| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1470 Registered: 3-2005 |
Heretic, I would like to have seen your unedited message. (smiley) Yes, John MacArthur and his associate pastors are truly great lights in a dark world of evangelicalism. Think about this, the two most influential "evangelicals" are Joel Osteen and T.D. Jakes--Oh please! Dr. Geoff Drew, who gave a powerful testimonial at our FAF alumni reunion is a very active member of Grace Community Church. He is so enthusiastic at the way the Bible is being taught there. He says he meets former SDAs there all the time who are being assimilated rapidly into true Biblical Christianity. There is no need for watered down sugar-coated "Christianity" that is being pedaled so widely now. God will speak directly and open hearts to his Word if only the unadulterated Word of God is preached in power. The wrath of God, and the terrors of the Law of God have to be presented so the sinner will see his need of grace. The sinner must realize what he is being saved from. When sinners are born again, then they will realize that the law has no power over them because Jesus died specifically for them to pay the penalty that they deserved. I loved that Spurgeon quote above. He was a true prophetic voice (in the Biblical sense), and he describes very clearly what liberal Adventism has done, and also now much of the evangelical community has done the same thing. In awe of God's marvelous grace, Stan | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 17 Registered: 2-2006 |
Spurgeon was a sabbath keeper. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1336 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here's what I can find Charles Spurgeon said about the sabbath: "Charles Spurgeon said, "I am no preacher of the old legal Sabbath. I am a preacher of the Gospel. The Sabbath of the Jew is to him a task; the Lord's Day of the Christian, the first day of the week, is to him a joy, a day of rest, of peace, and of thanksgiving. And if you Christian men can earnestly drive away all distractions, so that you can really rest today, it will be good for your bodies, good for your souls, good mentally, good spiritually, good temporally, and good eternally."" Others: "D. L. Moody said, . The Law can only chase a man to Calvary, no further.. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law. We are no longer in bondage to it. If we try and keep one part of the Law (even out of love for God) we are obligated to keep the whole Law (Galatians 3;10). That means that we shouldn't separate it into the Moral, Ceremonial and Civil Law and keep the parts we choose. If we keep part of the Law (even out of love for God), then we are obligated to keep the whole 613 precepts. If those who insist on keeping the Sabbath were as zealous about the salvation of the lost as they are about other Christians keeping the Sabbath, we would see revival." When Spurgeon spoke of the sabbath in his day, it seems he was speaking of Sunday. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 403 Registered: 7-2004  |
As most of us would agree with, I have a problem with the promotion of any Sabbatarianism whether it's Saturday or Sunday. Here's a link to a great article I just couldn't pass up posting, on a Rick Warren viewpoint from an LCMS perspective. They sure catch and clearly point out a lot of the problems. http://crosstiesministries.org/Purpose/new1.asp | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1337 Registered: 7-2003 |
Do I comment....or do I just keep my thoughts to myself???? I don't know why I always seem to find myself defending a book I thought overall pretty basic, though I recognize there are errors and some serious issues...just not heretical or a false gospel. Neither do I see they were "corrected" in this article. Some of their comments I agree with, but I choked when reading these words: "So far, Lutheran readers can agree. The question is, how does one become born again? In Scripture, the new birth is depicted as coming through baptism. So, Jesus says to Nicodemus: ìTruly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of GodÖunless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of Godî (John 3:3; 5). In the first century, it was a common practice for Jews to baptize Gentile converts and their entire families, who were thereafter referred to as newborns.[29] Thus, Christís language is unmistakably baptismal. Yet Warren does not believe that the new birth is given through baptism. In fact, he explicitly denies this proposition: ìBaptism doesnít make you a member of Godís familyÖBaptism shows you are part of Godís family.î[30] For Warren, this ìritualî[31] or ìbeautiful actî[32] merely ìsignifies your inclusion in Godís family.î[33] Warren reduces Godís powerful means of rebirth to a bare symbol: ìLike a wedding ring, it is a visible reminder of an inward commitment made in your heart.