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.
Well I know what it is, but it doesn't seem to be the subject of the NT as the spiritual is.Understanding the soul, is basic Christian anthropology.
Check out some of J. P. Moreland's work on Youtube. He seems to be one of the leading experts on the soul living today.
Personal one on one with Baptists---not good for me. You are a better man than I am in this area.
However, using Sola Scriptura against them has distinct advantages. Take for example the Doctrine of Baptism. They say they get their doctrine from Scripture, but in examining their arguments it is anything but.
First of all, they say baptism is SYMBOLIC. Where to they get that notion? The greek word "Symbolia" is not found in the NT nor in in the LXX. Nor does any passage of Scripture hint at such a thing. This interpretation is an innovation and therefore not apart of Sola Scriptura.
The usage of the Didache for their belief in immersion baptism. This is not Scripture, it is extra Biblical....therefore rejected by sola Scriptura.
The constant appeal to "most Scholars believe immersion baptism is the only baptism"..."Objection your honor! Sola Scriptura....this is an appeal to authority outside of Scripture. Strike the comment from the record." Gotta love the court room language there.
Their definition of baptism such as "outward sign of an inward change" is not found in Scripture. This definition is an innovation. This violates sola Scriptura.
There are a lot more "innovations" we can comment on.
The usage of the word "innovation" has devastating effects on the credos. It should be used more by paedos.
The most amazing thing about this whole process of pointing out innovations in others, we are thinking about the innovative beliefs of ourselves. AND THIS IS A GOOD THING.
I like that you are using a "sola scriptura" test. But in this case - the Baptists are right.
1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.
1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Salvation precedes baptism and must include confession and belief.
In a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur about baptism Sproul starts off by admitting that there is no reference in the Bible to infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling. It is only by immersion in the Bible.
Romans 6:1-6 says "buried with Him in baptism"
The Gospels say "coming up out of the water" the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.
The Gospels say "where there is much water" is where John baptized...
The Ethiopian Eunuch goes "down into the water" to be baptized.
Luke 23 has the thief on the cross saved without even being baptized at all.
======================
The idea that Baptists would lose their believer's baptism by full water immersion teaching on a "sola scriptura" basis is hard to show, certainly in the case of Southern Baptists.
The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.
Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?
Yes of course, if anything is in Scripture it is at least said once. The question is: Are there other ways to interpret Revelation 20 besides literally. One is not bound to a literal interpretation unless a parallel passage of Scripture tells us to. Scripture interprets Scripture.
If St. Paul said there is a literal 1,000 reign of Christ on earth, then we are bound to believe it as literal. Why? Because Scripture interprets Scripture.
And also, if St. Paul would teach such a thing it might have been put into the creeds.
The infants are noetically aware of God .
That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed that.
Jesus is walking around the whole gospel like a regular person and was hung up on a cross, I'm not sure where the two verse hypothesis comes from.Example of the Incarnation.
The Doctrine of the Incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and binding on all Christians for believe. The Incarnation is established by the two virgin birth narratives (Mt 1 and Lk 1). Using the guidance from the Scriptures themselves, this suggests two passages of Scripture commenting on the same teaching establishes a particular doctrine. Two passages from two different authors, or two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same book, yet in two different contexts.
This criteria and usage of the incarnation example will certainly upset the Premillennialist apple cart, as 1,000 year reign of Christ is only recorded once (Rev.20) and in within apocalyptic writing genre. Basing a doctrine on the basis of one passage of Scripture seems to go against the Bible's own criteria.
1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.
1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
Salvation precedes baptism and must include confession and belief.
In a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur about baptism Sproul starts off by admitting that there is no reference in the Bible to infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling. It is only by immersion in the Bible.
Romans 6:1-6 says "buried with Him in baptism"
The Gospels say "coming up out of the water" the Spirit descended in the form of a dove.
The Gospels say "where there is much water" is where John baptized...
The Ethiopian Eunuch goes "down into the water" to be baptized.
Luke 23 has the thief on the cross saved without even being baptized at all.
======================
The idea that Baptists would lose their believer's baptism by full water immersion teaching on a "sola scriptura" basis is hard to show, certainly in the case of Southern Baptists.
The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.
The infants are noetically aware of God .
Luke met one. "When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,"
That's funny -- I Never met one who claimed th
Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?
I hear them say the name of God all the time.
1 Peter 3 is clear that the touch of sacramental waters does nothing at all. rather the saving aspect is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" by the one being baptized.
1 Peter 3:20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
The early church, and to this day the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Catholics, and the Assyrian Church of the East baptize infants with three full immersions, in complete safety.
Asked and answered, in the affirmative,
Is it your claim that while in the womb - John the baptizer was being baptized by "making an appeal to God for a clean conscience"? If so, how many other babies do you find doing that?
Do the infants make "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in those cases?
Again - we know different newborns apparently
Apparently, because I routinely hear them say the name of God. Its one of the few things they can pronounce, and one mainly hears them say it in Orthodox churches.
Also, its very rare to hear an infant cry in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church.
BobRyan said: ↑
Is it your claim that while in the womb - John the baptizer was being baptized by "making an appeal to God for a clean conscience"? If so, how many other babies do you find doing that?
I'm saying that even John the Baptist recognized his Savior while even in the womb.
Apparently, because I routinely hear them say the name of God. Its one of the few things they can pronounce, and one mainly hears them say it in Orthodox churches.
Also, its very rare to hear an infant cry in an Eastern or Oriental Orthodox church.
Rom 10 says the person is saved at the point of confession "with their mouth".
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
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?