Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In my vulgate it is in many places.In the same place where it says "Trinity" and "Biblical Canon".
-CryptoLutheran
The question is raised....does paper and ink adopt you into God's family? Faith comes by hear and hearing by the Word of God? (Romans 10:17) Paper and ink are the means by with the HS brings all people to faith.but scripture is clear on this, it is blood that adopts you into GOD's family, not water.
The question is raised....does paper and ink adopt you into God's family? Faith comes by hear and hearing by the Word of God? (Romans 10:17) Paper and ink are the means by with the HS brings all people to faith.
Precisely....the Rhema produces faith.......No such thing as the as a Spiritless Word either Rhema or Logos.Also, the Greek word for "word" in that statement is Rhema, meaning it is the spoken word of Christ that produces faith. We live by the faith "of" The Son of GOD.
Precisely....the Rhema produces faith.......No such thing as the as a Spiritless Word either Rhema or Logos.
The spoken Word then is the written Word now. No distinction. I don't believe in a Red letter edition to the Bible. Rhema and logos are still paper and ink.
Same world. You have faith due to the fact the HS working though the Word worked faith in you to believe the gospel promises.You are attempting to believe from what is written. I have faith because of Who I'm connected to above.
Same world...
The greek word symbolia is not found in the NT nor the LXX. Baptism doesn't symbolize anything as no text in the NT defines it as such. The NIV does translate antitypon as "symbolize" but is it an anomaly and was criticized when released in 1970's.As circumcision symbolized admittance into the Old Covenant by birth (Col 2:11-12), so baptism symbolizes admittance into the New Covenant through faith by the rebirth (Jn 3:3-5).
This is not an analogy. The word is not found in the Colossian context.Tell it to Paul. Col 2:11-12 is his analogy.
The NIV has consistent evangelical biases, hence the incorrect translation of tradition as teaching in positive contexts and as tradition in negative contexts. So too we see it with symbolises as you have noted. On the whole the NIV is fine but when evangelical doctrine or tradition is at stake then it can be relied upon to choose doctrine above truth. It also reflects Baptist-like ecclesiology with words such as overseer rather than bishop. Thus, the NIV must be read with caution.The greek word symbolia is not found in the NT nor the LXX. Baptism doesn't symbolize anything as no text in the NT defines it as such. The NIV does translate antitypon as "symbolize" but is it an anomaly and was criticized when released in 1970's.
This is not an analogy. The word is not found in the Colossian context.
Comparing and contrasting baptism and circumcision is complicated. I certainly do not take the Reformed view which connects circumcision to their concept of covenant, which assures salvation to children of believers. Zwingli also had this notion.
- Certainly, circumcision and baptism are divinely mandated.
- Circumcision is of limited duration of time, whereas baptism is to continue until time ceases to exist.
- Circumcision is not identical to baptism. Circumcision contains many promises that Baptism doesn’t have. Gen 17:1ff promises of descendants, being friutful, land are attached to circumcision. Possibly one spiritual promise comes from circumcision...the promise of Christ as a descendant. Baptism contain no physical promises.
The reason why interpreting Col. 2 is difficult is this is the only time circumcision is used as a model of baptism. No parallel passage to help interpretation. Hence, I approach Col. 2 with some humility.
For example, is there a connection between Col. 2 and Galations?.....where Paul confronts the Judaizers stating that Baptism had finally taken the place of circumcision. We just don't know.
I find the usage of typology far more useful in I Peter 3 and I Cor 10 to understand baptism in terms of the OT.
Circumcision of the OT do not share the incarnation and atonement the way the Lord's Supper and baptism do. Still, Paul's comparison of Baptism to circumcision centers on the rejection of sin and inclusion in Christ. Baptism removes sin, as circumcison removes the flesh of the body and incorporates the Baptized into Christ's death and resurrection as circumcision incorporated it recipients into the saving community of Israel.
I like the NIV for one reason only. The wording flows better during the oral reading of the Sunday Lectionaries. Our church uses the ESV which is NASB lite, and just doesn't do well for public reading.The NIV has consistent evangelical biases, hence the incorrect translation of tradition as teaching in positive contexts and as tradition in negative contexts. So too we see it with symbolises as you have noted. On the whole the NIV is fine but when evangelical doctrine or tradition is at stake then it can be relied upon to choose doctrine above truth. It also reflects Baptist-like ecclesiology with words such as overseer rather than bishop. Thus, the NIV must be read with caution.
In the NT, the Greek mysterion = "mystery"--something formerly hidden but now revealed by God for all to understand,In Latin it is Sacrementum, in Greek Mysterion.
The Lord's Supper is the mystery of faith, and baptism is the mystery of the Spirit. These are fundamental tenets that are found within the Holy Scriptures.What is the Biblical basis for "mystery" being the church rites of "sacraments"?
Nice try. . .but not analogous.In the same place where it says "Trinity" and "Biblical Canon".
Do you know which Greek text the Vulgate was translated from?In my vulgate it is in many places.
Geez, you just said baptism is a symbol and Col 2 was analogy in post #49....both which are not NT terms. By what authority did you add to Scripture something that is not in the text? Get a beer and chill out.Nice try. . .but not analogous.
There is no "Trinity" nor Biblical Canon" in the NT, but
there is mysterion, which has a translation in the English and a definition in the Greek. . .and neither are "sacrament."
On what authority do you change the actual text of the NT word of God from "mystery" to "sacrament"?
I imagine that saint Jerome used whatever text was common in his day, in around 400 AD, and yes "mystery" is there. So, now that we have established that sacrament is a bible word let's move on.Do you know which Greek text the Vulgate was translated from?
Is the word there in the Greek text mysterion?
Not analogous. . .intellectual honesty?Geez, you just said baptism is a symbol and Col 2 was analogy in post #49....both which are not NT terms. By what authority did you add to Scripture something that is not in the text?
Non-responsive. . .Get a beer and chill out.
Where is that stated in the NT?The Lord's Supper is the mystery of faith, and baptism is the mystery of the Spirit. These are fundamental tenets that are found within the Holy Scriptures.
And Jerome translated the Greek mysterion as "sacrament" instead of "mystery"?I imagine that saint Jerome used whatever text was common in his day, in around 400 AD, and yes "mystery" is there.
Your hermeneutic has quite a limp. . .more like a broken leg.So, now that we have established that sacrament is a bible word let's move on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?