î[34] Evangelical readers, of course, should not be taken aback by such affirmations. After all, Warren is himself a Southern Baptist and they have long been on record as rejecting Godís saving deed accomplished in and through baptism. Lutheran readers, however, should be shocked by such denials of biblical truth. It is through baptism that we are born again, as Paul testifies: ìHe saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spiritî (Titus 3:5). In baptism, we receive new birth (John 3:3-5), forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), union with Christ (Rom. 6:1ff), salvation (1 Pet. 3:21), etc. The Small Catechism nicely sums up the blessings and benefits of baptism: ìIt works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.î[35] This, of course, guarantees that salvation is, and must be, by grace alone.[36] In baptism, Jesus comes to a helpless infant who is unable to even say His name, much less do any works pleasing in His sight. There, our Lord gives to the little child what He won for all men in His life, death, and resurrectionóeternal life, salvation, and the forgiveness of sins. The fact that baptism is Christís work, and not ours, makes it a powerful means of assurance. How do we know that we are saved? We are baptized! Christ surely won salvation for all men on the cross and He just as surely gives it to us in baptism. Since the benefits of baptism are grounded outside of the believer, in the words and promises of Christ, it remains unshakable. Thus, Luther criticized those who grounded the legitimacy of baptism upon faith[37] and not the external mandate of Christ the Lord: True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith. There is quite a difference between having faith, on the one hand, and depending on oneís faith and making baptism depend on faith, on the other. Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain, but also an idolater who denies Christ. For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely, on a gift which he has from God, and not on Godís Word alone. So another may build on and trust in his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which also are gifts given him by God.[38] Yet Warren takes this comfort away from Christians, replacing it with uncertainty and introspection, which will ultimately lead to despair. For Warren, individuals must ìaccept Jesusî[39] and ìoffer [them]selves freely to him.î[40] How is this done? Through a means of grace of manís own devising: the so-called ìsinners prayer.î Thus, Warren invites readers to ìbow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: ëJesus, I believe in you and receive you.íî[41] So Warren rules out the truth that God monergistically delivers what He promises in the saving waters of baptism, but he allows our initiative in prayer to receive what God never promises to deliver therein: the forgiveness of sins....." Perhaps it is my southern baptist background, but I don't think scripture teaches we are saved by baptism. Choosing to be baptised is a "work" just like choosing to keep the sabbath or any other act of "obedience". Even Titus 3:5 that is quoted says being born again is a work of the Holy Spirit. I go with RW in that it is an outward sign of an inward change. I don't think the "saving waters of baptism" is where one finds salvation. So, for all their criticism in RWs lacking explanation of salvation, they don't have it at all if they think it is being baptized. In some spots, it sounded as though Luther/the Lutheran confessional were the final words on what was "biblical". Example: "The Lutheran Confessions, however, make it quite clear that such a view is unbiblical". The Lutheran confessions isn't scripture. In this particular section, it seemed like they were splitting symantical hairs. The LC says the human "cooperates" with the Holy Spirit while RW said put Jesus in the drivers seat and "take your hands off the steering wheel" ... aren't both saying to let the Holy Spirit be in charge?? There are other issues I had with the article, which I'm sure would surprise no one, in part because I don't think "southern baptist" teaching is categorically unbiblical, and secondly because that's not what I read when I read the book. So, clearly, ones frame of reference has some influence as to how one perceives his words. The article attacks the notion God doesn't expect us to be perfect and ties that to some diminished view of the law. I took RWs comments to be more in line with 1 John 1 that it is impossible for sinners to be without sin, and Psalms where it says God is mindful we are "but dust". We can come to Christ as we are without having to be "perfect" first. I think the article took such comments out of context in their intent in the book. Who here really thinks you can go on in willful sin and have a good relationship with Christ? I've tried it, and it doesn't work. When you know you're in sin and the Holy Spirit is aggitating the heck out of you, you either are on your knees before God or you're running. There is a choice as Jonah clearly demonstrates. And while he was on the run, he wasn't having