who knows why God selected persons to go to heaven, and if asked, they are not able to tell you, because, like all... or the majority of us, from the time we could say "mama" we were taught that all good people go to heaven, and all bad people go to hell.
The earth is left out, and people do not even involve it in God's purpose.
Some people even think there are trees and edibles in heaven, and animals go there as well.

So at the end of the day, it turns out that no one you have met here actually wants to claim Matthew 19:28 for themselves. Glad that was cleared up from your original reply.

There is scriptural reason for why the number 12 there is symbolic, and not literal.
I can show you if you like, but in another thread.

So if that is the case, that no one you have met here actually wants to claim Matthew 19:28 for themselves, why would it be important that the 12 in Matthew 19:28 not be literal?

We have 12 literal apostles of Jesus, we have 12 literal tribes of Israel, how can there be scriptural reasons pointing to a symbolic interpretation there?

 

[CoreyD]

I've been on here too long to remember exactly where and when. But if one were to peruse the many threads I've either created or posted in over the years, I'm sure examples could be readily seen. For now, let's not worry about exactly who and how anyone has refused to engage.

This is where the rub is, isn't it? In your estimation, which criteria, which angle on Critical Thinking, and which view on Hermeneutics, along with other opinions on the array of Christian Theologies, do you think constitute........................... good reasoning?

And, in your view, what is faulty reasoning that invalidates the Bible?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[jas3]

We know it does not save us by the ritual itself. We know that water has no property by which to save us at all! We know that only Christ saves us.

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

Then why the "water?" In the light of Jesus' greater Baptism in the Spirit we know that Water Baptism alone was insufficient, although it continued to be practiced after Jesus' Baptism was introduced. His baptism sort of united the two baptisms into one, indicating that the Water Baptism really symbolically represents the Spirit Baptism, which was said to be greater.

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

Mark 1.8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

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.
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.

 

[jas3]

According to the Acts of the Apostles the Jerusalem church began at Pentecost with some 120 believers

That doesn't answer anything I asked you.

Do I deny that the fourth century clergy declare itself the true church and "one, holy, catholic and apostolic"? No.

That's not what I asked.

Evidence for what?

We were talking about infant baptism, but what I said applies for any doctrine. If you can declare any primary source to be a "claim" instead of "evidence" and dismiss it on that basis, then you can't be convinced of anything because in your mind you'll never be wrong.

 

[CoreyD]

My original question to you has nothing to do about being born again.

So at the end of the day, it turns out that no one you have met here actually wants to claim Matthew 19:28 for themselves. Glad that was cleared up from your original reply.

So, if they do not think they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, why do they think they are born again? was my question,

So if that is the case, that no one you have met here actually wants to claim Matthew 19:28 for themselves, why would it be important that the 12 in Matthew 19:28 not be literal?

It would be important to clarify what the scripture have to say... especially to someone who is trying to make the point, "if we go back to my original point, is that if Matthew 19:28, since there are only 12 tribes and 12 thrones, the them that was referred there, it is only for the 12 apostles of Christ, with Matthias replacing Judas.", and then says, "It makes no sense to think that more than 1 person will be on each throne."

Unless that's not really the point, but something else is.
Is there another point you are trying to make?

We have 12 literal apostles of Jesus, we have 12 literal tribes of Israel, how can there be scriptural reasons pointing to a symbolic interpretation there?

If you really would like to know, I can show you in another thread.

 

[Guojing]

So, if they do not think they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, why do they think they are born again? was my question,

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.

It would be important to clarify what the scripture have to say... especially to someone who is trying to make the point, "if we go back to my original point, is that if Matthew 19:28, since there are only 12 tribes and 12 thrones, the them that was referred there, it is only for the 12 apostles of Christ, with Matthias replacing Judas.", and then says, "It makes no sense to think that more than 1 person will be on each throne."

Unless that's not really the point, but something else is.
Is there another point you are trying to make?

My simple point is that

• If the them in Matthew 19:28 is clear to everyone that it is ONLY to the 12.
• Why would the them in Matthew 28:18-20 be any different?

 

[CoreyD]

That doesn't answer anything I asked you.

This did.
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.

That's not what I asked.

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.

We were talking about infant baptism, but what I said applies for any doctrine. If you can declare any primary source to be a "claim" instead of "evidence" and dismiss it on that basis, then you can't be convinced of anything because in your mind you'll never be wrong.

I did not declare any primary source a claim.
Rather, I refered to claims as claims. The primary sources are evidence that persons lived at a particular time, and so fourth,
It is not evidence that a particular teaching is true.

My questioning particular claims arises, because I use a primary source, and it identifies the claims that needs to be questioned. Should I discard this primary source?

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?

 

[CoreyD]

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.

I understand that's what you believe.

My simple point is that

• If the them in Matthew 19:28 is clear to everyone that it is ONLY to the 12.
• Why would the them in Matthew 28:18-20 be any different?

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?

I try to understand the Bible, by allowing the scriptures to guide me, so that I do not invalidate God's word.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's a non sequitur - Peter is saying that the water of the Flood is symbolic of baptism. He says nothing about water baptism itself being symbolic of anything.

The Greek of the text makes this even more emphatically clear.

ὃ καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα

"Baptism is the antitype which corresponds to the type, namely "eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:20). The flood water is the type, baptism is the antitype; so even as the eight souls were saved through the water of the flood; so are we saved through the water of baptism. Not as a removal of dirt from our skin, but as the "answer/plea of a good conscience toward God by Jesus Christ's resurrection"--baptism is not about removing dirt from the body, but about the change of disposition toward God because of what Jesus has done.

-CryptoLutheran