Great questions...and they'd be better addressed in a seperate thread titled "Why is baptism important with respect to salvation?". "Necessary" is the key word of this thread. So we agree. Carry-on.
But you didn't answer my question: WHY is it not necessary for Salvation? Because YOU say so? Or because GOD says so?
WHO says so?
Why? You're not seeking. You're chomping-at-the-bit to harmonzie the Bible because you can't have it any other way.
Wrong assumptions.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
The link above identifies 143 supposed contradictions and has "answers" for all of them. Some of the answers are obvious and more than sufficient...others are serious stretches. Those weaker answers come from people who absolutely have to harmonize the Bible because to them...if there is a contradiction...then they can't trust the entire thing...they have to throw it out. This is a common false belief.
So you are not even able to argue with me, therefore you talk about absent people and about their answers. You said you want a thread about that. Open it and let's see where are all those imaginary contradictions. Don't just accuse me of what others say.
The simple fact is that there are contradictions in a given version of the Bible...and there are contradictions when compairing one version to the next.
Thanks for clarifying that your problem is with versions, and not with the Bible.
I want you to remember that I NEVER said that any Bible version is inerrant. I said the Bible, the Word of God, is inerrant.
Let's see:
For example, Hebrews 13:4...
Hebrews 13:4 (New International Version)
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Hebrews 13:4 (King James Version)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
See? Huge differences.
I don't see any huge difference, and not even a little difference, unless you mean the difference in the words used. This is not even a difference in versions, but a difference in translations. The original Greek text is literally:
"Honorable the marriage in all ( or every way ) , and the bed undefiled; fornicators but and adulterers will judge God."
This of course doesn't mean that the fornicators and the adulterers will judge God, but that God will judge them... This is the way a Greek sentence is built. And we see that this sentence simply means that marriage and all what it involves
is honored by God as He Himself instituted it from the beginning, so all humans
should honor it just as their Creator honors it, and it
is honored by the children of God just as their Father honors it.
"Undefiled" and "pure" mean the same thing in the context. So I don't see any difference. Of course, no translation will be able to bring exactly all the aspects of what the Word of God means, as the Word of God is so rich, even in each word of it. And it is not by chance that the Holy Spirit chose to write the New Testament in Greek, a language that has words and sentence structures that express deep meanings, like the word "Agape" for example that cannot be translated to English and only the context of the English translation helps us know what it means.
So try something better.
Both the NIV and the KJV mean the same thing in this verse that you quoted. So no contradiction.
Which one is "right"? The NIV says you better make an effort to keep the marriage bed pure...or you'll end up being judged by God with the adulterer and the sexually immoral. Whereas the KJV says the marriage bed IS undefiled...no effort necessary to keep it pure...it is the safe place...BUT the whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Both are right.
The marriage bed IS undefiled for the children of God, and it MUST be undefiled for the children of disobedience.
And this is an example of your ignorance of what the biblical inerrancy means. You are comparing versions, while I am talking about the Bible.
Why is this important? Well, if you're married and you read the NIV, you need to find out what the Bible says is 'sexually immoral' and then make sure to not do those things so you won't fall under God's judgement.
Not at all! You see? You are discussing your interpretation of what the Bible says, and not what the Bible really says. Actually, it's not YOU who can interpret the Bible, but the Bible interprets itself.
If you are married and you read the NIV, and if you are a child of obedience, you will open other parts of the Word of God to see what this passage means, and you won't begin to assume a meaning for what you read. You will understand that God honors marriage, and that assuming that celibacy is better than marriage in purity before God is wrong. So you won't dishonor marriage.
If you're married and you read the KJV, you don't worry about what 'sexually immoral' is when it comes to sexual relations with your wife because the marriage bed is undefiled. If the wife wants you to perform anal sex on her or touch for her and spill your sperm on her...who cares? (I appologize for being graphic...but it is necessary to illustrate my point)
You didn't need to be graphic so that I may understand the impurity of the human mind...
The meaning and the purpose of marriage is clear in the Bible, and what this verse says is that MARRIAGE is honored by God, and not other things that humans invent.
Jesus was clear:
"And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."" ( Mark 7:20-23 )
These are things that come from the human natural heart and DEFILE the man. So a natural man cannot do the will of God in marriage, because he naturally sins in his heart even in the marriage bed, although the marriage bed is holy for God.