too great of a relationship with God. So, I obviously disagreed with their conclusions in that area. The article does at least acknowledge some areas of agreement, and stops short of putting him in the camp of Benny Hinn. But I found references to the Lutheran writings as an alternative place to read about the "Christian life" of little difference than saying one has to read EGW. No matter how "good" Luther was, he wasn't perfect and he didn't have it all figured out either. The only PERFECT place to read of the Christian life is scripture, if one wants to be truly accurate. Every other writing will be flawed in some way. Their conclusion: "Readers desirous of focusing on the biblical pattern of the Christian life would do well to turn to Lutherís Small Catechism....May we all have such an attitude as we seek the divine truths of Scripture distilled in the catechism." And maybe it truly is just my SB background that I understand things he says differently ... and even agree with things he says where others don't. While I don't agree with everything RW says or does, neither do I agree with this article's categorization either. I'm sure that surprises no one  . | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 18 Registered: 2-2006 |
Here's what I can find Charles Spurgeon said about the sabbath: "Charles Spurgeon said, "I am no preacher of the old legal Sabbath. I am a preacher of the Gospel. The Sabbath of the Jew is to him a task; the Lord's Day of the Christian, the first day of the week, is to him a joy, a day of rest, of peace, and of thanksgiving. And if you Christian men can earnestly drive away all distractions, so that you can really rest today, it will be good for your bodies, good for your souls, good mentally, good spiritually, good temporally, and good eternally."" Yes Spurgeon was a sunday keeper (that was what I meant). Good quote from Spurgeon, I loved. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 405 Registered: 7-2004 |
You can comment, Melissa--and hope the article wasn't too offensive to you! I knew if I posted it, someone would immediately jump on the baptism perspective. But there is plenty more to the article than that, such as RW's view of sanctification and how it's more like Catholicism. Oh well, I thought it had some really good points. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1189 Registered: 7-2003  |
For what it' worth Melissa, I too disagree stongly with the idea of baptismal regeneration. I find it hard to accept the idea that an infant has a regenerate spirit merely because a human has made the choice to sprinkle said infant with water. It's hard to reconcile such a view with either Arminian or Calvinist soteriology. From the Arminian view the infant could not be a "believer" who has made a choice for Christ so the sprinkling means nothing. From the Calvinistic view, God regenerates whom He chooses, when He chooses. The mere fact that a human chooses to sprinkle some water at a certain time on an infant does not necessarily make that infant elect. Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing infant baptism per se, rather I'm very specifically questioning baptismal regeneration. It's not the age I'm concerned with, it's the suggestion that any act of man, like baptism, causes regeneration. One last aside to Melissa: I did not post this as an attack on Warren. While I am not particularly a Warren fan, neither am I a major critic. The Sabbath stuff kind of set me off because it puts me in a position of needing to do some damage control with my small group. However, as Stan pointed out, one of my favorite authors, R.C. Sproul has almost exactly the same views. I could have posted something nearly identical out of Sproul's book "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith". Including Sabbath observance as one of the "essentials" of the faith really set me off when I read that book. The subtle suggestion is that those of us who don't observe a Sabbath day are denying one of the "essentials" of Christianity and are therfore not truly Christian! It's important to understand that both Warren and Sproul have a Reformed Covenant Theology view of the Covenants and the Law. Anyone with such a view will be Sabbatarian, at least if they are consistent. This is why I am such an advocate for New Covenant Theology as opposed to Reformed Covenant Theology. I really hope to see New Covenant Theology as a theological system grow in influence over the years. I believe such growth would do much to restore the NT teaching of the apsotles. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1339 Registered: 7-2003 |
No, Raven, I wasn't offended by the article, I just disagreed with parts as I tried to point out. Chris, I am not at all seeing your comments on this particular post topic as an issue or attack, personal or otherwise. I had heard the community book was worse than the purpose book and I thought the purpose book was like a kindergarten primer. This quote only reaffirmed what I had heard that what may have been positive in the purpose book was made worse in the community book. It does point out how ignorant many many people are to the nature of the sabbath. But because I used to be one of them, I just have more compassion towards the ignorant, albeit wrong, view. It's probably no different than some here feel towards SDAs and their ignorant/wrong views. You learn what you grow up with and assume your parents, family, whoever, is teaching you correctly. Some never really get around to questioning their foundational assumptions. I probably never would have had I not encountered B. I think you have a great ability to recognize the differences in views without revealing a lot of bias as you describe them, and I'm sure you must lean more towards one more than another. I never heard any of those terms until I started trying to defend my faith. Now my head swims as I try to understand what, sometimes, are very subtle differences in terminology. I appreciate the education and tone every time I come here...or I probably would read elsewhere. I am reminded constantly that I am forever in need of grace. | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 19 Registered: 2-2006 |
QUOTE: It does point out how ignorant many many people are to the nature of the sabbath. But because I used to be one of them, I just have more compassion towards the ignorant, albeit wrong, view.® What is the purpose for which the Sabbath was appointed? I feel it imperatively necessary to say something on this point. There is no part of the Sabbath question about which there are so many ridiculous misstatements put forward. Many are raising a cry in the present day, as if we were inflicting a positive injury on them in calling on them to keep the Sabbath holy. They talk as if the observance of the day were a heavy yoke and a burden. But the Sabbath is God's merciful appointment for the common benefit of all mankind. It was "made for man" (Mark ii:27) It is not a yoke, but a blessing. It is not a burden, but a mercy. It is not a hard wearisome requirement, but a mighty benefit. It is an ordinance which carries with it its own reward. It is good for a man's body and mind, but above all, it is good for his soul. Are we really going to die one day and leave this world? Are we soon to appear before God in another state of existence? Are these things so, or are they not? Surely, if they are, it is not too much to ask men to give one day in seven to God; it is not too much to require them to test their own preparedness for another world by spending the Sabbath in special preparation for it. If we cannot spare God one day in a week, we cannot be living as those ought to live who must die one day. I am no admirer of a gloomy religion. Let no one suppose that I want Sunday to be a day of sadness and unhappiness. I want every Christian to be a happy man: I wish him to have "joy and peace in believing," and to "rejoice in hope of the glory of God." I want everyone to regard Sunday as the brightest, most cheerful day of all the seven; and I tell everyone who thinks that the kind of Sunday that I advocate a wearisome day, that there is something sadly wrong in the state of his heart. I tell him plainly that if he cannot enjoy a "holy" Sunday, the fault is not in the day, but in his own soul. (J.C. Ryle) | ||
| Nate Registered user Username: Nate Post Number: 7 Registered: 5-2001 |
It has been a long time since I have stopped by the forum. I was talking to an old friend the other day who has recently discovered the New covenant. She said she has been on the forum quite a bit so I stopped by to see some of her posts. I noticed this thread and couldn't resist posting on this particular subject. As i understand it, physical rest is a good thing. It is necessary. Taking a Sabbath rest one day a week is good as long as it does not come from law focus. Romans 7-8 makes it clear that we must consider ourselves dead to the Law to live to Christ. The life in the Spirit is contrasted to life that is law led. Any focus on law is equated by Paul with the life of the flesh. Life in the Spirit is one that is free to listen to the Spirit's direction. We have a black lab that is a wonderful dog. He run's regulary with us and had so learned to listen to our voices that he can run beside us without a leash. When we are out in the country on less traveled roads, we will often release him to chase all the smells he wants to. When we see a car coming, we call him and he runs to our sides. He is free from the leash because he is trained to listen to the slightest call of our voices. When we pass other dogs on leashes it is almost like he is saying to those dogs, "eat your hearts out guys, i am free!" The same is true with the life in the Spirit. when we begin to tune into the Spirit, we are not bound by the leash of the law. We are free to move and flow in life always sensitive to the voice of the Lord. We experience greater freedom than we could ever had under the law. We are tuned into the person, not the