When we were born of God, we received a new nature and a new mind according to the nature of Jesus Christ in holiness and purity. The old man is crucified, and behold all things are new. We have a new mind. Now the Word of God encourages us:
"And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." ( Romans 12:2 )
So we are transformed by the renewing of our mind day by day, thus learning practically what the will of God is in each thing, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. We don't follow the world's way of thinking about anything, including marriage. For the world, marriage is a place for sinful and unnatural pleasures and sins, using what is holy for sinful purposes. For us, marriage is what God instituted it for, and it is kept pure by the children of obedience, because it is honorable to God.
If you don't have the mind of Christ, then you obey the unnatural lusts and pleasures of your wife and/or of your flesh, even in marriage that is holy. You DEFILE it for yourself, but it cannot be defiled. Just as unbelievers blaspheme the Name of God, and yet the Name of God is Holy.
We saw in this example how a natural man cannot accept the Word of God, as it is of the Spirit of God:
"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 )
How can a carnal mind occupied by unnatural sexual thoughts understand what God is saying about marriage? Therefore all men need to be born of God.
HUGE differences. There are hundreds of these types of "problems" among the English translations. You are a fool if you think you have the answers to all of them. Humble yourself.
And I NEVER said that any English translation is inerrant. Make sure you know what we are talking about.
A dream is not a vision and a vision is not a dream. Dreams CAN have meaning (see the life of Joseph)...but visions are profound experiences. What I had was not a dream. I'm sorry you've never had an experience like that. I can tell you about mine...but again...you'd have to exercise faith to believe that I really had it. If I met someone that had a vision like mine...I'd want to know more. But...I love my Father and I want to know more about him and what Heaven is going to be like.
As we have seen, we can't build any assurance on your visions and experiences. No need to repeat all that.
The Word of God tells us:
"Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,
and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God." ( Colossians 2:18-19 )
I prefer to take the advice of God's Word.
No...I mean round-and-round WE go.
I am not planning to leave saving faith and to go round-and-round with you. The Word of God is the truth.
I have peace...but I still seek. Seeking is a precursor for spiritual growth. Any believer who has experienced spiritual growth knows that and will tell you that. (there's that ugly word 'experience' again...) I don't have to go to the "Orthodox" threads and try to convince everyone of their "wrong" thinking. Who is at peace here?
Being at peace in sin is the worst thing in this world. It's not a real peace to shut your mouth when the truth must be proclaimed to those who are perishing:
"Cry loudly, do not hold back;
Raise your voice like a trumpet,
And declare to My people their transgression
And to the house of Jacob their sins." ( Isaiah 58:1 )
The Lord is not calling the prophet to be without peace in righteousness, but without peace in sin! If he hold it back, he will be sinning for not telling the people the truth about their sin while they are perishing.
Look here:
"The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables.
And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a place of business."
His disciples remembered that it was written, "ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME."" ( John 2:13-17 )
Do you think that the PRINCE of Peace lost His Peace here??
If you don't have this zeal for the house of the Father, then maybe you are not a child...
How can you call someone to faith in Yeshua who already has faith in Yeshua? Shoot...if I'm the mission field then you are the only saved person on the face of the earth.
Just as Paul could proclaim the Gospel to all believers. It is not enough to be a believer in Jesus, and yet be a child of the devil and be lost. Look here:
"As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;
and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."" ( John 8:30-32 )
And you know that the text finally makes us see that these were only children of the devil, although they believed in Jesus, but not with a saving faith.
You boast of being a believer in Jesus. Then listen to what He said to those who BELIEVED in Him.
I am sure you will not pay attention to the next thing I said: "N.B.: Answer this question without using any reference that is NOT inerrant and infallible."
James 2:8(NIV)
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.
Every English translation uses the words "royal law".
Do you mean that all English translations are inerrant and infallible references?
Do you mean that the Merriam-Webster's dictionary is an inerrant and infallible source?
N.B.: The Epistle of James was not originally written in English...
Interesting that Yeshua spoke of his yoke being "easy". Definition 2b of "royal" from Merriam-Webster's is "requiring no exertion: easy".
And when Jesus used that word "easy", He was not using the word "royal". He didn't even use a close word to the Greek word "bassilikon" used in James 2:8. He used the word
"khreistos" which is from the same root as the word translated "kind" in 1 Corinthians 13:4:
"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant"
"is kind" is the following verb in the Greek:
"khreisteuetai"... Very close, no?
So you didn't give me an infallible and an inerrant explanation for the expression "royal law". I will still wait for an explanation.
You be in peace as well!
CC
Thank you!
Grace be with you!
YAQUBOS