written code. That is what true Sabbath rest is all about. Personally, there are some times that the Spirit leads me to take a couple of days to rest, reflect, be alone with the Lord, fast, pray or take times for extended worship with my family or by myself. Other times, like on a recent trip to Africa, I was involved in active ministry every day. Yet, despite the lack of physical rest, the rest of the presence of Jesus was a daily reality. Taking one day in seven for physical rest and worship is a good idea as long as it comes from the Spirit and is flexible as the Spirit directs. Sensitivity to His voice is the key. Blessings! In Christ, Greg Taylor www.oneflockministries.org | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1191 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rafael, I think we all agree that the Old Covenant Shadow of the Sabbath had benefits for the Jews living under that Covenant. They were clearly commanded to observe the Sabbath as a sign of their covenant, we are not. We instead observe the Lord's Supper as the sign of our covenent. Having said that, I think we could agree that taking a day of rest and spending it wih God may very well be a great thing for any person to do if they are so led to do so (even a New Covenant gentile beliver). I certainly see that as being within the realm of Christian choice. However, you seem to be going beyond that and suggesting that Sabbath observance is a requirement for Christians. If that is what you are suggesting, then it is YOUR first task to demonstrate from scripture and scripture alone that New Covenant believers are commanded to observe the Sabbath. Any New Testament text instructing the fledgling Church to observe the Sabbath day will do. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3654 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, I completely agree with your post about baptisimal regeneration. I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that baptism is the means by which we are born againóespecially as infants. Your point also about covenant theology as opposed to New Covenant theology is so apt. Covenant theology retains the decalogue as important for Christians. I realize it's frightening, at first consideration, to abandon the tangible Ten in favor of the intangible Law of Christ. That's the issue so many of us here have had to face. The confirmation from God when we do throw ourselves entirely on the mercy of Jesus, however, is unparalleled. I also hope that New Covenant theology will beomce increasingly understood. I believe that much of Christianity has been "denatured" because of a lack of understanding of Jesus' complete fulfillment and of our true inheritance in Christ through the Spirit. Greg, wonderful analogy using your lab to describe us living in response to the voice of Jesus, and thank you for your personal application of continual Sabbath rest despite whatever one's immediate responibilities are. It's good to see you here! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1471 Registered: 3-2005 |
Raven, I guess I have to confess my ignorance of Lutheran theology. I did not know they held that strongly to baptismal regeneration. Because as Chris says, that view above goes beyond what I believe the Reformed view to be. Calvinists seem to acknowledge that while Baptism is an important entrance into the Covenant community for infants, it in no way saves, as a person must personally come to faith in Christ. I thought this was what Lutherans believed also, but that article on the baptism part concerns me also, but the other critiques of PDL appear valid. Melissa, you are right about the important distinction between Warren's PDL and the 40 days program. Both items are very weak on the gospel, and the basics of Justification by Faith. But the 40 days program is even worse. There are some of Rick Warren's defenders who say he didn't even write that--but who knows. Greg, Thanks for your comments. I would be curious about your perspectives on Rick Warren and the PDL phenomenom. Stan | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 98 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stan, Raven, Ric_b and I belong to the same Lutheran synod. I'd like to help clarify some misunderstandings. I had them myself before I became a Lutheran and studied the issue. Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. All Lutherans believe that baptism is a means of grace. A sacrament--a sacred act of God--not an act nor show of man. It is from God, through the Holy Spirit, creating faith, as is scripture--the Gospel. The key understanding for myself, way back, was the phrase 'a means of grace' and that it is not something I do, but somehting God does. Again, as you understand so well, this, also, goes back to the bondage of the will and being dead, not knowing anything. Can a corpse resurrect itself? Bring itself into the Kingdom? I learned to turn my perspective around and ask myself, "Is is about Christ or is it about me?" That became my most simple baseline question for discerning most things in Christianity, with the Word. Luther wrote about baptism, not agreeing with the Anabaptists. I would really feel badly if there were division or negative feelings about this issue and not understanding the sacrament(not that anyone has to believe this way; thats not my point) I was taught one thing about 'them' and their baptisms as an SDA, but found that what I was taught was basically myth. Here is the page for FAQ on baptism, briefly covering all theological areas of it, on the LCMS site itself (issuesetc.org has some articles, as well): http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2590 There are several issues in Christianity, which are not agreed upon, but are not absolutely understood essentials. I speak of baptism in this way because of the thief on the cross. Some never get the chance. In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love. Augustine In Christ's unity~ Cathy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1475 Registered: 3-2005 |
Cathy, Thanks for the link above. I will need to do more study. I had heard that Luther himself gave up his belief in baptismal regeneration. But this is an interesting area of research, and I will have to study it more. All I know for sure is that Martin luther believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone. Stan | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 101 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stan, "All I know for sure is that Martin luther believed in salvation by grace alone through faith alone on the account of Christ alone." Yes. And Lutheran synods teach this and, I would hope, most believe it. On what they call Reformation Day (Oct. 31st) they teach this below (At least, our pastor did): Christ alone Faith alone Scripture alone You would find that your statement about faith alone is on the LCMS site. About the LCMS; it is the last conservative out-post in the Lutheran world agaisnt ecumenicalism. If not all, then most other synods are moving in some way into ecumenicalism, for what it's worth. They try to hold onto the purity of Luther's reformation on faith alone. Their numbers grow smaller every year, I heard a few years ago. I dont agree with everything they teach, but I resepct their intergrity and stand to the Gospel very much. Have a blessed weekend! Cathy | ||
| Rafael_r Registered user Username: Rafael_r Post Number: 20 Registered: 2-2006 |
18What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 19For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. 24Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. 1 Corinthians 9:18-27 Chris, as christians we are called to add to our faith godliness (devotion to God), to exercise unto godliness, to speak and do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. In this way we are commanded to keep tha sabbath indirectaly. We are steel in this present evil world, we have steel a sinfull nature and we need to use means lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.®®(as Paul said). In this view of the sabbath I'm not alone. Mr. Taylor, yes we (chistians) have the Holly Spirit dweling in us, yes we most be sensitive to His voice, but it doesn't means that we dont need a written code, because if it be so then we not need the Bible. In Christ, Rafael Rodriguez | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 407 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks, Cathy for the clarification. I didn't think Lutherans believed baptism was "THE" way of receiving the new birth. By the way, we're not members, but attend the LCMS church, and I'm still trying to sort everything out. At this point, I'd have to say I believe God can do whatever He wants in the business of saving, it is through faith alone, and I believe Scriptures teach baptism is more than just a symbol, but I'm still trying to figure out whatever details we can know. Here's a quote from the link Cathy posted above, that shows Lutherans believe God is not limited by baptism alone for bringing about the new birth.
(Message edited by Raven on March 31, 2006) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1196 Registered: 7-2003 |
Rafael, you didn't provide one single bit of scripture that shows that Sabbath observance is required for New Covenant Christians. You didn't provide one single text instructing the fledgling NT church to keep the Sabbath. Why is that? You are making a false argument. Your argument seems to be: 1) Christians are called to godliness. 2) Godliness for Christians includes Sabbath keeping. 3) Therefore Christians are required to keep Sabbath. Here's the problem with your logic. Everyone here already agrees with #1. New Covenant Christians are absolutely called to holiness (godliness), but no where in scripture is Sabbath keeping said to be a required part of that holiness for Christians. You have completely failed to demonstrate point #2 from scripture, therefore your conclusion in #3 is invalid. Chris |
